Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Closing Arguments in Kyle Rittenhouse Trial. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired November 15, 2021 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[14:00:04]

THOMAS BINGER, KENOSHA COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: That statement, "He pulled a gun," was a lie. It's not true.

The defendant knew it wasn't true. He's lying to the crowd as he's running away. Joseph Rosenbaum didn't have a gun. The defendant knew he didn't have a gun. The defendant is lying to save his own skin, instead of going and trying to help the person that he has just shot and killed.

In Exhibit No. 3 Gaige Grosskreutz's Facebook Live video, he tells a similar lie. As they're running, Mr. Grosskreutz asks the defendant, "Did you just shoot someone?"

And the defendant says something about the police and then says: "I did not shoot anyone."

And this is similar to the lie that he told Jason Lackowski at exactly that same time as he passes Mr. Lackowski. He says: "I did not shoot anyone."

And that was established through Mr. Lackowski's testimony. And, again, I think it's worth emphasizing at this point that Jason Lackowski just met the defendant maybe an hour. This is about 11:50 at night. Mr. Lackowski got there about 10:45.

This is Gaige Grosskreutz running towards danger, running to try and help. This is Exhibit No. 3.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, what are you doing?

You shot somebody?

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who shot? Who shot?

Hey, what are you doing?

You shot somebody?

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who shot? Who shot?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BINGER: Listen to the second thing he says.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You shot somebody?

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who shot? Who shot?

Hey, what are you doing?

You shot somebody?

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who shot?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BINGER: It is hard to tell what his exact words are. I hear the word "not" pretty clearly in there, as in "I did not shoot" anyone. I did not do anything.

Jason Lackowski, he lies to. The crowd, he lies to. Gaige Grosskreutz, he lies to. So, at this point, the crowd is dealing with what they perceive to be an active shooter, someone who has just shot someone, who is still in possession of the gun, who is fleeing the scene. And how are we supposed to know where he's going next?

You know, all night that night, the crowd has been hearing the sound of gunshots. They have been hearing fireworks, firecrackers. But now someone actually has been shot. The crowd sees the defendant running with a gun. He's lying to them. He still has the gun. He's shot someone. This is provocation to them.

This is someone who has committed a criminal act and is putting people in danger. It is entirely reasonable for that crowd to believe at that moment that he is a threat to kill again. The defendant could have made it unequivocally clear what he was doing. He could have stayed at Mr. Rosenbaum body, helped protect him, help preserve his life, call 911.

As he's running, he could have announced to the crowd exactly what he was doing, told them. He could have fired warning shots to try and keep them away. He could have dropped the gun. He could have raised his hands and surrendered. He could have signaled to this crowd that he did not pose a threat anymore.

But everything he does is indicative of someone who is still a threat. Now, the defendant is going to tell you he wasn't. But from the crowd's perspective, how are they supposed to know any different? He does nothing to demonstrate to the crowd that he isn't a threat to kill again.

And it turns out he does. It turns out, within a few seconds, he does kill again.

[14:05:02]

I submit you to, ladies and gentlemen, that, in this situation, the crowd has the right to try and stop an active shooter. They have a right to protect themselves. The defendant is not the only one in the world who has the right to self-defense.

But what does the crowd do to try to stop the defendant? I submit to you -- and this is not a criticism of them -- but they use almost the least minimal, least intrusive means possible. They could have used deadly force against him. They could have shot at him.

But, instead, somebody comes up behind him and knocks his hat off. Anthony Huber comes up with a skateboard, and the defendant blocks it with his arm, and then the defendant falls to the ground on his own. No one knocked him down.

This man that the defense wants to call jump-kick man, he's got no weapons, no gun, no knife, no nothing, comes and tries to kick the defendant in the case. Anthony Huber comes back and tries to grab, actually grab the defendant's gun and tries to pull it away, because he's trying to disarm an active shooter.

And Gaige Grosskreutz comes running in, stops with his hands up in the air, until he sees and hears the defendant adjusting his weapon, as if preparing to fire again. And then what does Gaige Grosskreutz do? He reaches for the gun to try and disarm the defendant.

Gaige Grosskreutz had his own gun in his own hand. He could have aimed it and fired at the defendant. But he did not.

And you heard Gaige Grosskreutz testify about that, about how that is a decision that he was not prepared to make at that point in time. He is not the type of person who is just willing to take someone's life in an instant, unlike the defendant, who took two lives that night, very quickly, and seemingly very easily.

There is a video, Exhibit 5, which is the B.G. on the Scene video, which traces this entire incident which we call the second event. This is going to show you Mr. Huber, Mr. Grosskreutz, and the other individuals who are trying to stop an active shooter using what I would characterize as the least intrusive means possible.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SHOUTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BINGER: Someone knocks his hat off. Anthony Huber comes in with a skateboard.

In just a few seconds, the defendant kills one person, attempts to kill two more, and blows off Gaige Grosskreutz's arm. It's that fast.

This is someone who has no remorse, no regard for life, only cares about himself. And these folks that are coming at him, the jump-kick man, Anthony Huber, aren't armed. They're not a credible, imminent threat to his life. They are trying to stop an active shooter.

And they have a right to do so. Imagine if the crowd couldn't do that. Imagine if they weren't allowed to try and stop one -- someone in this type of situation.

After killing Anthony Huber, after severely wounding Gaige Grosskreutz, the defendant walks away like the hero -- like he's some sort of hero in a Western, without a care in the world for anything he's just done.

You know, it's interesting. This occurs about a block away from the police line, right down the road. If the defendant is so concerned about his safety, the police are right there. And, in fact, they pull up to this scene almost instantly. The defendant's got his medic bag on. He proclaims himself a medic.

He doesn't know at this point if Anthony Huber is dead or alive or capable of being saved. And yet the defendant offers no assistance, makes no attempt to try and help anyone else. All he cares about is himself.

We have taken that video. And we have broken it down into individual frames. And I want to take you through frame by frame the incident with Gaige Grosskreutz, because a lot has been made of Mr. Grosskreutz's motions and what he does and where he goes and things like that.

[14:10:08]

So I think it's helpful for us to take a look at this. So, this is Exhibit 80, beginning with frame 356.

At this point, you can see that Anthony Huber is staggering off after being shot in the chest. The wound has entered his lower left ribcage and has wound up almost exiting near his right shoulder. It has ripped through his ribs, his heart, his aorta. And he may not be technically dead, but he's going to be dead within a few seconds. He's stumbling away.

The defendant has the weapon pointed towards Gaige Grosskreutz here who, is cowering, hovering, hiding, covering his head, trying to stay out of the way. And I'm going to go frame by frame here slowly as we see the movement. Now we see the gun is moving down towards Gaige Grosskreutz. It is pointed directly at him from a distance of just a couple of feet.

Gaige Grosskreutz has his right leg planted as if he's pushing backwards, trying to get away. The gun is still pointed at him. The defendant here is going to adjust the gun, turn it over as if he's making some sort of adjustment on it. Gaige Grosskreutz testified that this was a movement that he

interpreted as the defendant preparing that gun as if it was going to fire again, as if clearing a jammed round, so that he could shoot it at Mr. Grosskreutz.

At this point, Mr. Grosskreutz is, I think, probably thinking to himself, if I can get away, I will, until he realizes that the defendant is getting ready to fire again.

In none of these frames is Mr. Grosskreutz's right hand with his Glock pistol pointed at the defendant. You can see Mr. Grosskreutz is actually backing up with his right leg.

Let me go back a couple of frames here. This is frame 444. You can see his right foot is on the ground, but it's starting to move back. Now, as I move forward in the frames, 447, his right leg is moved back. This is someone who is about to retreat. His hands are in the air. He's backing away from the defendant, until, as he's testified, he sees the defendant start to manipulate that gun in such a way that it makes Mr. Grosskreutz feel like he's about to be shot.

And only then does he take action. What action does Mr. Grosskreutz take? Does he hold that gun with both hands, the Glock that he's got, and point it at the defendant? No, never. Does he even take the gun with one hand and point it? No, never.

Instead, you can see him start to lunge in with his left arm forward. The gun is not in his hand. The gun is in his right hand. He's lunging forward, reaching for the defendant, probably reaching for the gun, probably trying to block the gun.

You can see now he's going to take a step with his right leg across the defendant's body, not directly towards the defendant, but across the defendant's body. As he's reaching in, almost swiping away at that gun with his left arm, he's bladed his body in such an a way to try and present as minimal a target as possible, which is probably what saves his life.

His right leg is about to hit the ground here. The gun, the AR-15, is pointed directly at him from just two, maybe three feet away. He's trying to shield himself with his left arm. And as we approach frame 500 here, the gun goes off.

At no point in this process is Mr. Grosskreutz pointing his gun at the defendant. Frame 499, the gun has just fired. Frame 500, you see the puff of smoke; 501, the bullet has hit Mr. Grosskreutz's right bicep, severing it.

