Kyle Rittenhouse Doesn’t Need Reasonable Doubt. His Prosecutors Do

Prosecutors in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse so far have a case that comes down to this: What if the things our witnesses say they saw and thought during that fateful night of rioting last year are all wrong?

If this were a legitimate murder trial, and not one instigated by Democrats and the media for political purposes, that’s the kind of argument that a defense team would be making. It’s a concept otherwise known as “reasonable doubt.”

But in a very weird turn of events, it’s lawyers for the state of Wisconsin who are the ones trying to argue that what’s seen on the surface is not what it seems (despite eye-witness testimony and a lot of video evidence showing that, yes, it’s exactly what it seems).

Key testimony was presented Thursday when prosecutors called journalist Richie McGinniss to the stand to explain exactly what he saw in August 2020, back when riots had engulfed Kenosha, Wis., over the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man.

McGinniss had briefly interviewed Rittenhouse, then 17, about why he was downtown carrying an AR-15 and a medic kit. He had also been in tow of Rittenhouse when the latter was seen on video darting across a parking lot, pursued by another male, who McGinnis said he saw trying to grab Rittenhouse’s firearm.

McGinniss said Thursday that he saw the man, since identified as 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum, yell “f— you” at Rittenhouse before reaching for the gun. Rittenhouse did a kind of swerve with the gun to evade Rosenbaum’s grasp, then fired multiple shots.