Kyle Rittenhouse responded “no” when asked by his attorney whether he came to Kenosha looking for trouble in the summer of 2020. | Sean Krajacic/The Kenosha News via AP pool

The startling turn came after Rittenhouse, in a high-stakes gamble, took the stand and testified that he was under attack when he shot three men, two fatally, during a night of turbulent protests against racial injustice in Kenosha in the summer of 2020.

KENOSHA, Wis. — The murder case against Kyle Rittenhouse was thrown into jeopardy Wednesday when his lawyers asked for a mistrial over what appeared to be out-of-bounds questions asked of Rittenhouse by the chief prosecutor. The judge did not immediately rule on the request.

The startling turn came after Rittenhouse, in a high-stakes gamble, took the stand and testified that he was under attack when he shot three men, two fatally, during a night of turbulent protests against racial injustice in Kenosha in the summer of 2020.

“I didn’t do anything wrong. I defended myself,” the 18-year-old said.

In an account largely corroborated by video and the prosecution’s own witnesses, Rittenhouse said that the first man cornered him and put a hand on his rifle, the second man hit him with a skateboard, and the third man came at him with a gun of his own.

During cross-examination, prosecutor Thomas Binger asked Rittenhouse about whether it was appropriate to use deadly force to protect property. The prosecutor also posed questions about Rittenhouse’s silence after his arrest.

At that, the jury was ushered out of the room, and Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder loudly and angrily accused Binger of pursuing an improper line of questioning and trying to introduce testimony that the judge earlier said he was inclined to prohibit.

Rittenhouse lawyer Corey Chirafasi all but suggested prosecutors might be deliberately trying to cause a mistrial because this one is “going badly” for the prosecution and it wants a do-over. The defense asked for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning that if one is granted, Rittenhouse cannot be retried.

When Binger said he had been acting in good faith, the judge replied: “I don’t believe that.”

Rittenhouse is on trial for the shootings he committed during sometimes-violent protests that erupted in Kenosha over the wounding of a Black man by a white Kenosha police officer. He could get life in prison if convicted of the most serious charges against him.

Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, went to Kenosha with an AR-style semi-automatic weapon and a medic bag in what the former police youth cadet said was an attempt to protect property after rioters had set fires and ransacked businesses on previous nights.

He testified that he fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum after Rosenbaum chased him and put his hand on the barrel of Rittenhouse’s rifle. He said he then shot and killed Anthony Huber after Huber struck him in the neck with his skateboard and grabbed his gun.

When a third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, “lunges at me with his pistol pointed directly at my head,” Rittenhouse shot him, too, wounding him.

“I didn’t intend to kill them. I intended to stop the people who were attacking me,” Rittenhouse said.

During his turn as a witness, Rittenhouse sobbed so hard at one point that the judge declared a break. But otherwise, he was composed on the stand, even as he was being cross-examined aggressively.

The case against Rittenhouse has divided Americans over whether he was a patriot taking a stand against lawlessness or a vigilante. Prosecutors have portrayed him as the instigator that night, while the defense has said he feared for his life, afraid that his gun was going to be taken away and used against him.

Rittenhouse’s decision to testify carried certain risk — including the possibility of fierce cross-examination from prosecutors — and came despite doubts among some legal experts about the value of putting him on the stand, given the apparent weaknesses in the state’s case.

Some of the prosecution’s own witnesses bolstered the young man’s claim of self-defense.

As he began crying on the stand and appeared unable to speak, his mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, on a bench across the courtroom, sobbed loudly. Someone next to her put an arm around her. After the judge called a recess, jurors walked by Rittenhouse and looked on as he continued to cry.

Much of the testimony Wednesday was centered on the first shooting of the night, since it was Rosenbaum’s death that set in motion that bloodshed that followed.

Rittenhouse said he was walking toward a car dealer’s lot with a fire extinguisher to put out a blaze when he heard somebody scream, “Burn in hell!” He said he responded by saying, “Friendly, friendly, friendly!”

He said Rosenbaum was running at him from one side and another protester with a gun was in front of him, “and I was cornered.” He said that was when he began to run. He said another protester, Joshua Ziminski, told Rosenbaum, “Get him and kill him.”

Rittenhouse said he heard a gunshot directly behind him, and as he turned around, Rosenbaum was coming at him with his arms out in front. “I remember his hand on the barrel of my gun,” Rittenhouse said.

“I shoot him,” the defendant recounted. He also said he thought the object Rosenbaum threw during the chase — a plastic hospital bag — was a chain he had seen Rosenbaum carrying earlier.

Rittenhouse said he intended to help the wounded man but was in shock as someone else attended to him. Rittenhouse said he thought the “safest option” was to turn himself in to police who were nearby.

Asked by his lawyer why he didn’t keep running away from Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse said: “There was no space for me to continue to run to.”

