tv Cuomo Prime Time CNN November 19, 2021 10:00pm-11:00pm PST
the news continues. let's hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> all right. i'm chris cuomo, and welcome to prime time. the jury in kenosha, wisconsin, spoke. the case is over. the story is not. and let's be clear. there's plenty to be upset about. it is too easy to kill in this society. and our laws make it so. and yet there are too many tonight offering a jaundiced view of this case. so, let's take a clear-eyed look at the realities of the law and the facts in this case, and you will see why this happened and you will see where your problems
are. and there are no questions here tonight that this outcome is problematic. it is. right now there are no protests. that's a good thing. protesting is a right, of course. but it's probably for the best that this situation isn't generating outrage on the streets. i don't know how that would help. these calls that i'm hearing and you're hearing that this jury should have found some way to punish this guy, they're troubling because they ignore the laws at play. the president says he stands by the jury and its conclusion. but many of his supporters are saying this is an injustice because too many other kids get in trouble for way less. are we about the law or are we about revenge? saying he was not allowed to have the gun is not true. read the wisconsin law. you can not like the law, but he was within the rights that the state affords.
you can criticize the law. you should. he didn't violate it. it's a more relevant question to ask -- and i know you're not going to like this. but if you want to talk about the law, have you heard anybody ask why the third person he shot, the man with the gun who was chasing him and pointed it at him and came at him, why he escaped all police scrutiny? none of the people who were angry about this verdict see anything curious about that situation. justice is blind, right? so, it should be blind to politics as well, right? again, i'm not happy. there's nothing to be happy about here. today's verdict of not guilty doesn't mean the actions on august 25th for innocent. they weren't innocent by all indications. joseph rosenbaum, anthony huber, they're dead. their lives cut short, their families ruined. dying because you went to
protest a police shooting is not what this country's about. it's also not what happened. it wasn't protesting that got them killed. it was chasing after a guy with a loaded weapon. and it is the laws of wisconsin that allowed that 17-year-old to carry a weapon that night. and it is the law of wisconsin that creates a ridiculously low bar to defend yourself with deadly force. gaige grosskreutz, his right arm is wrecked. but, again, he had a gun that he drew and went at rittenhouse. it's a different situation. the person who did the killing, kyle rittenhouse, when he heard this verdict, he reacted like the teenager he is. >> the defendant will rise and face the jury. >> the state of wisconsin versus kyle rittenhouse, the first count of the information of joseph rosenbaum, we the jury find the defendant, kyle h. rittenhouse, not guilty. as to the second count of the
information, richard mcginnis, we the jury find the defendant, kyle h. rittenhouse, not guilty. as to the third count of information, unknown male, we the jury find the defendant, kyle h. rittenhouse, not guilty. has to fourth count of information anthony hub e we the jury find the defendant not guilty. as to the fifth count of the information, gaige grosskreutz, 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 the verdicts as read? you wish the jury polled? >> no. >> okay. folks, your job is done.
>> i really think it's a time for people to do a check of head and heart. two things can be true at once. again, the law, as drafted in wisconsin, is a huge factor in this ruling. that law gave the shooter a right to do what he did. but it can also be true that kyle rittenhouse didn't do the right thing. legally justified but still wrong. might this encourage vigilantes, this verdict? sure. but know this, if you're one of them, you're making a mistake. if you think you can go to a situation looking for trouble, you better not start any or even recklessly forgiving law in wisconsin will not save you. be clear, if you step away from justice for a second, of course none of it feels right because it was all wrong. by all indications it was gross judgment that took this guy to kenosha.
the decision to take an ar-15 to a situation like this, to hang with a bunch of white would be protectors, to be ignored by the police, to engage with angry protesters and to see deadly force with that weapon. they are all bad choices. but it is only the last, what he did when chased, that mattered. all those who are saying, what about the lesser charges? what about all those pages of charges? the charges are secondary to the primary analysis of whether he was justified in using self-defense. if the jury found him to be justified, the charges are irrelevant because all criminality for the killing was
removed by the justification of self-defense. so, it wasn't, okay, self-defense but you're guilty of it -- no. either they believe he had to do this or they don't. only after they say no self-defense, then you get into the charges. so, all that talk is meaningless. oh, they could have da, da, da. this charge -- no. if you were justified in using deadly force in self-defense, you are guilty of none of the homicide charges, not in this case. that is the correct verdict once they decided he was justified under this law. the jury found he was justified mainly because they believe two things. one, he did not provoke the specific altercation with the men who were pursuing him. and he had a reasonable fear of imminent serious injury or death. this prosecution did not prove the defendant provoked this specific situation with these three men.
