0 a jury of his peers found kyle rittenhouse not guilty on all counts. rittenhouse collapsed in the kenosha, wisconsin courtroom as the final not guilty verdict was read. rittenhouse himself took the stand in his own defense, a risky move that approved successful for the defense. in and out conversation will turn to what's going to happen next. what affect will this case have on things like vigilanteism and self-defense arguments? not to mention what happens immediately in the city of kenosha. joining me from the courthouse in kenosha, wisconsin, nbc correspondent shaquille brewster. former federal prosecutor paul butler. nbc legal analyst danny cevallos. and former assistant district attorney in milwaukee county, julius kim. shaq, what is it like in kenosha right now? >> katy, when that verdict was read we saw a large group of people on the courthouse steps. this was something highly anticipated especially as the jury got into day four of deliberations. but then someone came out of the courthouse, told the crowd the news, and you heard the divide that's reflected not just here in kenosha but all across the country. some people cheered, saying the second amendment prevailed. self-defense was a principle they were defending. and some people were upset by this including the uncle of jacob blake, who was the man shot by a kenosha police officer last august that led to the conditions for the kyle rittenhouse shooting that was being litigated today in the courthouse. i want to bring in reverend dr. monica cummings here, because she was on the courthouse steps as the verdict was being read. you are someone who has been praying over over the trial, over the deliberations. you've been paying close attention to this since last august. what was your reaction to the verdict? >> my reaction was sadness, heartbreak, and unfortunately, not surprised. knowing the history of vigilante justice in this country, all the way back to times of enslavement, when people would be deputized to go out and track down enslaved persons who ran away, to lynching mobs. and this is 2021, and unfortunately, heartbreak, sadness, but i wasn't surprised. >> this community has gone through a lot since last august. i mentioned you have been with a group of leaders of the church who have been praying over deliberations. some of the concerns i've heard is this exact instance, that if there was an acquittal, the potential for violence. what are you thinking right now based on what you're feeling here? do you still fear that? >> what i can say and speak to is that all the organizations here in kenosha have all called for peace in the streets, every last one of them. we cannot control outside agitators who come into our community, who want to create conflict and provoke folks. but all the leaders here in kenosha have called for peace in the streets. my hope is that people will leave us alone so we can heal. we've been at this now for 15 months, since jake was shot in the back. and we really haven't had the opportunity to really exhale and take a nice deep breath. and as a community, heal from this. and so my prayer is that tonight will be peaceful, tomorrow night will be peaceful. so leaders in kenosha, we can sit down and process what we've been -- what we've experienced, and then look to the future, like where do we go from here, what do we need to do to help rebuild our community and to bring healing to the community. >> i mentioned that mix of celebrations and frustration on the courthouse steps after the verdict came. part of the frustration is the message that this acquittal sends to other. you say the fight is not over, but what message do you think is sent by this verdict? >> you mentioned the second amendment prevailed. but the first amendment is an amendment for a reason. the right to peacefully assemble. i was here, there were armed men with military style weapons in this very park, next to a school, and the police did nothing. they did absolutely nothing. and my question to them was, why would you have a military style weapon at a peaceful protest? and so my concern is my first amendment right to peacefully protest without fear, without being intimidated by armed men with military style weapons showing up and now knowing that all they have to do is say, hey, i felt fear or i felt my life was in danger and they can shoot people. and i'm going to tell the media, you know, you could be in the crosshairs as well, with all the rhetoric about media, you being the enemy of the state and so forth and so on. your microphone could be mistaken for a weapon. >> reverend, thank you for speaking so candidly and coming from the courthouse steps. we wish the best for you in this community. thank you again. katy, i also want to read a statement from the family of mr. huber who was one of those killed in this shooting. it was a heartbreaking statement that they had to deal with. and, you know, we saw the families of the victims in this shooting inside the courtroom. you saw kyle rittenhouse, he expressed that relief, he collapsed after the verdict was read. you saw the family of the two men who were killed break down and become extremely emotional. and part of that statement that we saw from the family of anthony huber, they are saying we are heartbroken and angry that kyle rittenhouse was acquitted in his criminal trial for the murder of our son anthony huber. there was no justice today for anthony, or for mr. rittenhouse's other victims, joseph rosenbaum and gaige grosskreutz. and they go on to say, we watched the trial closely, hoping it would bring us closure. and they say, that did not happen today. katy, again, you might hear the helicopters overhead. there are people here, both celebrating and people who are frustrated by this. of course this was a highly anticipated verdict. there are about five schools in the area, already went to virtual learning in anticipation of this. we know the national guard has been on standby outside of kenosha. the last we heard from the county sheriff is they feel they have things under control. a members of the religious leadership told me the difference between august and now is they're better prepared, they're organized, everyone is calling for peace. as far as we see here outside the courthouse, that peace is prevailing at this point, katy. >> shaq, a very interesting interview you were just having with the reverend there. i want to get to some of the points she was making. first i want to read a little bit more from the statement from anthony huber's family. and i'm curious about this in particular. they say, make no mistake, our fight to hold those responsible for anthony's death accountable continues in full force. neither mr. rittenhouse nor the police who authorized his bloody rampage will escape justice. anthony will have his day in court. paul butler, what does the family mean by "anthony will have his day in court"? what recourse do they have now? >> there are civil recourses including lawsuits to try to compensate the damage that mr. rittenhouse caused. in terms of our criminal resource, it's game over. the not guilty verdict means that the jurors believed that mr. rittenhouse's use of force was justified, that he reasonably believed that he faced a deadly threat from each of the three people he shot. the verdict also means that the jurors found that mr. rittenhouse was not the aggressor. he did not provoke any of this. but katy, in the eyes of the law, mr. rittenhouse was a victim. >> i know there's no double jeopardy in this country, paul, but is it possible for this case to go federal? could a federal prosecutor pick this up? >> it's possible. but typically we see those in civil rights cases, and this isn't a civil rights case. the truth is this is a tough case for prosecutors because some of the state's own witnesses testified in favor -- or their testimony advanced the government's case. one witness testified that the first person who rittenhouse shot, a man named rosenbaum, tried to grab rittenhouse's gun. another witness said mr. rittenhouse shot a second person who was attacking him with a skateboard and a third person who he shot was pointing a gun at him. this will be a difficult case whether the prosecution is state or federal. >> julius, you are in wisconsin. you understand how wisconsin juries work, how the courtrooms work out there, and the reaction. in looking at what the reverend was just telling shaquille brewster there, the concern she had for protests in the future and the safety of peaceful protesters if somebody comes with a gun and says they do feel threatened, the precedent that she believes this case sets, what is your opinion on that? what's your expectation on that going forward? >> it's definitely something to be concerned about at this point in time, because people tend to think in broad terms, they tend to paint in broad brushes. if the message that people get out of this is that it's a good idea to come in the middle of civil unrest or protests with a long gun, that's not the right message, and that shouldn't be the message that came out of this trial. this case was very fact-specific. the bottom line is, is that kyle rittenhouse and other people came down to the kenosha area with long guns, with ar-15s, thinking they were helping people. and their help was really not that wanted by the rest of the community. i understand that they said they were trying to protect this car lot. but this car lot already had all the cars in it destroyed. and you could see as the testimony was coming in how ironically their presence was making things worse for the situation. so i think there is a real concern here that people are going to get the wrong message, that they can come down to these protests with long guns and it's a good idea because the law will protect them. i think that's a mistake, because this case was very fact-specific in terms of why kyle rittenhouse was ultimately acquitted in this case. there were a lot of witness problems for the state in this case as well. this was a tough case for the state to make, because we had what we call bad facts, in terms of the state's case, how kyle rittenhouse was attacked, he was chased, and was approached by someone who had a handgun in his hands. all of us can see and not be terribly surprised by the verdicts now in front of us. but i am concerned that the wrong message has been sent to other people in the community. >> you know, on that point, did it surprise you that the verdict the jury came to was not guilty on every single count, julius? >> it didn't. i'm not sure, in talking to people, that i ever heard someone say they were absolutely certain what happened here. there was a lot of gray in this case. even the drone video where kyle rittenhouse supposedly pointed his gun at the zaminskys, provoking the attack by joseph rosenbaum, it was fuzzy, it wasn't clear. this isn't an even playing field where it's 50/50. this is a situation where the state has the burden of proof. they have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. when i put that in layman's terms, i would say it's maybe 95% convinced. the question is was the jury 95% convinced that kyle rittenhouse provoked the attack by joseph rosenbaum? well, i'm not sure all of us can say that that video that there was so much talk about, and how hard it was to zoom in, that it was so clear to everyone. so it doesn't surprise me that this jury came back with a not guilty verdict because if