Rittenhouse said that earlier that night, Rosenbaum was holding a chain and had twice threatened to kill him. Apologizing to the court for his language, Rittenhouse quoted Rosenbaum as saying: “I’m going to cut your (expletive) hearts out!”

As he first took the stand, Rittenhouse was asked by his attorney whether he came to Kenosha looking for trouble, and he responded no.

He testified that he saw videos of violence in downtown Kenosha on the day before the shootings, including a brick being thrown at a police officer’s head and cars burning in a Car Source dealership lot.

Rittenhouse said the Car Source owner “was happy we were there” that night.

___

Bauer reported from Madison, Wisconsin; Foody from Chicago. Associated Press writer Tammy Webber contributed from Fenton, Michigan.

Read More

Avis LaVelle, shown at a news conference last week, was appointed to the Park District board by Mayor Rahm Emanuel and has served as board president since March 2019. | Tyler LaRiviere/Sun-Times

The end came Wednesday at the Park District’s monthly board meeting. After an executive session to discuss “personnel matters,” LaVelle read a statement announcing her resignation and defending her handling of the scandal.

Chicago Park District Board President Avis LaVelle resigned Wednesday under pressure for what mayoral allies called her negligent and “tone deaf” response to the sexual harassment and abuse of lifeguards at the city’s pools and beaches.

Last week, Mayor Lori Lightfoot acknowledged the Park District’s “brand” has been “hurt” by the burgeoning scandal that already has triggered the ouster of Park District CEO Mike Kelly and three of his top aides.

Hinting strongly that LaVelle’s days were numbered, Lightfoot at the time told reporters LaVelle had “given a lot of service to this city over decades,” but the lifeguard scandal has been a “very trying time for her personally, professionally and very difficult on her family.”

The mayor said then LaVelle would decide “relatively soon” about her future with the Park District, even though former Mayor Rahm Emanuel reappointed her to a term that expires in 2023.

The end came Wednesday at the Park District’s monthly board meeting. LaVelle is expected to be replaced by vice-chairman Tim King, founder and CEO or Urban Prep Academies.

A Park Board member, who asked to remain anonymous, said LaVelle had no choice but to resign for, “at minimum, not informing the rest of the board” about the lifeguard scandal.

“Keeping the board in the dark. It’s not a good practice. You’re the board chair. We’re counting on the board chair to be the point person to keep the rest of the board informed. Raise up issues that are happening within the Park District — especially something like this,” the board member said.

“At minimum, she did not provide us with the information we needed to make decisions. … At worst, [she is guilty of] helping Mike [Kelly] hide this information.”

Either way, there is no chance the Park District could make the reforms that need to be made with LaVelle at the top, the board member said.

“It’s not about selling a message. It’s that a lot of mistakes were made. And one of ’em is, again, you don’t hold onto information this sensitive, this big of a deal for 13 months. That’ s just not OK for any person on our board to have information like this and sit on it. Even if there was work happening, the rest of the board should have known. We’re all accountable for this. To withhold that information — it’s not OK.”

After an executive session Wednesday to discuss “personnel matters” that included her resignation, LaVelle read a statement defending her handling of the scandal.

Last week, the Chicago Park District fired three top executives — and apologized to female lifeguard for dropping the ball on their complaints of sexual harassment and abuse — after a blistering report that exposed a frat-house culture tolerated for decades.

But the press conference LaVelle and interim Park District CEO Rosa Escareno held to announce the firings was a public relations disaster that did nothing to restore the public trust needed to persuade parents to send their younger children to Park District programs and allow their teenagers to work at beaches pools and camps.

LaVelle was hounded that day by questions of what she knew and when she knew it.

She was asked why she trusted Kelly’s repeated assurances he was taking action to clean up the burgeoning scandal when it turns out he was sitting on those complaints not for six weeks, as previously reported, but for six months.

“I operated based on what I was told was happening,” LaVelle said.

Noting that board members are not Park District employees, she said: “We don’t have visibility into the day-to-day operations. … You know what you are told. It’s a trust factor. Management tells you what management and staff are doing. They tell you what they’re planning. They tell you what they implement. … You have to be able to trust the administrator to tell you what is going on.”

When a television reporter told LaVelle her response sounded like she was “passing the buck,” she finally acknowledged her share of the blame.

“It is not acceptable that any of this continued to happen. It is not acceptable that this started long before any of us that I’m aware of were here. It’s all unacceptable. I accept my responsibility as a person who was sitting in this chair at the time that this was exposed. I can’t be responsible for the people who came before me. I can be responsible for my part of it. And I have accepted that mistakes were made. It was a dysfunctional investigative process. It was a dysfunctional response process,” she said.

“There are many factors. Some of this rests with the management of the Park District that did not tell us the truth.”