it didn't. and therefore under this law, rittenhouse had no duty to retreat, which is huge. when you take that out of self-defense, you are creating an incredibly low bar and making it way too easy to kill. no duty to retreat -- and by the way, to be fair to the facts here, he did retreat. he was running away, okay? he had no duty to exhaust all non-lethal means, no duty to fight them off, to kick, to try anything else. he had no duty under the law to do that. if the jury thought it was reasonable for him -- another aspect of the law that you haven't been told enough about -- it's not what they would do. it's not what the reasonable person would do. this law requires them to think,
was it reasonable for the defendant, an overwhelmed 17-year-old. and that's how he obviously came off on the stand. this law is a shooter's dream. the jury can't ask what a reasonable person would do or what they would do? you have to be in his shoes? even if they think he's a chump? if it was reasonable for him to think they were about to really hurt him or try to kill him, the law justifies it. and that kid on that stand painted the right picture for that jury. the law also says that the prosecutor has to disprove the defendant's need for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. that's a higher burden -- it's the highest we have -- and much higher than other state statutes.
this law saved rittenhouse as much or more as his weapon did. the jury is not the bad guy. race is not the bad guy. politics is not the bad guy. this statute is. and there are many like it, a growing number actually. it's right akin to stand your ground. it's absolutely too easy to kill. and, yes, it came too easily to kyle rittenhouse. he put himself in a bad situation for bad reason with bad people, and he made bad choices. and he killed people and hurt people. he's no hero. but beware the politics here. depending on what team you're on these days, he's either a vigilante killer or he's captain america. which is he? who cares. it's not the right question. the law isn't about his character or his politics or his animus, not in this case. it's about his actions and his intentions and what the facts justified or not under the law. you want a different outcome -- and you might -- change the standard. tonight we have the person who made the most important and risky call in this trial, second to the law at play, the second biggest factor was rittenhouse taking the stand in his own defense. counselor mark richards, attorney for kyle rittenhouse, helped make that call.
counselor, appreciate you taking the opportunity. >> good evening. >> how difficult a call was it? >> you know, myself and cory obviously went around and around with it. we felt as though we had a witness, a client, who could tell his story. he was articulate, fairly intelligent. he didn't have any damage. he didn't have prior convictions or never been in trouble. he was a police cadet, fire cadet, pro social. we thought he could do it. there was obviously a lot of work that went into it. we did a mock jury, and the mock jury were the 12 people denied to hear kyle's story. he scored much worse than the people who did hear his story. and that was subject to cross examination by a trained
ex-prosecutor. and that made the decision -- i don't want to say easy, but it made it the right call. and in wisconsin when you have to put yourself in the feet or the shoes of that person, he needs to tell his story. and we felt strongly about that from the beginning from the first time i met kyle rittenhouse when he was in custody in the mchenry county detention center. i talked to him about that, and he was willing to do that and wanted to. >> does he wish he hadn't gone that night? does he think he did anything wrong? >> 100 times over. i've had talks -- kyle said, if i had to do it all over again and had any idea something like this could happen, i wouldn't do it. you know, and that is not -- i want to be clear.
