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.

      • 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?

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • OOOOHHHHHH, you are one intimidating badass but I really don’t care what you do. You’re a minor nuisance and an amusement… Bike’s ready tomorrow, weather is great so I hope you’ll understand if I seem to be ignoring you. Now I understand your three year old mentality requires you to have the last word and this line of bullshit is beginning to bore me so go for it… Looking forward to future moronic “attacks” from you…

        • MADDMAXX, Ohhhhh, Poor baby. You feel intimidated? ROFALMOBT! You have spend how many days at the Harley dealership? Did they provide a bed and breakfast for you? LOL. You really don’t have to take your bicycle to a Harley dealership to get repaired. Are they putting training wheels on it for you? If I have a three year old mentality it is to deal with your 2 1/2 year temper tantrums. You see sometimes you have to get down to a child’s level.
          I’m not “attacking” you. I’m just pointing out your childish behavior.

        • you are one intimidating badass

          THAT, Wally III, is what we call sarcasm… I have cats that are more intimidating than you…

        • MADDMAXX, Nah, I bet you are now lying. You do feel intimidated. You keep having to come back and respond. You are more fun than a barrel of monkeys.
          A cat person, huh? Figures, you can’t handle a dog. You would have to learn how to walk them or put them out in the yard all as clean up the yard and take care of them. Being a “cat person is a sign of a lazy individual. (NOT SARCASM) Cats are independent and require little care other than feeding and emptying their litter box. Do you use that litter box with it?

  3. I think he’s going to be in trouble on some of the lesser charges, like possession of a rifle under age 18 (legal in his home state, if I recall, but not Wisconsin). On the other hand, everything else looks like pretty clear-cut self-defense.

    • That possession charge is iffy. It’s convoluted reasoning, convoluted text, based on several laws passed separately in several different sessions of the state’s legislature. When you read it all literally, Kyle would only have been in trouble if he were in possession of a short barrelled rifle or shotgun. God only knows how the prosecution and the defense are going to present all that to the jury. If we knew anything about the jurors, we might make a guess how that will be decided.

      • If it gets that stupid, Kyle would make a sympathetic case for arguing such a statute violates 2A. I bet they won’t wish to take that chance, will drop the case.

    • Possession of a long gun by a minor, provided that it is NOT short-barrelled, is not unlawful under the WI “possession of dangerous weapons by minors” statute.

        • I suck at typing on my phone keyboard. (I blame being a Southpaw, and being oppressed by right-handed privilege.)

        • Me too! I’m old though…rarely use the puter. Do you have a lefthanded monkey wrench?!?🙄

        • Nah, let’s blame the tiny keyboards. I’m a righty and struggle with it too. Although, there has to be a certain je ne sais quoi about being oppressed, since so many otherwise blessed (er, privileged) folks claim to be victims of some impalpable privilege.

        • It’s not Chip saying it Larry, it is Wisconsin’s convoluted as hell law that reads like it was written by a monkey in heat while having a psychological meltdown.

          Statute states he was good, as long as he wasn’t in possession of a short barreled rifle or shotgun. Proprietorial discretion I guess, has been pushed since moment one to ‘very creatively’ reinterpret that law.

        • Read the statutes, Larry. That’s exactly what they say. A rifle (or shotgun) doesn’t fall under the “minor in possession of deadly weapons” statute unless it is short-barrelled (or unless the minor is using the rifle to hunt without a license).

    • bingo. “we can’t have this kind of disorder in our streets”, etc, meaning of course rittenhouse’s kind – antifa disorder is protected.

      • More likely a dismissal of some or all of the homicide/attempted homicide charges, with the rest of the lesser charges going to the jury. The judge seems to be rather harsh on the prosecutor so far. But then again, this prosecutor has a reputation for overcharging his cases,, which the judge certainly knows. That is why the three people who were shot are not allowed to be referred to as “victims.”

    • Yeah, I’m thinking when the prosecution rests, the defense ought to seek outright dismissal since there has been no evidence of a crime.

  4. Of course, Grosskreutz isn’t being charged with attacking Rittenhouse. Assault with a firearm, or even a possession crime. SO back-assward, but not surprising.