Two of Lightfoot’s closest City Council allies — Finance Committee Chairman Scott Waguespack (32nd) and Ethics Chair Michele Smith (43rd) — said they didn’t buy LaVelle’s claim she relied on Kelly to tell her the truth about the steps he was taking to respond to complaints from two young women who were victims of the abuse.

“The inspector general reports directly to her — and only to her. And therefore, she had to have known certain things that were going on during and in the run-up to the investigation,” Smith told the Sun-Times.

“The first responsibility as a matter of good governance and lots of experience is to report your findings and do something. And nothing was done. Nothing was shared. That’s her responsibility.”

As for LaVelle’s claim that she had no choice but to trust the reassurances she got from Kelly that he was cleaning up the scandal, Smith said: “She knew that these allegations were there and she took no action. That’s what she did. That alone is enough for her to resign. … She has an ultimate personal responsibility.”

Smith also told the Sun-Times the jury was still out on whether LaVelle played a behind-the-scenes role in the suspension and firing of Deputy Inspector General Nathan Kipp, who had led the lifeguard investigation.

Special counsel Valarie Hays found “no evidence” to substantiate Kipp’s claim he was fired to “whitewash” the lifeguard investigation.

But Smith noted: “One gap in the report is that they did not have the charge to look into communications between or among Ms. LaVelle and Ms. Little. That’s a failing of that report that deserves further investigation because we don’t know … who knew what when. That deserves more investigation. That will shed light on the termination of Mr. Kipp.”

Waguespack said LaVelle “had a lot more information than she was letting on” during the news conference to release the special counsel’s report and announce the firing of those three top executives.

“She was getting reports directly from the OIG. She was managing the IG Elaine Little. She was very well-versed on what was happening,” Waguespack said.

“Yes, you could argue that Mike Kelly didn’t tell her everything. But, she had more than enough knowledge to know that the board … should have taken immediate action.”

Shortly before Kelly was fired, Waguespack said he and Smith met privately with LaValle to discuss the burgeoning scandal.

At that meeting, LaVelle characterized the complaints of sexual harassment and abuse by young women who worked as lifeguards as the product of “disenchanted staff and sour grapes,” Waguespack said.

“It was in the context of who the people are that were complaining victims. It really was. It was trying to make it sound like it wasn’t as big a deal as the media was making it out to be,” Waguespack said.

“Disrespect for the victims. I was very angry. I realized at that point that this was far more serious than they were letting on.”

LaVelle has said that the “sour grapes” and “disenchanted former staff” was not a reference to the young women’s allegations, “nor were those assertions made by me.”

She hinted strongly that Kelly, who attended the private meeting with Smith and Waguespack, was the one responsible for making that statement.”

“In the meeting between the aldermen, Superintendent Kelly and me, I personally assured the aldermen that the women’s allegations were taken very seriously and being investigated,” LaVelle wrote in an email to the Sun-Times.

“I urged the aldermen to let the facts as uncovered by the investigation dictate the discipline. I have concurred with every disciplinary recommendation to Park District HR brought forward by the IG’s office as soon as allegations against employees were substantiated.”

When former Chicago Public Schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett was caught stealing from the impoverished school district and shaking down a CPS contractor, the president of the Board of Education at that time, David Vitale, resigned for failing to watch closely enough.

But Waguespack said there are more recent examples with closer parallels to the lifeguard scandal of boards that paid the price for lax oversight.

“The two [scandals] that … they should have learned from because we were all watching it was, first of all the women gymnastics [scandal with Larry] Nassar. And the second one was the National Women’s Soccer League, where two board members resigned immediately because they waited eight days to respond to an email about women who were being abused,” Waguespack said.

A former City Hall reporter for radio stations WJJD and WGN, LaVelle served as Mayor Richard M. Daley’s first press secretary before taking a top job in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the Clinton administration. She now runs a media consulting company with an array of government-related contracts.

LaVelle, appointed to the park board by Emanuel in 2012, has been board president since March 2019.

Sources close to LaVelle said she initially hoped to ride out the storm, salvage her reputation and stay on as board president at least long enough to honor Park District commitments that helped pave the way for former President Barack Obama to choose Jackson Park as the site of his presidential center.

Lightfoot appeared to give LaVelle that opportunity by allowing her to join Escareno at last week’s news conference.

But the hostile questioning made it increasingly “obvious” public trust would be tough to restore as long as she remained on the board, the sources said.

“When you’ve got people calling for you to resign, she realizes she’s the chairman of the board and has to accept this reality. She doesn’t want to be a distraction,” a LaVelle ally said.

Noting that LaVelle is in the business of advising her clients how to handle themselves in the media, the source said, “She has to make a living. This isn’t helpful.”

In what would be her last board meeting as president, LaVelle played an active role in board discussions on a variety of subjects

When complaints were raised during the public comment section about the security of concerts in the parks, LaVelle referred to the weekend concert stampede in Houston that killed eight people, including best friends from Naperville.

