Rittenhouse Trial: Witness Admits It Was Self-Defense

Rittenhouse Trial: Witness Admits It Was Self-Defense

Rittenhouse Trial: Witness Admits It Was Self-Defense

The prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse was a political motivated attack from the moment he was charged.

The riots in Kenosha were not only well covered on the ground at the time that they happened, but they were extensively videotaped and broadcasted by journalists and people on the ground who were livestreaming what was going on. We know what happened between Kyle Rittenhouse and the men he shot that night – because it was caught on tape. Arguments can be made about why Rittenhouse was there in the first place, as an armed 17 year old. I have a 17 year old and there is no way that I would let my teenager out to protect property they were wholly unconnected to during a riot. That argument aside, Kyle Rittenhouse clearly had the right to defend himself when attacked.

The prosecution in this case has been, up to this point… less than stellar. The evidence that keeps being introduced keeps bolstering the defense’s claim that Rittenhouse acted in defense of his own life, given the actions of the two men he shot and killed, Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber. The excellent coverage that Andrew Branca, writing for Legal Insurrection, makes this point very clear. But it was also clear that the prosecution, having gone this far, wasn’t simply going to give up. If, as we all suspect, this case is politically motivated, then the prosecution has motives OTHER than the truth for continuing this trial.

However, those motives were just blown out of the water by one of the prosecution’s star witnesses, Gaige Grosskreutz. Grosskreutz was the third person that Kyle Rittenhouse shot (and has filed a lawsuit against the city of Kenosha and the police for his injuries). His testimony is pivotal, both as witness and because of his own actions that night.

Townhall’s Julio Rosas, who was on the ground in Kenosha during the riots, has been in the courtroom during the trial, and tweeted a play-by-play of prosecution and defense questioning that leaves little doubt of how this case should end. In short, Grosskreutz just blew up the prosecution’s entire case by admitting that he advanced on Kyle Rittenhouse WHILE ARMED.

Grosskreutz testified he was carrying a Glock 27 handgun the night of the shootings despite the fact his concealed carry license was expired. Grosskreutz added he saw Rittenhouse running away after hearing gunshots. Grosskreutz said he found Rittenhouse running towards the police and told Grosskreutz he was going to them. Grosskreutz said he grabbed his handgun because he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter.”

Grosskreutz claimed Rittenhouse racked the bolt back on the AR-15 while he had his hands in the air.”

“I was never trying to kill the defendant,” Grosskreutz said.”

The defense, however, got Grosskreutz to admit that he lied several times to police, and then that he was armed and advancing on Rittenhouse – who was on the ground – when Grosskreutz was shot.

This moment in the trial, which is being livestreamed through several outlets, caught the attention of more than just Andrew Branca and Julio Rosas. The prosecution knew it, too, as evidenced by the facepalm.

This will be the clip that will be played on a repeat loop forever when it comes to this case. What happens now? Many experts assume that the defense will ask for a “directed verdict” of not guilty from the judge because the prosecution was unable to prove their case. However, they can’t do that until the prosecution rests.

Given the fact that from the very beginning of this trial (and from nearly the moment that Kenosha happened and the evidence of what happened that night was able to be pieced together just from social media and other on-the-ground reporting), it was plainly obvious that this was a case of self-defense, the prosecution has to be held accountable for bringing this case in the first place. Presumably, they knew what Grosskreutz was going to say (if they didn’t, they are fools). Everyone saw the videotape of that night, and the sequence of events that led to Rittenhouse defending himself. There is no race angle to play, as all the principal actors involved are white. How did the prosecution justify bringing charges, and wasting taxpayer money, on a case they HAD to have known they couldn’t prove? And how will the mainstream media react when Rittenhouse walks, when they are so invested in their own narrative?

The media’s irresponsibility in covering this case is going to result in more rioting. At this point, how can they even deny that that is what they are hoping for?

Featured image via succo on Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license

Written by


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner