FBI Sat On Bombshell Footage From Kyle Rittenhouse Shooting

Spread the love

Loading

On Tuesday, opening statements in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, an18-year-old aspiring police officer accused of fatally shooting two men and wounding a third on the night of Aug. 25, 2020, as BLM riots raged in the streets of Kenosha in response to a white-on-black police shooting.
 

While prosecutors have slapped the teen with two counts of homicide and one count of attempted homicide, Rittenhouse has pleaded not guilty to all charges, claiming self-defense.

 
Now, new footage has emerged which bolsters his case.
 
Before the shooting began, Rittenhouse, 17 at the time, was had arrived in Kenosha in order to help keep order and protect businesses from looting and arson.
 

“People are getting inured, and our job is to protect this business, and part of my job is also to help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle, because I need to protect myself obviously. But I also have my med kit,” Rittenhouse said in footage recorded before the incident.

 

During the course of the evening, protesters became increasingly violent against Rittenhouse and the group he was with – eventually chasing the teen down the street when protester Joseph Rosenbaum was shot dead in the parking lot of a used car dealership. Shortly thereafter, Rittenhouse could be seen defending himself on the ground from multiple attackers – when he fatally wounded another, and shot the bicep of protester Gaige Grosskreutz who had drawn a pistol and was in the process of aiming it at the teen.

     
https://twitter.com/fcXXXIII/status/1455582771326431238?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1455582771326431238%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Ffbi-sat-bombshell-footage-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting

At the time, this footage captured by journalist Brendan Gutenschwager, was all we had to go on.

 

Now, Human Events’ Jack Posobiec reveals that the FBI sat on potentially exonerating evidence in the Rittenhouse case, where threats against Kyle can clearly be heard before he opened fire, as well as what appear to be muzzle flashes from people shooting at the teen. We recommend playing full screen.

 
https://twitter.com/SavageNoMore/status/1455584590693867523?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1455584590693867523%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Ffbi-sat-bombshell-footage-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting
 

Read more
 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Why did the FBI not disclose this evidence to the defense? It is now well known the FBI had Rittenhouse under surveillance that night in Kenosha. Was Rittenhouse identified as a domestic terrorist by the FBI and as such could be surveilled?

Under what criteria did the FBI use to obtain surveillance of Rittenhouse which is believed to have been unknown to Rittenhouse or anyone else at the time other than the FBI?

It would appear that under the USA/Patriot Act gives carte blanche authority to surveil American Citizens.

SURVEILLANCE UNDER THE USA/PATRIOT ACT

What is the “USA/Patriot” Act?

Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the “USA/Patriot Act,” an overnight revision of the nation’s surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government’s authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court.

Why Congress passed the Patriot Act

Most of the changes to surveillance law made by the Patriot Act were part of a longstanding law enforcement wish list that had been previously rejected by Congress, in some cases repeatedly. Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack.

The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks – a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily.

Congress and the Administration acted without any careful or systematic effort to determine whether weaknesses in our surveillance laws had contributed to the attacks, or whether the changes they were making would help prevent further attacks. Indeed, many of the act’s provisions have nothing at all to do with terrorism.

The Patriot Act increases the government’s power to spy in four areas

The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:

Records searches. It expands the government’s ability to look at records on an individual’s activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)
Secret searches. It expands the government’s ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
“Trap and trace” searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects “addressing” information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).

1. Expanded access to personal records held by third parties

One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens’ activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all – including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers – to turn over records on their clients or customers.

Unchecked power

The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals’ financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:

The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an “agent of a foreign power,” a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for “probable cause” that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge – with no need for evidence or proof – that such a search meets the statute’s broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person’s First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

When can the Patriot Act be used?

The law before the Patriot Act

1.To gather foreign intelligence or investigate international terrorism

The law under the Patriot Act

1.To gather foreign intelligence or protect against international terrorism

What can the FBI demand be turned over?

The law before the Patriot Act

“records”

The law under the Patriot Act

“any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)”

Who can they demand information about?

The law before the Patriot Act

Only people who the FBI has evidence are an “agent of a foreign power”

The law under the Patriot Act

Anyone

Who can they demand it from?