“Not that we want to prohibit concerts or anything on that order. But, the situation in Houston has probably raised for all of us some concerns to make sure that were are doing everything that we need to do to be focused on safety,” she said.

“I cannot tell you the fate of any particular park or any particular festival in a park. I can only tell you that I am certain that we will be looking closely at what is done in every festival to make sure that every I is dotted and every T is crossed.”

LaVelle also flexed her oversight muscle before the board approved a $4 million change order for the $64 million contract to build a new Park District headquarters in Brighton Park.

She told the board that she and fellow member Jose Munoz “pushed back hard” on the “notion of a $4 million change order” during a private briefing on the environmental clean-up that triggered the increase.

“That is a very large amount of money. And we wanted to be able to assure people who were paying attention to this that this was not a way for somebody to come in and low-ball a bid and then raise the amount of money they’re asking for in a change order,” she said.

“I’m very glad to hear that…you do the due diligence on it and that you just don’t routinely accept at face value the cost estimates that are put before you when people come to say they’re asking for a change order.”

Read More

Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen won six NBA titles as Chicago Bulls teammates. | Vincent LaForet/AFP via Getty Images

We need a long break from these two two guys. That would have been an unthinkable statement 25 years ago.

We didn’t need a 10-part “documentary” to tell us that Michael Jordan is cruel and obsessed with his legacy, and we didn’t need a memoir to tell us that Scottie Pippen is … what’s the clinical term? … a big baby.

But here we are, cornered again by both men because Pippen has written a book, “Unguarded,” as a response to what Jordan said about him in Michael’s 2020 ESPN infomercial, “The Last Dance.”

Both these guys need to let it, and us, go.

They’d be much happier if they did, and it would do wonders for those of us who can’t understand why Jordan and Pippen regularly drag us through the perceived slights and very real pettiness of their 34-year relationship. I don’t remember asking for a trip down bad-memory lane.

Imagine being in your 50s and deeming it necessary to remind everyone that you’re the greatest basketball player in the history of the game, in case somebody (hello, LeBron) gets the idea he might be better. Jordan earned at least $3 million for the ESPN project (though he donated the money to charity) and had editorial control, which tells you it was less a documentary and more an ode. It means that a six-time NBA Finals Most Valuable Player felt the need to take an airbrush to his career. Really, Michael?

Imagine being in your 50s and being so emotionally needy that, despite having a plaque in the Basketball Hall of Fame, you never feel like you get your due, mostly because your more-famous, more-talented former teammate won’t give it to you. A secure person would shrug it off, comfortable with the reality that egomaniacs aren’t in the dues-giving business. But this is Pippen, who needs an airport carousel to deal with all of his baggage.

I never thought I would say this, but I wish these guys would take a long, long break from us. The pair, arguably the best one-two punch in NBA history, won six NBA titles together with the Bulls. They brought lasting joy to Chicago. You would think there couldn’t possibly be a dark side to such a wonderful collaboration. Sure there were issues. If two people work that closely together for that many years, they’ll get on each other’s nerves at times. But this level of smallness is ridiculous.

Every six months or so, Pippen emerges to tell one reporter or another why Jordan is or isn’t the best player ever, getting in a few jabs at his teammate/nemesis and kicking up an artificial storm that serves no purpose in life. Some of us are drawn into the debate. Most of us roll our eyes.

Every now and then, Jordan emerges to tell us about the “supporting cast” he had when he won all those MVP awards. You don’t need to be a detective to figure out he’s lumping Pippen with Luc Longley and Randy Brown.

Now Jordan and Pippen have graduated from strafing each other to dropping bombs, in Jordan’s case a documentary and in Pippen’s case a book. But the raised level of engagement doesn’t change the cause of their war. Scottie wants Michael’s unconditional approval, and Michael won’t give it to him.

Jordan is the chairman of the Charlotte Hornets. One would think the job comes with so many responsibilities that there wouldn’t be time to luxuriate in 25-year-old achievements. Or that there wouldn’t be time to jealously guard a legacy against pretenders to the crown of Best Ever. You’d think there’d be little time to belittle Pippen.

We’ve been told over and over again, often by Jordan, that this fierceness, this serrated edge is what makes him him and what made him so good as a basketball player. We get it, Michael. You’re better than Scottie, who will never, ever be your equal.

But, enough.

You’re not beating a dead horse. You’re beating a horse that’s in need of a therapy dog.

“I was nothing more than a prop,” Pippen wrote of his portrayal in “The Last Dance.” “His ‘best teammate of all time,’ he called me. He couldn’t have been more condescending if he tried.”

If Michael and Scottie keep this up, their long-running slap fight will end up being as much a part of their legacy as their six NBA titles together. That’d be a damn shame.

