It’s far from over: Denver attorney who represents criminal shot while pointing gun at Rittenhouse files civil lawsuit

Posted by: | |Categories Around The World, Featured
Share:

DENVER, CO- On Friday, November 19th, a jury found 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts, however, there is still more legal action ahead. 

According to reports, Denver attorney Milo Schwab, who represents two of the individuals who were shot by Rittenhouse, plans to file civil action. In an interview before testimony in the criminal trial began, Schwab said:

“A criminal case and civil case are different, but we are reaching for larger questions.”

Schwab’s clients are the family of Joseph Rosenbaum, one of the men who died and Gaige Grosskreutz who was wounded by Rittenhouse during the shooting.

Reportedly, Schwab has already filed a lawsuit against Kenosha authorities and its police department. Schwab plans to raise questions like:

“How did the police respond? Were the police too cozy with vigilantes walking the streets enforcing their own justice?”

Although acquitted from criminal charges, Rittenhouse can still face civil action. Rittenhouse can also file defamation lawsuits himself. Mark Richards, Rittenhouse’s criminal trial attorney, said in a statement:

“He has to get on with his life as best as he can. I think eventually some anonymity will come back to it.”

Schwab, on the other hand, does not agree. He said what took place on the streets of Kenosha may be seen as part of a much larger picture, adding:

“Whether that’s the type of society we want where white nationalists show up to protest Black Lives Matter movements or movements for racial justice with AR-15s.”

He stated:

“It’s going to raise questions if self-appointed militias can roam the streets doling out justice as they see.”

Following the not guilty verdict, Schwab and co-counsel Kimberely Motley issued the following statement:

“Today we grieve for the families of those slain by Kyle Rittenhouse. Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum did not deserve to die that night. For now, we ask for peace from everyone hurting and that the public respect the privacy of the victims and their families.”

The statement added:

“That night in Kenosha, Gaige Grosskreutz, Anthony Huber, and many others acted heroically. They did not seek violence, but to end violence. What we need right now is justice, not more violence. While today’s verdict may mean justice delayed, it will not mean justice denied. We are committed to uncovering the truth of that night and holding those responsible to account.”

Rittenhouse faced five charges: first-degree reckless homicide for killing Rosenbaum; first-degree intentional homicide for killing Huber; and attempted first-degree intentional homicide in the shooting for Grosskreutz. 

He also faced two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment for shooting twice at an unidentified man and in the direction of Richard McGinniss, a videographer who was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot at Rosenbaum.

Rittenhouse has been acquitted of all charges and cannot be tried again due to the Constitution protecting against double jeopardy.

Rittenhouse’s family has hinted at possible defamation lawsuits related to how public figures and media organizations characterized his actions and motivations during the shootings. As of this writing, they have not taken any formal legal action.

According to reports, if Rittenhouse were taken to civil trial for wrongful death, the teen could claim self-defense, as he did during the criminal case. He has said that he went to Kenosha to protect property from rioters, but that he came under attack and feared for his life when he shot three people, two of them fatally.

However, legal experts state that the burden of proof civil plaintiffs need to make, by a preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, is much lower that what Kenosha prosecutors faced during the criminal trial.

The father of Huber has filed a federal civil lawsuit, but not against Rittenhouse. It names the city and county of Kenosha, the sheriff, the acting and former police chiefs, and unnamed officers and deputies. The lawsuit allegedly accused them of racial animus in allowing dozens of armed whites to remain among protesters, leading to conditions that resulted in Huber’s death.

Four other protesters have sued the city and county of Kenosha. Those suits allege the curfews were selectively enforced against protesters, while officers ignored, or even encouraged, armed men like Ritten house. 

Editor note: In 2020, we saw a nationwide push to “defund the police”.  While we all stood here shaking our heads wondering if these people were serious… they cut billions of dollars in funding for police officers. 

And as a result, crime has skyrocketed – all while the same politicians who said “you don’t need guns, the government will protect you” continued their attacks on both our police officers and our Second Amendment rights.

And that’s exactly why we’re launching this national crowdfunding campaign as part of our efforts to help “re-fund the police”.

For those looking for a quick link to get in the fight and support the cause, click here.