that is not regret for what he did that night under those circumstances. hindsight is always 20/20 if not better, and he -- he didn't want to kill anybody. and he was left with the terrible choice, and he exercised that choice, which was found to be lawful. >> does he think he did anything wrong? >> legally, no. >> morally? >> he wishes he didn't have to do it. but, you know, this case, as you said, as been so political, so yes or no. the narrative that came out was not the truth. at trial it did come out. he had lived in that community. he had worked in that community. his family, his dad, his grandmother, aunts, uncles lived in that community. he spent a lot of time there. he went down there earlier in the day to help clean up graffiti, do those things. and when he was asked to help,
he went. so much was made that he wasn't an emt. he did help people there. nobody was harmed by kyle rittenhouse putting bandages or gauze on. and he went around seeking to help people. they wanted to portray him as a liar and a fireman wanna be. i don't think that's what it was. but that was the narrative they needed to put forth to try and get a conviction on kyle rittenhouse. >> does he have concerns that maybe he could have done something else, maybe he didn't have to fire, maybe he could have fought, maybe he could have gotten back on his feet? does he ask himself those questions? >> you know, i don't -- as to mr. rosenbaum, that was really the count that i think set up this whole case. you know, i told a story earlier
and it's 100% true, the first time i met kyle, i asked him about rittenhouse, i hadn't seen this video, and i asked him how big rosenbaum was. he said to me, he was over 6 feet and 250 pounds. obviously that was wrong. >> yep. >> that was his perception, as this individual was coming at him. and, you know, one, as i said, he had no duty to retreat. but, two, mr. rosenbaum could have stopped at any time and none of this would have happened. you know, his judgment in running after a person, as he yelled on the tape and it was clearly visible, you aren't going to do s m-fer. and he believed kyle didn't have the guts to do it. he was wrong. he paid with his life. >> i don't think it was guts. it was bad judgment.
it was justified under the law, but i think it's hard. and that's why i asked the question. it's hard to believe that somebody chasing you is going to beat you to death. >> why else was he chasing him, chris? >> probably to get him and beat him up, hurt him. again, my problem is with the law here. look, we don't know what he was going to do -- now we do. now we know that none of the people involved here ever killed anybody before or known for that kind of violence. but he didn't know that in the moment. this law, does it concern you how low a bar this law presents for now some ten years that there's no duty to retreat, that you put yourself in his shoes, not the reasonable person's shoes, that the prosecutor has to prove self-defense wasn't necessary by a reasonable doubt, unlike so many state statues? are you worried about this being
too low a bar? >> you know, i don't think anybody with a brain is going to go out and say, i'm going to go kill somebody and see if i can get away with it in self-defense. i've done a lot of self-defenses cases in wisconsin over the years where it was claimed and hasn't been successful. and kyle rittenhouse is thankful that this was on video tape because it showed this individual's true intent throughout the evening. and you know, if it was his word against the mob, he would have came in second. >> you know what? that's a strong point. in fact, it provokes a whole line of questioning now that we're going to have to answer as a society. will you do me a favor? can i hold you over the break and ask you more questions about this? >> sure. >> counselor, thank you very much. look, it's a big night for this country. we've got to understand what this case was about and what it wasn't about because there's plenty of reason to be upset and we're just getting into it now about why this happened. we'll be right back.
that other people don't want me to know. mm-hmm. [beep] i just wanted to say... ♪ find yourself in these situations and see who you are. and that's just part of the bargain. ♪ ♪ baby got back by sir mix-a-lot ♪ unlimited cashback match... only from discover. as someone who resembles someone else, i appreciate that liberty mutual knows everyone's unique. that's why they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. [ ferry horn honks ]
i mean just cause you look like someone else doesn't mean you eat off the floor, [ chuckles ] or yell at the vacuum, or need flea medication. oh, yeah. that's the spot. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ ♪day to night to morning,♪ ♪keep with me in the moment♪ ♪i'd let you had i known it, why don't you say so?♪ ♪didn't even notice,♪ ♪no punches left to roll with♪ ♪you got to keep me focused♪ people everywhere living with type 2 diabetes are waking up to what's possible... ...with rybelsus®. (♪ ♪)
rybelsus® works differently than any other diabetes pill to lower blood sugar... in all 3 of these ways... increases insulin when you need it... decreases sugar... and slows food. the majority of people taking rybelsus® lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7. people taking rybelsus® lost up to 8 pounds. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration which may worsen kidney problems.
wake up to what's possible with rybelsus®. (♪ ♪) you may pay as little as $10 per prescription. ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. (announcer) carvana's had a lot of firsts. 100% online car buying. car vending machines. and now, putting you in control of your financing. at carvana, get personalized terms, browse for cars that fit your budget, then customize your down payment and monthly payment. and these aren't made-up numbers. it's what you'll really pay, right down to the penny. whether you're shopping or just looking. it only takes a few seconds, and it won't affect your credit score. finally! a totally different way to finance your ride. only from carvana. the new way to buy a car.
