Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Rittenhouse Trial Day 2: Binger and Richards Opening Arguments, Witness Dominic Black

November 03, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Rittenhouse Trial Day 2: Binger and Richards Opening Arguments, Witness Dominic Black
Show Notes Transcript

Rittenhouse trial day two started with a full jury, opening arguments and the government’s case-in-chief. Prosecutor Thomas Binger addresses the jury during opening arguments, describing the various deaths one-by-one. Defense attorney Mark Richards delivers opening arguments on behalf of Kyle Rittenhouse, explaining the theory of self-defense. Government prosecutors call their first witness, Dominic Black, and we review the direct and cross-examinations.​

NEW! CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:​

👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

🎥 TIKTOK LATEST: https://www.tiktok.com/@robertgruleresq/video/7005388301586730246​

Channel List:​

🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE - https://www.rrlaw.tv​
🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. - https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertGruler​
📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkUI3vAFn87_XP0VlPXSdA​
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​
✂ Watching the Watchers Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 November 6, 2021 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.​

🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 TikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdCFry1E/​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

☝🏻 Don't forget to join us on Locals for exclusive content, slides, book, coupon codes and more! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8​
🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq ​

#WatchingtheWatchers #KyleRittenhouse #Rittenhouse #FreeKyle

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We've got judges, not particularly interested in a little thing called justice. And it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the watcher so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here in with us today. I was sitting on my cord. So when I went to go and rotate the whole thing ripped out of my ear, head my ear , uh , socket . So not good. Uh , but that's okay because we're going to get right back into business. Now, in this episode of watching the Watchers, we're talking about Kyle Rittenhouse day two, we've got a lot to get into. We've got opening arguments from both the prosecution and the defense, and then we had our first witness, Dominic black. And so we got to hear the prosecution actually cross a direct exam of Dominic black, which sort of felt like it was almost a defense witness. So very interesting there, a lot of helpful information came out from the prosecution's witness and the defense cross-examined Dominic black. And so we're going to break that down as well. We've got a lot to get into it is Tuesday. So of course this is a little bit of a shorter show. And so we're going to limit it to the one segment so that we can really go deep on day two of Kyle Rittenhouse. So if you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is [email protected] We record this program everyday 4:00 PM, Arizona time, a 7:00 PM Eastern time. And I know that's going to change very soon. So I'm going to have to relearn my dates. Here are my time zones, but if you want to be a part of the show, when we are recording, you can do that. By going over to watching the watchers.locals.com, there was a form here looks just like this, ask your questions and we'll make sure that we can do our very best to get to them. If you can keep them in order as we're going throughout the, the, the segments. Of course, there's only one today. That's always helpful. If you're looking for clips of the show, our segments, each one of them are clipped. And they're put over here at Robert crueler Esq clips, where if you want to just go and share the individual segments, that individual stories that we talk about, that's the YouTube channel that you can use. And it's very appreciated. If you do share subscribe, leave a comment, just help us sort of, you know , spread the, spread the show around because YouTube has this in this little bit of a, forcefield getting frustrating, but that's okay. It's their playground. We're just playing ball. All right. So let's go ahead and get into the actual news of the day. Kyle Rittenhouse trial day two, we've got a lot to break down. We've got opening arguments from both the prosecution. We have Thomas binger who is representing the government in the case, you can see him here on our trial board. We're going to hear from him today. Thomas binger , up here in the top left. We also heard today from Mark Richards, Mark Richards was responsible for giving the defense opening statement. And so we've had a couple of different appearances from a couple of different people today. We also heard a little bit from James Kraus or crowds, or he goes by Jim nice guy. And he is somebody who was just kind of chiming in on , uh , objections, more of the technical aspects of the case. But that's really what we heard from. We also of course heard from judge Bruce Schroeder today. And we also heard from a witness. And so we're going to take a look at who that witness was, Dominic black, but for the rest of , uh , the , the , the segment today, this is what the board looks like. Not a lot of activity from Cory Chira Feesey today. Didn't hear from any of the other individuals who are a part of the prosecution team. And so we'll take a quick look at the charges. Of course, none of these really came up today. We talked a little bit about , uh, about jury instructions at the very start of , uh , of trial today, there was some technical conversations being had about whether self-defense was going to be part of the jury instructions and people are sort of reading this a number of different ways. I think that's fair. This judge, as I've been saying here is very organic. You know, he , he kind of does things loosely. And so he's even this morning, he was sort of, you know , floundering around about what the jury instruction should be at four counts, five and six for the attempted intentional homicide as to gauge gross credits and the possession of a weapons charge. And so you're just like, oh , it's a little bit frustrating that we're not getting more clarity, but the judge is sort of saying, I'm going to give curative instructions if this progresses to the point where we need to make some changes. In other words, I'm just going to give the jury enough jury instructions about what's in the information that they know there's a weapon involved, but I'm not, I'm not going to give them the details about these self-defense , uh , specifics until we get closer to deliberation time. So it's, I know it's frustrating, but it's just how this judge runs his courtroom. So it is what it is. We also are going to see that we are learning a little bit more about the people who were part of, sort of the Kyle Rittenhouse crew. If you want to call them that we have Dominic black, he was the government's first witness. And so this is the government's team. Uh, we got James Crouse , of course, gage gross. Kreutz the assailant or the victim, depending on how you want to label them. And then the other individuals, Huber Rosenbalm McGuiness and an unknown person that were sort of flushing out their expert witnesses and their regular witnesses today. Was it Dominic black, somebody who was a part of the Rittenhouse crew. We're going to hear from him as this segment unfolds. We also learned about this other guy, don't have a picture of him. This , this was Nick Smith, somebody else who was a part of the Rittenhouse screw . And so we've got a ton of segments here, a ton of clips. I really could not stop clipping as I was watching today. And we're going to get into all of it. Before we jump into the opening statements, though, I want to do a quick benchmark. I want to set a rubric. I want to maybe have some guidelines that we can use to analyze these opening statements, because everybody wants to know, well, who had a better opening statement who was more persuasive, who was going to be more compelling in front of the jurors. And it's always good to have a standard against which we can compare these things. And so I want to share with you a book that I keep handy for all the things that we do here. It's called turning points at trial, great lawyers share secrets, strategies, and skills written by this guy, Shane Reed , uh , uh, and he has , he, he, it's sort of a compendium. It's a, it's a summation of a bunch of different stories from very famous lawyers and how they do things and how, you know, other lawyers who are not very famous, not very accomplished can emulate them, learn some of their strategies and their skills to be effective. And so we're talking about opening statements who out there gives amazing opening statements. This guy, and he's referenced in this book. His name is mark [inaudible] . He's an American trial lawyer has represented major, major , uh , wins against some of the major drug companies. So here you can see Johnson and Johnson, Merck, and co and Vioxx. So he got a breach of contract lawsuit, one , $480 million jury verdict, right? 480 million here against Johnson and Johnson, 550 million compensatory damage, plus 4.1, 4 billion in punitive damages. Okay. Billion in punitive, which is a lot, okay. That means that this jury was about whatever they heard from him. So that means that mark Landwehr can come out there and really sell a Whopper of a story, right. Just really get people riled up, fired up out there. This jury was so mad after this Johnson and Johnson talc litigation that they said, oh yeah, yeah, you get 550 million just to compensate the victims. And we're going to give you another 4 billion in punitive damages. That's how mad we are. So right . Somebody who can really just deliver home an opening statement. Also one looks like 253 million against a Vioxx, Merck and co Vioxx , right? So somebody who can really deliver opening statement . So what does he say about this? And we're going to watch two opening statements, one given by the prosecutor in this case, Thomas binger , one given by Mark Richards, the defense attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse. But let's just take a quick look at the rubrics. How do we sort of compare them to this standard that is from mark lanyard ? Somebody who's won billions of dollars, literally in jury verdicts. So what we have here, he says long before the trial begins, we have to think about a theme in the form of a story, a TV show or a movie that applies to your case, which is always good advice. Talking about that heroic journey, talking about sort of the Luke Skywalker story. Somebody, you know, is, is , uh , a novice who sort of learns a little bit about how to improve their skill sets and then has this catastrophic fall, but then comes back with a vengeance, right? And is the hero of the story, right? These are themes that human beings resonate with. That's why all the stories follow that similar arc. And so if something like that is useful, also look for ways to change bad facts into good facts. You're going to see this out of Mark Richards. You're going to see this attempted out of Thomas binger , also talking about not overselling your case, right? Don't promise anything that you can't actually deliver. If you do, you're going to really hurt your credibility, which is 0.4. Your cover story needs to be the good, the bad and the ugly. You got to talk about the bad facts in the case, even in the run of the mill case, you need to make the case personal for the jury, make it personal, explain to them why it's important. Don't use notes. You see this instead speak from the heart, but also use PowerPoint slides to communicate your story to the jury, which was a surprise to me, right? PowerPoints . Wow. A lot of people hate PowerPoints. I happen to think they're pretty dang great happened to use them for the show. As you can see here, this is a PowerPoint slide, but he says, use them and use words. The jurors will understand. And so , uh , you can take a quick look at those as different thresholds. He gives us a couple other points, speak in gloriously, plain English accompany. Every point with imaginative, easily understood visual aids, entertain the jury, tell the jury that you're going to make their job easy and empower the jury. Okay? And this guy is talking about this in, in the context of legal cases, but this is applicable to life, right? All of these skill sets are very applicable everywhere you go. Okay. So now that we have a standard in place enough with all of the lecturing, let's get into the content. What happened today in court? Our first clip is from Thomas binger and this is his immediate opening statement. So our first minute is from Thomas binger . This is the judge says, okay, everybody's in seated comfy jurors. Anybody have to use the bathroom before we get going. You know how dad hates to stop and pull over. So make sure that you're situated and comfortable, right? Okay. Thomas banger your table. Here you go. Here he is.