The law before the Patriot Act

Only common carriers, public accommodation facilities, physical storage facilities, or vehicle rental facilities

The law under the Patriot Act

Any entity (including bookstores and libraries)

————————————————————————————————————

Why the Patriot Act’s expansion of records searches is unconstitutional

Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:

Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice – even after the fact – to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

2. More secret searches

For centuries, common law has required that the government can’t go into your property without telling you, and must therefore give you notice before it executes a search. That “knock and announce” principle has long been recognized as a part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

The Patriot Act, however, unconstitutionally amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search has been executed. This means that the government can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property – and not tell them until later.

Notice is a crucial check on the government’s power because it forces the authorities to operate in the open, and allows the subject of searches to protect their Fourth Amendment rights. For example, it allows them to point out irregularities in a warrant, such as the fact that the police are at the wrong address, or that the scope of the warrant is being exceeded (for example, by rifling through dresser drawers in a search for a stolen car). Search warrants often contain limits on what may be searched, but when the searching officers have complete and unsupervised discretion over a search, a property owner cannot defend his or her rights.

Finally, this new “sneak and peek” power can be applied as part of normal criminal investigations; it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism or collecting foreign intelligence.

3. Expansion of the intelligence exception in wiretap law

Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment explicitly requires.

A 1978 law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for probable cause when the purpose of a wiretap or search was to gather foreign intelligence. The rationale was that since the search was not conducted for the purpose of gathering evidence to put someone on trial, the standards could be loosened. In a stark demonstration of why it can be dangerous to create exceptions to fundamental rights, however, the Patriot Act expanded this once-narrow exception to cover wiretaps and searches that DO collect evidence for regular domestic criminal cases. FISA previously allowed searches only if the primary purpose was to gather foreign intelligence. But the Patriot Act changes the law to allow searches when “a significant purpose” is intelligence. That lets the government circumvent the Constitution’s probable cause requirement even when its main goal is ordinary law enforcement.

The eagerness of many in law enforcement to dispense with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment was revealed in August 2002 by the secret court that oversees domestic intelligence spying (the “FISA Court”). Making public one of its opinions for the first time in history, the court revealed that it had rejected an attempt by the Bush Administration to allow criminal prosecutors to use intelligence warrants to evade the Fourth Amendment entirely. The court also noted that agents applying for warrants had regularly filed false and misleading information. That opinion is now on appeal. [link to FISA page]

4. Expansion of the “pen register” exception in wiretap law

Another exception to the normal requirement for probable cause in wiretap law is also expanded by the Patriot Act. Years ago, when the law governing telephone wiretaps was written, a distinction was created between two types of surveillance. The first allows surveillance of the content or meaning of a communication, and the second only allows monitoring of the transactional or addressing information attached to a communication. It is like the difference between reading the address printed on the outside of a letter, and reading the letter inside, or listening to a phone conversation and merely recording the phone numbers dialed and received.

Wiretaps limited to transactional or addressing information are known as “Pen register/trap and trace” searches (for the devices that were used on telephones to collect telephone numbers). The requirements for getting a PR/TT warrant are essentially non-existent: the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge – without having to prove it – that such a warrant would be “relevant” to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.

The Patriot Act broadens the pen register exception in two ways:

“Nationwide” pen register warrants

Under the Patriot Act PR/TT orders issued by a judge are no longer valid only in that judge’s jurisdiction, but can be made valid anywhere in the United States. This “nationwide service” further marginalizes the role of the judiciary, because a judge cannot meaningfully monitor the extent to which his or her order is being used. In addition, this provision authorizes the equivalent of a blank warrant: the court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills in the places to be searched. That is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment’s explicit requirement that warrants be written “particularly describing the place to be searched.”

Pen register searches applied to the Internet

The Patriot Act applies the distinction between transactional and content-oriented wiretaps to the Internet. The problem is that it takes the weak standards for access to transactional data and applies them to communications that are far more than addresses. On an e-mail message, for example, law enforcement has interpreted the “header” of a message to be transactional information accessible with a PR/TT warrant. But in addition to routing information, e-mail headers include the subject line, which is part of the substance of a communication – on a letter, for example, it would clearly be inside the envelope.