all right. we're back with mark richards, attorney for kyle rittenhouse. and again, counselor, this is an important conversation. i appreciate you having it with us. thank you for taking the time. one step sideways. you said this was the longest wait you've ever had for a jury. what was that time meaning to you emotionally and intellectually while you were waiting? >> i -- i don't know about intellectually. it was -- we didn't expect an
overly quick verdict. we had talked amongst ourselves, and i had picked two full days, around dinner time. so, obviously i was wrong. nobody had it going this long. and the longer it went, the, i think, more afraid we became of some sort of compromise, potentially. walking into that courtroom, pins and needles doesn't begin to explain it. you know, i told my client, if it goes south, you're not walking out of this courtroom a freeman and you won't see the light of day for a long time. if we win at all, you get to come home with us. and luckily, i think after a lot of hard work, it went that way. i think the jury spent a lot of time. i think part of the time they put in was to show how thorough they were. i think the other part of it was, i think, some people probably wanted to hold him
accountable for something. but under the facts in the law, it wasn't there. i know that a lot of people went crazy when the gun count was dismissed. we fought that from the beginning from the first appearance. >> the law is pretty clear. i mean, you can argue by tommy thompson modified it that way. he was governor at that time back in the '90s. but the law is the law. i don't know why the judge left it in that long. it's in the plain reading of the statute. let me ask you something else here because of the larger implications of this. please don't take this question the wrong way and let me know if you're taking it the wrong way. >> okay. >> word that you guys had a film crew embedded with you from fox news from tucker carlson --
>> i didn't. >> -- i want to know why that decision was made. >> i did not approve of that. i threw them out of the room several times. they were -- and i'm not suggesting that fox or some other network -- i don't think a film crew is appropriate for something like this. but the people who were raising the money to pay for the experts and to pay for the attorneys were trying to raise money. and that was part of it. so, i think -- i don't want to say an evil, but a definite distraction was part of it. and i didn't approve of it, but i'm not always the boss. >> who were the people who were paying? >> the people who were raising money. it was -- this defense was crowd funded through donations. >> but who were the people making the calls about who got to have access to the process? >> kyle's family and his adviser. >> were you worried that your client was becoming an agent of animus? fox news is one thing. i used to work there. tucker carlson is a different animal.
you know what he means in the political dialogue. were you worried that rittenhouse was going to become a stooge of that fringe of our political spectrum? >> i had a talk with kyle. all i can say is what i say. and kyle's going to have some hard choices in his life about the direction he goes and what he stands for. those will have to be made by kyle eventually. and as cory and i told him yesterday while we were waiting for the verdict, he needs to learn how to take responsibility and to tell people no. >> but did you have worries about it during the time because of who it was and what that would mean when word got out? >> well, i had more worries about some of the other things that happened much earlier in this case.
the lynn woods, the john pierces who were basically trying to get money for their own causes. they kept them in illinois to fight an extradition that was unwinnable because they were raising tons of money on them. lynn wood and i went head to head. they'll probably sue me for it, but he's an idiot who let him talk to "the washington post" while he was under charges for murder. i mean, come on. >> how do you want to be remembered in this. it's going to be politicized. rittenhouse is going to be politicized. people are going to be upset that a white kid with a gun was congratulated with the police and offered water when he should have been shewed off the street at a minimum. he was able to kill two people and get away with it. how do you want to be remembered in this? >> i'm a criminal defense lawyer. i fought for my client. i got what i believe was a true
and just result, and i don't care if people remember me. i'm going to go on about my life. i'll go back, you know, to my office, to my family, and the next case will come along and i'll fight that one. i'm not a cause lawyer. >> you're not a what? >> cause lawyer. i represent clients. >> these laws, there's been an evolution or a devolution, we'll call it, no duty to retreat, making it easier and easier for someone to pull the trigger in their own defense, serious bodily injury, having the prosecutor have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that self-defense wasn't necessary, stand your ground laws. are you worried that we're making it too easy to kill in self-defense? >> to me -- i know people will go nuts when i say this -- but there's too many guns in our society. and that might seem like a hollow statement coming from me. i do own firearms.