    Time for a new a holiday t-shirt. “Rittenhouse Beer” with crossed ARs on the mug, an arm holding the mug with a chunk of bicep missing, and a tattoo on the firearm that says KYLE WUZ HERE, and a partial tattoo on the forearm that says, HONESTY IS…

    • “SO back-assward”

      in their morality, they are the reason the universe exists – the universe (including you) is created for their benefit. rittenhouse violates that, so that means he’s evil. to them, it’s not backwards at all.

      • rant7,

        I am glad to see that someone else understands the mindset of the “other side”.

        In their minds, they are good and right and superior and, by definition, everything that they do is good and right. And the corollary, by definition, is that “others” are bad and wrong and inferior and everything that “others” do in opposition is bad and wrong.

        Saying it another way, in their minds there is no objective standard of right and wrong. Rather, whether or not something is right or wrong is a function of the identity of the person doing it.

        • uncommon_sense Sure doesn’t look like you understand right from wrong. I fully understand the that Socialist don’t understand right from wrong. And I question your commitment to righteousness.
          That little ditty about Bob and whoever, is inconsequential. You are right the aggressor is dead wrong. No question.
          As to you calling them “Progressives”, I have to laugh. They are in fact REGRESSIVE. Proponents of a failed economic system.
          Ditch the equivocation. It doesn’t become you.

        • efforts to oppose them..and their agenda..must be crushed…often in the harshest way possible…witness those Jan 6ers languishing in soltary confinement for trespassing…or concerned parents being labeled domestic terrorists.

      • rant7, Rittenhouse “violated” NOT A DAMN THING. He has the absolute right to self defense and to use whatever “tool” might be available.
        As to “uncommon_sense”, there is right and there is wrong. If you can’t figure out the difference, that is on you.

        • “there is right and there is wrong. If you can’t figure out the difference, that is on you”

          dude. friendly advice. you’re not getting it, you’re not following the conversation at all.

        • rant7 Regret to inform you. I am NOT a “dude”. I’ve been out west, ridden .t horses and was a Town Marshall in Colorado. Lose the “dude” crapola.I’m following the “conversation” just fine. Like the rest of the Socialists here, you like to write your own versions of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment not to mention the right to SELF DEFENSE. Again, there is right and there is wrong. If you can’t figure out the difference then that is on you. The Courts have always found that the INDIVIDUAL has the absolute right to self defense.

        • Walter E Beverly III,

          I fully understand and support objective timeless standards of right and wrong.

          What you are apparently failing to realize is that the Far Left rejects objective timeless standards of right and wrong.

          Consider a demonstration for example. John is demonstrating and Bob is a counter protester. John hates Bob’s sign and punches Bob in the face.

          Conservatives and independents (and probably moderate Democrats) will say that John was in the wrong when he punched Bob. Period. Their political views are irrelevant.

          Progressives, however, will tell you that the political views of the involved parties determines whether that punch was right or wrong. Progressives will go on to tell us that John was in the right if he is a Progressive and Bob is not. Similarly, Progressives will go on to tell us that John was in the wrong if he is NOT a Progressive and Bob is a Progressive.

          Progressives will justify their non-standard “standard” claiming that Progressives and Progressive causes are morally superior to everyone and everything else. Therefore, anything that is not in lock-step with Progressive designs is inherently evil and deserves all of the abuse and punishment that Progressives can dish out.

      • frank speaking If you are stupid enough to attack someone who is armed with an AR-15, the wound you get is your own problem.

  5. What is the end game, here? The prosecution seems to be making the case for Rittenhouse.

    Danmark, smelly fish, and all that.

    • “What is the end game, here?”

      the endgame is that rittenhouse is convicted, then they wave it in your face and laugh at you.

        • Might not get to a Jury, lawyers argue for dismissal based on the prosecutions failure to prove ANY of the charges against Rittenhouse, Judge agrees case dismissed or, if it goes to the Jury, they come back “hopelessly” deadlocked same motion to dismiss Judge agrees WITH prejudice and it never happened…

    • Sam I Am,

      “What is the end game, here?”

      The end game is punishment and discouraging We the People from actively pursuing/promoting good.