—

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Afraid for their lives: Judge in Rittenhouse trial warns that jury members were filmed

November 15th, 2021

KENOSHA, WI – As the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse continues, outside forces may be working to find a way to intimidate the jury and secure the outcome they want. 

Bruce Schroeder, the judge that ruled that the three men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse, in what many believe to be self defense, could not be called “victims,” told the court that a deputy observed someone taking video of the jury as they arrived at the courthouse. 

“I’ve been assured the officers had the video that was taken deleted. New measures are being taken to make sure that does not reoccur,” Schroeder told the jury. 

As reported by Breitbart, there have been concerns leading up to and during the trial of attempts to intimidate the jury. Given the tenor of politicians, the media and even blue-check members of social media, Rittenhouse’s guilt or innocence was decided the night of August 25th, 2020. 

The media has asked conservative politicians to condemn Rittenhouse and his actions.

Liberal politicians have equated him to a school shooter and labeled him a white supremacist. These politicians include the now President of the United States, Joe Biden. 

A supposed relative of George Floyd even called for protesters to intimidate the jury and threaten them. Cortez Rice, is allegedly no stranger to trying to threaten and intimidate people to affect the outcome of a trial. 

The reality of the circumstances have already started pointing to a strong possibility of acquittal, given the evidence of self-defense and verified by two of the prosecution’s own witnesses. One of those witnesses was Gaige Grosskreutz, who was shot by Rittenhouse but survived his injuries. 

Grosskreutz originally told police officers that he had a 9mm pistol with him that night, but that it had fallen out of his holster and he was unarmed when he was shot by Rittenhouse.

His testimony however, revealed that he did in fact have his concealed weapon with him the entire time, and he was carrying it without a permit. 

When he was asked by the defense attorney if the photos and videos of him pointing his gun at the defendant were accurate, he said they were. 

“So when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Corey Chirafisi asked.

HIs single word response: 

“Correct.”

Advancing his questioning, Chirafisi the asked:

“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him, that he fired, right?” 

Grosskreutz echoed his previous answer.

“Correct.”

He also denied that his intent when pulling his Glock was to kill Rittenhouse.

“That’s not the kind of person that I am. It’s not why I was out there for 75 days prior to that, why I spent up until that point my time, my money, my education providing care for people.”

But, there have been statements contrary to that testimony.

“I just talked to Gaige Grosskreutz too. His only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him,” tweeted an individual that was shown in photos with Grosskreutz at the hospital. 

Meanwhile, Rittenhouse took the stand in his own defense, and at one point broke down sobbing as he recounted that night. 

Luckily, we had Lebron James weigh in for his 50.3 million followers to let us know it was all fake. 

James’ tweet has been retweeted 33,000 times, has almost 300,000 likes and more than 58,000 comments since his posting. 

We will continue to follow this trial and provide updates. 

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Media coverage of Rittenhouse trial shows overwhelming biast, explains why trust in media is dissolving (op-ed)

 

This editorial is brought to you by a staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

—

KENOSHA, WI – Trust in the mainstream media seems to continue dissipating, and a prime example of how that is occurring can be found in the ongoing coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.

While the delivered testimony of prosecution witness Gaige Grosskreutz brought to light critical aspects of the case that behooved the defense – many mainstream media outlets glossed over those aspects in reports and headlines to portray an almost completely different version of events in the courtroom.

On November 8th, witness Grosskreutz – who was the third person shot by Rittenhouse during the August 2020 riot – took the stand in Rittenhouse’s trial and suffice it to say, said testimony delivered wasn’t exactly beneficial to the prosecution.

During Grosskreutz’s delivered testimony, some of the most critical details that are worthy of news media headlines are as follows:

  • Grosskreutz admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse didn’t shoot him until he was pointing his firearm at the defendant

  • It was learned that Grosskreutz withheld from police in his initial statement that he was armed when he was shot by Rittenhouse – a.k.a., lying by omission to police
  • Grosskreutz also admitted the existence of a $10 million lawsuit filed by him against the city, county and several law enforcement officers – while again omitting in his filed lawsuit that he was armed at the riot
  • Grosskreutz also admitted to carrying his firearm concealed during the riot while saying he didn’t have an active concealed carry permit – and also admitted he was never charged for the offense
  • The witness, even when confronted with video he filmed and others captured that showed him chasing Rittenhouse prior to being shot, said on the stand that he didn’t believe he was chasing the defendant
  • Grosskreutz also admitted to discussing the case online in the days leading up to his testimony, confirming a Twitter account to be his – where he actively spread misinformation about the case as well

So, considering all these bombshell revelations delivered in Grosskreutz’s testimony – from lying to police, admitting he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse before being shot, seemingly lying on the stand, and illegally carrying a firearm concealed during the riot – there’s certainly no shortage of relevant reports and headlines mainstream media could choose to cover.

But instead, several media outlets glossed over such appropriate headlines in favor of perhaps some of the most irrelevant parts of Grosskreutz’s testimony.

For instance, CBS News’ produced a report titled “Lone survivor shot by Kyle Rittenhouse at Kenosha protests says he thought he “was going to die”.

Local news outlet Kenosha News pulled a similar headline with “Rittenhouse Trial Day 6: Gaige Grosskreutz says he feared for his life”. NBC News also crafted a nearly identical headline with “Kyle Rittenhouse shooting victim says he thought he was ‘going to die’”.

The real kicker from the NBC News report on Grosskreutz’s testimony is that it completely omitted that Grosskreutz admitted on the stand that he had his weapon pointed at Rittenhouse before being shot – with NBC only noting the following about Grosskreutz aiming his gun at the defendant:

“[Grosskreutz’s] arms were raised shortly before Rittenhouse shot him in the right biceps…[District attorney] Binger and [defense council] Chirafisi used videos and still images, sparring over where Grosskreutz’s hands were positioned at the moment Rittenhouse opened fire.”

In the Daily Beast’s report shared to Twitter, the lede contained in the tweet from the outlet highlighted arguably some of the most unimportant elements from Grosskreutz’s testimony:

“The man who survived being shot by Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last August testified on Monday that he never tried to kill the heavily-armed teenager. In fact, he said at the teen’s murder trial, he was actually trying to surrender to him.”

These examples are exactly why there is so much lacking trust in the mainstream media – because these outlets can’t reposition themselves for even a moment from their preferred narratives to even slightly resemble being objective in their reporting.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Back in August of 2020, mere days after the riot in Kenosha, we at Law Enforcement Today shared a report like no other outlet at the time that broke down the initial charges against Rittenhouse that explored the likelihood of him being convicted based upon the circumstances of each shooting. 

Here’s that previous report. 

_

Can 17-year-old Rittenhouse beat the homicide charges? Quite possibly, here’s why. (Op-ed)

(Originally published August 28th, 2020)

This editorial is brought to you by a staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

—

Kyle Rittenhouse is currently facing first-degree intentional homicide, reckless homicide, attempted intentional homicide, two counts of recklessly endangering safety and possession of a dangerous weapon while under the age of 18.

But the question is – can Rittenhouse actually be found guilty of any of these crimes? That is where the matters get a little murky.

Prosecutors have seemingly thrown a slew of charges, most of which are felonies and one being a misdemeanor. Specifically, the lesser crime is ‘dangerous weapon while under the age of 18’, which is defined as a Class A misdemeanor according to Wisconsin statute 948.60(2).

Clearly, the case is going to be prosecuted in Wisconsin, and while Rittenhouse is currently residing in custody of the Lake County Jail in Illinois – he’s awaiting extradition to Wisconsin. This means that every alleged crime that Rittenhouse faces is going to be by the book under Wisconsin law.

The only indisputable fact in this case from a criminal culpability that anyone can observe is that Rittenhouse possessed a weapon – specifically a rifle – on the evening of the alleged murders. However, that is only a misdemeanor, which is telling of why we’re seeing murder and reckless endangerment charges instead of felony murder charges.

You see, if possessing a firearm while under the age of 18 were a felony by itself, then all a prosecutor would have to prove in court was that Rittenhouse having the gun was a felony for the entirety of him possessing it.

That’s because felony murder only requires that prosecutors prove that any felony was being committed by a suspect when someone was killed in the process.

So, let’s examine first-degree intentional homicide.

Wisconsin law currently defines that charge as someone who “causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person”, without any form of a mitigating circumstance.

