Kyle Rittenhouse Gaige Grosskreutz Kenosha Shooting
Gaige Grosskreutz (Mark Hertzberg/Pool Photo via AP)
Previous Post
Next Post

It seems fair to say that the prosecution’s case against Kyle Rittenhouse isn’t going well. That’s assuming their objective is to portray the teen as the aggressor in the three shootings that occurred in Kenosha, Wisconsin on August 25 of last year.

Two of the three people who Rittenhouse shot are dead. Joseph Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse, chased him, cornered him, and finally tried to grab his rifle before Rittenhouse shot him four times. While the lead prosecutor tried to portray Rittenhouse as chasing Rosenbaum, the evidence presented at trial showed that assertion to be utterly false.

The evidence surrounding the actions of the other dead rioter, Anthony Huber, is far more difficult to portray as anything other than self-defense. Huber attacked Rittenhouse while he was down on the ground in the middle of the street, striking him on the head and neck with his skateboard. Rittenhouse then shot him once, killing him.

Anthony Huber Kyle Rittenhouse Kenosha shooting
Anthony Huber attacking Kyle Rittenhouse with his skateboard.

Yesterday the jury got to hear from the only one of the three Rittenhouse attackers who survived. Gaige Grosskreutz had approached Rittenhouse after Huber had been shot. He was holding a handgun which he was carrying illegally.

Not only has Grosskreutz not been charged for carrying a firearm illegally, the police have shown surprisingly little curiosity about any evidence that may have been in his possession…such as on his phone.

But yesterday’s headline-making testimony came when Grosskreutz was asked about what happened immediately before Rittenhouse shot him.

Rittenhouse was still down on the ground. As Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse holding a GLOCK pistol, Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at him. Grosskreutz then backed away and raised his hands causing Rittenhouse to lower his rifle.

Gaige Grosskreutz Kyle Rittenhouse shooting
Gaige Grosskreutz raises his hands and backs away from Rittenbouse after first approaching him while holding a handgun.

Grosskreutz then approached him again and pointed the pistol at Rittenhouse. That’s when Rittenhouse shot him in the arm.

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi questions witness Gaige Grosskreutz about the moment he was shot by Kyle Rittenhouse during Rittenhouse’s trial in Kenosha Circuit Court, Monday, Nov. 8, 2021, in Kenosha, Wis. (Mark Hertzberg/Pool Photo via AP)

The defense, of course, asked Grosskreutz about the chain of events that lead up to Rittenhouse shooting him. Apparently the idea of perjuring himself in the face of clear video evidence didn’t appeal to him.

Grosskreutz’s testimony, as you can imagine, didn’t please the prosecutors. At all.

Maybe the most amusing aspect of this was how it was portrayed in the mainstream media.

It’s remarkable that four different editors used the same phrase to describe Grosskreutz in four stories written by different people. Quite a coincidence, huh?

Anyway, compelling evidence has been presented showing self-defense on the part of Rittenhouse in all three shootings that occurred that night. And this is still the prosecution’s case that’s being presented. The defense has yet to present its witnesses. Some observers, particularly after the Grosskreutz testimony, seem to think the case is now over.

Keep in mind, however, that Rittenhouse is facing a range of charges; first degree intentional homicide, first degree reckless homicide, attempted first degree intentional homicide, two counts of first degree recklessly endangering safety, possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, and failure to comply with an emergency order from state or local government.

The evidence regarding the three shootings so far should go a long way to negating the homicide-related charges. But this is a jury trial. Anything can happen. There will be a lot of media and political pressure on the jurors to find Rittenhouse guilty of something, at least one or more of he lesser charges he’s facing. Stay tuned.



Previous Post
Next Post


    • That tear is him realizing his ten *million* dollar lawsuit against the city of Kenosha, Wisconsin for “Failing to protect him” is going to fall flat on its face, and he’s likely facing a whopper of a legal bill.

      And maybe, he’s realizing he deserved having his bicep turned into a pink mist… 😉

      • This must have been on cross. The prosecution was still presenting their case, the defense hadn’t started their case yet when Grosskreutz admitted this.

        • Yes, like the Zimmerman case, nearly every prosecution witness has bolstered the defense. It’s what happens when the state has no case.

        • I can hear Rittenhouse’s defense attorney shouting out to the judge, “Permission to treat Mr. Grosskreutz as a hostile witness for the defense?!?!?”

        • Uncommon, I just left you a rather lengthy response to your suggestion yesterday about replacement parts in the Nashville pastor that tackled the gunman TTAG article… 🙂

    • If a thought cloud were above Grosskreutz’s head it would say, “I’d Rather Gone Fishing.” If a thought cloud were above the prosecutor’s head it would say, “Titanic.”