The government also argues that the transactional data for Web surfing is a list of the URLs or Web site addresses that a person visits. For example, it might record the fact that they visited “www.aclu.org” at 1:15 in the afternoon, and then skipped over to “www.fbi.gov” at 1:30. This claim that URLs are just addressing data breaks down in two different ways:

Web addresses are rich and revealing content. The URLs or “addresses” of the Web pages we read are not really addresses, they are the titles of documents that we download from the Internet. When we “visit” a Web page what we are really doing is downloading that page from the Internet onto our computer, where it is displayed. Therefore, the list of URLs that we visit during a Web session is really a list of the documents we have downloaded – no different from a list of electronic books we might have purchased online. That is much richer information than a simple list of the people we have communicated with; it is intimate information that reveals who we are and what we are thinking about – much more like the content of a phone call than the number dialed. After all, it is often said that reading is a “conversation” with the author.
Web addresses contain communications sent by a surfer. URLs themselves often have content embedded within them. A search on the Google search engine, for example, creates a page with a custom-generated URL that contains material that is clearly private content, such as:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=sexual+orientation

Similarly, if I fill out an online form – to purchase goods or register my preferences, for example – those products and preferences will often be identified in the resulting URL.

The erosion of accountability

Attempts to find out how the new surveillance powers created by the Patriot Act were implemented during their first year were in vain. In June 2002 the House Judiciary Committee demanded that the Department of Justice answer questions about how it was using its new authority. The Bush/Ashcroft Justice Department essentially refused to describe how it was implementing the law; it left numerous substantial questions unanswered, and classified others without justification. In short, not only has the Bush Administration undermined judicial oversight of government spying on citizens by pushing the Patriot Act into law, but it is also undermining another crucial check and balance on surveillance powers: accountability to Congress and the public. [cite to FOIA page]

Non-surveillance provisions

Although this fact sheet focuses on the direct surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act, citizens should be aware that the act also contains a number of other provisions. The Act:

Puts CIA back in business of spying on Americans. The Patriot Act gives the Director of Central Intelligence the power to identify domestic intelligence requirements. That opens the door to the same abuses that took place in the 1970s and before, when the CIA engaged in widespread spying on protest groups and other Americans.
Creates a new crime of “domestic terrorism.” The Patriot Act transforms protesters into terrorists if they engage in conduct that “involves acts dangerous to human life” to “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” How long will it be before an ambitious or politically motivated prosecutor uses the statute to charge members of controversial activist groups like Operation Rescue or Greenpeace with terrorism? Under the Patriot Act, providing lodging or assistance to such “terrorists” exposes a person to surveillance or prosecution. Furthermore, the law gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to detain or deport any non-citizen who belongs to or donates money to one of these broadly defined “domestic terrorist” groups.
Allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens. The Patriot Act gives the attorney general unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants. The attorney general can order detention based on a certification that he or she has “reasonable grounds to believe” a non-citizen endangers national security. Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial.

It would be interesting to know if this exculpatory evidence was known to the prosecution. If they had knowledge of its existence, it would be a clear violation of the Brady Rule:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule

When the rules are followed, the Patriot Act is a powerful and useful tool. However, when placed in the hands of corrupt totalitarian advocates of the police state (i.e. Democrats) it is a threat to civil rights and personal freedoms.

My Friend TrumpWon

Conservatives were against the ”Patriot” Act 20 years ago. “Bush Republicans” said “Oh you Reagan lovers are just being “reactionary”!”! We would never have Herr Mueller persecute conservatives just for being conservatives. – Which is exactly what Bush Republican Rod Rosenstein did May ’17! – 15.5 years after the law
Hard to believe that the leftist “Compassionate Conservative” would lie? But Bush lied! He did ;precisely what we feared 20 years ago he would do!

Some history will explain why.

The Walker/Bush family has been the vanguard of the GOP left for 100 years. They never cared for conservatives. This changed to red hot hatred with “Voo Doo Economics” 41 years ago!
If Voo Doo is new to you ask and I will give details. I am old.

GWB has had a “hard on” for Ronny since he crushed GHWB in 1980. GWB still hates ‘Ronny folk. Now that he no longer wants to win elections he is more honest about his Ronny hate. READ HIS 9/11/21. Speech implying Ronny voters are American terrorists and worse than the Taliban!

