Carl Rittenhouse is standing trial
for shooting three individuals
during Black Lives Matter protests
in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Two of those individuals died
as a result of him opening fire,
one was injured.
He was also in possession of
an illegal weapon considering
the fact that he was 17 years old
at the time.
Now, as he stands trial we're
getting word regarding the judge's
behavior and his ground rules.
The trial is set to begin next week
but the judge has set ground rules.
This is
Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder,
who says that the individuals
who were shot and killed
cannot be referred to as victims.
However, they can be referred to as
looters, rioters and arsonists.
In fact, Judge Schroeder said to
the defense attorney, demonize
them if you want to, if you think
it will win points with the jury.
That is
a direct quote from the judge.
He believes that the word victims,
even though the individuals who
are now dead, died as a result of
someone opening fire and
killing them, calling them victims
is preju- >> Prejudicial >> Yes,
exactly.
>> But it's not just that,
he call it literally, calling them
a victim is a loaded term.
Okay, but wait, wait, wait wait, so
calling the victims who are dead
and indisputably victims.
Victims the actual term is loaded
but calling them rioters
when you haven't even presented any
evidence that they were rioters,
is not loaded?
Calling them arsonists and it's not
a shred of evidence that these
started any fires, is not loaded?
Calling them looters when you don't
even have any evidence of that,
is not loaded?
No, no, look, look.
>> Demonize them if you want,
if you think it will win points
with the jury, is what the judge
said to the defense attorney here.
So who's on trial,
is it the 17 year old who crossed
state lines with an illegal gun and
then proceeded to shoot three
people, killing two of them?
Or are the two victims who have
died on trial?
The other individual who was shot
and suffered serious injuries,
that person is on trial?
Who's on trial here?
I want to know.
>> Yeah, so if I was the parents of
the victims,
the victims who are dead, because
Kyle Rittenhouse murdered them, and
this judge says, you're not allowed
to call your dead kids victims.
But you are allowed to call them
all sorts of names.
And they're not here to defend
themselves because they're already
dead, but they're not victims.
So smear them,
smear them all you want, but
don't ever have sympathy for them.
So I don't know it, Schroeder,
of course,
I don't know him in real life,
he's a circuit judge.
But this is so preposterous,
so bias,
it would be shocking if it wasn't
a deeply racist right winger.
Black Lives Matter protests,
I mean, aren't they all arsonists
and rioters and looters?
No matter who, what the race
of the people who were killed
were I mean he went to go shoot
black people, they're not victims,
victims, no, no, no, no, no.
But if you murder them,
do you know what happens?
The right wing gives you millions
of dollars, that's literal.
Kyle Rittenhouse- >> Yep.
>> Murder these people and
the right wing started like
a GoFund Me page or whatever and
raised millions for him.
They're like
you went to go kill Black people.
And then at that
Black Lives Matter protest
you murdered a couple of people.
Bravo, way to go murderer.
Wait that see, guys, what are we
going to do with the right wing?
On the one hand,
I want to reach out to them I did
earlier in the show, hey, we ain't
corruption, you ain't corruption.
Let's work together against corrupt
politicians, right?
On the other hand, when you have
some portion of them, not all of
them, but some portion of them,
they say, that guy went to go kill
Black people and then he actually
did kill a couple of protesters.
I love that guy, I love that guy,
I want to give him my hard earned
money.
So if he gets out of jail,
maybe he could murder more people
on behalf of the right wing.
>> Listen.
>> How am I supposed to get along
with that guy?
>> The right wing is going to do
what the right wing does, right?
But we're supposed to have a fair
justice system, which of course,
is a laughable thing to say,
because it has not been fair.
So if this judge said hey,
don't call them victims, just stay
away from using that word.
Look I disagree with it, but
like the gratuitous you can
demonize them.
You can refer to them as rioters,
looters, arsonists,
how was that a fair trial?
How is that not abundantly clear
that there's a bias here?
Listen, I want Kyle Rittenhouse to
stand fair trial,
I don't want him to be found guilty
before there's evidence presented.
Look, there's the court of public
opinion.
And the court of public opinion is
one thing.
But I want a fair trial.
I don't want him to be found guilty
when he's innocent.
I don't want him to
be found innocent when he's guilty.
But already from the jump,
it's abundantly clear that this
is not a fair trial.
When the judge is openly brazenly
transparently telling, the defense
attorney that he's free to demonize
the individuals who aren't even
here anymore because they were
killed, during that shooting.
>> And you know what else it does?
Look, I get it, the judge probably
thinks if he was here,
he would probably tell you, no, no,
I'm just telling the defense, it's
a theoretically liberal position to
tell defense to use everything you
can to get your client off.
And so I'm not sure that
it will work with the jury,
it might backfire with the jury but
if you want to demonize them and
see how it turns out.
But that notwithstanding guys,
if we say to murder is like
Kyle Rittenhouse, hey, remember
if you shoot kill, they won't
be there to defend themselves.
And then a judge will let you call
them rioters and looters and
arsonists, and they won't
be able to defend themselves.
And the judge will tell everybody
they're not victims,
they're just rioters.
I mean, if you call them rioters
and you don't call them victims,
why don't you just let him out of
jail right now?
Why don't you just tell the jury,
remember, he killed a bunch of
bad guys, and they had it coming.
And so this guy is
a goddamn champion, right?
So I don't know what his
motivations are.
But this ruling is monstrous,
it's monstrous.
And guys,
no Progressive wants injustice.
We don't want injustice toward
the right wing either,
we're fighting for justice.
So if you're on that jury and
it turns out hey one of the guys
pointed that Kyle Rittenhouse had
not done anything,
didn't start anything.
And one of the guys in the in the
crowd pointed a gun at his head and
then he turned around and actually
defended himself, then you should
let him go, then he's not guilty,
that is actually self defense,
if that's what the evidence shows.
So far we have public evidence,
it is not what it shows,
it is not at all what it shows.
But if you have magic evidence that
we haven't seen, it's possible,
show to the jury then we would
refer just I don't want to
put away somebody who's innocent.
Why the hell would I want to do
that, okay?
>> There are multiple videos from
that night.
The first first video was
Kyle Rittenhouse literally chasing
a protester into a parking lot.
Then you see video of protesters
trying to take his gun away because
obviously we're dealing with a 17
year old from out of state who
shows up to Kenosha,
Wisconsin to cause trouble.
>> To looking to kill people
because that's what the right
one here to do.
We did this story yesterday of
the guy in Texas.
Somebody pulls up next
to his house, he goes and
shoots him in the head.
He's like, well,
there's a guy by my house,
I can't wait to shoot people.
And then it
took weeks to arrest the guy.
Well, I don't know the guy who was
killed happen to be randomly be
a young Muslim kids,
he probably deserved it.
He's probably probably a rioter
or a looter.
If you're a white right winger,
you're God in this country,
you're above the law,
you can kill anyone you like.
God damn it I'm tired of it.
Like God, every time I think about
the parents of those kids, it makes
me sick to see what this judge did,
what those unbelievable monsters
in the right wing do celebrating
the deaths of those poor kids.
And by the way, just last thing,
think about it from this
perspective.
Kyle Rittenhouse goes in with
a weapon into the protest that he
points to,
he chases people with it.
He points a weapon to someone.
They then try to wrestle the weapon
away because they
have a loaded gun pointed at him,
a loaded weapon at them, right?
But for right wingers that's not
stand your ground.
That's not self defense.
But when Rittenhouse then shoots
them dead,
they say that self defense, no, no.
Look, if he gets away with it and
now with this judge,
there's almost, I mean it's like
the most rigged trial I've ever
seen in my life, it's almost
inconceivable he'll get convicted.
And so if you thought if somebody
told you you don't know anything
about the case or
somebody told you, the people
who were killed were monsters who
attacked this poor kid,
and they're not at all victims
they're rioters and arsonists and
looters and terrible people, and
this kid had to defend himself.
Well, you would logically think,
I guess he was self defense.
I mean, the judges handing it to
them on a silver platter,
handing it to him just to get
out of jail free card.
Well, okay then soon the right wing
are going to logically think we
can just kill them all,
there's never any penalty.
And in fact, we have a story later
in the show where one of the people
listening to Charlie Kirk's breach
ask him, why don't we just start
killing them?
In America now,
if you're a white right winger,
it is grotesque.
It's become a question that where
you don't, what's the downside?
I might get millions.
George Zimmerman is a hero.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero.
No one ever gets punished,
minorities they saw black people
are angry in this country,
they're not nearly angry enough,
not nearly angry enough.