Pippen says Jordan wouldn’t have been Jordan without Pippen.

Jordan says, Scottie who?”

I could really use a long nap. Can you wake me in, say, 25 years?

Read More

Read More

Read More

Cassius Marsh does a spinning heel kick to celebrate a sack Monday. Seconds later, he was flagged for walking toward the Steelers’ bench. | Justin K. Aller/Getty Images

In his weekly recap video of the weekend’s most controversial calls, NFL senior vice president of officiating Perry Fewell highlighted Marsh’s behavior Wednesday on Twitter.

The NFL’s leadership agrees with the taunting penalty called on Bears outside linebacker Cassius Marsh in the final minutes of Monday night’s loss to the Steelers.

In his weekly recap video of the weekend’s most controversial calls, NFL senior vice president of officiating Perry Fewell highlighted Marsh’s behavior Wednesday on Twitter. A video clip of Marsh didn’t even include his spinning heel kick celebration after sacking Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger with about 3:30 left in the game and the Bears down three.

Rather, the video shows Marsh walking toward the Steelers sideline after the celebration.

“He takes several steps toward the Pittsburgh bench, posturing toward their sideline,” Fewell said. “Taunting is a point of emphasis to promote sportsmanship and respect for opponents. This was recommended by the competition committee and coaches.”

Fewell, the former Giants head coach, gave a response similar to that of referee Tony Corrente, who threw the flag and explained his rationale in a pool report after the game.

“First of all, keep in mind that taunting is a point of emphasis this year,” he said. “And with that said, I saw the player, after he made a big play, run toward the bench area of the Pittsburgh Steelers and posture in such a way that I felt he was taunting them.”

Rather than punt — the sack was on third down — the Steelers kept the ball and kicked a field goal to go down six. The Bears took a one-point lead with a touchdown but lost on a field goal with 26 seconds to play.

Marsh, who was signed last week, took issue with the fact that he and Corrente bumped into each other as the outside linebacker was leaving the field following the flag. Marsh thought it was intentional after viewing film of the collision. Head coach Matt Nagy did not.

Asked about the contact, Corrente said Monday night he “didn’t judge that as anything that I dealt with.”

Read More

Kyle Rittenhouse responded “no” when asked by his attorney whether he came to Kenosha looking for trouble in the summer of 2020. | Sean Krajacic/The Kenosha News via AP pool

Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder did not immediately rule on the request but was clearly angry at the prosecution, telling Thomas Binger: “When you say that that you were acting in good faith, I don’t believe that.”

KENOSHA, Wis. — The murder case against Kyle Rittenhouse was thrown into jeopardy Wednesday when his lawyers asked for a mistrial over what appeared to be out-of-bounds questions asked of Rittenhouse by the chief prosecutor.

Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder did not immediately rule on the request but was clearly angry at the prosecution, telling Thomas Binger: “When you say that that you were acting in good faith, I don’t believe that.”

The startling turn came after Rittenhouse, in a high-stakes gamble, took the stand and testified that he was under attack when he shot three men during a night of turbulent protests in Kenosha. “I didn’t do anything wrong. I defended myself,” the 18-year-old said.

During cross-examination, Binger asked Rittenhouse about whether it was appropriate to use deadly force to protect property. The prosecutor also posed questions about Rittenhouse’s silence after his arrest.

The jury was ushered out of the room, and the judge loudly and angrily accused Binger of pursuing an improper line of questioning and trying to introduce testimony that Schroeder earlier said he was inclined to prohibit.

Binger said he thought the door was open to his questions because of previous testimony and said he was acting in good faith, but the judge rejected that.

Rittenhouse attorney Mark Richards suggested Binger might be attempting to provoke a mistrial. The defense asked for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning that if it is granted, Rittenhouse cannot be retried in the shootings.

During his turn on the stand, Rittenhouse told the jury that one of the men cornered him and made a grab for his rifle, another hit him with a skateboard, and the third came at him with a gun of his own.

Rittenhouse sobbed so hard at one point that the judge declared a break. But otherwise, he was composed on the stand, even as he was being cross-examined aggressively.

Rittenhouse is on trial on charges of killing two men and wounding a third during unrest that erupted in the summer of 2020 over the wounding of a Black man by a white Kenosha police officer. He could get life in prison if convicted of the most serious charges against him.

Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, went to Kenosha with an AR-style semi-automatic weapon and a medic bag in what the former police youth cadet said was an attempt to protect property after rioters had set fires and ransacked businesses on previous nights.

Rittenhouse testified he fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum after Rosenbaum chased him and put his hand on the barrel of Rittenhouse’s rifle. He said he then shot and killed Anthony Huber after Huber struck him in the neck with his skateboard and grabbed his gun.

When a third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, “lunges at me with his pistol pointed directly at my head,” Rittenhouse shot him, too, wounding him.

“I didn’t intend to kill them. I intended to stop the people who were attacking me,” Rittenhouse said.

The case against Rittenhouse has divided Americans over whether he was a patriot taking a stand against lawlessness or a vigilante. Prosecutors have portrayed him as the instigator that night, while the defense has said he feared for his life, afraid that his gun was going to be taken away and used against him.

Rittenhouse’s decision to testify carried certain risk — including the possibility of fierce cross-examination from prosecutors — and came despite doubts among some legal experts about the value of him taking the stand, given the apparent weaknesses in the state’s case.

During the prosecution’s side of the case, some of its own witnesses bolstered the young man’s claim of self-defense.

As he began crying on the stand and appeared unable to speak, his mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, on a bench across the courtroom, sobbed loudly. Someone next to her put an arm around her. After the judge called a recess, jurors walked by Rittenhouse and looked on as he continued to cry.

Much of the testimony Wednesday was centered on the first shooting of the night, since it was Rosenbaum’s death that set in motion that bloodshed that followed.

Rittenhouse said he was walking toward a car dealer’s lot with a fire extinguisher to put out a blaze when he heard somebody scream, “Burn in hell!” He said he responded by saying, “Friendly, friendly, friendly!”

He said Rosenbaum was running at him from one side and another protester with a gun was in front of him, “and I was cornered.” He said that was when he began to run. He said another protester, Joshua Ziminski, told Rosenbaum, “Get him and kill him.”

Rittenhouse said he heard a gunshot directly behind him, and as he turned around, Rosenbaum was coming at him with his arms out in front. “I remember his hand on the barrel of my gun,” Rittenhouse said.

“I shoot him,” the defendant recounted. He also said he thought the object Rosenbaum threw during the chase — a plastic hospital bag — was a chain he had seen Rosenbaum carrying earlier.

Rittenhouse said he intended to help the wounded man but was in shock as someone else attended to him. Rittenhouse said he thought the “safest option” was to turn himself in to police who were nearby.

Asked by his lawyer why he didn’t keep running away from Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse said: “There was no space for me to continue to run to.”

Rittenhouse said that earlier that night, Rosenbaum was holding a chain and had twice threatened to kill him. Apologizing to the court for his language, Rittenhouse quoted Rosenbaum as saying: “I’m going to cut your (expletive) hearts out!”

As he first took the stand, Rittenhouse was asked by his attorney whether he came to Kenosha looking for trouble, and he responded no.

He testified that he saw videos of violence in downtown Kenosha on the day before the shootings, including a brick being thrown at a police officer’s head and cars burning in a Car Source dealership lot. Rittenhouse said the Car Source owner “was happy we were there.”

___

Bauer reported from Madison, Wisconsin; Foody from Chicago. Associated Press writer Tammy Webber contributed from Fenton, Michigan.

Read More

Hull Gate, the stone entrance that leads into the heart of the University of Chicago campus in Hyde Park. | Victor Hilitski / Sun-Times

The man, 24, was shot to death near the campus, hours after a nearby block was shot up.

University of Chicago officials say they are working with City Hall on new “public safety strategies” for Hyde Park after a recent graduate was gunned down during an armed robbery near the campus, hours after a block nearby was shot up.

“We have been in close contact with Mayor Lightfoot, Chicago Police Department Superintendent Brown and other members of the Mayor’s team, along with local aldermen, and are speaking again tomorrow,” the school’s president and provost said in a statement late Tuesday.

Neither President Paul Alivisatos nor Provost Ka Yee C. Lee included any details, except to say they would be “short and longer-term.”

The statement was released hours after a 24-year-old man was shot and killed during an attempted robbery in Hyde Park, a few blocks north of the school campus.

Police say he was on the sidewalk in the 900 block of East 54th Street when a dark-colored car pulled up and a gunman got out shortly before 2 p.m. Witnesses told officers the man struggled with the robber and a shot went off, according to preliminary information from the scene.

The man was hit in the chest and taken to the University of Chicago Medical Center down the street, where he was pronounced dead. Police said the robber got back in the car, which fled west on 54th Place.

The man was a recent graduate of the university, according to the school, which said campus police were increasing patrols in the area. His name has not been released yet by the university or the Cook County medical examiner.

About two hours earlier, just blocks away, businesses and cars were damaged by gunfire. The shots were fired from a Hyundai Sonata about 12:10 p.m. at 53rd Street and South Harper Avenue, according to a security alert from the University of Chicago.

No injuries were reported, but several cars and two businesses were damaged by gunfire, the alert said. The Sonata had been reported stolen Monday, according to the alert.

Both incidents occurred in the Wentworth police district, which has seen a sharp rise in violent crime this year.

Murders are up 84% from this time last year, from 19 to 35, according to police statistics. Shootings are up 44%, from 91 to 131, and sexual assaults are up 24%, from 63 to 78.