Speaker 2:

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, the evidence in this case will show that on the night of August 25th, 2020 here in our community of Kenosha, the defendant Kyle Rittenhouse, who was 17 years old at the time, had armed himself with an AR 15 style semi-automatic rifle loaded with 30 rounds in the magazine and using that rifle, he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum and unarmed man. The shot that killed Mr. Rosenbaum was a shot to the back. This occurred after the defendant shakes down Mr. Rosenbaum and confronted him while wielding that AR 15. Well , that's

Speaker 1:

New.

Speaker 2:

The evidence will show if the defendant fled the scene of the dead body of Joseph Rosenbaum without stopping to offer any aid whatsoever.

Speaker 1:

All right. So kind of the standard stuff, right? Laying out the facts of the case and not even that creative, right? Uh, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence will show. And if you go to a trial college, they'll tell you that's exactly what not to do, but every lawyer does it. Cause that's what they teach you in law school. Uh, the evidence is going to show, okay, just get into it, right? Talk about your theme, talk about your narrative, but he starts this the same way every prosecutor starts. And I think prosecutor go to a different school. It's just sort of follow the fall. It's paint by numbers more or less and no disrespect to prosecutors, but they have a standard formula that they have to follow. And defense attorneys, theoretically, have to be a little bit more creative, right? Gov the government has a list of elements that they need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a prosecution. They have to hit it. Defense has to be creative. And so you have a little bit more creative leeway when you are concocting these statements. So yes, you know , prosecutors naturally will be a little bit more bland, but he did say something that I think a lot of people had overlooked, right? The idea here being that, that Kyle Rittenhouse was ultimately the provoca tour in the whole situation. We're going to hear. I think that there's FBI video that is apparently surveillance footage that might show Infor , excuse me, infrared camera footage of Rittenhouse running down the street, allegedly chasing Rosenbaum . And , and so that's sort of what he's hinting at, but the idea is that Rittenhouse was the provocateur and he started the whole thing. And if you do that, it's really difficult to turn around and claim self-defense. So being her comes out, you know , he shot Rosenbalm and didn't stop and help him at all. Like sort of expecting that maybe if a police officer did that, right, a police officer would shoot somebody and then go and render immediate aid. And he did not do that in this case. And you know, why didn't he do that? Well, cause he's a cold blooded killer. Or according to this prosecutor, binger is saying, you know , you know, he, he's a , he's a cold hearted, dangerous murderer that just executed somebody and didn't even stop to help, not even for a minute. And so that's kind of the narrative that he is crafting here. He walks through. And I actually, I gotta be honest. I actually liked his opening statement more or less. I think that on the, on the totality of everything, he , he did a fine job and we're going to go through it. He goes through an outlines, sort of this really visual narrative of all the different , uh , other individuals involved in the case, you can choose how to identify them, right? Uh , the victims, if you're a prosecutor. So we'll use his language. He's presenting gage gross crudes , right? He talks about him in this clip, but pre preceding, he talked about Anthony Huber being shot in the chest. He talked about , uh, who was the other , oh , Rosenbalm who was shot and killed talks about McInnes , sort of, you know, dodgy , whizzing bullets whizzing by, and now he's talking about gage gross Kreutz and watch how he presents this, right. It actually is a little bit persuasive. He's getting sort of a visual with this. He's not standing behind a podium, just reading from a list of notes, which would be problematic, but he's sort of moving around and he's getting animated and that's good. That's good trial practice because jurors are already falling asleep at this moment in the , in the case. So let's take a look at Thomas binger, talking about gage grows . Kreutz talking about the cell phone and acknowledging that he had a Glock, okay. So this is, this is something that's very interesting or we're noticing now in a case that involves self-defense that one of the, one of the victims, if you're a prosecutor, right? We're using their language, this is Thomas binger , his case, it's his victim he's talking about. And his victim had a Glock in his hand, we think he got shot. And he's just admitting this right to the jury because it's true. It's a fact. So he has to acknowledge it. This is part of the thing that you have to talk about. The prosecutor has the case that he has, and he's got to get these facts out. And so he's doing it and this is how he's doing it. Here is binger

Speaker 2:

A final individual by the name of gage . Gross courts has followed this chase on foot and has approached the defendant at this time. Mr. Gross Crites is holding his cell phone that he'd been using to record the night's events for a live stream on Facebook in one hand and a Glock semi-automatic pistol. In the other hand, he runs up to the defendant. The defendant turns towards him with the AR 15, Mr. Gross quartz raises his hand. The defendant then turns his rifle over, begins to examine it for a second. Mr. Gross crates takes this opportunity and you will see in the photos and the videos that he blades his body with his left hand, reaching towards the defendant, his right arm is pulled back. This is the one with the gun in his hand. And as he's reaching for the defendant, the defendant turns the AR 15 and discharges the eighth and final round inter Mr. Gross crates , his right arm, the arm with the gun, Mr. Gross quartz runs off screaming for a medic. The defendant gets up and walks away.

Speaker 1:

All right. Do you see what he did there ? Very clever. Very interesting. So he's got a bad fact in his case, he's got this, this victim, according to him that has a gun who is basically running towards Kyle Rittenhouse. And what does he need to do is he's got to show his , that Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't acting out of self-defense. In fact, this was something where gage gross. Cruz was already disengaging to some degree and Rittenhouse, as the prosecutor showed us, went through this very long and twisted, just sort of looking at the gun, examining it, reading about it. Oh , I wonder what I don't like this story swiped left on the, on the story of the gun. Oh, that's a swipe left on that. I'll take that one very long, drawn out process and then flipped it back over and bladed his body and did all of this stuff. And then just decided since Kyle Rittenhouse had so much time on his hand, I don't like gage gross. Kreutz over there. And so I'm just going to attempt to execute this person also and then shot him and shot him anyways. Right. And so really drawing this, this long sequence out when in reality, you know , it didn't happen that way. It was a lot more , uh, uh, expedited of a process. It happened very quickly and it was something that the defense is going to come back out and reframe as something that happened very quickly in written house was in fear of his life. He was , uh , sort of acting instinctually. And as soon as that shot went off, everybody else basically stopped. And , uh, the, the scene was over at that moment. So it was a , uh , uh, an interesting way to deal with the bad fact that this Glock is coming in. He is getting animated, which I thought was, was very excellent. And it was a good way to, to bring the jury back in, right. Pull them into the situation rather than just reading about it. So that was good. We also have some more good. And then we have a little bit of bad here. So I want to sort of break this up. I think I've got it in two clips. Uh , we're going to give a lot of , I'm trying to give equal time to both sides. So here is binger and here he's talking about something that is very good. A concept that we've talked about a lot here on this channel, the distinction between human life and property and that we value human life over property. And that when we have situations where like we were talking about in the Amman Arbery case, right, you have a situation where you don't get just to get to go chase people down and shoot them because they stole something and they're running out of your house, right? It has to be about an actual threat to human life. We've talked about the examples of the spring guns, the trap guns that people used to set in their , in their old homes, you know, back when in the, in the wild wild west, so that, so that looters wouldn't break into their property and ransack their property, they would just set a gun open when the door opened, the gun would go off and just, you know , shotgun , the person right out the front door. Can't do that because that is something that is protecting property and we value human life over property. And so that same concept that we've talked a lot about here, that is sort of an instinctual thing. Oh , I think a lot of people just recognize that is being drawn out here by Thomas binger. He gives us a very good line and uses his hands to show us Jew jurors. This is how we're going to be able to delineate and balance these things out in the near future, and also pay close attention to how binger using the us versus them narrative that you see sort of making this tribal argument. We are here in Kenosha . This is our community. Kyle Rittenhouse is not a part of that. Listen to him here,

Speaker 2:

Car source, one of their locations on Sheridan and other properties around town that were damaged, fortunately in the entire sequence of events, this was all property damage. And one of the things we all agreed on yesterday is life is more important than property up until Tuesday night, despite all of the things that community had experience, no one had been killed. But what happened as the time went on was that the people of Kenosha who felt a sense of outrage began to protest, but like moths to a flame tourists from outside of our community were drawn to the chaos here in Kenosha forests, people from outside of Kenosha came in and contributed to that chaos. And it caused many of our citizens to fear for their safety fear for their homes and their families fear for their business.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So I think I broke this up into two clips, but we'll make the point right here. So he is saying, I think the us versus them is always useful and can be useful if it's a situation like this. Right. You've got a lot of people who are , uh, sort of , uh, traumatized by all of the looting that went on out there. And so you've got, you've got a demographic that might actually be sympathetic to Rittenhouse, right? He's somebody who was there to stop all of that. These people are, you know , presumably your everyday citizens who were part of the community, these are people who are not out there burning their own businesses down. They are the people going to work, going to school, raising families that are just everyday jurors, just like you, where I would be. And so they were looking around at a lot of this looting , a lot of this trauma that was taking place in their own neighborhoods. And they were saying, yeah, you know, finally, somebody actually did stand up and do something about this. And so maybe they are a little bit sympathetic to Kyle Rittenhouse, who knows, but being her comes out and now he's making it an us versus them. Right? Rittenhouse was somebody who was actually contributing to the unrest. There were, there was a , there was a reason why people were upset about this, but now we have these tourists people who are not even from Kenosha, driving on, in here to instigate the situation, inflame it all make it worse that he wasn't here to solve the problem. Don't be sympathetic to Rittenhouse for stopping the people who are burning your neighborhoods down. He was not doing that at all. In fact, he was here contributing to the disorder. And in addition to that, he murdered our own citizens. People who were , were apart of Kenosha, he just executed them and didn't even stop to give them any support. And so he's trying to reframe this a way that I think is, is quite good, but he's logically conflating. Uh , uh , another issue that I think is going to out shine that underlying issue of this outsider narrative, it's the causing fear for your safety, which is the bigger issue that we're talking about here. And he just jumped into that. He said, all the people in this neighborhood, in our community that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a part of. We're very scared. People were fearing for their safety. They were watching all of this trauma unfold all around them, and it was dangerous. It was in fact violent, which is going to justify Rittenhouse using force to protect himself because he was right in the middle of a violent encounter. Now his response to that is it co written how shouldn't have been there anyways, but that's not, that's not, I think the argument that wins the day because he was there and there's going to be a lot of narrative sort of, sort of about that, about whether he should have been there. And we're going to see this when we get into our first witness, Dominic , uh , here in a minute, but it , it it's, it's trying to sort of mash two components of the timeline into one. And I don't think it's a winning argument. You're going to hear from being her . I think I have it right here. This is part two saying that the people who were in Kenosha in that community, that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a part of were in fact very scared. And that the actions that they were taking to protect themselves were entirely reasonable, but you're going to see somehow Rittenhouse taking actions to prevent him himself protect himself. We're not entirely reasonable. Here is being again,

Speaker 2:

And their families fear for their businesses and take steps to protect themselves. Whether it is to arm themselves, board up their windows move or take time away from the community. All of those reactions were entirely understandable and reasonable. No one here is going to tell you otherwise, okay, as long as those are what you're left doing, there's no issue. But out of the hundreds of people that came to Kenosha during that week, the hundreds of people that were out on the streets that week, the evidence will show that the only person who killed anyone was the defendant. Kyle Rittenhouse.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. I mean, he wasn't at a shooting war zone, right. It was an isolated case. And so just because every , you know, it's like, it's like the prosecutor's argument is that if more people would have been shooting other people, well then Kyle's actions would have been approved, but he was the only one that shot somebody. So he's this aberration. Well, I mean, as we're going to see from the PR from the defense attorney here, you know, this might be a good reason for that, but let's take a quick look at the scoreboard. What do we see? What do we think here from binger? Did he , uh, hit the scoreboard, hit the rubrics, don't oversell your case. Look for ways to change bad facts into good. I think he did that. I didn't see a real theme of his , uh , of his narrative. He just kind of jumped right into it. You know, the evidence will show entertaining a little bit, got some, you know, got some movement in there. Speaking gloriously, plain English. I think that was pretty good. No visual aids that we saw other than the use of his body. Uh , it looks like he was using notes. No PowerPoint slides though . So he fails on that one. Anything else? No. All right . So we've got that. So that was Thomas binger , according to mark lanyards , scoreboard, and then we're going to see that the defense now takes over. So they come out and they give their opening statement. Here is Mark Richards today in court, Rittenhouse date day two of the trial.

Speaker 3:

Good morning, still for the next 10 minutes. Here's Kyle. This is my opportunity to tell you and show you what I believe the evidence will show. You've heard the state's opening statement, and now I will give mine. We have two very different outlooks on the events of August 25th, 2020. Kyle Rittenhouse was present in Kenosha, Wisconsin on the evening of August 24th, he stayed at his friend's residence, Dominic black. He saw in the live streams and things like that. The events of the 24th, he saw a car source. Number one, as I refer to it, the one that's on the east side of Sheridan road burn , all of the automobiles burned, destroyed. He saw the looting going on. He saw the other businesses burnt down and the next morning he went down to downtown Kenosha to look at the damage he stopped and he helped clean up at the old Ruth her high school. I think it's called something else now. But when I was around here, it was called Ruth her . And before that Bradford, and he saw that he met one of the owners from CareSource and they talked and they decided that they would offer their services, him and Dominick black and Nick Smith to help protect the property of car source.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So I wanted to let that play out a little bit. So you can just see kind of the difference. We played the very opening minutes of Thomas binger . We played the very opening minutes of defense attorney, Mark Richards, and you can see a very clear difference being her comes out and says, now the , the evidence will show and jumps right into the bullet points. And as I mentioned, prosecution, the government, they have to do that. They've got statutes that they need to hit, and they sort of just, it's kind of a paint by numbers thing, put green in block. Number one, read in block number two and so on. So that was his story, walks us through victim. Number one sounds like this victim. Number two, this is what happened to him, victim number three. And so on down the list, Mark Richards comes out and tells a story and it sort of feels like, what is he doing? What is he even talking about out here comes out. And he actually is humanizing it. I call it number one, it's right across the street from 59th. That's where we go over there. You know, to get our car parts figured out, whatever kind of this is sort of personal narrative, just , we w w meandering through telling a story. What's the story about it's about protection. It's about Kyle Rittenhouse being in a , a house with his friend, Dominic , somebody who we're going to hear from is like a brother to Kyle. They're sitting around watching these live streams of Kenosha burning to the ground, and they're short, Stone's throw away. And so they decided that they're just going to head on over there. And that's what Mark Richards continues. He tells us the rest of the story and says specifically that Kyle isn't an outsider. Thomas binger just said that, that this was our community. And these outsiders, these tourists came in here to wreck this place. And what Mark Richards does. Nope. That's not the case at all. In fact, Kyle is a part of this community. His mom's a part of this community. His dad grew up here. Here's Mark Richards, rebutting that point today.

Speaker 3:

And gentlemen, the evidence will show in spite of what the media and public statements and things like that have been. The evidence will show that Kyle Rittenhouse had strong ties to Kenosha. His father lived in Kenosha. His mother lived in Antioch, Illinois. Kyle worked here in Kenosha county at the rec Plex in pleasant Prairie as a lifeguard.

Speaker 1:

So he's been around. He's not an outsider. He was coming back, not because he wanted to stir the pot. He was coming back to protect the community. Something that his family has a very strong part of where he was a lifeguard for crying out loud. So, you know, don't buy the narrative that the prosecution is proffering forward. There's a whole different story here. And what he said, if you recall on the very last segment, the very last clip that we had of Thomas being or the prosecutor he was doing this thing, he said the only person out there who shot anybody, Kyle Rittenhouse, there was a lot of other people out there protesting a lot of other people with guns. A lot of other people out there causing a ruckus, but the only person who shot anybody was that person right there, Kyle Rittenhouse. And he said it multiple times, if you watch the full hearing, Kyle Rittenhouse did it. And Kyle Rittenhouse did it. It was his Tom cruise moment. And it was a big debut. And then Mark Richards comes out and says, yeah, well, yeah , that's true. It is true. He is the only person who shot somebody. Here's why, here's what he says.

Speaker 3:

Mr. Binger makes a big thing out of Kyle Rittenhouse was the only person who shot somebody that evening . True. Mr. Rittenhouse was the only person who is chased by Joseph Rosenbalm that evening . This is Joseph Rosenbaum

Speaker 1:

PowerPoint. Look at the PowerPoint. What's

Speaker 3:

Important in this photograph is one. You will allow you to identify him throughout the course of trial. Notice the belt, the baggy lengthy jeans , and there will be a fair amount of testimony. I'm sure regarding the maroon shirt, he's obviously currently wearing,

Speaker 1:

Using that PowerPoint , using that clicker and look at his little comfort level. Look at these , just kind of resting on the podium, you know, just kind of, oh, you're just kind of hanging out there kind of a different demeanor with the jury. And a lot of this has thought about, you know, a lot of this comes with just experience, but a lot of this has thought about, you might think he's just sort of, you know , meandering around the courts. There are different rules about how you move around the court. And some judges will let you get off of that podium and walk a little bit further. Other judges kind of have a , got to touch the podium rule so you can get out to the side of it. You can get out in front of it. You can certainly stand behind it, but the jury is on the other side of the podium. And so he wants to get out from behind the podium and connect with the jurors, get it, you know, get direct body language and you can see, right. He's got a PowerPoint clicker right there. He is using the PowerPoint using photographs, using visuals. He's not talking about Joseph Rosenbalm . He's showing you Joseph Rosenbaum , the guy in the red shirt. We're going to talk about the guy in the red shirt for , for the next two weeks here. So , uh , get used to it. And so very effective, very good. Removing himself from, in front of the podium, getting some good connection with the jury. Good stuff right there. And uh, let's see. Any other thoughts? No , that's what I had on that one. We also have here his movement. So I noticed this he's walking back and forth a lot. He picks us back up. Here's Mark Richards

Speaker 3:

Rosenbalm is wearing that maroon shirt on his face as a mask, covering up his identity because he wants to steal my client's firearm and use it against him to carry out the threat he had made earlier. That isn't just the word of Kyle Rittenhouse made up. After the fact, you'll hear the testimony of Richie McGinnis , who was close that evening. He was following behind him. You'll see him on the video. She'll testify to you in court. He did not feel endangered. He was doing his job. He will testify that Joseph Rose in balm led out as he put it. One of the scariest screams I ever heard yelling, you.