        • rant7, There won’t be any “adverse civil settlement. Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent. Self defense is his defense and a valid one.

        • Hey this shitbag had a permit to carry a gun. Let’s hear more about how permits keeps criminals like this ANTIFA fuck from carrying guns. You should of stayed gone.

    • “Lone Survivor” … A complete lie.

      To have four different editors used the same phrase confirms their collusion.

      They are not editors, nor journalist, they are propagandists.

      Once again the Fake News MSM prostitutes itself to the alter of “wokism”.

      • “They are not editors, nor journalist, they are propagandists”

        all on the same team and owned/controlled by the same people. and you are the enemy, in every generation.

        “confirms their collusion”

        oh this has been obvious for decades. remember “gravitas”?

      • He’s not the lone survivor. Lots of people around the shootings survived. He’s not even the lone surviving attacker. The initial attacker when Kyle was on the ground was a guy jumped up kicked
        Kyle’s elbow. He got away without being hit just before Huber attacked with the skateboard.

  1. “Keep in mind, however, that Rittenhouse is facing a range of charges; first degree intentional homicide, first degree reckless homicide, attempted first degree intentional homicide…”

    Its not automatically “not homicide” because a self defense environment or circumstance existed. The difference being mostly you had no other choice which still applies even with stand your ground. For example, one guy just threw a plastic bag at him and its sort of hard to claim you had no other choice but to shoot a person for throwing a plastic bag at you.

      • are you really as stupid as to assume because one person gets on the stand and says “yep, I pointed my gun at him” that they will not pull out all the stops to convict him on the charges.

        Are you saying, contrary to the video evidence, that the guy did not throw a plastic bag at him? Well great, why don’t you jump on your white horse, go to the court house and rush in and scream “Wait, i’m a keyboard lawyer from the internet, the video is a lie.”

        There is no state in the U.S. where its valid self defense to shoot a guy that throws a plastic bag at you.

        Are you really this friggin stupid.

        • Much more going on than just a plastic bag.
          rosenbaum threatened to kill kyle and or balch if those two were ever alone. The compound that with rosenbaum engaging in chasing kyle then move into a position to ambush kyle in the 2nd car source parking lot. ziminsky fires a round from his hand gun causing kyle to slow and turn around to assess where the shot came from, as kyle turned around rosenbaum was with in reach of the barrel of kyle’s rifle and attempted to grab the rifle in which kyle moved the rifle to evade the grasp of rosenbaum, fearing that rosenbaum would take the rifle from kyle and get killed by his own rifle, kyle brought the rifle to target and fired off 4 rounds.

        • @John Locke

          Circumstance and environment does not always self-defense make. It depends on the jury.

          I saw the videos.

        • Mr. bag thrower tried to disarm rittenhouse…. are you THAT stupid? yes, yes you are…

        • someone trying to wrest your gun from you in a hostile situation is an entirely different issue…

      • If a (far) lower charge ‘sticks’, Kyle has spent a few months in jail already, so he has a good shot of walking out of that court a free man, with time served.

        If that happens, Kyle better be looking over his shoulder for a long-assed time, since some Leftist Scum may be looking to make a name for its self… 🙁

    • Tell me you haven’t been watching the trial, without saying that you haven’t been watching the trial.

      “Plastic bag”. LOL.

    • “Its not automatically ‘not homicide’ because a self defense environment or circumstance existed”

      you’re talking law and justice. but this is politics and power. they can’t legitimately convict him, but they can deem him convicted.

      and to them this is morally legitimate, because rittenhouse opposed them, therefore in their morality he’s already guilty and the court trial is just a formality to befuddle the cattle.

      • rant7, No, they can’t “deem him guilty”. Juries have a tendency to see through the b/s of a prosecutor. As far os the media is concerned, Kyle is guilty because he exercised his inherent legal right to self defense.

        • “No, they can’t ‘deem him guilty’.”

          again, you’re presuming a functional (by your definition) justice system that serves the interests of the citizens (by your definition). but that’s not how THEY see it. to them, a functional justice system that serves the citizens is one that gives them what they want, when they want it.

          it’s interesting to watch, really – you and they will say exactly precisely the same thing, but you’re not talking about the same thing at all.

        • rant7, Funny how you cherry picked what I wrote. AGAIN, juries have a tendency to see right through a thumped up prosecution.
          You seem like the kind of guy who see every glass half empty?