In their statement, Alivisatos and Lee they are “committed to doing more as a university and as an anchor institution on the South Side. This includes developing comprehensive efforts to reduce violence, and supporting Chicago’s communities in securing a safer future.”

They said the stepped-up efforts will include “mobilizing the academic and policy expertise of the UChicago community to engage with other national experts and officials in efforts to strengthen our cities and reduce the human toll of gun violence.”

Cook County Board President Preckwinkle — who lost the mayoral election to Lori Lightfoot — released a statement Wednesday noting there have been nearly 100 more homicides this year than the same time last year and asking, “When is enough, enough?”

“We need an immediate and urgent response to the violence as well as a long-term plan to address those root causes of violence,” she added, promising to reach out “to relevant stakeholders to bring everyone together and establish real world results.”

Preckwinkle, who lives in Hyde Park, did not detail what those efforts might entail or exactly who she would reach out to.

Read More

Kyle Rittenhouse responded “no” when asked by his attorney whether he came to Kenosha looking for trouble in the summer of 2020. | Sean Krajacic/The Kenosha News via AP pool

Rittenhouse is on trial on charges of killing two men and wounding a third during unrest that erupted in the summer of 2020 over the wounding of a Black man by a white Kenosha police officer.

KENOSHA, Wis. — Defense attorneys at Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial say they will ask the judge to declare a mistrial after prosecutors posed what appeared to be improper questions of Rittenhouse on the stand.

Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder did not immediately rule, saying he would give the prosecution a chance to respond.

At issue were questions prosecutors about Rittenhouse protecting property and about his silence after his arrest.

Earlier Wednesday, Rittenhouse took the stand and testified he was under attack when he shot three men during a night of turbulent protests in Kenosha. “I didn’t do anything wrong. I defended myself,” he said.

Making the high-risk decision to testify at his murder trial, the 18-year-old Rittenhouse told the jury that one of the men cornered him and made a grab for his rifle, another hit him with a skateboard, and the third came at him with a gun of his own.

Rittenhouse sobbed so hard at one point that the judge declared a break. But otherwise, he was composed on the stand, even as he was being cross-examined so aggressively that the judge berated the chief prosecutor with the jury out of the room.

Rittenhouse is on trial on charges of killing two men and wounding a third during unrest that erupted in the summer of 2020 over the wounding of a Black man by a white Kenosha police officer. He could get life in prison if convicted of the most serious charges against him.

Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, went to Kenosha with an AK-style semi-automatic weapon and a medic bag in what the former police youth cadet said was an attempt to protect property after rioters had set fires and ransacked businesses on previous nights.

Rittenhouse testified he fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum after Rosenbaum chased him and put his hand on the barrel of Rittenhouse’s rifle. He said he then shot and killed Anthony Huber after Huber struck him in the neck with his skateboard and grabbed his gun.

When a third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, “lunges at me with his pistol pointed directly at my head,” Rittenhouse shot him, too, wounding him.

“I didn’t intend to kill them. I intended to stop the people who were attacking me,” Rittenhouse said.

The case against Rittenhouse has divided Americans over whether he was a patriot taking a stand against lawlessness or a vigilante. Prosecutors have portrayed him as the instigator that night, while the defense has said he feared for his life, afraid that his gun was going to be taken away and used against him.

Rittenhouse’s decision to testify carried certain risk — including the possibility of fierce cross-examination from prosecutors — and came despite doubts among some legal experts about the value of him taking the stand, given the apparent weaknesses in the state’s case.

During the prosecution’s side of the case, some of its own witnesses bolstered the young man’s claim of self-defense.

As he began crying on the stand and appeared unable to speak, his mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, on a bench across the courtroom, sobbed loudly. Someone next to her put an arm around her. After the judge called a recess, jurors walked by Rittenhouse and looked on as he continued to cry.

During Rittenhouse’s testimony, Schroeder lashed out at prosecutor Thomas Binger for questioning Rittenhouse about whether it was appropriate to use deadly force to protect property. The judge loudly and angrily accused Binger of improperly trying to introduce testimony that he had earlier said he was inclined to prohibit.

Rittenhouse attorney Mark Richards suggested Binger might be attempting to provoke a mistrial with his line of questioning.

Much of the testimony Wednesday was centered on the first shooting of the night, since it was Rosenbaum’s death that set in motion that bloodshed that followed.

Rittenhouse said he was walking toward a car dealer’s lot with a fire extinguisher to put out a blaze when he heard somebody scream, “Burn in hell!” He said he responded by saying, “Friendly, friendly, friendly!”

He said Rosenbaum was running at him from one side and another protester with a gun was in front of him, “and I was cornered.” He said that was when he began to run. He said another protester, Joshua Ziminski, told Rosenbaum, “Get him and kill him.”