      Even if the jury returns a “not-guilty on all charges” verdict, Kyle Rittenhouse will still have lost almost a year of his life (a good chunk of it in jail no less) and been deeply unsettled to his core all that time. I would say that he also had to spend a personal fortune on his legal defense but donations appear to have covered that. In short, as we have heard many times, “The process is the punishment.”

      • “The end game is punishment and discouraging We the People from actively pursuing/promoting good.”

        That is always the general perception. However….

        The prosecution is making the case for acquittal. That is suspicious.

  6. “Rittenhouse Didn’t Shoot Me Until I Pointed My Gun At Him”

    so obviously rittenhouse is guilty, and evil.

    don’t laugh, that’s what they think. seriously. until you get that then you won’t understand what is happening.

    • rant7 Only in the eyes of Socialists propagandists who don’t believe that we have the absolute right to self defense.

      • Which is exactly who brought the charges and is putting him on trial… I think this Judge put a twinge of fear in the “puppet masters” they will accept whatever happens here and live to fight another day… They took too much for granted when they stepped out into the light, they have been exposed and their end has begun but they’ll just scurry back into the shadows like the cockroaches they are and lick their wounds, assess the damages and start planning for another assault on our Republic…

      • frank speaking, Maybe you don’t know that anyone can make a citizens arrest in any state in the Union. As to that :”couple in St Louis”? There actions of “aggression” were the result of the rioting crowd being aggressive toward them.

  7. Justice served, for Grosskreutz. The other two attackers died too quickly, and too easily, in my opinion. Grosskreutz has had to go through a debilitating injury, multiple surgeries, and healing processes that will never complete. For the rest of his life, a healthy nine year old can beat him in arm wrestling. He probably fumbles every time he unzips to urinate. That arm is going to hurt for the rest of his life, reminding him that he was punked by a 17 year old boy. If he lives to be 100, there probably won’t be a day that he doesn’t reflect on his poor decisions regarding rioting in general, and Rittenhouse in particular.

    Perhaps God will have mercy on Grosskreutz. I can find none in my heart for him.

  8. George Floyd’s nephew posted a threat of violence on social media if the verdict wasn’t “the right one”. Court officers caught someone videoing the jurors as they got off the bus yesterday. Prepare for riots no matter the outcome.

  9. Yes. That’s kind of the point of turning the other cheek.

    But that admonition is given as a response to non-threatening offenses – not as a response to physical threat to life or limb.

    • “But that admonition is given as a response to non-threatening offenses – not as a response to physical threat to life or limb”

      reading through the new testament I don’t see that at all. can you give any reference supporting that?

      • Would need to dig out the Bible but I vaguely remember it had to do with interactions with Romans specifically soldiers that could direct citizens/subjects in menial tasks but had set limits on how hard they could work the commoners.

        • “vaguely remember it had to do with interactions with Romans specifically soldiers”

          nope, that’s an extraneous interpretation goal imposed on the text.

        • Could be, need to reread that section sooner or later but never got the sense that blind compliance to unjust or predatory authority was prescribed anywhere in the old or new testaments.

        • 7″never got the sense that blind compliance to unjust or predatory authority was prescribed anywhere”

          Romans 13 Every [a]person is to be [email protected] to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except [b]from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore [c]whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for [d]good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a servant of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

          now I think paul’s real target here was not government authority, but rather his own, he just covers that by talking about government as a front. nevertheless his statement is quite clear – and inexplicable, since every jew and every christian is familiar with the notion that governments may act against god. this verse leads directly to the european christian monarchist saying of “the king can do no wrong”, because by this verse he can’t, by definition.

        • Seems to fall somewhere between obedience to God/related earthly earthly servant authority and authority that allows you to live in their land without getting genocidal on your sect. Not sure I would say any of that applies with any flavor of modern totalitarianism as even basic civilization let alone anything moral fails at that point.

  10. Is there any actual medical evidence to support the claim that the .22 caliber bullet from an AR-15 rodent rifle “vaporized” his bicep?”. The guy simply is not so muscular that the bullet would have time or distance to tumble or expand. Contrary to popular mythology, bullets from rifles are not supersonic so there is no “hydrodynamic shock” effect.

    In contrast, a 12 gauge shotgun would have severed his arm even if loaded with “harmless birdshot.”