i don't conceal carry. i don't want to carry a firearm. i think too many people run around with guns in our society. and i represent a lot of people who have legal conceal carry permits who get into it, they pull the gun and there are problems from there whether they're under the influence of alcohol or they use it to threaten somebody. i wish our society -- i wish our society wasn't perceived as being so dangerous that people needed to arm themselves. i'm old enough when i remember you couldn't carry a gun. >> when you settled a dispute with your hands and not a weapon if at all. mark richards, this is going to be remembered for a long time. and counselor, i appreciate you discussing the issues with us tonight here. appreciate. >> have a good night. >> you too. >> it's a big verdict. it's going to hit hard for the
people who had to watch it knowing their loved ones are never coming home. people are dead. anthony huber's family says they're heart broken and angry. they say it's a lack of justice. it's a lack of accountability. huber great aunt was in court day. watched that verdict, lived a very different reality. we'll hear from her next. that's certified head turns. and it's all backed by our unlimited mileage warranty. that means unlimited peace of mind. mercedes-benz certified pre-owned. translation: the mercedes of your dreams is closer than you think. get help managing your money for the life -- and years -- ahead. with fidelity income planning, we'll look at what you've saved, what you'll need, and help you build a flexible plan for cash flow designed to last. so you can go from saving... to living.
illumination's minions movie on us. xfinity mobile benefits. exclusive experiences, like the chance to win tickets to see watch what happens live. andy cohen: hey! it's me! and tasty recipes from bravo's top chef cheftestants that'll have you cooking like a pro. the longer you've been with us... the more rewards you can get. join for free on the xfinity app. our thanks. your rewards. kyle rittenhouse is a free man. the fact remains he killed two
men, and he badly injured a third. one of those he killed, 26-year-old anthony huber. according to rittenhouse huber hit him with his skateboard, tried to grab his rifle. his great aunt, who testified for the prosecution, was in court today when the verdict was delivered. her name is susan hughes, and she joins us now. susan, i'm very sorry for your loss, and i appreciate you taking this opportunity. >> thank you. >> my condolences to the family. what did the verdict mean to you? >> well, you know, i would like to say it's closure. it's not really. but it's another milestone in the path to eventually being able to deal with anthony's death and for that matter for carrie ann to deal with joseph and gage to get on with his life.
i'm not naive. i think we will continue to be contacted by media every time some circumstance comes up regarding this. but we haven't had -- it's been 15 months of solid -- every day i've seen that video, not intentionally. but i open my phone. you know, it's -- it's running on some crawl on a news feed or whatever. we need to get past that. change your news cycle. you know, we need to get on with the grieving process. >> i hope you do. i hope you guys can make space for that. what are you going to tell yourself about why this happened? >> about what part of it? i mean about anthony's participation -- >> anthony's death, the circumstances surrounding it? you know, you have to get your
hands around why your nephew died. >> yeah. well, i'm -- you know, i'm fermly in the camp that he perceived an active shooter and he went to disarm that person. that is the anthony i knew. you know, he was very much a person who would jump into action. and, you know, there are a couple other people who did the same thing. nobody was successful. he lost his life. i was asked the other day by one of the media people if i thought anthony would do the same thing again. and i think he would. you know, even knowing he lost his life because he was -- he -- he already knew that joseph had been shot. he wanted to prevent further shooting. >> what does it mean to you that this law in wisconsin justifies what happened that night? >> ah, yeah. there's -- there's so many things wrong with that. i -- you know, people have a right to self-defense.
you know, anthony had a right to his life as well with a different reading of that, you know, event. yeah, i -- i don't really know how to respond to that. it's -- so many laws were brought up that were inconsistent with our world that we live in today, you know, making decisions about evidence based on video tape cases that they're citing. nobody uses videotape anymore. it's a digital world. we need to catch up quickly. >> susan hughes, i really hope that time is a friend to the family and you guys are able to process and grieve and make sense of this and that you lean on each other and get through it. i'm sorry to meet you under these circumstances, and i'm
sorry that i've got to say that so often to so many families. i wish you well and god bless the family. i'm sorry for your loss. >> thank you. >> so, why did this happen? was it about getting the case wrong? did the jury get it wrong? i don't think so. did the prosecutors get it wrong? maybe. were they too ambitious? no one knows the pressure of a case like this better than marilyn mosby and mark omara. what do they think about why it came out this way? next. ♪ so light 'em up, up, up light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ i'm on fire ♪ ♪ so light 'em up, up, up light 'em... ♪
and noticeably less itch. hide my skin? not me. by helping to control eczema with dupixent, you can change how their skin looks and feels. and that's the kind of change you notice. hide my skin? not me. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. when you help heal your skin from within, you can show more with less eczema. talk to your child's eczema specialist about dupixent, a breakthrough eczema treatment.