        • the left is trying to say he went there with the intent of shooting someone..would appear to be the core of their case…intent…absent that, their case is weak…

      • True but it will be interesting to see if the common rabble (all of us) put up with the narrative like what sort of happened with Zimmerman. I don’t see this one being as easy a sell even for the liberal crowd.

      • rant7, sorry for the typo. Did you get the drift? As to the “glass” are you drunk?

      • but they can deem him convicted

        rant7: I realize it was over 40 years ago but my internal computer still functions on all cores and I’ll be damned if I can recall any reference to “deemed convicted” without an actual conviction in ANY Criminal Law book I ever read… Are you a criminal attorney? Could you possibly cite case law for my reference? I know things change and I don’t keep up with a lot of legal stuff any more unless it pertains to me and this seems like something I need to know about… Anyway if rant7 can’t provide that information perhaps one of our practicing Barristers could point to a particular case or statute or anything other than “because I said so”, it would be greatly appreciated…

        • rant7 is an ‘evil jooze’ conspiracy type. He tries to dance around actually saying jooze but he might as well.

          He is supportive of fascism and believes 2a only applies if you are part of a well regulated milita. You know, goose stepping and all that tripe.

          He wants to appear all deep and mysterious. But he comes from the shallow end of the gene pool.

        • “believes 2a only applies if you are part of a well regulated milita. You know, goose stepping and all that tripe”

          you make my points.

        • rant7, NO, he is not making your points. He’s showing that you haven’t any working knowledge of the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment. AGAIN, have you bothered to read the Heller and McDonald decisions. Or Wren v DC? Clearly you haven’t any idea what a ‘preamble’ is and it’s function in communication.

        • Supreme court has already ruled in the District of Columbia v. Heller that the second amendment extends to personal protection outside of a well regulated militia such as self defense or protecting ones home. The intent of the amendments is to protect individuals.

    • There are five elements to self defense law in every state in the US, which come from English common law. The threat must be 1) imminent and 2) unavoidable, the defender must be 3) innocent, and their actions must be 4) reasonable and 5) proportional. If WI has a “stand your ground law” then that merely remove any duty to retreat if you’re in a place where you are legally allowed to be. The other four elements still apply, and the prosecution must disprove at least one of them BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT.

      The prosecution testimony and evidence has already established that the threat to Rittenhouse was imminent and unavoidable, and that his actions were reasonable and proportional (he only shot at those who were posing a direct threat of death or great bodily harm, and at no other bystanders). The only remaining element was innocence. I assume the state is trying to show that he was illegally in possession of the rifle, or somehow provoked the attacks.

      • PapaSierra, Could not agree with you more. The threat to Rittenhouse was surely iminent. The aggressor pointed a gun at him. The other aggressor swung a club at him. It was certainly “unavoidable”. He was certainly innocent as he did not perpetrate any aggression until he was attacked. It is certainly reasonable to meet deadly physical force with deadly physical force. Proportional? Certainly again, deadly physical force met deadly physical force. And again, proportional. As it stands I don’t think that the “prosecution” have a chance of proving anything “beyond a reasonable doubt” .

        • The California instruction provides: “The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.” The implication from this rule is that if the threat is of an imminent serious bodily injury or death, deadly force is authorized.

        • Mark N. What has that to do with anything? A defendant can use as much force as is necessary to defend against danger. If someone is swinging a club at you, or pointing a gun at you, that is the “threat of an imminent serious bodily injury or death.” So what is your point?

      • Wisconsin does not have a stand your ground law. . Wisconsin also does not have an affirmative duty to retreat.

        • SYG is irrelevant when the victim is running away but overcome by his pursuers, and when the victim is literally on the ground, being jump-kicked at and pummeled with blunt instruments.

        • NOT my point… Just an FYI to a previous post… I’ve got a pretty good grip on Rittenhouse’s circumstances during the incident and have no problem with what he did, in fact were that me? There would have been several more dead or wounded…

        • seems as though retreating was all he was trying to do…certainly after the first incident…where he was caught by surprise…it would appear he had aroused their ire…by his previous actions to frustrate their efforts and they wanted revenge…the only hostile intent apparent here was directed against Kyle….

    • Try actually throwing a plastic bag. It will stop moving in inches and probably drop on your foot. The plastic bag was filled with rocks and intended to be a lethal weapon. Dipshit should have been imprisoned until the meat fell off his dead bones.

      • only of secondary importance…what’s telling is his attempt to wrest the gun away from Kyle…after displaying hostile intent both physically and verbally..

  2. Rittenhouse is going free.. and I can’t wait until he sues every mf’er who defamed, libeled and violated his civil rights… He’s gonna be a rich kid and plenty of $$$ to buy more guns and ammo.