Essentially, these mitigating circumstances would be the alleged murderer thought their life was in danger when it was reasonably not.

While there’s a myriad of instances defined within the statute of what defines an imperfect self-defense claim within the mitigating circumstances, most boil down to aspects of ill-conceived threats that could define the case as second-degree murder.

However, there’s a lot to digest here on a first-degree charge that could easily surpass the barometer of second-degree murder to that of flat-out self defense clauses.

According to Wisconsin statute 939.48(1), in order for someone to enact deadly force by way of a firearm, then all they need to illustrate is that “the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself”.

For instance, the first person that Rittenhouse is said to have encountered and killed was someone that was captured on video giving chase to Rittenhouse and tossing some form of object at him.

Can 17-year-old Rittenhouse beat the homicide charges? Quite possibly, here's why. (Op-ed)
Rittenhouse being chased by Rosenbaum – YouTube screenshot

Now, while said object did not hit Rittenhouse, video also showed this individual continuing to pursue him.

A single gunshot can be heard which was not from Rittenhouse’s weapon, but had originated from behind him. Thereafter, four shots can be heard which are presumably from Rittenhouse’s weapon which allegedly led to the person being struck in the head.

That person was 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum, a convicted pedophile from Arizona who’d spent over a decade in prison for sexual conduct with a minor.

Can 17-year-old Rittenhouse beat the homicide charges? Quite possibly, here's why. (Op-ed)
Joseph Rosenbaum – Arizona Department of Corrections

Interestingly, since Rosenbaum spent over ten years in prison after being convicted of two counts of sexual conduct with a minor (10 years for one count, 2 years for the second), that implies he accepted a plea deal for an offense involving someone aged 12 to 14-years-old based upon sentencing guidelines if he were convicted in trial of said offenses.

While Rosenbaum’s criminal history may not be quite relevant in any criminal proceedings against Rittenhouse, his age and conduct toward Rittenhouse can certainly be examined.

Rosenbaum was 36-years-old, over twice the age of Rittenhouse.

Now while Rosenbaum couldn’t possibly have known that Rittenhouse was 17 when he began to chase and launch an attack on him, Rittenhouse certainly knew his own age and that he was dealing with an adult aggressor.

The second person fatally shot allegedly by Rittenhouse was 26-year-old Anthony Huber.

The video evidence of Rittenhouse’s encounter with Huber takes place after the encounter with Rosenbaum as a crowd of people are chasing Rittenhouse as he’s running toward a police line.

Can 17-year-old Rittenhouse beat the homicide charges? Quite possibly, here's why. (Op-ed)
Rosenbaum and Huber prior to the shooting, with Rosenbaum antagonizing the armed persons who accompanied Rittenhouse that evening – YouTube screenshot

Huber, another felon who has been arrested and convicted for numerous cases involving domestic abuse and strangulation, is often referred to as the “skateboard guy”.

With a crowd of people having caught up with Rittenhouse, one unidentified person can be seen trying to jump/stomp on his head after Rittenhouse fell to the ground.

Rittenhouse discharges his weapon initially without hitting anyone. Then, Huber catches up and looks to be attempting to gain control of Rittenhouse’s weapon but also has the skateboard in his other hand.

Can 17-year-old Rittenhouse beat the homicide charges? Quite possibly, here's why. (Op-ed)
Huber hovering over Rittenhouse with a skateboard after a crowd chased him down – YouTube screenshot

In a matter of mere moments – after calls from the crowd to “get his ass” – Rittenhouse appears to shoot Huber around the stomach area. Huber died from his injuries.

The last person shot, non-fatally in this instance, was 26-year-old Gaige Grosskreutz.

Can 17-year-old Rittenhouse beat the homicide charges? Quite possibly, here's why. (Op-ed)
Grosskreutz approaching Rittenhouse with what appears to be a gun drawn – YouTube screenshot

Grosskreutz moves toward Rittenhouse with what appears to be a glock in his hand after the shooting of Huber, which photos taken after the shooting shows Grosskreutz holding the weapon.

With what appears to be the gun visible in Grosskreutz hand, as he moves in toward Rittenhouse, he gets shot in the right bicep and flees.