Speaker 1:

Whoa, content warning,

Speaker 3:

And dove for Kyle written houses gone. Kyle written house fires.

Speaker 1:

All right. Kyle written house fires. So you see him moving around. You see him using some strong language there, forgot to put a content warning note in my notes, apologies at home, but it was muted. So hopefully if there were any little ones around, they didn't hear anything, but this is what happens in court, right? And he also used a, another word that is definitely not YouTube friendly, starts with an N and ends with not, not, not good civil disorder. So, you know, he , he used that word in court today and it was these words shocked , the jurors, they just kind of, whoa, whoa, what did he say? He say that dang. Okay. Because it , it sort of shocks them out of there stupor of being a juror and it connects them back with the scene. And so he actually used provocative language, walking back and forth using PowerPoints gives very colorful language about Kyle Rittenhouse fires, you know, has to do it fires. And uh , I thought that was also compelling. And then we're going to give him the final word. This is where he's talking about. He closes this out here. This is a Rosen. This is a Mark Richards talking about Rosenbalm final words

Speaker 3:

On house. The evidence will show, he thought probably that he could get that gun from Kyle Rittenhouse. He was wrong. Kyle Rittenhouse protected himself, protected his firearm . So it couldn't be taken used against him or other people from Mr. Rosenbaum who had made threats to kill. And the other individuals who didn't see that shooting, attacked them in the street, like an animal ladies and gentlemen. That's what the evidence will show. Thank you.

Speaker 1:

All right. So he closes it out and then we jumped back into our case in chief from the prosecution. And I was watching the chat as that was going by. Yes. People said yes. The N word. Yes, it has the hard R at the end of it. Yeah. It was a, it was a hard art in, in court today on the record in the court of law in Kenosha, Wisconsin. So you can see that this stuff certainly gets a little bit testy. Now we have opening statements, right? We can compare and contrast the two. If we go back, we take a look at our land years guide. We see here, well, what do we have here? Not overselling your case. I think you did pretty good with that. Looking for ways to change bad facts into good facts. I think the prosecution and the defense did good jobs of that. Let's see. Uh, so for example, right? One of the bad facts may have been that, that he actually went back home to Illinois and he said he was there in the first place because his family is connected to Kenosha, stuff like that. Mark Richards use PowerPoints. Uh , certainly didn't seem like he was looking at notes was sort of on the side of the podium. He, I don't think oversold the case, talked about the theme was really about protecting or protecting property, connecting it back to Kenosha. I think he used words. The juror will understand, right? Shooting glorious , plain English , uh , entertain the jury. I thought it was entertaining. He had visuals. He told the story. So I thought it was pretty good, pretty effective there for Mark Richards as well. And so those were the opening statements, not a lot of time, right? About 20 minutes, maybe a piece, maybe 30 minutes a piece. And they went through it relatively quickly and we covered most of it. There were still a lot in there that was worth it. If you didn't watch the full full day, I'd watch the full day for sure. But that's sort of the meat and potatoes of the opening statements. And so once those happen, government goes, first defense goes out, gives their opening statement. Then it's time to get into the evidence. So the government calls their first witness. It's this guy and he is a friend of Kyle Rittenhouse. His name is Dominic black. And , uh, th the way this works is the government comes out and asks questions first. So we're going to hear from Thomas binger, who is sort of the, the litigator of the case, Jim Crouse , the assisting attorney is , or the co prosecutor is, or the assistant to the co prosecutor is sitting there next to him and helping provide some of the technical details or objections here, reminder, go back and talk about that and making sure that he kind of stays on track. Whereas Thomas binger was actually doing the litigating, doing the communicating and sort of standing up and looking good. And, you know, doing the , the wheeling and dealing in front of the jury, Jim is sorta just sitting there riding shotgun. So , uh, here, then we have Dominic black and we , we learn about this guy. He's actually a friend with Kyle Rittenhouse, and it turns out that Dominic was actually with Kyle Rittenhouse on that night. They were part of the same crew. If you watch some of the video, a lot of it , we covered here where they're actually, you know , uh , walking around, wandering around sort of in a group, getting water bottles, going from corner to corner, interfacing with people he's he was part of that crew. And the reason the government brings him out is because they want to put together and recreate what happened there. Right? They need somebody to come and testify sort of from that perspective, because a lot of the officers all were there after the fact they weren't sort of in this. So the only person who can really communicate about the inner workings of what happened was is this guy now Dominic is being charged with a crime by the same prosecutor. And the prosecutor actually brought that up at the close of his testimony today and said, I'm actually charging you with a crime. Right. And you're sort of testifying here today kind of in exchange for that case. Aren't you? He's like, yeah, I am. And so, right . This is a, this is a witness who is also being, and is being sort of, you know , strongly urge to testify by his lawyer saying, listen, man, if you don't testify here, I don't know what the plea deal is going to look like for you. So you got to come up there and just tell the truth. And so if you're a juror, if I'm a juror and I'm watching that happen, first thing I'm thinking is, oh, this is a testimony under duress. This is somebody who is going to be , uh, you know, not, not honest because they're trying to save their own butts because if they don't testify appropriately, the Navy , the prosecutor comes back and throws the book at them . And so the prosecution did actually disclose this and the defense brought it up. It's not worth really spending a lot of time dissecting the video of it, but they , you know, it is, it is a point that I think is relevant. The jury is going to take a look at that and say what you're being charged with a crime too . And the , the crime here is really forgiving. Kyle access to the gun for knowingly giving somebody who's under the age of 18 access to the firearm. And so we get more of the story from Dominic black. We also hear a lot from him actually identifying the gun. And there's a very interesting , uh , screenshot that is introduced as an exhibit in front of the jury that comes from Kyle Rittenhouse has Tik TOK. And so we're going to talk about that as well. Let's listen in here is Dominic black talking about, he's seeing , he saw Kyle Rittenhouse basically everyday . Here he is.

Speaker 2:

We use that as a, as a frame of reference. How long before that date, had you known the defendant

Speaker 4:

Roughly nine months?

Speaker 2:

Was that the same period of time that you were dating his sister? Yes. And how frequently would you see the defendant during those nine or so months?

Speaker 4:

About every

Speaker 2:

Day you mentioned there were times when you would go down to his residence in Antioch. Is that right? Yes. Were there times when he would come to your stepfather's residence here in Kenosha? Yes. How often would that occur? Um,

Speaker 4:

Weekly .

Speaker 2:

What sort of things did the two of you like to do together?

Speaker 4:

Uh, everything as a kid on hanging out, going to the lake, you know, hunting , um , going up north, just, you know, just everything you would do growing up.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. The standard kid stuff, nothing even out of the ordinary, their prosecutor, dives into this and says, well , oh, what about hunting? And you guys have guns and you hang out with guns and you've , you both got guns. Right. We got guns. And I went and I bought an AR 15 and Kyle Rittenhouse, we went and he went and bought an AR 15. They're actually not AR fifteens, but we're going to use that term because that's the term they're using here. And they , uh, you know, they got them together. Well, how did Kyle Rittenhouse get his he's not 18? Well, I bought it for him and I said, I'd hang on to it until he turned 18. And we got to keep it at my dad's house, he's got a safe , we got a ton of guns. All of that stuff go through that whole narrative. Kyle Rittenhouse probably , maybe shouldn't have had access to it . He's under 17 is what this prosecutor was getting at. And then he really digs into this and says, well, we need you to identify this for us. And so they use Dominic black to identify the murder weapon. Right . We have a murder weapon here. They're charging him with intentional homicide. We have a murder weapon. It's just like what ? You see a net, where's the knife. Where'd they hide that knife? Oh, it's under the bed, you know, on the third floor, they're identifying it. They're going to show that Kyle Rittenhouse has a connect. This is his gun. He's owned it. He's got pictures with it. And they're going to use this guy to make sure that they can get it in. Uh, as, as an exhibit here is Dominic black.

Speaker 2:

I believe that detective and Ramian is holding up. What is been marked as exhibit number 27 detective. Is that right? That's number 27 ways . Okay . Do you recognize that item, Mr. Black? Yes. What is that? One of their fifteens. Do you know which, which one that is? I believe it's Cal Hills. I'm not too sure. Okay. Would it be fair to say that yours and the defendants , uh, look very similar to one another? Yes. Do you remember if there are any particular markings on one or the other that would help you to identify them? The only difference was the sites . W what was the difference in the sites? Uh, one of us had a bigger one. I don't remember.

Speaker 1:

Okay. Fast forward through this. So he goes in, they have a problem with the sites . He's like, ah , I can't tell that one or this one. So they go, they get the other gun and they come back out. He's like, Nope, that's not my site . That's my gun. Okay. So if that's my gun, that's written house has gone . Here's that exchange,

Speaker 2:

Which is exhibit 27 with the scope attached on it. Was that your gun? Yes. Okay. So these who exhibits 27, 28 are , uh, 27 is your, the first one is your AR 15. And the second one is the defendants, is that correct? Yes, your honor, I'd move exhibits 27 and 28 into evidence. No objection .