yeah, fox news, tucker carlson, got to be embedded with them during the process. his lawyer didn't want that. no lawyer would by the way. a record being created of your process. it ruins the privilege that you have with your client. but the guys pushing for the money to pay for the defense wanted tucker carlson and fox news there. what does that tell you about this situation? marilyn mosby and mark omara come in right now. they both understand the conflation, the combining of politics of law for better and often for worse. mark omara, you had a client that was an early iteration of the right trying to grasp onto somebody as a righteous defender of not being bullied by the black mob. and now we hear this story. what did you think when you heard that lawyer confirm who it was that wanted tucker carlson to get full access to their
process? >> we had that attempt in other cases as well. we had a number of people willing to pay, willing to do whatever, to come in and do exactly that. chris, you hit it on the head. not only is it disgusting and violates the privilege, but i'm worried about the potential influence that comes along with that type of access, you know, telling you to do it this way or maybe you'll get money if you do it this way or maybe for this $100,000 you should argue this point. it is a bastardization of the entire process when you drag someone into the privilege that we have with our clients. i just find it very troubling. >> you've got mosby on every night, you've got the guy saying it's clearly self-defense, service clearly self-defense and the left hates this and the media hates this, the justice system is bogus -- and he's
imbedded with the guy at the same time and the guys paying for the defense are working with the guy on tv every night saying that it's self-defense. even if the guy isn't a joke, he's on tv at the end of the day. we're all equal in that regard. what does it mean to you? >> what i can tell you, chris, is that this verdict is really not surprising. i mean, at the end of the day when we look at it from a legal perspective, we have this young, white boy who went on a stand in a disingenuous emotional state. they did this. it was an effective defense strategy to ensure these seven white women, four white men, one hispanic man, who was to empathize with the boy afraid of the scary black lives matter looters who were trying to hurt him. what was surprising to me was the prosecutor's approach in not just villainizing but criminal izing the first victim in this case. i don't think it was effective for him to tell the jury the
victim tipped over an empty port-a-potty, lit a dumpster on fire and used the n-word. it's the victim, if it were the victim alive today that he would be prosecuted for arson. while i can appreciate the prosecutor was attempting to emphasize that vigilanteism is inacceptable, he provided validity to kyle rittenhouse's self-defense claim, which undermined the entirety of the self-defense's claim which rested on the fact that kyle rittenhouse was a provocateur and was not entitled to
self-defense. by villainizing and criminalizing the dead victim, the jury was able to disassociate the criminal acts of the victim that wasn't able to be present and express sympathy for the killer in their presence. >> the only thing i would come back to you on is the statute's a lot more forgiving than you've given it credit for. the jury didn't have to find that this was the only thing he could do. they just had to find that it was reasonable for him under the circumstances, and the prosecution had to prove that it wasn't reasonable beyond a reasonable doubt, which is our highest standard and much higher than most states. so, no duty to retreat. it had to be reasonable for him,
not you. like, he's a dope, but you've got to think like a dope. and if that's what they thought of him. and the prosecution has this incredibly high burden. you know, race, sure. you know, you can make that point. but they didn't need it with this law, did they, mosby? >> so, i mean, let's not -- let's be very clear, chris. the reason this is not surprising is because kyle rittenhouse is a young, white boy who has never in his life been perceived as a threat, even after he shot three people with an ar-15 rifle. >> you think if he were black they would have convicted him? >> let me tell you, based on his color he is given a presumption of innocence that isn't always given to person of color. if kyle rittenhouse was black, today's outcome would have been different. but because societal views of a young, white boy in fear of his life from the hostile black lives matter rioters and looters, it's easy for seven white women, four white men, one hispanic man to sympathize with this young white boy who was left with no other choice, according to defense, but to kill two people and injure a third with an ar-15 rifle. >> mark, last word -- >> black people go to prison for
