Skip to main content

Here is why the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse matters to every American

Written By | Oct 13, 2021
Rittenhouse, Attack, Kenosha

Kyle Rittenhouse being attacked, kicked in the face, during the riot.

WASHINGTON: Why should you care about the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse? The answer is simple. Because his case is at the heart of the Bill of Rights, and a harbinger of future actions against the Second Amendment. It reaches the very soul of America. As well as the brave men and women who fought to secure the Greatest Nation on earth.

The Second Amendment is about each and every citizen’s right to self-defense.

Whether it is self-defense against a robber, murderer, a band of marauding Indians or Antifa, and even an out-of-control government. The Second Amendment was written to allow citizens the God-given right to defend themselves against such evil.

And that is exactly what Kyle Rittenhouse did. And it is why the left needs to punish him for using his God-given rights, as protected by our Constitution. A constitution that does not limit that right by age. You see, when the Constitution was written it was expected that young men of 14, 15, and 16 would be armed and know how to use those weapons to defend themselves.

The hypocrisy on the left to deny a constitutional right to young people to defend themselves while passing legislation that allows 18-year-olds to vote for president is mind-boggling.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the rights provided within it are limited to 21-years-old. And yet Democrats use every ploy to do just that.




Kyle Rittenhouse used his Constitutional right to defend himself against a band of marauding Antifa, intent on doing him great bodily harm. And that is exactly why the left must crush him. This trial is one that pits our Constitution against those who would destroy it. The outcome will matter to each and every American.

If Rittenhouse walks out a free man, goodwill prevails. If he is marched into prison, America is much closer to abandoning the principles of the Constitution. A Constitution that has been our keystone for 277 years.

And that is why this hearing is important.  Because it sets the guidelines and the tenor of the forthcoming trial.

Here are the highlights of that hearing.

On August 25, 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse was at the Kenosha, Wisconsin, riots. He was threatened, attacked, chased, and forced to shoot three people in self-defense. Kyle was charged by local prosecutors, in spite of voluminous video evidence demonstrating that his actions were justified in self-defense of his life, while attempting to reach the safety of police. (Law and Order: Is Kyle Rittenhouse the canary in the chaos coal mine)

On Friday, September 17, 2021, there was an evidentiary hearing held in a Kenosha courtroom.

Not many media sources covered this rather mundane hearing. However, it is very important to the upcoming November 1 trial. During the hearing much was learned about the expected prosecution. The judge at this hearing appeared more interested in the law governing the charges than the politics of the events.

While the prosecutor seemed more interested in the political optics, to the point that some of the charges may not actually violate the laws of the State of Wisconsin.

The hearing judge is Bruce E. Schroeder.

The District Attorney prosecuting the case against Rittenhouse is Thomas Binger. The defense attorneys at the hearing are Mark Richards and Corey Chiriafsi.

Kyle Rittenhouse also appearing.

Judge Schroeder considered several motions for evidence, whether they would be admissible at the trial, for both prosecutors and the defense.



This is why this hearing is so important. The types of evidence that is allowed to be presented, by both sides, have a strong bearing on the outcome of the trial.

Binger attempted to show Kyle Rittenhouse as a “teenage vigilante, ” with a pre-disposition to shoot people.

He claimed Rittenhouse is from outside of the community and came looking for trouble. Binger claimed Rittenhouse was “armed with an illegal weapon.”

Defense attorney Mark Richards countered by pointing out that Kyle had a job in Kenosha as a lifeguard, and that Kyle’s father lives in the city.

Richards went on to state: “All three of these people shot were chasing Kyle Rittenhouse. All of them. That is not debatable.”

Yet, the surviving subject shot by Rittenhouse was not charged for pulling his pistol on Kyle, and, in fact, is one of the prosecutor’s main witnesses in his case.

There was a motion on whether to allow evidence of an event that occurred after Kyle was released on bond.

This incident, which was heavily covered in the leftist press, was when Rittenhouse went into a bar to celebrate his release. At the bar, he met members of the Proud Boys in Wisconsin.

This was four months after the shootings. The prosecution attempted to claim that this encounter has some bearing on Kyle Rittenhouse’s state of mind four months earlier.

The prosecution stated that the Proud Boys is a far-right, racist, violent organization, based on a single newspaper article.

Judge Schroeder said that he didn’t think that it was appropriate for the court (him) to determine if the Proud Boys is a racist far-right group based solely on one newspaper article from Seattle, Washington.

He further noted that this case brought out a very high emotional reaction based on one’s political beliefs. He then denied the use of this event unless it was proven that Rittenhouse was a member on or before the day of the shootings and that it had a connection to them.

His statement alone was strong evidence that the radical ideology of the prosecutor will not interfere with the facts or the laws of Wisconsin with this judge. Unlike Derek Chauvin in Minnesota, it appears that Rittenhouse may get a fair trial. It all depends on the jury selected. We saw that with the Chauvin jury, who had an agenda against the former officer, going into trial.

Mark Richards tried to enter into evidence that the first man shot by Kyle, Joseph Rosenbaum, was a convicted felon.

Richards claims Rosenbaum had a motive to steal the rifle that Kyle Rittenhouse was carrying because he could not obtain one legally. The defense mentions Rosenbaum was heard saying (in evidence revealed by discovery from the prosecution) “I just got out of jail, and I am not afraid to go back.”

Judge Schroeder found this of interest. District Attorney Binger stated that the statement is not decipherable on the tape they gave to the defense. Judge Schroeder refused to allow the evidence of Rosenbaum being a convicted felon to be entered at the trial.

This loss by the defense is important and could make it impossible for Rittenhouse to explain why he feared for his life when he shot Rosenbaum.

During the discovery process, the prosecution provided a potential witness list of 175 witnesses.  The defense complained to the Judge about this obvious ploy to hinder the defense. The Judge agreed.

The prosecution narrowed the list to 27 possible witnesses. Then they did not provide the addresses of the witnesses. Judge Schroeder asked defense attorney Mark Richards if he was satisfied. Richards stated he could deal with 27 witnesses, but that the prosecution had not provided the addresses.

Then defense attorney Richards stated:

“I was told by Mr. Binger, they are in discovery, find them.”

The prosecution is pulling every dirty trick they can to railroad Rittenhouse into a long prison term.

Judge Schroeder asked Binger: “Is that true?” And Bringer replied,

“I emailed Mr. Richards yesterday. I gave him a narrowed down list, I said the addresses that we would be providing to him would require us to go through the same 400 plus pages of police report…”

Judge Schroeder interrupted Binger and asked him; “What does the statute say?”

Binger replying that the statute does require addresses be given in a written filing to the court.” The judge then stated to the prosecution: “Well, I can expect that will be done by Monday at five.”

Then the prosecution requested that the court order the defense to provide a list of all of the people who had donated to Rittenhouse’s defense fund. The motion was denied. It shows how desperate the District Attorney is to find anything that can tarnish Rittenhouse, who is an outstanding American. His request was nothing more than a fishing expedition.

The prosecution next tried to have admitted as evidence a video of Kyle Rittenhouse two weeks before the riots in Kenosha, commenting on watching people loot a CVS store in Chicago.

Defense Attorney Corey Chirafisi advised the judge that Rittenhouse took no action, it was merely words, and should not be admitted.

During the hearing, Binger made a startling revelation. He stated that Rittenhouse in fact does take an action at the CVS looting. Rittenhouse called 911. Binger told the judge:

“There is an actual action he takes at the CVS incident, and that is, he does call 911, using his personal cell phone.”

Judge Schroeder replied to the revelation that it was the first he had heard of Rittenhouse taking any action to the Chicago looting. That neither the Judge or the defense team knew this before is astonishing because all prosecution evidence should have been made available to the defense team long ago.

That is part of the discovery process.

While the prosecutor has the right to continue with his investigation, the rules of discovery demand that each new revelation learned during that investigation be shared with the defense, even exculpatory evidence that might prove the innocence of the defendant.

It would appear that the prosecution is in violation of the laws governing trial lawyers.

Judge Schroeder believed that simply calling 911 was not active participation that had any bearing on the Kenosha shootings.

However, Binger continued in his attempts to include the CVS incident at the trial.

Binger stated that the FBI made an infrared video from an orbiting planet that shows Rittenhouse running after Mr. Rosenbaum.  Binger says the defense was made aware of the video on May 3rd, but he does not believe defense attorney Richards has seen it.

Judge Schroeder indicated the events are too dissimilar for the CVS incident to be included as evidence, but he will not make a final decision at this time, pending seeing the video evidence, which he has yet to view.

Binger then revealed how he intends to proceed against Rittenhouse.

About the incident, he commented that the rifle Rittenhouse was carrying was a very threatening, aggressive weapon. One that deters people.

He continued that the rifle is designed to threaten others; to let them know, don’t mess with me, look what I’ve got. Bringer noted that those armed Antifa people that night were carrying semi-automatic pistols; Glocks, which can be concealed and hidden. Other people can’t see it.  It is not designed to tell people to go away. It is not designed to tell people to leave me alone.

You carry around an assault rifle like this you are sending that message to other people. That is what the defendant was doing.

That argument sounded much like a defense of carrying an AR rifle to stop trouble before it starts, but to a progressive it makes Rittenhouse seem the aggressor because he was armed with a modern sporting rifle.

Binger then made a claim about a defense motion to dismiss the charge of illegal possession of a firearm by a minor, referring to Wisconsin Statute 948.60, with regard to possession of rifles and shotguns by minors.

The District Attorney ignored Wisconsin Statute 948.60 (3)(c), which excludes most firearms from the law, including the one Rittenhouse, possessed on the night in question. No decision is made on the motion until after the Dominick Black case is adjudicated in federal court.

Black is the man who bought the rifle for Rittenhouse and kept it in his house until Rittenhouse reached the legal age to possess it in Wisconsin.

Both the prosecution and defense agreed that they would be ready for a November 1 start of the trial.

Judge Schroeder then made comments on media coverage of the Rittenhouse case:

“There has been some grossly irresponsible misreporting on a few occasions about what happened in this case. The case should not be tried in the media.”

Including that statement, along with many others involving the prosecution and its progressive ideology, there is hope for a fair trial. It all depends on the jury selected.

Under any circumstances, this trial is very important to every American that wants to Make America Great Again.

########

 

Read more from Joseph Ragonese

Gun Control

About the author:

Political Staff Writer Joseph Ragonese is a veteran of the United States Air Force, a retired police officer,  has a degree in Criminal Justice, a businessman, journalist, editor, publisher, and fiction author. His last book, “The Sword of Mohammad,” can be purchased at Amazon.com in paperback or kindle edition.

Follow Joseph on Parler

Join Joe at Gab and get Joe at Gettr

Follow CommDigiNews at 

Follow CommDigiNews at 

Twitter

Facebook

Gettr

MeWe

74 Million Red

Parler

LinkedIn

 

Joseph Ragonese

Joseph Ragonese is a veteran of the United States Air Force, a retired police officer, has a degree in Criminal Justice, a businessman, journalist, editor, publisher, and fiction author. His last book, “The Sword of Mohammad,” can be purchased at Amazon.com in paperback or kindle edition.