Here are just some of the conservatives GWB’s boy Mueller (a registered Bush Republican BTW) persecuted for being conservative:

Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos and Roger Stone.

These are the most famous; or if you’re a “Bush Republican” infamous!

Persecuting conservatives for being conservative is still a fact in America. The J6 political prisoners are in prison, mis treated, without habeas corpus – because they are conservative! GWB is not the only liberal that hates conservatives; not by a long shot!

BEFORE JOHN ROBERTS the act was unconstitutional! Not
NOW!

John Roberts has been GWB’s Praetorian Guard for 16 years. Just the last 12 months “NO STANDING” 11 TIMES!

Spot on, I agree 110%

When I said GWB’S hatred for President Reagan was still white hot I did not know what he was doing.

As I typed yesterday Bush sicced his STASI on another President Reagan lover!

Bush’s goons target another conservative! Links:

https://nypost.com/2021/11/05/feds-raid-project-veritas-linked-apartments-over-ashley-bidens-diary-report/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-searches-project-veritas-associates-in-probe-over-diary-purportedly-belonging-to-biden-s-daughter/ar-AAQmUtl

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/fbi-searches-ny-homes-tied-to-project-veritas-over-ashley-biden-diary-investigation/3382741/

Bush will hate conservatives with every beat of his hart!

Gee, withholding exculpatory evidence that would benefit US political prisoners is becoming a common habit by the FBI and DOJ. So, Democrats commit crimes without fear of prosecution while political opponents and those the police state wishes to make an example of can be arrested without cause, have exculpatory evidence suppressed and even alter evidence.

Any guesses how much criticism this will receive in the liberal Democrat propaganda media?

GWB made FBI America’s liberal Stasi when he made Herr mueller Obermeister! FBI has had priority #1 for 20 years: protect liberals!
Which is precisely what they have been doing in Kenosha the last few years.

Sorry, Jarhead, but you’re about 60 years late. The FBI Stasi got a kick start under LBJ, not GWB. Mark Felt was (it is reported) Deep Throat. The FBI, under Hoover, spied on everyone, good, bad and indifferent.

The fbi under Hoover acted covertly found primarily the dirty work of democrats. Unfortunately, the patriot act codified their abuse and never so obvious as when President Trump was a candidate and in office.

Rittenhouse came from out of state, specifically to insert himself into an angry crowd openly carrying an assault rifle. Anyone who doesn’t view that as a provocation is an idiot. The result was the dubious distinction of being the only one there who killed somebody.

Grosskreutz drew his gun after Rittenhouse had already shot two people. Huber was on the ground, dying. Huber, unarmed, had been attempting to get Rittenhouse’s rifle away from him.

Seems GWB like his gofer mitt has a nome de plume. Not pierre delecto but simply “Greg”! Who knew?

Drop the narrative. The jury isn’t going to buy it.

Kenosha was Kyle’s neighborhood because he worked there. He didn’t bring a gun across state lines and every encounter he had was a clear case of self-defense.

I’m afraid the video evidence is not even remotely match your delusional myth of what happened.

The logical fallacy of what you’re proposing is laughable. As long as you’re a violent leftist terrorist you can carry a gun in a riot. If you are a honorable Patriot who is coming to serve the community as security, then there’s a double standard.

The s*** bags are dead because they tried to kill a man who knew how to use deadly force in all the right legal circumstances.

“Rittenhouse came from out of state, specifically to insert himself into an angry crowd openly carrying an assault rifle. Anyone who doesn’t view that as a provocation is an idiot.”

Hey, stupid… Rittenhouse was there cleaning graffiti off of businesses when they reacted to a leftist attack. He took his MEDICAL KIT to aid victims. He was attacked for helping the community and, luckily for him, he had his rifle. Three leftist bags of garbage got their just desserts (except for the thug that survived).

If you don’t want 17 year old’s enforcing the law and protecting the community, elect leaders that will have authorized law enforcement do it. Every bit of that is YOUR fault; the LEFT’S fault.

Now greg knows Rittenhouse’s intent.

If you openly carry an assault weapon down the street through a crowd of angry demonstrators, and it isn’t even your street, your town, or your state, you’re engaging in a deliberate provocation. Maybe Rittenhouse is too stupid to understand this.

