Proceedings just ended.
When I dropped into the livestream, defense was analyzing video from Kyle arriving at car lot, to when he ran out of lot.
- 3 perps (deceased, first shooter, and shooter’s wife) seemed positioned and awaiting Kyle’s arrival. Rosenbaum circles around cars to come up behind Kyle. Defense construes this as an “ambush”, prosecutor objects, objection sustained.
- Rosenbaum chases and assaults Kyle (throws stuff, shouts threats).
- First shooter fires; discussion does not note him doing so “at” Kyle.
- Video shown, evidence someone shouted “get the F out of here” at Kyle, and he proceeded to (crowd obviously becoming hostile to him for obvious reasons).
- Kyle leaves, defense tries to articulate that Kyle did not threaten anyone, [expert] witness (cop?) notes video of Kyle “slightly raised the firearm when something caught his attention to the left” - seemingly trying to impute a hint of malice on Kyle where it should show his restraint and control (preparing for a threat but still not being threatening).
Very clear this started as a matter of self-defense: Kyle exhibited no intent nor interaction regarding 3 initial perps at car lot, just wanted to pass them, and did not fire until pursued, threatened, attacked, cornered, and shot at; once that threat had ceased, he extracted himself from an obviously developing threat from the mob.
After jury & defendant leave, lawyers are arguing about objections. Prosecutor opened a door (regarding some statement made) and is now trying to slam it shut again (arguing that the exact wording means it is not admissible evidence), defense is prying it open (obviously is evidence introduced by the prosecution).
Thank you.
There was an interesting sequential review of the incident that was posted shortly after it happened. It has lots of links and videos - not sure how many are still active or may have been scrubbed.
Here’s a short excerpt:
Tactical Analysis:
During the two Engagements Rittenhouse was presented with a series of “shoot/no-shoot” situations. While it is difficult to be certain about the number of shots fired by Rittenhouse in the first Engagement, as near as I can tell he fired his weapon only when cornered or on the verge of being in a close physical contest with assailants larger and apparently stronger than himself. If anything he seems to have been too hesitant to fire in the first encounter. Absent a headshot at extreme close/near contact range (a very low probability shot in intense CQB) Rittenhouse likely would have been overcome by prison-hardened and clearly aggressively disposed Short Bald Subject.
In the close in photos depicting the Second Engagement Rittenhouse can even be seen exhibiting proper trigger discipline when confronted by the “hand-up” fake surrendering Grosskreutz. Having fired on Grosskreutz it would have been a simple matter to finish the job with a second center-mass shot, particularly given that Grosskreutz was still carrying his handgun (had I personally been in such a situation and seen the handgun I likely would have fired at least a quick follow-up and perhaps until the threat was all the way down rather than hopping around with a firearm still in hand). Rittenhouse, however, declines to do so (perhaps he did not even see the handgun) and instead recovers to kneeling and then his feet and departs to the north. At least in the second engagement Rittenhouse’s fire discipline is surprisingly controlled given the apparent stress of being pursued and battered by an angry mob.
Rittenhouse prevailed in at least four physical encounters, at least one if not two of which involved contests for control of his weapon by larger, presumably stronger assailants. Rittenhouse’s use of a tactical sling would seem to have been of enormous help in permitting him to retain control of his weapon in the physical contest with Huber.
To the extent Rittenhouse made tactical mistakes the most obvious would seem to include:
1. Entering an (Kenosha) environment alone and without apparent support. While Rittenhouse may have been casually associated with some of the groups on the ground it seems to be the case that his association was struck up on his arrival, not a pre-existing one.
2. Allowing himself to become physically isolated and surrounded at the scene of Engagement 1. It is not clear what precipitated the initial conflict with Short Bald Subject, but in this Rittenhouse appears to have been rather unlucky to become entangled in a dispute with one of the more volatile individuals on the scene. This said, it should be entirely foreseeable that volatile individuals would be at the scene of a riot or civil unrest.
3. Failing to remain as situationally aware as possible, particularly to threats behind him, and permitting himself to be repeatedly overtaken from the rear in between Engagements 1 and 2. Prior to going to the ground at the beginning of Engagement 2, Rittenhouse allowed no less than three attacks from the rear which resulted in physical contact. Rittenhouse was lucky that none of these attacks disabled him or rendered him helpless in the face of the pursuing mob. The first battery to the back of Rittenhouse’s head, in particular, had the potential to take Rittenhouse out of the fight for good. If, in fact, Huber and Short Bald Subject were associated, it isn’t hard to imagine Rittenhouse would have come out badly on the wrong side of Engagement 2 if Huber was the vengeful type.
Legal Analysis (Note: I am a lawyer but certainly not yours, and not in Wisconsin):