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So no objection moved to admit it. It's all going into evidence. Right. And so, you know, people are asking a free Appalachian over on rumble saying , uh, why so much time on the weapon? And it's because it , right. It , it , it is the murder weapon. It is the gun that was actually used to shoot and kill somebody. And so they're trying to do two things. One make sure that it is connected to Kyle Rittenhouse, but , uh , also showing that sort of, he had access to this thing without lawful permission, to some degree that this was all done nefariously. And it helps. I think if I can recall correctly, I think it was charged number , uh , S count four, count six. One of the, I can't remember where it is, but we have the list of the charges, but there was one count being in possession of a weapon under the age of 18. And for , for many, we've had a lot of arguments about this, but even in the jury instructions earlier this morning, having conversations about whether, you know, any one of these charges can sort of puncture the protection of self-defense. In other words, if he was already in violation of the law for being, being somebody who's under the age of 18 with possession of , of an assault weapon, that that was puncturing safety of self-defense. Cause he was already in violation of the law, right ? You can't, you can't suddenly break the law. Like you can't go in and Rob a bank and then say that the teller who shoots you is , uh, you know , uh, violating your self defense or is , you know , is assaulting you to some degree. So you can see that it's, it's trying to sort of Pierce that self-defense claim. If you're the bank Robert, you don't get to claim self-defense because you broke the law. You don't get to claim that you're you're under threat because you broke it first. So I hope that makes sense to some degree now it's if that happens, then it might make self-defense inapplicable for the other more serious intentional charges. So it's a great question. And we're going to get into a lot of these monster. One says self-defense yeah, we're going to get into all of these questions here in a short minute, but good questions. I wanted to make sure while I see them, we get them address . Okay. So he identified the weapon and now , uh , this is just amazing. So they are talking about this weapon because it is the murder weapon. Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have had it according to this prosecutor. And we now see that Dominic black is going to be identifying Rittenhouse, holding this weapon even before the events took place on Kenosha. Here he is.

Speaker 2:

May I approach your honor, Mr. Black, I'm going to show you a document which has been marked as exhibit number seven. Do you recognize the photograph on that document? Yes. Who is shown in that photograph tile ? Was that a photograph that was taken when you and the defendant were up in lady Smith? Uh , around May 1st, 2020? Yes. Does that photograph show the defendant holding his AR 15? Yes, your honor. I'd move exhibit number seven into evidence.

Speaker 1:

Okay. Here's this now watch this baby

Speaker 2:

Receive . May I publish that to the jury, your honor, honor . On the screen,

Speaker 1:

Publish it to the jury. Now here comes screenshot from tick-tock

Speaker 2:

Sometimes these TVs. Could you turn that one on too ?

Speaker 1:

All right. So here's Kyle written houses, Tik TOK, and read this caption, bruh . I'm just trying to be famous down here at the bottom, bruh . I'm just trying to be famous. Kyle Rittenhouse, four door,

Speaker 2:

Mr. Black. Do you recall what day , um, that photograph was taken when you were up there? I want to say the same day we arrived. Does, does that photograph show in the background there, the property that your family had up in lady Smith? Yes. Okay. Um, and do you remember who it was, who actually took that photograph? Yes. But was it my friend Cody? Do you remember if that was before or after you and the defendant went to the firing range and this is before practice. Okay. All right . Thank you.

Speaker 1:

So publishes that to the jury, four doors, more whores. Apparently that's Kyle Rittenhouse says , bruh , I'm just trying to be famous. And , uh, uh, yeah, so , so that certainly came true under a horrific circumstances, but yeah, they got that in as an exhibit, published it to the jury. So you don't really know what the jury is thinking when they see that four doors more horse ? Well, it sounds like a party, right? And, and now Kyle Rittenhouse is bro , I'm just trying to be famous. So , uh, it kind of interesting, you know, pretty funny, right? We're all, we've all been 17, 18. We've all done a lot of dumb things during those times. And , uh, you know , fortunately for many of us social media wasn't around. So, you know, those things, I don't know how much weight those carry with the jury. I just thought it was pretty funny that , uh, that they got that published in there. So , uh , very interesting that that got in. All right. Let's see what else now , uh , also prosecutor trying to really drive this home. Kyle Rittenhouse didn't have any permission to take that gun in the first place. And you can see again, trying to sort of , uh , break the break free. Appalachian is bringing up another point. Well, this is a misdemeanor. How can the misdemeanor gun charge sort of break the , the protection realm of the felony charges and it's cause the judge is really being very unclear about a lot of these rules. It goes back to the same jury instructions. We talked about that the judge was hemming and hawing about earlier this morning , uh, the defense was saying we should get self-defense jury instructions for all of these charges. And the judge just kind of said, no, this was in the context of whether he should get the , the charge for the self-defense instruction for the reckless endangerment charge. Because theoretically, let's back this up for a quick minute. If Rittenhouse is justified in shooting, Rosenbalm under a self-defense theory, Rosenbaum is chasing him around the corner. Rittenhouse turns fires Rosenbalm is dead. If the bullets now are whizzing past whizzing past McGinnis , who's the reporter who's right behind Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse was justified to use self-defense to fire those, to protect him from the deadly harm of Rosenbalm. Well, how is he not also protected by self-defense for firing near McGuinness ? Doesn't the same self-defense protection that applies to the killing of Rosenbalm also extend to the action of just pulling the trigger on the gun and shooting the bullets or not. Does the self-defense only apply to Rosenbalm or does it also apply to McInnis ? Does it say that Rittenhouse was being so reasonable in his self-defense than anybody else, even an innocent bystander, if they get caught up in that activity of self-defense that Rittenhouse is now immune from that, what if he would have shot and actually hit McGinnis or a family at a park, would he be able to use self-defense and extend that over those other individuals? And so the judge is sort of having, you know, we're , we're having some debates about that. So we have con you know, conversations about self-defense and you also have the problem here. If the jury instructions are not clear, free, Appalachian that you have the jury conflating the charges because Kyle Rittenhouse had a gun there illegally and he shouldn't have had it. And he had no permission to have it. Maybe everything that stems from possession of the gun, all the harm that follows that cascades from having the gun. He's also responsible for that. So, because he's guilty of one thing he's guilty of the other batching, all of these things up, which is kind of what the prosecution is trying to do, which is why the defense really wants very crystal clear self-defense instructions on every single one of the counts that we saw. So it's , it's a little bit unclear, but , uh, but it's a great question. So here now is , uh, Dominic black talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, not having any permission at all to take the gun.

Speaker 2:

They have August 25th, 20, 20 the day when all this stuff happened, did he possess that gun? Yes. How did it come to be that he gained possession of that gun? On August 25th?

Speaker 4:

My dad had took a lot of the weapons we had out of the safe, due to the whole , the writing and stash them inside the house in case somebody were to come and break into our house. And that gun happened to be one of those weapons.

Speaker 2:

Do you know how the defendant took possession of it that day?

Speaker 4:

I do not. All. All I'm aware of is that it was downstairs.

Speaker 2:

When did you first see the defendant with that weapon? That day?

Speaker 4:

Um, when I was in the kitchen. So about, I want to say a few hours before we left

Speaker 2:

And tell us what you saw when you were in the kitchen.

Speaker 4:

Um, I saw him coming up the stairs with it. With the air ? Yes.

Speaker 2:

Did you hear him ask you permission to take that gun? No. Did he ask, did you hear him ask permission from your father? No.

Speaker 1:

All right. So no permission, Kyle Rittenhouse is a bad person. Got it. So now what he's saying here , uh, this is where things start to go ask you to some degree for the prosecution here. I don't think that any of this testimony from Dominic black continue to help the prosecutor , uh , any further. Honestly, I think that all this testimony was mostly bad and got to remember this, right? He is somebody who was part of the Rittenhouse crew. They've been friends for a long time. We're going to hear , uh , during cross examination , Mark Richards comes out and says, you guys called yourself brothers, didn't you? Yeah. So you actually have sort of a government witness. Who's actually really sympathetic to Kyle Rittenhouse, presumably who is being more or less coerced into testifying because the government is coercing him because he's being charged with a very similar crime for giving Kyle Rittenhouse a gun in the first place. So his attorney is in the courtroom saying, yeah, you better go testify. Just go be honest about all this stuff. Let us know what your perspective is. Tell the truth. And they've told us the prosecutor, this is the prosecution's witness. They made this decision. They said, we want him to testify. We think he's going to help our case more than he's going to hurt our case. And so they're gambling with this to some degree. Remember, they're having to recall the fact that he is of the same mindset as Kyle Rittenhouse. Somebody presumably has a lot of comfort with firearms. A father obviously uses them. They go hunting. They're very familiar with this things. He buys them, got one for written house . They, they, they saw what they saw happening in Kenosha together. And they both made the decision to go over there and try to revert what was happening. So he's sympathetic Kyle Rittenhouse, the same perspective that Kyle Rittenhouse has. I'm sure. Whereas we're going to hear is shared by Dominic black car Rittenhouse saw danger and violence and threats and looting and rioters and burning. Do you think this guy is like, you know , pro BLM, he's going to go, he's going to be a witness here on the stand. And he's going to say , uh , yeah. Mr. Prosecutor, in fact, you're right. I can't believe what he was doing there. This is ridic . Why was he, why was written ? I was there in the first place and he brought a gun. Well, that's ridiculous. You know, by the way I support, you know, true second amendment reforms here because guns kill people. Like he's not going to ever come out and say that. So the prosecution is , is playing a very interesting gamble to some degree. This is somebody who is testifying more or less under duress, but who's a friend of Kyle Rittenhouse. Who's being used to prove a very, very particular point here. Kyle Rittenhouse was the owner of the gun possessor of the gun unlawfully. It was, you know, he was gained possession of it through this weird concoction of him buying it and then storing it in his house and never had permission to take it in the first place. Yada, yada, yada got all that. But then for some weird reason, he starts going into asking about his assessment of the situation on the ground. Prosecutor binger says , uh , Dominic . So tell me what , what's your perspective? What did you see on the ground? What was the condition like out there? Was it a mostly peaceful protest? Here's what he says.