    • Elmer Fudd, For your edification, a .223 (not a 22) has a tendency to fragment if it hits bone or sometimes ever penetrating anything resisting its penetration. It doesn’t “vaporize”, it disintegrates. A .223 once it penetrates if it maintains is form have a tendency to “tumble” which creates the wound cavity. For your edification again, the speed of sound is approximately 770 mph. A bullet leaving a AR-15 rifle travels at the speed of over 1200 feet per second which is well in excess of 770 mph.

      • Speed of sound is around 1025 feet per second, 5.56 from a rifle is around 3000 fps, not 1200. And if you simply watch the damn video, you can see the bicep be vaporized.

        • I stand corrected. However the power of the .223 is due to that speed upon impact. I could care less if his ‘bicep was vaporized”. TFB! Either way, Elmer Fudd is full of “fudge”.

    • I realize and acknowledge that your go-to weapon of choice is the 12 gauge double barrel shotgun. However, you are wrong. The bullet from his rifle was in fact supersonic. Generally rated a 993 meters per second, 5.56mm ammunition would cause a disgusting injury. I read in previous reports that the round struck bone. Depending on the ammunition type and design, there is a very good chance that both the bullet and the bone shattered. Most likely, his arm was held together by the skin when he arrived at the emergency room that night.

  11. If this “justice” system had anything to do with justice, the prosecutor should have been fired, as a minimum. Preferably, arrested and charged with making a travesty of the justice system. But I’m not holding my breath.

    • In the justice system were have, the prosecutors are elected to office. The voters put this piece of misinformation in office. It is up to them to vote him out.

      • Besides being [theoretically] accountable to the voters, isn’t the prosecutor also accountable to the Bar Association and the court itself? When the hyped up charges are obvious, the defense is crystal clear, and the prosecutor’s witness is an admitted criminal (intent to murder), yet not charged, isn’t this criminal behavior by the prosecutor?

        • Alexander, yes and no to your accountability question. The prosecutor is accountable to the Bar Association but that accountability REQUIRES a written complaint to the Grievance Committee. As to the Court, in order for the judge to take action against a prosecutor, the judge can only refer to the matter to the appeals level or the governor of the state where the prosecution takes place. Upping the charges is a common prosecutorial procedure. It gives the prosecutor “breathing room” for a plea bargain. As to the prosecutor’s witness admitting to committing a crime, most prosecutors give the witness immunity when the prosecutor is going after what he “considers” the “bigger fish.”

        • The travesty of justice here is that our government considers a clear case of self-defense to be more dangerous [to the State] than a rioter intent on committing murder. This is the take-away from this trial. We are not a constitutional republic anymore – we are a fascist state.

  12. This trial needs a laugh track. What a shit-show it has been.
    Perhaps intentional. This way no matter the outcome the unhappy side can blame the half-assery. Kind of like the 2020 election.

  13. For those who have not been watching, the prosecution has demonstrated for the jurors that both Rosenbaum and Huber had their hands within mere inches of Rittenhouse’ weapon when they were shot. Not content that both men had charged at, and attempted to assault our hero, they demonstrated in detail that both men had their hands either on, or only inches away from the weapon. Incompetent fools tried to build some kind of reasonable scenario that justifies their hands on the weapon, but it falls flat. The only reasonable conclusion is, they attacked and attempted to disarm Rittenhouse.

  14. The “turn the other cheek” passage itself. “If someone strikes you on the right cheek…” implies a back-handed strike (i.e. using the right hand), which, then as now, is nothing more than an insult – not a threat or act of physical harm.

    • “if anyone would sue you and take your cloak, give him your tunic as well”, etc. the whole passage is about pliable compliance, not limited give-and-take according to circumstances.

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

    WHY? Every person in the fukkin world saw the video, saw Grosskreutz back away and saw Rittenhouse drop his gun AND they saw Rittenhouse reengage the asshole when he advanced on him a second time threatening with his “Glock”… Two of those people Rittenhouse shot were convicted felons in the act of assaulting him and the third was threatening him with a gun that he was carrying illegally and who later purportedly stated he regretted not being able to kill the kid… The Prosecution has access to way more video than the general public and the Prosecutor knew exactly what was going to happen at trial that’s why he threw his ADAs under the bus instead of standing for the state himself… Never should have gone to trial but they probably opened the door to a life of wealth and luxury for Rittenhouse… First the civil suit against the state then the media and after that? Book deals, movie rights, action figures, T-shirts and the beat goes on…

    • For the record, Grosskreutz denies making that “only regret” statement, and there were no witnesses brought forward to dispute him. I believe he said it, or words to that effect, but it’s not evidence in court.

      • “purportedly stated”… Paul, THAT big word means “alleged” or “said, without proof, to have taken place” I pretty much put it in there to avoid “splainers”… (I know splainers is not a real word)…

      • So what? The other guy was trying to take his weapon. That makes the other guy the aggressor. If it took emptying the clip into the bum to stop the threat, so be it.

  16. “when he advanced on him a second time threatening with his ‘Glock'”

    take note, gentlemen. this is how the left always operates in all matters. advance, calm the alerted enemy, then eliminate him by surprise. always. beware of trusting them in any matter.

  17. Today’s date in History: Nov.9, 1938 Nazi Brown Shirts and Hitler Youth. Looted and Burned Jewish Synagogues and Businesses in Germany and Austria on the Night, Forever known as “Krisstallnacht”. Reminiscent of the Activities of BLM and ANTIFA in Portland, Seattle and Kenosha.

  18. Lucky for a lot of people Kyle kept his head. There could have been a lot more people shot had it been someone else.
    As far as Grosskreutz carrying an unlicensed gunm, ? ” The Right To Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed ” so he’s legal on that in my books.

    • possum Grosskreutz was not legal in the eyes of the law and neither were you when you were arrested for carrying an illegal weapon.

      • “not usually comment “? You sound just like like dirtbags from DOJ and FBI in front of Congress when asked tough questions.

        • 007, Nice try! Most gun organs don’t comment n criminal matters. Are you going to find fault with them as well?
          Hey, if you do NOT want to be a part of the NRA, that is your choice. But one has to wonder what your real motives are.

        • Paul, no “Freudian slip”. Meaning gun organizations. But then again, you people have no idea of something called a short name.
          I wouldn’t try telling me what to do. It will not go well for you.

        • Actually the abbreviation for organizations is “ORGS”… ORGAN(s) is/are an entirely different thing… Just an FYI nowhere in the English language is “organs” noted as an acceptable abbreviation for “organizations” but you knew that didn’t you?
          There is one common way to abbreviate organization. It is, Org. For example, Org. of Economic Co-operation and Development The plural abbreviation of organization is orgs. OOPs guess it’s not going to go “well” for me…

        • MADDMAXX, Regret to inform you and provide you with some education. The abbreviation for organization is org. To make it plural, you add an s AFTER the period. Referring to anti-gun organs as “organs” is a Freudian slip as they think they are human. Are you “human” MADDMAXX? How is your bicycle with the new training wheels.

        • Must you CONTINUE to put your ignorance on display…
          You said: “The abbreviation for organization is org. To make it plural, you add an s AFTER the period.”

          What is the Abbreviation for Organization?
          Home » Abbreviations Dictionary » What is the Abbreviation for Organization?
          How do you abbreviate organization? There is one common way to abbreviate organization. It is, Org. For example, Org. of Economic Co-operation and Development

          The plural abbreviation of organization is orgs. (that’s ORGS.) NOT, as you stated, org.s

          FYI: It is not a bicycle with training wheels it is a Tricycle (three wheels) it weighs 1200 pounds, makes 126 horsepower and provides me with more enjoyment in an hour than you have in a week and my TOY probably cost more than whatever you call home… Later Clown…

        • MADDMAXX, so I made a boo boo. But MAXIMUS so did you. The Org plural is ORG.S. You seem to have forgotten that, conveniently I might add.
          And the plural of organizations is ORG.s.
          I’ll bet it’s a “tricycle.” Do you have blocks in the pedals so you can reach them? LOL? Is that 1200 lbs with you on it? How much of that is you? I guess you must have a lot of bells and whistles on your trike. Little things do amuse some little boys.
          See ya latter Clownie.

