Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, your home for open, honest and provocative conversations.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. I'm Megan Kelly. What a day we have for you. The jury

is now deliberating the case of Kyle Rittenhouse. A now 18-year-old man accused of intentionally

murdering one man, attempting to murder another, recklessly killing a third man and endangering

to others. This happened at a Black Lives Matter riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August

of 2020. The defense does not dispute the Rittenhouse shot and killed two men that night and shot

and injured another. Instead, it claims it was done in self-defense, which if true,

would entirely exonerate Kyle Rittenhouse and require an acquittal.

When a defendant asserts a colorable claim of self-defense in Wisconsin, the burden

is on the prosecution to disprove it, not on the defense to prove it, beyond a reasonable

doubt. A self-defense claim requires four questions to be answered by the jury. One,

was Rittenhouse here facing an unlawful, forcible attack against him. Two, was that attack

imminent, meaning in progress or about to occur. Three was his response proportional. Meaning

was the defendant he written house facing great bodily harm or death. In other words, you

can't shoot somebody who's coming at you with a toothpick. And four, was the defendant's

response reasonable, knowing him and all of his background, as well as reasonable in the

eyes of an objective observer. Here, the assistant district attorney, Thomas Banger, challenged

each of these elements. For example, he's arguing that in the case of the first man shot,

this is very, very important, the first incident. Joseph Rosenbaum, that Kyle Rittenhouse

was not facing an imminent, unlawful, deadly attack. That Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle

Rittenhouse, but Rosenbaum had no gun. That Rittenhouse, as the ADA put it, brought a knife

to a fist fight, and that Rosenbaum was not lunging for Rittenhouse's gun.

...