By Mei Perez and Hannah Adams
KENOSHA, WI — Then 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, in August of 2020, drove from his home in Antioch, Illinois, to a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where he shot and killed two people and wounded another.
This week, now 18 and on trial for murder, he took the stand to give his testimony on the events leading up to the shooting.
Rittenhouse stated that his objectives were to offer medical assistance, provide water for the officers on scene and to protect a used car lot; he mentioned that he brought the AR-15 gun for his protection, and did not plan on using it.
“Our job is to protect this business and part of my job is to also help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle because I can protect myself, obviously,” Rittenhouse stated when describing the intentions of himself and other armed individuals at the scene.
Following the shooting, Rittenhouse was charged with five felonies: first-degree intentional homicide in the death of Joseph Rosenbaum, first-degree reckless homicide of Anthony Huber, attempted first-degree intentional homicide of Gaige Grosskreutz, and two counts of recklessly endangering safety, for shots fired at others.
He was also charged with possessing a firearm as a minor and for violating a curfew on the night of the Aug. 25, a misdemeanor and a civil citation, 
respectfully.
To all of these charges, Rittenhouse pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense to his possession and use of the firearm.
When describing the altercation between himself and Rosenbaum, the defendant stated that Rosenbaum was the initial aggressor, yelling death threats at Rittenhouse and chasing him into a car lot, where the defendant turned around to face his pursuer.
Rittenhouse stated “I pointed my gun at him, and that did not deter him. He could have run away instead of trying to take my gun from me, but he kept chasing me. It didn’t stop him.” According to the defense, Rosenbaum then lunged for the gun, “I remember his hand was on the barrel of my gun,” which is when Rittenhouse shot four times, killing Rosenbaum.
Following the altercation with Rosenbaum, the prosecution cited a video of Rittenhouse firing an AR-15 at the second and third people that he shot that night: Anthony Huber, the second homicide victim, and Gaige Grosskreutz, who was paralyzed from the waist down after Rittenhouse fired into a crowd.
Huber was swinging a skateboard at Rittenhouse, and Grosskreutz testified earlier this week that he had aimed a gun at Rittenhouse just before he was shot.
Lead prosecuting attorney, Thomas Binger, repeatedly accused Rittenhouse of using deadly force with the intent to kill during his questioning of the defendant, and charged Rittenhouse has not given his testimony until after ample opportunity to watch videos, read articles, and hear witness testimony regarding the case.
Judge Bruce Schroeder interrupted the examination and asked the jurors to leave the courtroom to admonish Binger for his line of questioning, stating “This is a grave Constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendant’s silence. This is not allowed.”
Judge Schroeder had to ask the jurors to leave the courtroom a second time during Binger’s questioning to reprimand him once again for inappropriate tactics.
In regards to Binger’s rather confrontational examination, Rittenhouse’s lawyers requested Judge Schroeder declare a mistrial with prejudice, eliminating any possibility of a retrial.
Judge Schroeder stated that he would consider their proposition, but he is not willing to officially rule on the matter just yet. As of currently, the trial is set to reconvene with Binger as the lead prosecutor with Rittenhouse taking the stand once more.
The trial will resume Friday.
This is obviously a case of self defense. There is video and other testimony to back up everything said in the above paragraphs. Unfortunately the jurors are facing threats so let’s hope that doesn’t deter them from making the correct verdict.
Very good reporting, just the facts and no author induced opinions.
It’s not obviously a case of self-defense, that’s why lawyers are arguing about it. I interviewed a former judge in the top story and he doesn’t agree that the defense claim is reasonable.
Have you watched the trial, heard the witnesses and seen the videos? It’s cut and dried at this point unless one is biased.
He is culpable for possessing a firearm as a minor. That’s about it.
But violating a curfew, come on, if they’re going to get him on that charge there were thousands of others out that night that should be charged too.
An illegally purchased firearm… driving 15-20 miles to another state… claiming wanting to “offer medical assistance, provide water for the officers on scene and to protect a used car lot”… carrying an AR-15 (ar 15 gun – Bing), [a magazine loaded weapon, originally developed for military use] for “self-protection”, while putting himself ‘in harms way’.. fatally shooting an un armed person who ‘yelled death threats’ (uncorroborated) when the “assailant” was attempting to take the illegal gun away… killing another (who may well have been acting in self-defense with a skate board… skateboard vs. AR-15?), and paralyzing some when he shot into a crowd…
“… culpable of possessing a firearm as a minor. That’s about it.”? Really? A “slap on the wrist”?
Instead of self-defense the better plea appears to be “serious MH issues”/temporary insanity, etc….
Perhaps he should have killed more and just be ‘scolded’?
He shot the first dude 4 times… for yelling death threats and attempting to take his gun?
You’re not a lawyer however. Neither is the jury, but they at least get read jury instructions on what the law says.
Self-defense is complicated, even for defense attorneys because state laws vary state to state.
I talked to a guy, story above, who said lesser included, I’ve seen beliefs that the jury will hang, but I’ve not seen anyone (at least in the people I follow) who believes it was a legit self-defense.
You sure left a lot out there. I don’t know if I even want to engage you until you catch up with the facts and watch the actual video evidence. Do some research then come back if you want to have an honest conversation. Otherwise I’m not wasting my time with you.
Does that surprise you, it doesn’t surprise me. Mainstream media is trying to crucify him because he was on the wrong side of the riot, at least in their view. So one guy admits to pointing a loaded gun at him on the witness stand before he was shot, another guy is videoed attempting to beat him with a skate board before he’s shot and the third guy is threatening to kill him while grabbing at his gun as he’s shot as was testified to by a reporter who btw has received death threats for simply telling the truth of what he saw and heard. So none of that can be considered as self defense? In what world? At the very very least, there is more than reasonable doubt. Rittenhouse should go free unless there is a grave injustice.
Remember Defense Attorneys are generally more inclined toward the defense. They don’t want to make their burden higher.
As did you, in your post. Am watching the arguments about jury instructions… you and judge appear to want him to ‘skate’… they’re arguing about “hunting permits”… guess that’s what the young man thought he had…
He’s going to skate, at a 95% confidence level… no remorse except for that he got charged… watch the videos again…
Sounds like something that could result in a shooting.
The entire situation sounds (and looks) like one of them “peaceful protests”.
This is where the law is important – you can’t incite and then claim self-defense.
They chased Rittenhouse, he didn’t chase them. So how did he incite, by taking a gun to protect property? You’re really stretching hard here.
How am I stretching? I haven’t stated an opinion.
Relax Ron… the “fix is in” the judge believes it was justifiable shooting… defendant will skate … 90% confidence level…
Yeah, 4 shots from an AR-15, is appropriate response when you brought the gun to the fight (after driving 20 miles to ‘join the fight’ [which your motivation was “offer medical assistance, provide water for the officers on scene and to protect a used car lot”]), and someone objects and reacts… definitely… perfectly clear… factually innocent of any charges… a HERO!
Someone posted,
The folk needed killing, and being paralyzed… too bad more didn’t suffer the same ‘justice’… after all,
THAT is the injustice, no?
He should walk, no sanctions, his record should be expunged… he only ‘did what needed doing’… your world, perhaps, but not mine.
I would logically assume that it’s either legal to take a gun like that to a “protest”, or it’s not. And if it’s not, then whether or not simply bringing a gun is an incitement.
Wouldn’t they also have to charge him with incitement, in that case?
By the way, why does Wisconsin (in particular) seem to have these types of protests?
Please – we refer to those as “pre-owned” cars. (I’d normally put a smiley face here, but will refrain from doing so in this case.)