Posted on 11/09/2021 4:36:22 AM PST by Candor7
KENOSHA, Wisc. — It was a bad day for key prosecution witness Gaige Grosskreutz, the third person shot by Kyle Rittenhouse during the Kenosha riots last year, during cross-examination by the defense on Monday as they got him to admit he lied several times about what happened in the aftermath of the shootings.
Grosskreutz testified he was carrying a Glock 27 handgun the night of the shootings despite the fact his concealed carry license was expired. Grosskreutz added he saw Rittenhouse running away after hearing gunshots. Grosskreutz said when he found Rittenhouse running away and asked him if he shot someone, Rittenhouse told Grosskreutz he was going to the police. Grosskreutz said he grabbed his handgun because he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter.
Grosskreutz claimed Rittenhouse racked the bolt back on the AR-15 while he had his hands in the air.
"I was never trying to kill the defendant," Grosskreutz said.
Upon cross-examination, defense lawyer Corey Chirafisi got Grosskreutz to admit he lied to police on several occasions:
Grosskreutz told officers shortly after the shooting that "I dropped my firearm." The defense said that was a lie because Grosskreutz chased after Rittenhouse and he had just testified he pulled out his gun while running. The defense got Grosskreutz to admit in court in the lawsuit he has filed against the city of Kenosha, he is demanding $10 million for damages, he failed to mention he was armed when he was shot by Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz said it is not true to say he chased after Rittenhouse. Chirafisi then showed Grosskreutz a picture of him grabbing his handgun while running toward Rittenhouse. Even after being shown the photo, Grosskreutz still said he was not chasing Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz initially told police he shouted to Anthony Huber to stop hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard. When pressed by Chirafisi, Grosskreutz said "with the benefit of hindsight" that is not true.
If that was not enough, Grosskreutz then agreed with Chirafisi that Rittenhouse did not shoot until after Grosskreutz put his hands down and advanced toward Rittenhouse while pointing his Glock at Rittenhouse.
Gaige Grosskreutz probable FBI provocateur.
Agree wholeheartedly. I still shake my head in disbelief, after seeing all of the video evidence, that he was even charged.
He was chased by an angry mob, fell to the road in a vulnerable position, and never fired his weapon except against an attacker. He never even pointed his weapon at anyone unless that person was actually attacking him (something, as far as I know, the defense has failed to mention but needs to be).
He also lied about not being a member of one of the Revolutionary movement where he spoke.
The turn and respond only to the jury “tic” was odd too.
Love to see the body analysis of his testimony.
Lies openly on the stand with impunity, then destroys the case with the truth.
The prosecutor is safe. Under the system set up by the legal industry, all the prosecutor has to have is “proabable cause” and he is free to ignore affirmative defense. That standard allows this sort of literlal nonsense case, but the legal system is fine with the nonsense. Pays by the hour, as they say>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHat you say is true according to law but the facts show that the law you recite does not apply. There is no probable cause. And there is malice.
But in this prosecutors case, malice can be proven, which makes the procecutor “NOT SAFE.” As a matter of fact the prosecutor is a poliotycal prosecutor who maliciously brought this prosecution , maliciously tried to convince the court that evidence of “victim agression” was not probative, so as to be excluded, and other factors.
In fact its a political trial which was maliciously brought. WITH MALICE.
No prosecutor is protected from that. Because we have rights of second amendment, and due process, both abused by this prosecutor, the malice is apparent for any jury to see. Kyle will have a million dollar case once he is exhonorated, against both the prosecutor and the false complainant / witness.
Not only that. The prosecutor can be disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct in ignoring exculpatory evidence,real evidence, the clear videos of the defendent acting in self defence in all three instances of his fire arm’s use.
All of the YouTube legal analysts are saying that the Defense should be asking for a directed verdict of Not Guilty after Grosskreutz’s testimony.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is standard procedure for criminal defence attorneys. If they do not ask for a directed verdict at the end of the prosecutions case, it can be grounds for a claim of legal malpractice.
In this case they stand a good chance of getting a directed verdict of Not Guilty.
100% CORRECT. I’ve watched most of the trial and this is a political charging. It’s remarkable that there’s no apparent shame among the prosecutors. Their jobs are safe no matter how poorly their perform.
We need a few more ‘Rittenhouses’ around these Antifa riots. a half dozen or so around the country and suddenly these worthless POS punks aren’t so brazen when they start acting like feral dogs.
There are probably several on the jury who believe no one should own a gun at all and that nothing bad would have happened (aside from the town getting torched) had Kyle not shown up with the gun.
I hope it is proved that the fake medic is six kinds of stupid to appear at this trial. The judge certainly should direct that several charges be leveled against him, and he should be leaving the courtroom for a cell.
This judge cannot apologize enough to Kyle for this farce.
Kyles gonna be rich, Have you ever been sued or divorced? Civil courts are evil soul sucking chambers of lies and more lies, lawyers are the only ones guaranteed a payday.
What good does it do to gain the entire world if you lose your soul.
A God fearing man would let God handle it
That is not correct.
In WI law, the presumption is that the defendant was in fear for their life, and was justified to use deadly force.
The prosecution must prove that they were not in order to convict.
Now, weather the jury follows the law is another question.
We’ll see what happens. The word “malice” has varied meanings under the law. None of those meanings is the same as plain, regular usage.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malicious+prosecution
Because the system allows the prosecutor to pretend self defense does not exist as a matter of law (meaning he is allowed to ignore any and all facts that suggest self defence, regardless of how clear or obvious they are),all he needs is the shooting, which is not contested. There is his probable cause.
It’s utter nonsense, but that is the rule of law, nonsensical. The nonsensical rule absolutely protects the prosecutor.
The system is rigged. Prosecutors are STRONGLY protected, and for the most part free to do very bad things without repercussion. The system is DESIGNED this way, under bad assumption that prosecutors will by and large be decent people. Falls apart when the assumption is false.
The only duty a prosecutor has in exculpatory evidence is to disclose it to defendant. Brady et seq cases set that. Failure to produce Brady material affects the trial, but has no persoanl ramification against the prosecutor.
The ongoing ethical duty to disclose facts that prove innocence, after a guilty verdict, don’t have play before a guilty verdict.
Narratives are never debunked. They just “haven’t found the proof yet.” Wonder how big the riots will be if and when Rittenhouse is acquitted.
Such a sweet-looking kid. Must be he’s a racist./s
“the clear videos of the defendent acting in self defence in all three instances of his fire arm’s use.”
Not quite. There was no video of the first shooting.
“He was chased by an angry mob, fell to the road in a vulnerable position, and never fired his weapon except against an attacker. He never even pointed his weapon at anyone unless that person was actually attacking him...”
To this day, I am still impressed by the way that young man handled himself in such a justified, smooth/methodical and righteous way. That video should be included in future self-defense lessons as THE WAY to defend yourself.
Do the facts even matter in this case? It depends upon how biased the jury is.
I agree -- incredible discipline. Even the two who started to advance on him (including Grosskreutz) but backed off, Kyle would raise his weapon, then lower it without firing -- rock solid.
Me, personally, after being attacked, I probably would have fired as soon as someone advanced on me. Maybe he should have, because you never know what's going to happen, but it proves one thing -- he wasn't there just to shoot people, as the prosecution and the Left would have you believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
