defended himself. that s the first thing. the second is during this trial, i m sure he was under tremendous pressure to plead down to lesser charges to make this go away. the corrupt d.a. knew the evidence was bad. he once again risked his own life to take this trial to a jury verdict which exposed to things. first of all, it exposed the truth and the facts about this case. the secondly it also exposed the level of depravity of our corporate legacy media is stoking the fires of racism and hatred all over this country. it has to stop. shannon: kevin, tulsi gabbard, democrat, you guys are from the same party, she says the jury got it right. finding rittenhouse not guilty on all charges for the fact that charges were brought before any serious investigation is evidence that the government was motivated by politics which should be considered criminal. are you worried about how this seemed to cross over from primarily a legal issue to one
evidence that rittenhouse essentially lied about pretending to be an emt at the rally. they saw his statements claiming he needed the gun for protection, then saying under oath he didn t think he would have to protect himself. when you decided to bring your ar-15 loaded with 30 rounds down to the 63rd street location, what did you think you needed protection against? i didn t really think i was going to have to protect my sef. you told us just now you brought it for protection. i did. but i didn t think i was going to need to protect myself. you brought it along for protection but you didn t think you needed protection? that was an inconsistency. didn t move the jury towards any guilty verdicts. the protests where he killed two were a response to a different controversial shooting where police shot jacob blake in the
rittenhouse not guilty. they were testing the limits of lethal and deadly vigilanteism. as a legal matter, this case was also about more than murder. the prosecutors made the specific case that rittenhouse was a murderer, they also gave the jury evidence of other lesser crimes, meaning the jury had the option to find a kind of middle ground. they had the option to rule, for example, there may not have been first degree murder but were crimes of endangering the public bringing that illegally obtained gun to the rally and shooting three people. killing two of them. the jury weighed five total charges, that includes first degree murder what they call homicide in that state, and options on other violence and charges about reckless endangerment of safety. so the jury could have found guilty for some and not for others, but as you see in this
as to fifth count of the information, we the jury find the defendant kyle h. rittenhouse not guilty. members of the jury, are these your unanimous verdicts? is there anyone that does not agree with verdicts as read? do you wish the jury polled? the 18-year-old, rittenhouse, seen collapsing in apparent emotion, amidst the verdict. man who killed two blm protesters in wisconsin, injured a third, a man who brought an illegally obtained rifle to the protest. the news today is he walks. no one knows what the jury discussed in private deliberations. we know the evidence they saw. we know they saw emotional testimony by rittenhouse taking the stand, a legal rarity, didn t hurt him, may have helped him because he got off. we know they saw video evidence, the killing on tape. they were presented with the
Transcripts for MSNBC The Beat With Ari Melber 20211119 23:00:30 archive.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from archive.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.