        • Asset monitoring if one is of tinfoil headware preference. Admittedly it’s less of a stretch lately.

      • Garland here..Garland there…Garland, Garland everywhere….that guy is obviously a political tool….

        • Mmmmmmmm.. don’t think Garland was anywhere near the DOJ when “mad man” Kyle was terrorizing the streets of Kenosha or when the those dastardly Jan 6 “insurrectionists” were trying to kill all those poor defenseless Congressmen causing them to ruin perfectly good suits by soaking them in urine as they fled in fear for their very… Or, (like AOC who was nowhere near the Capitol) lied about it…

        • MADDMAXX, since when does self defense make you a “mad man”? Such references whether in quotes are not, feed the Socialist propagandists.

        • Yes Walter we have ALL seen your little rant about “sarcasm” and how much you dislike it… I could give a fuk less about what YOU think and anyone with more than two brain cells would take it for what it is and move on, to quote you “don’t tell me what to do, it won’t end well for you” sound familiar? (sounds like an ominous threat to me) … I gave you some good advice the last time you started this shit so allow me to reiterate… IF you do not find my comments helpful or useful then just simply DO NOT read them… Your admonishment is noted, snickered at and will be quickly forgotten, your reasoning is absurd and your intellect is questionable, however I am now convinced that you are NOT Vladacian… Have a nice day. (not telling you what to do just suggesting you try something different)

        • MADDMAXX, snicker all you want. I find your comments to be far from useful and unusually uninformative.
          I will continue to read as I deem fit and necessary and will respond again as I deem fit and necessary. Get use to it!

        • Get use to it!

          Actually Walter, I could give a fuk less whether you read my comments or not nor do I place an abundance of concern on how you “Find” them… Seems to me you once again could benefit from your own advice… Since I will continue to comment as I “deem fit and necessary” I would suggest that YOU (in your own words) “get USED to it!” (Fixed that for you)… Now where did I put those supersonic AR rounds?

        • MADDMAX, If you “could give a fuk less whether you read my comments or not nor do I place an abundance of concern on how you “Find” them” why are you responding?
          When I disagree with your “sarcasm”, be advised I will voice my opinion and where I can back it up with facts. Live with it.

        • Walter, you must live a sad, lonely, joyless existence… To carry on with your inane attacks upon someone you’ve never met, know nothing about and will never have the pleasure of meeting is just… well sad… I respond to your ignorance not because I care but because small minded people like you amuse me… You are in the category (though not quite at the level) of dacian or Miner, you have nothing really important to say but seem to consider yourself and authority figure… I respond to your ranting because it’s sooo easy to push your button and it is just too funny to watch you attempt to assert your imagined power over others… You are a clown that can be made to dance with a simple word and nothing more…

      • MADDMAXX, On the contrary, I live a very full life. I just don’t suffer idiocy willingly. I don’t give a rat’s behind if I’ve met you or not. Wannbes like you are a dime a doz. I know enough about you from your posts here to know that you think you have all the answers to all the questions whether of not there is even a question. You can put me in any category your little heart desires. That is your problem. Like I said, I don’t suffer idiocy. My power is my knowledge. It is too bad you are lacking in that area.
        Have a good day, and be sure to take your meds.

        • MADDMAXX, Sorry but I don’t dance with children. Nor with those of the male gender. But hey if that is your preference…go for it.

        • MADDMAXX You are here as well; does that mean you don’t have a life? Hmm, me thinks you dost protest too much.
          Keep posting. I just love it when someone like you shoots himself in the foot.

        • Actually (since you are obviously context challenged as well) that was in reference to your constant need to dance (and you continue to prove my point)… I’m here because the Harley Dealer is backed up and service on my motorcycle is taking longer than expected but as long as you continue to amuse me, all is not lost…

        • MADDMAXX, Oh, I see. What is good for one is not good for all, huh? I don’t dance to your tune. I stand where I stand. You can like it or take it on a hop.
          Imagine that. You are here because your “Harley Dealer is backed up on our motorcycle. ROFLAMO, have you been there at the dealer for two whole days now?
          You are either a liar or a fool. Name your own medicine?

        • See, you just can’t help yourself can you Walter? Hey Geof, my Troll is better than your troll. WAY easier to make this one dance… Dance Clown…

        • MADDMAXX ROFLMAOBT! You must be related to dacian. He’s a great one to play the race card even when it doesn’t exist.
          And you bet your posterior. I will be on you like WHITE ON RICE whenever I disagree with your vaulted opinions.