[14:15:15]

I'm going to continue forward after this because you can see that his right arm -- this is an interesting frame right here, 504. You can see that gun -- I will go back even more. You can see that Mr. Grosskreutz's arm with the right hand, with the gun, his right hand, is pointed off to the side. What pulls that gun down closer to the defendant is the fact that Mr. Grosskreutz just had his right bicep severed. It's not a voluntary action. It's an involuntary -- the muscle is severed.

Now, watch. Frame 502, watch his right hand, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508. At this point, yes, absolutely, that right arm is probably dangling down towards the defendant. It's not going to be able to pull that trigger without a working bicep muscle, and it's not a voluntary thing. It's done because the defendant just blew his arm off.

But, yes, this is the time after the shooting, when, yes, the gun happens to be pointed at the defendant. And I got to stop here and highlight the hypocrisy of the defense, because, according to the defense, if someone has a gun, they're a threat. If someone points a gun, there's a threat.

There's only one exception to that, the defendant. By their logic, he gets to run around with a gun all night. But, oh, we're not supposed to take him as a threat. He gets to point the gun at everyone. But, oh, we're not supposed to take him as a threat.

No, it doesn't work that way. The same set of rules apply to the defendant as everybody else. There's no exception in the law for Kyle Rittenhouse. There's no exception that says, if anyone else has a gun, you're a danger, except for Kyle Rittenhouse. There's no exception in the law that says, if you point your gun at people, oh, that makes you a threat and I can kill you, except for Kyle Rittenhouse. I can do it all night long.

The same rules apply to him as everyone else. And everyone else has a right to defend themselves also, not just the defendant.

We have shown you photos and videos of Gaige Grosskreutz's injuries. Exhibit 60 is a video taken right after Mr. Grosskreutz was wounded by the defendant.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SHOUTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BINGER: It's hard to look at, but this is what we're dealing with.

When you fire an AR-15 at someone from close range, this is what it looks like. I guarantee you, ladies and gentlemen, the defendant had no clue what his gun was capable of. He didn't even bother to pay any attention to it, didn't concern himself with what he would be doing to other people.

But this is what happened. Let's not flinch away from this. It's important that we understand what that gun was capable of that night. It killed two people. And it did this to Mr. Grosskreutz's arm.

When those shootings occurred that I just played for you, what would a reasonable person in the defendant's position at that time think? The good news is, ladies and gentlemen, you're going to tell us.

[14:20:08]

As part of your decision in this case, you will represent the reasonable person, an ordinary and prudent person, and you will put yourself in the defendant's shoes that night.

I submit to you that, at the time of those shootings, a reasonable person in the defendant's shoes would have known that he had provoked Joseph Rosenbaum by pointing his gun at someone else, that the defendant had put someone else at risk of dying by doing that. The defendant should have known that the crowd was aware of the fact that he had just shot someone and they felt their lives were in danger.

That is reasonable. It is also reasonable to understand that, at that point, Gaige Grosskreutz had just witnessed all of this. He had heard the defendant had shot someone. He had heard the defendant lie about it. He saw the defendant shoot at jump-kick man at close range, miraculously missing, had seen the defendant kill Anthony Huber.

Gaige Grosskreutz reasonably believed his life was in danger at that moment. And he was proven correct, because the defendant shot him too. So, when you consider what's reasonable in this case, consider whether or not it's reasonable for a criminal to be able to shoot himself out of a crime scene.

When a bank robber robs a bank and runs away, and the crowd comes after him, can he just shoot anybody and claim self-defense? If someone comes up to that person and tries to stop them, tries to disarm them, like Anthony Huber did, do they forfeit their life? Did Anthony Huber forfeit his life by trying to be a hero and stop an active shooter and protect others?

Is that justified? Can the defendant just kill him? In this case, the crowd was right. The crowd knew the defendant had just shot someone. When they're coming after him, they know he's just shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum.

But you know what? Not every active shooter situation does the crowd have perfect knowledge. When they're told that person running up the street just shot someone, we don't have time in the moment to go back and take a look at the body and replay the video and make a decision before going after the person with the gun.

You know, we have had several police officers testify that, in an active shooter situation, their first instinct, their first training is to go in and stop the threat. They don't sit there and wonder, well, maybe it was self-defense, I don't know, I'm going to let -- wait and see.

And every day, we read about heroes that stop active shooters. That's what was going on here. And that crowd was right. And that crowd was full of heroes. And that crowd did something that, honestly, I'm not sure I would have had the courage to do.

If I see a guy running up the street with an AR-15 and I hear he just shot somebody, my first instinct is not to approach. Anthony Huber was different. Jump-kick man was different. Gaige Grosskreutz was different.

