Prosecutor: "You don't know, as you are sitting here today, what Mr. Rosenbaum was thinking, do you?"
Richard McGinniss: "Do you mean at the time of the shooting?"
Prosecutor: "Yes".... "Or at any time in his life." You have no idea...what Mr. Rosenbaum was ever thinking"
Richard McGinniss: "I never exchanged words with him, if that's what your question is."
Prosecutor: "So your interpretation of what he was trying to do, or intending to do, or anything along those lines was complete guess work...Isn't it?"
Richard McGinniss: "...Well, he said 'fuck you' and then reached for [his] weapon."
BOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!* This has to be the greatest reply I've heard in such a long time.
Well, he said 'fuck you' and then reached for [his] weapon."
You can't make this shit up. It is so fantastic.
*Richard McGinniss, not Rittenhouse
But yeah that part was awesome.
Thanks. Without being able to watch it, why would those questions be directed at a journalist? It seems not to make sense.
The journalist was right there when Rosenbaum died and he was the one who saw the chase leading up to Rittenhouse turning and shooting Rosenbaum in self defense. Rittenhouse hasn’t been on the stand and likely will not be.
Why won’t he be on the stand?
Well we have this thing, the 5th amendment, that prevents you from being compelled to testify against yourself.
Prosecutor usually wouldn't call defendant as a witness because they can just not answer any questions and then the defense could ask them whatever questions they wanted to help their case.
He should never, in any circumstance, go upon that stand.
Unless it’s in the 100% opposite direction than it is right now. I’m hoping it will never get to that.
You don't need a weapon to kill someone. And he was trying to get Kyles weapon when he got shot.
It's misattributed above in that Rittenhouse is not the witness. It, by the ADA (prosecutor above) repeatedly established in the same questioning that Rosenbaum had no weapon.
The [his] above is not stated as "his" but as "Mr. Rittenhouse"
It should also be noted that McGinnis is a witness called specifically by the PROSECUTOR to build the state's case. This, among other parts, has not gone well for the ADA.
No we know he will not. As an attorney i can tell you you never let your client testify in a murder trial unless you have almost no real defense and you need a hail mary.
Why? Because if you have a decent defense there is very little to gain and a TON to lose by putting up there.
I believe there is video or photo showing rosenbaum with a heavy chain. Not a firearm, but a weapon.
You should edit your post to reflect this correction.
Done.
Who is Richard McGinniss? Got it. A journalist/witness.
Should be a mistrial due to the jury tampering.
Charges should be dropped due to the FBI destruction of evidence not to mention the painfully obvious self-defense.
Yep. The FBI needs to be ended as an agency.
Screw a mistrial. He will be found not guilty after today's testimony.
A mistrial would mean he can be tried again. Being found not guilty is the final word on this.
Itself defense is totally obvious and on video. I haven't followed this until now but just saw the video. He was literally running away towards police for help and was attacked by multiple assailants from behind. He stopped a threat on his lifecwhen they gave him no option to flee, and their intent was clear. He then continued to police help. The victim blaming here is bizarre and can only be attributed to bias against his open carried rifle that the attackers were probably intending to steal.
According to our resident glued to the tv watching this trial, that wasn't Rittenhouse, it was Richie McGinniss, the journalist. Still a great response.
Yea, I'm hearing that.... But, why would the journalist be asked these types of questions?
He was standing a few feet away and was a witness.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/juror-dismissed-rittenhouse-trial-joke-about-jacob-blake-shooting-2021-11-04/
Because he was a witness.
Yea, many others have made this known to me. It is still a really great answer though. Too bad it wasn't Kyle Rittenhouse himself. I was only able to listen to cuts of this. It was indeed a journalist who was being cross examined by the prosecutor. One has to admit the questioning is as if it was Kyle Rittenhouse himself. Why the prosecutor ask if the witness questions like this? It completely fooled me in believing it had to be Kyle himself answering this.
The witness has probably completed multiple private depositions where the low paid overworked criminal prosecution interns summarized his deposition as " witness says pedophile guy had an ill intention towards Rittenhouse". This lawyer is trying to show that witness has no way of knowing pedophiles intention with hilarious results. This attorney did not do his homework and it shows.
You're giving too much credit to the prosecutor. They have a bottomless access to tax payer money. It is the defense that is strapped to limited funds. In the end, you are correct in the obviousness of this case. Self defense... I can't think of any better example of it.
I'd love to see this video. HAHAHAHAHA The prosecution's case is completely done for now.
Listen to Tracy Beans interview at about the 48 minute mark. Enjoy.
You sure that is right timestamp? Audio is only 50 minutes long. I checked todays and it wasn't talking about it at 48minutes.
It is 52:59 minutes long. Right before the end..... 48 minute mark.
This time there is only one yoot on trial. Not the 2 yoots.
The 2 hwat? Lol - love that scene!!
Did you says yoots?
He skinned that smoke wagon and found out.
And unicep just stood there and bled
Yeah no I can’t read his mind only his actions
Where is that clip? Sounds awesome!
Here at the 48 Minute mark.
This is great, but result of this trial could still be another brick in the wall from the NWO that says justice need not apply.
👌
Where the hell was the prosecutor even trying to go with this? Only mind readers can defend themselves with a gun?