Speaker 2:

You talked about not wanting to be on the ground because of your concern about things happening on the ground. Did you feel that if you stayed on the ground, you would be in greater danger? Yes. Why is that?

Speaker 4:

People could easily get access to hurting me or coming up closer to me.

Speaker 2:

When you say people,

Speaker 4:

Anyone , anyone writing , you know, anybody that was there for the wrong intentions.

Speaker 2:

So what, what ha what got it in your mind that night that you felt there would be people out on the street that would want to hurt you if you were down in the ground?

Speaker 4:

Um, I had heard about the previous night and how it was, and I knew that there was a lot of people fighting each other and a lot of violence. So that felt it would be best that I went there. If I was going to go there, making sure that I could protect myself, I needed to.

Speaker 2:

But you were also there to protect the car source location? Yes. How were you going to do that? From up on the road?

Speaker 4:

Um, helping anybody else that was there. I'm spotting people that,

Speaker 1:

Okay. So you can see how this kind of goes a little bit squirrely for a prosecutor, binger. He says, what's the situation there on the ground? What are you thinking? He says, well, people can hurt you on the ground. That's why we were on the roof. Oh, well, people could hurt you there. Yeah. Writers were there. He actually uses that word. Yeah. They were, they were rioting. Yeah. There were other people out there writing and it did appear to be like, there was a lot of violence out there. People were fighting each other. It was sort of madness, which is why I went on the roof because it was so dangerous. Mr. Prosecutor. And so sort of supports a self-defense argument. Doesn't it? That if somebody were in fact on the ground because of the rioters and because it was so dangerous and it was so violent, according to your own witness, Mr. Prosecutor, it sounds like somebody who finds himself in a tricky situation down there might be pretty well justified. Do you? Self-defense just saying just a thought if it really is in fact violent, according to your own witness. So he carries on with that binger says, well, okay. So if it was so violent, huh? Did anybody else have guns over there? And Dominic black says, yeah, everybody did. Every single person did. That's how bad it was. And then wait for this long pause. You can always tell when an attorney, doesn't like an answer when there's this just long pause and I'm going to let this puppy play. We're going to just let it sit here for a minute. Here is prosecutor binger asking about, did anybody else, you know, outside of this lunatic, Kyle Rittenhouse, this lunatic reckless person, he was the only guy with a , with firearms. There wasn't a Dominic .

Speaker 2:

Were there others in your group at 59th street car source , besides the defendant who were similarly armed? Yes. How many everybody except for one person. And when you say everybody, what, how many, how many people are we talking about? Six or seven. So it's fair to say that there were, other than you and the defendant, there were another six or seven people that were all carrying AR 15 type weapons. Yes.

Speaker 1:

Long pause . Okay . It's still going when you were , uh, so did anybody else have that? AR fifteens? Yeah. Every, every single person except one person did. Oh, well, Hmm . Well, I guess , uh, I guess my argument that Kyle Rittenhouse was acting like a reckless lunatic side. It kind of gets deflated a little bit, goes down because everybody else had guns. So I guess Kyle Rittenhouse was sort of acting in conformity with what a lot of other people who were also reasonable, who also didn't shoot anybody. He was doing what they were doing, but they didn't get attacked. Kyle Rittenhouse did, which is what caused the aberration. So in fact, he wasn't reckless at all. It was, he, he was actually doing exactly what was prudent and reasonable under the circumstances. So little bit off there when you are trying to make Kyle Rittenhouse look like a murdering maniac, somebody who was out there running around with a rifle, because nobody was doing that. It was a mostly peaceful protest. He just ends up just executing people randomly. And he was the only person out there doing it, not the case at all, very violent people were on the roof. Uh, everybody had AR fifteens. It was madness. So , uh , okay . That's one way to approach a trial, I guess. And we have another claim here. Oh, here's just another quick clip about violence.

Speaker 2:

When you were up on the roof that night, what observations, if any, did you make about the crowd and what was going on on the ground?

Speaker 4:

There's a lot of violence, a lot of screaming, a lot of people throwing things. Um, yeah , you could definitely tell that people weren't just there for the reason they were , um, it, wasn't a safe place to be at all.

Speaker 1:

Wasn't a safe place at all. Wasn't a safe place to be at all governments witness. Wasn't a safe place to be at all. Now he's going to flip this around. Right. And he's going to say, well, exactly. That's why Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there in the first place with a, with a stolen gun, more or less. Right . So we shouldn't have ever been allowed to be there at all. Guess what? He was there though. And it wasn't illegal to be there and he got attacked. And so he used self-defense is going to be how the defense deals with this as we're going to hear in a minute . But in addition to that, right, in addition to Kyle Rittenhouse, being somebody who was in a very violent, dangerous situation, people lobbying , throwing things , uh , people going on the rooftops, because it was in fact so dangerous when all of this madness, this urban warfare is taking place on the streets of Kenosha. What is this murdering lunatic? Kyle Rittenhouse do. Oh, he just goes out and actually provides medical assistance to somebody who needs it. Okay.

Speaker 2:

What, if anything, did you observe the defendant doing during that time?

Speaker 4:

Um, I noticed that as soon as they did get to us, there was somebody that was hurt and he went and helped them and brought them back into the building. And then as soon as they were all like it up, he brought them out.

Speaker 2:

Do you know what sort of injury they had suffered? I do

Speaker 4:

Not.

Speaker 2:

And when you say you saw them go into the building , uh, do you, did you actually see with your own eyes then enter the building and the supplies that the defendant had in his medic bag or something that those all come from your

Speaker 1:

Kyle Rittenhouse is a medic he's providing assistance to people in medical need from the government's own witness in front of the jury. So not only was it a dangerous war zone, Kyle Rittenhouse is running into it to go and rescue somebody who needed medical attention. Uh , that's the prosecutor, that's their , that's their witness. Okay. So let's take a look now at the cross-examination

Speaker 2:

You will remember about that. What is the same period that we now know? Uh , what was the time of this ?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, so we have a lot , another peer let's play this one. This is Dominic black , uh, sort of telling us what he actually saw about the shooting. I know this segment is , is a lot of clips, but I want to make sure we get this straight cause a lot of good detail here. This is information about the car source sort of activity. So remember car source was where the w the initial sort of running around was happening. Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle Rittenhouse. He sort of goes dark into the shadows and then emerges back out there shortly after. And here is Dominic black telling us what he saw about that entire entire exchange. Here he is.

Speaker 4:

It's one of us had received information that one of the cars, horse dealerships was being vandalized or trying. People are trying to burn it down. Um, Kyle was not able to make it back to us, our location. So either me or Nick called him and told him about what was happening. And then the last I saw of him was him running towards that direction. And then from then on, I just heard gunshots

Speaker 1:

Now. Okay. So he really didn't hear much of anything he, or , or see much of anything, right. He saw sort of , uh, him go into that area. Something happened, heard gunshots, saw Kyle coming back out. And this is where he picks back up. This is now , uh , where I think this is our last testimony on direct exam, but this is what the prosecutor is , is sort of asking about where he's asking about the reconnection, Dominic black, then reconnects with Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse obviously just fired his weapon. Multiple times hit several people, presumably dead. And now he is reconnecting with Dominic black prosecutor says, what did you see? What did Kyle Rittenhouse look like? And I want to show you something that's pretty dishonest that this prosecutor does. I think we have it here in this clip, but the prosecutor just finishes hearing a full statement from Dominic black. Dominic black says , uh , when Kyle Rittenhouse came upon us, he said that he had to do it. He said that this was done out of self-defense. He said these people were trying to hurt him. And then right after that, the prosecutor starts digging in on him. Yeah. But here it is

Speaker 2:

Gunshots. What is the next thing you remember about the defendant

Speaker 4:

After that? Um, I didn't believe the gunshots were actually his until I got a phone call and , uh , I answered it and he just said, I shot somebody. I shot somebody and then hung up right away.

Speaker 2:

When did you see him next? After

Speaker 4:

That? I want to say just a few minutes right after that was

Speaker 2:

That back at 59th

Speaker 4:

Street? Yeah. Those are the three original location.

Speaker 2:

What observations, if any, did you make about the, when you saw

Speaker 4:

He was freaking out? He was really scared. He was pale sweating a lot. Um, you could tell, he was just scared.