That doesn't make them a threat to the defendant's life. It doesn't make their lives worthless. They don't give up their right to defend themselves. They have just as much right as the defendant.

I told you I wanted to begin by talking about the murders committed by the defendant. Now I want to go back and put it all in context for you.

And that context starts with, "Bruh, I'm just trying to be famous," the defendant's TikTok profile, "Four doors, more whores," a picture of him up in Ladysmith, probably in early May, proudly holding his new AR-15.

Up until August 25, 2020, this is the only time he'd ever fired that gun, maybe put 100 rounds through it or so at that property up there with Dominick Black.

They purchased that gun on that same trip. The defendant admitted he knew, as a matter of law, he could not buy that gun because he was only 17. Yet he wants to tell you that he thought, legally, he could possess it, which didn't make a lot of sense to me. We don't have a lot of defendants come in and say, well, I possess cocaine. I knew I couldn't buy it, but I thought I could possess it.

No, that's not the way it works. Dominick Black conducted what we saw a straw purchase for the defendant. He purchased that gun for someone who was not legally allowed to purchase it for themselves.

[14:25:07]

I'm prosecuting Dominick Black for that, as you know, just like I'm prosecuting Joshua Ziminski, because what Dominick Black did was wrong. And we don't tolerate that.

The agreement was Dominick Black was going to keep that gun until the defendant turned 18. It was Dominick Black's gun. It was legally his. And the defendant knew that it was going to be held onto until he turned 18, that he was not going to have it until that birthday.

I want to focus a little bit on this AR-15, because I think it's important when you consider the recklessness of the defendant's conduct, how much he knew, cared, or didn't know about this deadly weapon. He had only fired it that one time, maybe 100 rounds through it.

He loaded the gun with full metal jacket ammunition, which I will talk about a little more. He wanted it because he said it looked cool. Didn't seem to know or care much about the type of ammunition or the type of gun.

You had a couple of witnesses tell us in this trial, and it just -- I could not believe it -- a gun is a gun is a gun. No, don't even start with that. A bullet is a bullet. No, it is not.

It is not. And anybody who says that is ignorant and reckless, because there are some important distinctions here.

Full metal jacket ammunition is capable of piercing body armor and squad cars. And you heard Officer Krueger testify that when they heard someone was running around with a rifle, he went and got his plate armor out of the back because their regular body armor was going to stop those rounds.

Ryan Balch talked about how full mental jacket ammunition is designed -- and this is a former Army infantryman -- is designed to go through a target like a deer or a person and continue on. He says it can hit a target 550 yards away. That's five-and-a-half football fields.

And he explained that he had a handgun that night, which he put hollow point ammunition on, and that's what he was planning on using for self-defense, because hollow point ammunition acts differently. It's going to hit its target, but it's not designed to continue on and go through and hit other targets. So you will hit what you hit, but you're not going to put the rest of the community at risk, especially on a night when there are hundreds of people out on the streets in a heavy residential area.

We can see on that map the Car Source. There are houses, there are churches, there are day cares, there are schools nearby. And you're firing full mental jacket ammunition around.

I submit you to, ladies and gentlemen, that that AR-15 had no lawful or legitimate purpose that night.

Now, the Second Amendment allows people to carry guns. That is true. There are people who can't carry guns, convicted felons, for example. But, generally speaking, I'm not saying people don't have the right to carry a gun. What I'm saying is, that AR-15 did not accomplish any of the goals that these folks said it was going to.

So, for example, Ryan Balch says a handgun is what he was again use for self-defense. Several witnesses agreed you can't point this gun or shoot this gun at people to protect property. So, if you're going to protect the Car Source building, how is this gun going to help with that?

The defendant has admitted the gun was useless when he was going to treat people as a medic, because it got in the way. He had to take it off and hand it to somebody. So you can't use it as a medic. You can't use it to protect the building. So what's it there for?

Well, it looks pretty imposing and it has some deterrence value, but Jason Lackowski, Dominick Black, and Ryan Balch all said they never actually intended to use their guns. So why is it there?

The defendant was wearing a sling that night. He purchased that sling at Jalensky's that afternoon. The purpose of the sling was so the gun couldn't be taken away, wouldn't fall off, he wouldn't lose possession of it. It was designed to help him retain possession of that gun. And he loaded it with 30 rounds, the full magazine, capable of killing 30 people or more.

Why do you need 30 rounds of full metal jacket armor to protect a building? This AR-15 is completely incompatible with the role of a medic. Richie McGinniss testified he's been to demonstrations in Seattle, Portland, Washington, D.C., New York, Minneapolis. He's never seen anyone walking around claiming to be a medic

[14:30:00]