on a regular basis for things white people do with impunity. >> mark, last word to you. he shot two white guys. it was white guys chasing him obviously just to keep the facts straight. go ahead. >> the criminal justice system is racially biased. no one denies that. it didn't show up in this trial that also infects or -- it's injected into the system. but having said that, this is really, chris, as you started, this is a self-defense statute that allows for actions like this to occur. and his previous lawyer or his recent lawyer just said the same thing, there may be too many guns on the street. and if the gun is the first response, um, then it's wrong. and it seemed, with both of the shooting events with rittenhouse, it was the first response to use an ar-15 and we have to get away from that. >> both of you, thank you very much. hard truths, but they need to be
said. marilyn mosby. mark o'mara. thank you. now, look. you got to keep the facts straight. um, but there are bigger significances here to talk about, also. imagine what would've happened if kyle rittenhouse had shot black men, instead of white men, and then you get this verdict, what would be happening in the streets tonight? how do we get to a better place? how much of it is law? how much of it is culture? what's the way forward? cornell william brooks with the take on the culture war. you had tucker carlson's team embedded with this guy's defense at the behest of the men paying for it. what does that tell you about where we are? next. exposed dentin to help repair sensitive teeth. my patients are able to have that quality of life back. i recommend sensodyne repair and protect with deep repair.
thanks for coming. now when it comes to a financial plan this broker is your man. let's open your binders to page 188... uh carl, are there different planning options in here? options? plans we can build on our own, or with help from a financial consultant? like schwab does. uhhh... could we adjust our plan... ...yeah, like if we buy a new house? mmmm... and our son just started working. oh! do you offer a complimentary retirement plan for him? as in free? just like schwab. schwab! look forward to planning with schwab. i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... ...me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there for her. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is the #1 prescribed biologic for people with crohn's disease. humira helps people achieve remission that can last. and the majority of people on humira
saw significant symptom relief in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. learn how abbvie could help you save on humira. i'll also be needing some nail polish, a bottle of champagne, and a box of chocolates. ( doorbell ) boom! because i'm keeping it casual. ( blowing )
by the cops that night. the other half of the thread is, there you go, lefty mob, the law wins. you don't get what you want just because you don't like that a white guy went there to defend property, and got attacked by these blm crazies. too bad. what is our reason to believe that we can get to a better place? >> has everything to do with our resolve and determination. but let's be clear here. the left or those who appreciate the racial reality that, had a black kid committed the same crimes that kyle rittenhouse did, he, in fact, would be dead. he would not have been given a presumption of innocence. how do we know that? look at the statistics in terms of police homicide. in other words, how many black kids get offered water or ushered in into a racial battleground with an ak-47?
the statistics make very clear that kyle rittenhouse was treated very differently, simply because of the color of his skin as well as -- i should say -- in contrast to the mere facts of the case. there is not a presumption of innocence. think about trayvon martin. think about the numerous black people -- young-black people who have literally been detained, arrested, held up. think about aw hmaud arbery. >> i think ahmaud arbery is going to be a different outcome. got different law. you got different prosecution team. you got different facts. my question is this. can two things be true in this instance at once? you are correct about what you are saying about the general dynamics of injustice. systemic injustice. but that this was also the right verdict under the law that applies here, and the facts as we understood them in the trial.
>> it is an unsurprising verdict, given the law. given the facts in the trial. given the judge. given the racially, um, coded jury. given all of those things and given the assumption that kyle rittenhouse is innocent until proven guilty, as opposed to black people. and the fact that kyle rittenhouse got to stand trial. namely, if he were black, he might have been killed on the spot. so, yes, given those things, the outcome is not surprising. >> professor, we got to keep talking. we have got to expose the problems. we got to expose the progress. and we got to ask for more of the latter, and less of the former. thank you very much for being with us and i will be talking to you again. god bless. >> look forward to it. >> all right. we'll be right back with the handoff.
>> man: what's my safelite story? my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me... with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ ♪ limu emu... & doug ♪ ♪ superpowers from a spider bite? i could use some help showing the world how liberty mutual customizes their car insurance so they only pay for what they need. (gasps) ♪ did it work? only pay for what you need ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ spider-man no way home in theaters december 17th
Uploaded by TV Archive on