Speaker 2:

Did he say anything? Did he

Speaker 4:

Wasn't really talking and he just said he had to do it. It was self-defense. Geez . People are trying to hurt him.

Speaker 2:

Did he ever say to you that someone was trying to attack him with a gun? No. Did he ever say to you that someone was trying to attack him with a knife? No. Did they ever say to you that anyone was trying to attack him with any sort of weapon? No. What happened after that?

Speaker 1:

Did you hear what that prosecutor just did? He just got done listening to Dominic's testify. I heard him say a couple of things said he had to do it. He just said that it was self-defense and people were trying to hurt him. That was literally the three things he said before the prosecutor dove back in at him and said, did he ever tell you that they were gonna attack him with a gun? No, it didn't. How about a knife? No, they didn't. How about anything else? Any type of weapon? No, they didn't. You know what , what's the point of that? They also didn't try to attack him with a bazooka or flame thrower or a machete or a chainsaw or an ax , none of those things, but they didn't sit down and have a conversation about this. Rittenhouse was running back and puts his hands up as we're going to here during cross examination to try to reach out to a police officer, but they didn't have a chance to sit down with Dominic and said, my goodness, did you see that gauge gross? Groots he had a nine millimeter Glock in his hand. Boy, I'm glad I shot him right in the elbow to make sure that he wasn't able to pull the trigger against me. What did, what did you do this last 30 seconds? 90 seconds. They didn't have conversations about it, but the prosecutor is doing that. You know, that repetition thing. The three's a gun? No. A knife. No. Any other weapon? No. Okay. So that means that he wasn't under threat, I guess, although it doesn't cause although Kyle Rittenhouse didn't say those things, it doesn't mean that that wasn't his perception, but he's going to try to make that argument. Kyle Rittenhouse didn't say that I was being attacked with a weapon. All he did was just shoot somebody. Okay. So let's take a look at the cross exam . Now this is Mark Richards, just a couple of these Mark Richards, I think did something smart. Uh , he didn't, he didn't over, over cross this person too much. I think he did a little bit. I think that he , he sort of got into some questions that weren't relevant. This was really a very good witness for the defense. We heard that it was a violent scene that Kyle Rittenhouse is a medic who was out there helping people in the middle of a , of a war zone in Kenosha. So it was pretty, pretty good witness , uh, as far as I can tell, but , uh, then we have, this is Mark Richards , uh, asking about this a little bit of background here, and then we're going to jump into the, really the , the more substantive stuff. Here's Mark Richards, starting off on the exam.

Speaker 3:

You knew Kyle written the house through his sister Mackenzie ? Yes. And when you were 18, 19, you were dating Mackenzie . Yes. And you and Kyle were good friends. Yes. And you referred to each other as brothers? Yes. Okay . And you talked about,

Speaker 1:

Okay, so just a little bit there, right? Call yourself brothers, you sort of are part of the same crew and so on and so forth here. We're we're seeing that they're , they're going back to this theme. I've got two final clips of cross exam . Then we're going to jump into questions. We'll go through these quickly so we can make sure we get to some questions. But here is Mark Richards talking about property again and saying that you really couldn't see what happened to Kyle. So you really can't talk about self-defense more or less here, or that is the whole idea

Speaker 3:

Was to send Heil down to car source three to 63rd street car source, because you guys had received a report that the people were supposed to be protecting. It had left, correct? Yes. And the property was being destroyed. Yes. You didn't know that Kyle had been separated from Mr. Baldwin at that point? I did not. So you tell him to go down there and protect that property because the cars are being bashed in , correct? Yes. It was either you or Nick Smith. Yes. And from where you were, you could see Kyle going down in that direction. Yes. And it wasn't the second he goes down there, you hear shots. He goes out of your view. There's a fairly lengthy period of time. You hear a gunshot and then you heard a series of more gunshots, correct? Yes. And you, from where you were, could not see what happened to Kyle at the second incident, correct? Yes. Did not. See, I

Speaker 4:

Did not see,

Speaker 1:

Did not see, couldn't see anything of what really happened there, but did see Kyle when he reconnected with the police at the end of the night, or at least attempted to. And so this is where Mark Richards gets him to reiterate the Kyle Rittenhouse. As soon as this was over K he wasn't running back to Illinois, like partying , uh, you know, go like , like Thomas binger and the prosecution would have you believe he wasn't doing cartwheels down the street, reconnecting with his, you know, maggot , insurrectionists. He actually did approach law enforcement and tried to turn himself in and get some help. Here is the government's own witness confirming that.

Speaker 3:

And eventually Kyle comes back in to your vision, correct? Yes. What did you observe Kyle doing as he approached? Well , let me ask you this. Where was he first?

Speaker 4:

Um, where I first saw him was kind of, I guess, a tree line . It was more in front of the ultimate gas station. And , uh , I saw him walking with his gun hanging down and he had his hands up and then I watched him walk up to a police car and then step away.

Speaker 3:

And then describe what he's doing as he's going up to that police car.

Speaker 4:

I can't hear anything, but I could tell he was yelling. Yeah . I don't know what he was .

Speaker 3:

Where were his hands in the air. Okay. And you saw him walk up to the police car? Yes. You don't hear anything, but just Kyle stayed and go up to the car?

Speaker 1:

Yes, he does. Right. We saw that. We saw a lot of the videos of Kyle, Hey , Hey, I'm here. And cars were just sort of driving. Police cars were driving right back through him. And so that's what we had today for testimony after Dominick black wrapped up, they recessed for the day, we'll be back tomorrow with a lot more trial today, we went pretty deep on this. I don't intend to go this deep on, on every particular day, but we got to see some very interesting themes flesh themselves out. We got to see where the prosecution was going with things, how the defense was going with things, but their openings. We see the narratives shooting up, you know, sort of a recklessness , uh , somebody who should have been there in the first place. Somebody that had guns unlawfully, violating all sorts of permission in order to get this thing and was sort of reckless and cold in the killing defensing. Not at all right . This was somebody who was there to help somebody who was a medic, somebody who was protecting other people who wanted to protect property and was thrown in the middle of a violent situation, not of his own making that this was a situation that was permeating percolating throughout society in Kenosha that night. And Kyle Rittenhouse was caught in a bad situation with somebody who was chased down by Rosenbaum , had to exercise. Self-defense did so unfortunately people died, but we got to see a lot from these attorneys in terms of their style, how they are communicating with the jury. And there's going to be a lot more witnesses. We're going to hear a lot less from the attorneys as we hear more questions from, from witnesses and we'll continue to cover them. So make sure you're subscribed here or wherever you're watching us following us wherever this happens to be , uh , your home base. And so let's take a look at some questions now from our friends, our home [email protected] and it is Tuesday. And so I've got a short timeframe today. Got a hard stop here soon. And so we're going to fly through questions. Just cows says free. My man. He ain't even do nothing. That's from just cows in the house. Good to see you. Just, we have news. Now Wyoming says, have to hand it to the feds paper trail is always a pain in the butt, but their courts are efficient. Jury selection, day one day, two opening statements, day two, two, and a half witnesses. So this, yeah, this is actually state court, right? So it's just a different style of, of doing jury selection. Yeah. It is different. And we'll see how , how it works out for him . Uh , news now says, excuse me. So I spent the day watching the trial, then various channels talking about it's so weird. When any of them have someone try to make an argument in favor of Rittenhouse and suddenly run out of time while the guile where the guy is in the middle of his statement. Okay. So a lot of people are talking about it. I'm sure. Very interesting case. Hopefully you're seeing some good content out there. Monster one says, Rob, did you get a chance to watch the video I sent you? Here's the link again? You didn't get the message yet. Short video showing how the shooting started. You clearly see Rosenbalm being the aggressor. So I probably have seen it monster one. I can't pin pin it. Oh yeah. This one just came out. Right? This one came out, Charlie Kirk was playing it. And um, uh, I think human events was playing it. I have not actually watched that one, but you know, we've we I've seen so many different angles. I saw Rittenhouse I from day one, I thought that he was being chased. Somebody fired off a gun behind him as he, as he was being run as he was running down the road. But I have that queued up. So I'll take a look. Former Leo says, I sent you a long comment this morning, take a look. We'll do a former Leo. We did an impromptu 22 minutes stream this morning over on locals news. Now Wyoming says, I have forgotten about the videos involving in this case, watching the video before the shots of the day, it still amazes me. How many little kids were there for violent protest . Seriously, is this Kate take your kids to terrorism day to take your kids to insurrection day or burn down the third precinct day. Lev YCA says, Hey, Rob, sorry. Been gone for a while. It was abducted by aliens. Welcome back. Still been following along the whole time though, been able to stream your show from the mothership. That's good news. Love your coverage of the Rittenhouse trial. Also glad to hear your voice is coming back. Your big, beautiful spotlights are getting much stronger. Really good to see you. LA CA I appreciate you being here. I miss you guys when you leave is come back. I'm like, I remember that name. I remember that person. And here they are. Well, hopefully you got some good technology. Maybe you have that. The , uh , what do they call it? No rectal probes though. Hopefully you had a good trip. Former Leo says I've been involved in many trials that were complicated and involve the violence. But without a doubt, this is the worst defense opening statement I've ever observed or involved with defense attorney was unprepared. Did mortar confuse the jury rather than setting up the facts and his defense strategy. If the defense continues to directions, it would be grounds for appeal. He says, due to inadequate legal defense, I can see why he cut barns and experts loose. He's the wrong defense attorney for Rittenhouse completely past his competency level. This is a self-defense trial. All he has done is overload and confuse the jury with his opening. Sounds like a rookie. I'm sure that he will make many more errors in defending Rittenhouse perspective here from former Leo in the house, probably been a part of, a lot of trials , seen a lot of defense attorneys. It's a good perspective, former Leo . I think that there are probably people who agree with you. I don't, I don't think that it was a slam dunk opening. I don't think it was the worst thing I've ever seen. I think he hit some, some good marks and I think it was lacking in some other marks. There were some, there were some errors , some things that I thought were interesting that he didn't have sort of, you know, some, some punchy statements and some punchy words , uh , at any, at any given moment, but more or less, I thought it, I thought it was fine. Thunder seven says I watched Black's testimony. I understand your disdain for prosecutors. Now, binger was arrogant with the witness, almost reaching fever, pitch smartness . When black mentioned he and his family enjoy hunting. And when he mentioned that Kyle was interested, I thought that binger was going to run away in disgust , grow up. I would never hunt, but I don't judge others. And black came across as a very responsible young man with guns. Kyle too. I think this witness was good for the defense. What say you Rob? I agree. Yeah . You probably submitted that before. I , uh , I jumped into my full explanation, but I agree with you. I think he was a stronger witness for the defense than for the government co-written house was in a dangerous situation. And he was providing medical care to people out there. Jeremy MITRE to says, Rob, this prosecutor definitely went to the school of deception and lies. Kyle shot in self-defense and then immediately rendered aid. There was a clear video of Kyle acting in an honorable way. I can see why you made the decision to defend people rather than ruin their lives with lies. We're getting some love today. I appreciate Thomas binger is doing more for the defense community than I could ever dream. Thanks, Thomas. Yeah. People can see right through it. See rose says, Rob, I thought binger really dropped the ball when trying to weave the facts of the case together. You like that, Ms. Gross . Kreutz bladed his body stuff. Yeah. And so , uh , yes. See rose . So look, here's the thing. Some stuff that might seem obvious to people is really not obvious to lawyers. Okay. You know, some lawyers you have to remember are highly educated. People who have read too many books that their brains are short-circuited a little bit. Okay. What you saw at a Thomas binger was actually pretty good many attorneys, even though you're used to seeing Harvey specter on suits or Matthew McConaughey and the Lincoln lawyer. Right? A lot of lawyers, they went to law school. They didn't go to public speaking school. And so you have actually a pretty decent attorney in Thomas binger for a prosecutor. Okay. That's why he's doing the trial. And Jim Kraus , who's sitting to his right. Is not. So yes, it's, it's good for prosecution standards. Let me just leave it at that. Uh, and , and there are good prosecutors out there, but it is good for prosecution standards. We'll just leave it there because the alternative C rose is you have a prosecutor that comes out and says, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence will show you that Kyle Rittenhouse did X, Y, and Z. And they don't even move off the podium. They don't get animated at all. They don't articulate their , their , or ModuLite their voice. They just get really cold and stuffy and I've seen it. So at least he's moving, not bad. All right , good to see you. And a couple others, we got a few more minutes. News now says the reasonableness of this case is the most important. Do you think the average juror could come to the conclusion that one Rittenhouse was in reasonable fear of his life with all victims and that to the other, the other than the first victim, everyone else was trying to stop who they thought was an active shooter. So it was reasonable for them as well. So could an average juror come to the decision? The both sides are reasonable, thus a not guilty verdict or as 2021, a all or nothing kind of decision. It's a good question news. Now it's going to be up for the D the jury. We're going to see what they have to say about it. And I , uh, you know, it's been kind of an all or nothing year, hasn't it? We'll see. We have , uh , Kincaid says good evening, Robin , all, did it not seem like Thomas was playing for the other team? Facts appeared to be one sided . Am I missing something? Is there a sucker punch coming? The weapon possession seems to be the only genuine concern here, unless there was an attempt to say that Kyle, a citizen should not have the right to protect. Also yesterday, Alec was very defensive and fearful dollars to donuts . He had a piece under his coat front left that's from Kinkaid on the Alec comment. That's amazing. Uh , no, there's no, this whole case is like that. The whole case as we've been following it, it's like, why are they charging this kid in the first place should have never happened? Uh , another one LT 13 says, I thought he was saying that Kyle is going to testify, but I think they're going to show that the video of Kyle talking to either McGuinness or Shaffer saying that he was there to help people and provide first aid. Also the defense guy dropped the hard are . I know, I know everybody's ears went. Whoa, what did you say? I don't think you can. That's illegal arrest that, man. So , uh , yeah. Curious monster one says, how about the 70 year old guy who got cracked over the head? Okay. He didn't die, but is that the , is that really the bar you want to set? It's okay. To assault people. We have bill givens as if gage gross groups had the gun arm back in position. Mr. Binger had claimed there would be no way that he could have been shot in the bicep. The bullet would have had to go through his chest to shoot him there. Good observation, bill givens. It was right here, sort of in the chunk of the elbow, be brave, says, I hate the PAs seventies, styles, mustache should matter. But unfortunately, stuff like that matters to the jury, whether it's conscious or subconscious, but Hey, I'm sure others love it. And the , and the, and the fohawk too on top of it, but we're not making fun of his , uh, personality , uh , rational gay says, have you seen the video of Antifa showing up on Kenosha, August 24, they're carrying AR fifteens, antagonizing the police and purposely escalating the protest into a riot . Lot of that was taking place. Last year. Thunder seven says, seen a lot of videos. It's a tragedy, very clear. Kyle's defending himself. Even for getting these riders started to dumpster fire and had violent criminal records. Kyle is the innocent victim. I think there's going to be a civil war. If he's convicted, people have had enough of this bias against white people. Those who stand up to the lunatic left and Antifa thugs. I think it's just not just white people. I think it's just in general, people are tired of this garbage all across the country. So Viking says, although I don't think it will work, trying to reframe Kyle's lack of aid . Rendering is an interesting strategy in the middle of the sequential events aid to those assaulting was the last thing that would have been reasonable. I agree with you. I Viking . I'm not sure what he's expecting there. Darren says no, no, no, no, no major disrespect to prosecutors. How do these people sleep at night? Especially this binger guy, though. I was surprised at how soft he went onto Rittenhouse during opening. So give him a negative five out of 10 approval out of a negative 10 that's that's from the dark V . Antica says if I were listening to this for the first time, just based on the prosecution's opening statement, I would think to myself that all the defense would have to do is say that Kyle was doing his part to protect property and the prosecution arguments would have meant nothing also. Is it just me or does the defense attorney sounds somewhat like Jesse Ventura? He kind of does. Yeah, he certainly does. He's got that really sort of, you know, hard , uh , delivery spawn dog says, Rob, do you think we'll take the stand? I think the jury would love to hear it out of Kyle's mouth. He can convey his own fear, his own life in his own words he could, but I don't think he should. I don't think that he would take the stand . I don't think there's a need for it at all. Antifa says peaceful shootings and mostly peaceful protests. We might try to burn down the courthouse in a peaceful protest. If the jury doesn't do what we want, Camila is already ready to bail us out and tifo is here. Uh , let's see. Huge long comment here. Let's I'm gonna save this one. We'll save this one for tomorrow. If I can get to it because it's a big comment about some good stuff. And I want to make sure that we are saving some of these, but I'm running out of time. So I can not get to that one right now. A quick, quick, additional couple. We'll fly through a couple of these. Uh, Ms . Lucky says, Hey, Rob, judge, didn't look too interested in bingers intro. It looks like he was more interested in something on his desk or the intro's not that important to the judge. The opening statements, the opening arguments are are , are they're important, but , uh , they're , they're critically important. But in terms of , um, of a judge's involvement, not , not really , uh, they're listening for, for objections, but those don't come often . Monster one says, I don't like this defense guy either. Don't like his flow. That's from Mark Richards. And we've got Kinkaid , says the ADA lied about the footage and the other facts during the opening. How is that not called out for what it is as a lawyer? Is it bad form to be so blunt? It is, it is bad for him to over promise and to, and to sort of make conclusions in the law that aren't supported by the facts. And so those, my friends are all the time that we that's all the time that we've got for today on the show, because I've got to jump it's Tuesday. And we know that on Tuesdays, we've got a little bit shorter shows, but we wanted to make sure we spent a lot of time here talking about the written house case. And we did. We took a deep dive tomorrow. We'll get back to our normal routine, try our best to squeeze in three segments, depending on how the other witnesses look in the written house case. And so I hope you join us quick. Welcome to some new people. Bad guy, 24 CC signed up very clever name is very clever name. Also mine magician C rose hyperspectral Erin Caroline day five 20 Donna. Be Roy bought Ronnie Cole, French toast. The AI guy, martini junkie, just cows and a cold Pinker painter all signed up [email protected] . Saturday, November 6th , this Saturday, we've got an event coming up. Come join [email protected] that my friends is it for me. Everybody have a tremendous evening. Come join us on locals at 4:00 PM. Arizona time for the recording of this broadcast, have a tremendous evening. My friends sleep very well. We'll see right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye .