Big Stuff in the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

BUCK: Clay, some pretty big stuff coming down here on the Kyle Rittenhouse front. We talked about that a little bit last week. That trial’s going on up in Wisconsin, so we actually could —

CLAY: Ask Ron Johnson about it.

BUCK: But the Kyle Rittenhouse trial now has an audio moment that we’re loading in right now for the show. We’ll come to it maybe in the next hour if we don’t have it right now. But it does seem that there is at least pretty… You and I have heard the audio. Essentially, one of the guys admits under questioning that he shot, that Kyle Rittenhouse shot in self-defense because somebody was pointing a gun at him.

CLAY: For everybody out there we told you last week that essentially this case was going to come down to was this legitimate sentence or not, and there were two men who were shot and killed. There was another man who was shot and survived. And the man who was shot and survived — just on the witness stand — acknowledged that the reason why he was shot was because he was pointing a gun at Kyle Rittenhouse.

Now, for people out there who may not have been paying a lot of attention this was the Kenosha, Wisconsin, riots. This 17-year-old kid, Kyle Rittenhouse, was out on the streets on that night in question. He claims that he was shot at and threatened for his life and fired back as a result, and the surviving member here of the people that is (chuckles) on the trial right now just admitted on the witness stand that he was pointing a weapon at Kyle Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse fired.

BUCK: One of his attackers.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: The person attacked him. This is on video, too. This is one of these things where the initial exchange, they don’t have quite the same degree of clarity in the video, the first shooting. But what happened was there was this mob, and they became enraged at Rittenhouse, and he had an semiautomatic rifle, looks like an AR-15, and they run at him, and they physically attack him.

One of them has a gun, one of his attackers has a gun in his hand, the one that we’re now talking about who came forward in court and said, “Yeah, I pointed my gun at him.” If someone can point a gun at you when you have a gun, while they are attacking you, and you cannot shoot that person in self-defense, there is no such thing as self-defense! This is about as clear an instance — again, assuming that all the facts are right, but the facts aren’t really in dispute, at least about this incident.

CLAY: Here we’ve got the audio. Listen to this. This is as close as you can get, basically, to A Few Good Men in a courtroom, the “you can’t handle the truth” moment. This is one of the men who was shot by Kyle Rittenhouse on the stand. Listen carefully. This basically is… There’s a picture, by the way, of the prosecution, the attorney with his hand in his — with his face in his hands right after this answer. But listen.

LAWYER: That’s a photo of you. Yes?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

LAWYER: Okay. That’s Mr. Rittenhouse?

DEFENDANT: Correct.

LAWYER: Okay. Now, you’d agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, correct?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

LAWYER: Okay. And once your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, that’s when he fires. Yes?

DEFENDANT: No.

LAWYER: Sir, look, I don’t want to… Does it look like right now your arm is being shattered?

DEFENDANT: That looks my bicep being vaporized, yes.

LAWYER: Okay, and it’s being vaporized as you’re pointing your gun directly at him. Yes?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

LAWYER: Okay. So when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired. Right?

DEFENDANT: Correct.

LAWYER: It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced at him with your gun — now your hands down pointed at him — that he fired. Right?

DEFENDANT: Correct.

BUCK: He ordered the Code Red, Clay. He ordered the Code Red. He’s saying it under oath right now. You can’t have a situation like this where you point a gun at somebody and not expect them to defense emphasis. This guy is basically saying I got shot he has to mitt because they had individual if he didn’t have video they’d obviously say something else. Yeah, he was pointing a gun at him. What else is there to say?

CLAY: This is where the defense attorney should turn to the judge and ask for a sidebar conference and say, “Your Honor, you’re accusing my client of murder here and also of assault. This is, by the words of this man himself, clear self-defense. He has now testified under oath that he was pointing a weapon at my client when he fired. ” This is not even something that a jury should get to decide. By matter of law, there is no crime that occurred, at least in the shooting of the man who was armed and pointing a gun at him.

BUCK: You what I said last week. To me, you look at the video, you look at the facts of the case, it’s not as much that Kyle Rittenhouse should be found not guilty. It’s that Kyle Rittenhouse should never have had to go to trial because the prosecutor shouldn’t have brought the case — at least the case of involuntary manslaughter or whatever the charges are, shouldn’t have brought the case in the first place. And when you get a moment like that, well, that shooting certainly looks like it’s not gonna be for any fair-minded jury… But do we have a fair-minded jury, Clay? Do we know?

CLAY: That’s my argument. That’s my argument, Buck, this is not even a question for a jury because it’s now a question of the law. When somebody says, “I was pointing a gun at you,” you have the right to use self-defense.

BUCK: You think that judge is gonna step in, though? Unlikely. We’ll see.