Can 17-year-old Rittenhouse beat the homicide charges? Quite possibly, here's why. (Op-ed)
Grosskreutz with what appears to be glock in hand – YouTube screenshot

From there, you can see Rittenhouse appearing as though he’s trying to self-surrender to police.

Numerous police vehicle are approaching the area shortly after the shooting, and Rittenhouse has his hands up in the air and can be seen walking toward police vehicles.

However, the cops simply drove past him, likely because they’ve no idea what is going on at the scene they’re trying to respond to.

While many have speculated that police didn’t apprehend Rittenhouse right there because “he’s white” – that is not rooted in any fact whatsoever at this time.

When examining every shooting individually, there seems to be solid evidence to support a case of self defense.

While many are proclaiming that because Rittenhouse should’ve never had the gun in the first place, that it nullifies any form of self-defense. But this is not rooted in any law since possessing the weapon is just a misdemeanor.

Another point brought up is that Rittenhouse crossed state lines when the shootings happened, so that must also bear some kind of legal ramification. Once again, that really doesn’t amount to much of anything legally. All that means is that Rittenhouse is being charged in a neighboring state and nothing more.

The state lines point often brought up has also brought people to believe as though it attributes toward Rittenhouse’s intent to kill since he attended said protest and showed up armed from out of state.

For one, the distance between Antioch, Illinois and Kenosha, Wisconsin is about 20 miles. There’s not some huge border crossing over from Illinois to Wisconsin – it’s typically just a sign on the road letting drivers know they’re now in Wisconsin.

Can 17-year-old Rittenhouse beat the homicide charges? Quite possibly, here's why. (Op-ed)
Rittenhouse in Kenosha cleaning up graffiti – YouTube screenshot

Secondly, there’s footage of Rittenhouse also cleaning up graffiti in Kenosha prior to the shootings. Thus, it’s difficult to allege that Rittenhouse was planning to murder one or more persons. If that were the case, then there would have been indiscriminate shootings enacted by Rittenhouse that we’d be examining.

Also, another area constantly being clamored about is “why didn’t police take his gun away when they saw him with it earlier”?

Well, this wasn’t just an issue of a lone gunman walking around an undisturbed neighborhood – this was the site of a riot that had been ongoing and police were likely made well aware that there would be people with guns carrying constitutionally.

Furthermore, police can’t just look at someone carrying a rifle and automatically know that they’re under 18.

Based upon the manner in which Rittenhouse is handling his weapon, it appears as though he’s clearly trained in handling firearms. Anyone, especially an officer, observing could reasonably deduce that the person is trained in firearms and thus around the legal age to carry one.

So, taking all the aforementioned into consideration, is there a chance that Rittenhouse can claim self-defense and beat any homicide related charges at trial?

Honestly, yes.

If the homicide charges can be cleared by way of self-defense, then that would also realistically negate the reckless endangerment and attempted homicide.

Especially considering that if this were to go before a jury, all it would take is a single juror carrying reasonable doubt of whether Rittenhouse’s actions were criminal at the time they happened.

Because if the jury is hung, then you have a mistrial. In said event, chances are the prosecution may not want to attempt to prosecute the case again.

You can decide for yourself by reviewing the video below that offers numerous angles available of the shootings. Be warned, the footage is graphic. 

_

Editor note: In 2020, we saw a nationwide push to “defund the police”.  While we all stood here shaking our heads wondering if these people were serious… they cut billions of dollars in funding for police officers.  And as a result, crime has skyrocketed – all while the same politicians who said “you don’t need guns, the government will protect you” continued their attacks on both our police officers and our Second Amendment rights.

And that’s exactly why we’re launching this national crowdfunding campaign as part of our efforts to help “re-fund the police”.

For those looking for a quick link to get in the fight and support the cause, click here.

_

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Share:
Submit a Correction
About The Author

Jenna Curren, Ed.D., is an assistant professor in criminal justice studies. As chair of a CJ advisory board, Jenna actively partners with members of the community to integrate current students into internships and prospective law enforcement careers. Prior to working in academics, Jenna held various custody and treatment positions and was a lieutenant for the CT Department of Correction. Throughout her tenure, she supervised men, women, youth and mental health offenders. A C.E.R.T and honor guard member, as well as a training officer, Jenna has 10 years of experience in the criminal justice and human services fields.

Related Posts