No you’re not. If you’re breaking the law and rioting, you are deliberately provoking every other US citizen.

So you can point to the actual statute that uses the words “assault weapon”?
A trip down memory lane.
https://nypost.com/2021/05/26/biden-atf-pick-david-chipman-botches-assault-rifle-definition-at-hearing/

“If you openly carry an assault weapon down the street through a crowd of angry demonstrators, and it isn’t even your street, your town, or your state, you’re engaging in a deliberate provocation.”

What were the violent leftist rioters doing there? It wasn’t THEIR street, town or state, either. The RIOT and LOOTING is the provocation; the AR-15 is the cure. Stupid is thinking rioting and looting is acceptable behavior. We need THOUSANDS of Rittenhouse’s.

I would say the young man was quite prepared knowing what type of dirtbags and scum he was likely to encounter. His intent was to protect personal property from the mob intent upon destroying anything and everything they came into contact with.

The provocation was on the part of the pieces of shit littering the streets of Kenosha

‘An Absolute Train Wreck’: Rittenhouse Prosecutors Left Scrambling After Their Own Witness Ruins Their Narrative

comment image

A key prosecution witness in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse on Thursday indicated that a man Rittenhouse shot was aggressive and reaching for the then-17-year-old when the shooting took place.

Testimony from a prosecution witness that painted Rittenhouse as responding to aggressions rather than being the aggressor was characterized by the website Legal Insurrection as an “absolute train wreck” for the prosecution’s case against Rittenhouse. “This is NOT how it’s supposed to be done,” author Andrew Branca noted.

Richard McGinniss — who was recording video on a cell phone for The Daily Caller on the night of the shootings with which Rittenhouse is charged — indicated Joseph Rosenbaum, the first man Rittenhouse shot, tried to grab the rifle the teen was holding.

Rittenhouse had gone to Kenosha in response to rioting that took place in the Wisconsin community.

“So your interpretation of what [Rosenbaum] was trying to do … is complete guesswork,” prosecutor Thomas Binger said at one point when questioning McGinniss, according to a video posted on Twitter.

“Well, he said ‘f*** you’ and then he reached for the weapon,” McGinniss testified.

In a video posted on Legal Insurrection, McGinnis says that as the confrontation began, Rittenhouse was holding the gun at a 45-degree angle with the barrel pointed toward the ground.

McGinnis said that when Rosenbaum “lunged” for the gun, Rittenhouse “dodged around,” adding “that’s when it was leveled at Mr. Rosenbaum and fired.”

McGinnis continued to use the word lunge to characterize Rosenbaum’s effort to grab the gun.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1456323743140175872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1456323743140175872%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.westernjournal.com%2Fabsolute-train-wreck-rittenhouse-prosecutors-left-scrambling-witness-ruins-narrative%2F

Binger and McGinniss sparred over words, with the prosecutor wanting the witness to characterize Rosenbaum as falling when he was shot.

“He was lunging, falling. I would use those as synonymous terms in this situation because basically, you know, he threw his momentum towards the weapon,” McGinniss said.

Rittenhouse, now 18, is charged with reckless and intentional homicides in the deaths of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and with attempted homicide for wounding Gaige Grosskreutz.

McGinniss said during his testimony that Rosenbaum was “grabbing for the front portion of it,” referring to the rifle Rittenhouse held.

Related: Man Allegedly Commits Double Murder Less Than a Week After Being Freed Without Bail
Binger asked if Rosenbaum’s momentum after he missed and his grab at the gun meant he was no longer a threat.

McGinnis said the two men were “extremely close” and he was uncertain “what would have happened if those shots hadn’t been fired,” according to Reuters.

“I think it was very clear to me that he was reaching specifically for the weapon,” McGinniss added, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Ryan Balch, a veteran who was patrolling the streets of Kenosha that night, said Rosenbaum was “hyperaggressive and acting out in a violent manner,” including throwing rocks and trying to start fires.

Balch said that earlier on the night of the shootings, Rosenbaum had been involved in an altercation and said, “If I catch any of you guys alone tonight I’m going to f***ing kill you!”

‘An Absolute Train Wreck’: Rittenhouse Prosecutors Left Scrambling After Their Own Witness Ruins Their Narrative