Rittenhouse said he heard a gunshot directly behind him, and as he turned around, Rosenbaum was coming at him with his arms out in front. “I remember his hand on the barrel of my gun,” Rittenhouse said.

“I shoot him,” the defendant recounted. He also said he thought the object Rosenbaum threw during the chase — a plastic hospital bag — was the chain he had seen Rosenbaum carrying earlier.

Rittenhouse said he intended to help the wounded man but was in shock as someone else attended to him. Rittenhouse said he thought the “safest option” was to turn himself in to police who were nearby.

Asked by his lawyer why he didn’t keep running away from Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse said: “There was no space for me to continue to run to.”

Rittenhouse said that earlier that night, Rosenbaum was holding a chain and had twice threatened to kill him. Apologizing to the court for his language, Rittenhouse quoted Rosenbaum as saying: “I’m going to cut your (expletive) hearts out!”

As he first took the stand, Rittenhouse was asked by his attorney whether he came to Kenosha looking for trouble, and he responded no.

He testified that he saw videos of violence in downtown Kenosha on the day before the shootings, including a brick being thrown at a police officer’s head and cars burning in a Car Source dealership lot. Rittenhouse said the Car Source owner “was happy we were there.”

___

Bauer reported from Madison, Wisconsin; Foody from Chicago. Associated Press writer Tammy Webber contributed from Fenton, Michigan.

Read More

Before he was elected mayor of New York City last week, Eric Adams raised some eyebrows by saying he would carry a handgun to protect himself and any houses of worship he might visit. The real scandal is that ordinary New Yorkers cannot legally carry guns for self-defense — a privilege that Adams takes for granted as a former police officer. | Getty file photo

Though most states allow residents to carry guns in public if they meet a short list of objective criteria, New York gives local officials broad discretion to decide whether an applicant has “proper cause” to exercise a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Before he was elected mayor of New York City last week, Eric Adams raised some eyebrows by saying he would carry a handgun to protect himself and any houses of worship he might visit. While those remarks were controversial, the real scandal is that ordinary New Yorkers cannot legally carry guns for self-defense — a privilege that Adams takes for granted as a former police officer.

That double standard came into focus last week, when the Supreme Court considered a constitutional challenge to New York’s carry permit law. Unlike the vast majority of states, which allow residents to carry guns in public if they meet a short list of objective criteria, New York gives local officials broad discretion to decide whether an applicant has “proper cause” to exercise a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, speaking on behalf of the law’s opponents, emphasized that applicants cannot pass the state’s amorphous test by expressing a general desire to protect themselves against criminal assault. “In order to exercise a constitutional right that New York is willing to concede extends outside the home,” he noted, “you have to show that you have an atypical need to exercise the right that distinguishes you from the general community.”

That situation, Clement said, “describes a privilege” rather than “a constitutional right.” Most of the justices seemed inclined to agree.

“The idea that you need a license to exercise the right” is “unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights,” Chief Justice John Roberts noted. Justice Brett Kavanaugh added that “too much discretion” in deciding who can exercise a constitutional right “can lead to all sorts of problems.”

Justice Samuel Alito suggested what that kind of discretion can mean for “ordinary law-abiding citizens who feel they need to carry a firearm for self-defense.” He noted that “people who work late at night in Manhattan,” such as doormen, office cleaners, dishwashers, nurses and orderlies, routinely get off work “around midnight” or later and might “have to walk some distance through a high-crime area” on their way home.

If such a person applied for a carry permit, Alito said, he or she would be out of luck in the absence of a specific threat along the lines of “I am going to mug you next Thursday.” It would not be enough to say “there have been a lot of muggings in this area, and I am scared to death.”

A brief from the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid and several other public defender groups goes beyond hypotheticals. It describes the case of Benjamin Prosser, who “had repeatedly been the victim of violent stranger assaults and robberies on the street.”

Prosser decided to carry a gun for self-defense when he took a job that required two hours of travel every day. After he was charged with a weapon offense that carried a mandatory minimum penalty of more than three years in prison, he pleaded guilty to a lesser offense that still marked him as a “violent felon.”

Another defendant, Sam Little, “survived a face slashing and lost multiple friends to gun violence.” He served eight months in jail after he was prosecuted for “carrying a gun to defend himself and his young son.”

Little was arrested after police stopped and frisked him. As Clement noted, New York’s virtual ban on carrying guns “leads to stopping and frisking everybody” because anyone caught with a firearm is presumptively guilty of breaking the law.

The New York Police Department dramatically scaled back its “stop, question, and frisk” program after years of complaints that it routinely harassed young Black and Latino men for no good reason. But Mayor-elect Adams, who never needs to worry that he will be arrested for carrying a gun, supports judicious use of the tactic, as long as police comply with constitutional constraints. That is not really possible when the state treats people as criminals for exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Send letters to [email protected].

Read More