        • Okay WALLY III… You have officially moved 100% into the useless “dacian” column… The example I provided came directly from the “Abbreviations Dictionary” (ORGS.) is the common form used in the ENGLISH speaking world it might be proper in whatever Socialist shithole you live in to use org.s but not here… and yes my Tri-Glide Ultra DOES in fact have all the bells and whistles… Anyway this has gotten to the stupid level and you’re not that funny any more… See ya next time Clown… Now dance…

        • MADDMAXX, ROFLAMO. Now you are repeating yourself. That is a sure sign of frustration. Who wrote your “Abbreviations Dictionary”? Don’t tell me you made that one up too? How is that tricycle? Do you have any problem pedaling up hill? Carrying al that BS and all. So your trike has bells and whistles? How much did the bell cost? Did you get it at WalMart? A whistle is really cheap there too.
          Now you are dancing to my tune, MAXXIMUS!

        • FYI: Home » Abbreviations Dictionary » What is the Abbreviation for Organization?
          How do you abbreviate organization? There is one common way to abbreviate organization.
          It is, Org.
          For example, Org. of Economic Co-operation and Development
          The plural abbreviation of organization is orgs. (that’s ORGS.)
          look it up if you know how… WALLY

          Not dancing for anyone that’s YOUR job, just trying to help you not look so stupid at it…

        • MADDMAXX aka Maximus. You’re a dancin’ fool. I already admitted my mistake, but it seems you can’t bring yourself to admit yours.
          Hey, how is that tricycle? You still pedal or did you have Harley put an electric motor on it? ROFLAMO!

  19. I’ve been a Life member for decades and the leadership of the NRA has never shown any great concern for members (except at dues time) in fact in 1999 some of them “allegedly” referred to us as “Hillbillies and Hicks”… I’ve not participated or donated to them in over 20 years… Those gun safety and youth programs are good cover but are really a small portion of their annual revenues, likewise all their legal efforts (such as they are)… NRA is just a “cash cow” for leadership, nothing like it’s original intent or even what it was in the 60s/70s…

    • ^^^THIS^^^…That’s why even as a Life member. Purchased my membership decades ago. I spend all my $$$ with Local and State Organizations.

    • showing up in expensive suits at their annual conventions…while everyone else was wearing jeans and flannel shirts…was a dead giveaway of their priorities…was hard not to notice that

  20. Grosskreutze’s testimony confirms he was armed and engaged in 1st degree assault by pointing his handgun at Rittenhouse not once, but twice. He was also a prohibited person. He was not to be in possession of any firearm, period. This is clearly malicious prosecution. I hope when Rittenhouse is aquitted, Rittenhouse’s attorneys go after the prosecutor and every news agency who called him a murderer, when the actual video exonerates him. Oh, I almost forgot, “Let’s go Brandon”.

  21. White House tells businesses to ignore federal court order and implement vaccine mandate anyway

    You ask why Rittenhouse is being prosecuted? This fukked up out of control government lead by a braindead power mad wanna-be despot is exactly why… Because THEY think they ARE the law and all lesser creatures must bow down before them or be erased…

  22. so,..your flight was cancelled…and the store shelves are empty…think the mandates just might have something to do with that?….that and paying people not to work while good jobs go begging…..

  23. The Judge attempts a funny…

    “I hope the Asian food isn’t coming … isn’t on one of those boats from Long Beach Harbor,” he said. The comments, which appeared to refer to the supply-chain backlog at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif., were met with backlash from critics who said the judge made “a thinly-veiled anti-Asian comment,” questioning how Schroeder could oversee a trial with racial implications and make a joke at the expense of Asians and Asian Americans.

    Yeah the JOKE was not THAT funny, actually it was more of a “DELIVERY” issue (never mind) … My question to ALL the haters is simply … How the fuk does a WHITE kid killing two WHITE guys and wounding a third WHITE guy suddenly involve RACIAL implications? Those idiots might have been rioting under the Burn Loot Murder banner but, newsflash, that does not make THEM black.

  24. The judge in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse said on Friday he would not allow the jury to consider a lesser charge in the shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum. As the Prosecution realized their whole bullshit case was falling apart, they started scrambling for alternative endings even calling for a mistrial so they could come back later with another ADA who would still have the same shitty case and the same bad witnesses/evidence to work with…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here