they're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdicts must go in the defendant's favor. >> shaq, i hear you have some more color from inside the courtroom, what the jury did as the verdict was being read. >> yeah, of course, because we didn't see their reaction, we didn't see what they were doing as the verdicts were being read, and how that verdict was handed over to the judge. this is from the latest pool report, the last pool report we expect to get from inside that courtroom. it says the jury forewoman in a jean jacket, wearing a face mask, handed the verdicts to a court official who passed them to the judge for review. some jurors looked fatigued in the jury box as the verdicts were read, some with their hands on their chins or rubbing their eyes. others appeared ill at ease, shifting in their chairs or fold their arms across their chests. remember, that jury was away for four days, going through and deliberating. they spent a lot of time, they asked for video evidence at one point. last night we know at least one juror asked to bring back those jury instructions that went on for about 36 pages. so they had a lot of material to go through. we know from when we showed the trial, how graphic some of those images and some of those videos were. this was definitely, it appears from this pool report, and the appearance of the jury as they reached their verdict, this was definitely an emotionally trying event for them as they ultimately acquitted kyle rittenhouse. >> a high stress event for them, given the national attention around it, and the tension that this country is currently feeling. danny, let's talk about the burden here, because the burden in wisconsin for the prosecution was extremely high. what did they have to do? >> this is the way it is in several jurisdiction although it varies from state to state. the prosecution not only had to prove each and every element of each crime, but in wisconsin, once the defendant raises some element of self-defense, the prosecution still has the burden beyond a reasonable doubt to disprove self-defense. they can do that in several ways. they can prove the attack isn't imminent. they can prove that the defendant used more force than necessary. but late in the game, the prosecution scored a major victory that had some people like me thinking they could pull this out, that's when they got the provocation instruction. if the prosecution can prove that kyle rittenhouse provoked the confrontations. the prosecution would argue that he did not reacquire the right to use self-defense. but the challenge here, again, was that burden. it always rested with the prosecution. now, a lot of folks, i heard a lot of folks say, look, even today, kyle rittenhouse went there with a long gun, he was walking around. a lot of folks found that provoking. i agree. and i also agree kyle rittenhouse probably shouldn't have been -- not probably. should not have been walking around in kenosha that night with a long gun. but that is legally irrelevant to what provocation is. provocation is a very specific definition under wisconsin law. and you may think -- you can believe two things at the same time. you can believe kyle rittenhouse walking around with a gun was provoking to other people but conclude that it was not legal provocation. >> so the prosecution, at one point, when they were pressing kyle rittenhouse during the cross-examination, they said to him, yes, you felt your life was threatened, you say you felt your life was threatened, but when you're pointing a gun at somebody else, isn't that person feeling that their life is being threatened right now? it seems from watching it, such a complicated issue to try and parse out. who was feeling more threatened in the moment, and who has the right to act on the basis of self-defense? >> katy, you just honed in on the central and actually a very simple issue in this case. the case in its entirety came down to a split second, answering a question for the jury. do you believe or do you not believe that in that grainy pixelated photograph, that kyle rittenhouse may have pointed his firearm at someone else, or do you believe it, not even on the photograph, just based on whatever evidence the prosecution introduced? if your answer is, eh, i'm not sure, then that's not beyond a reasonable doubt. i suspect, although we'll never know, probably, that if the jury seized on that issue, that was the provocation issue. if they were addressing the provocation issue and came to that moment and said he might have been, but i don't know for sure, then that is a not guilty. that is an acquittal because the burden rests always with the prosecution, never with the defendant. >> julius, i want to get your take on that as well. >> okay. >> julius, are you still there? >> i am, i'm still here. >> can i get your take on that question as well? >> well, i agree that the burden of proof lies with the state. and that was the biggest issue in this particular situation. you know, i wish danny was making the closing arguments, quite honestly, in this case because he really spelled out this issue of provocation for everyone very, very well. the bottom line is that the jury can believe 80%, maybe even 90%, that kyle rittenhouse provoked the situation, the attack on him, yet still be found not guilty because the state has the burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. i think that's what happened here, is ultimately the jurors may have reluctantly voted not guilty because there just wasn't enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. >> paul, what are your thoughts? >> trials are poor instruments for social change or social transformation. at the same time, verdicts do mean something. this case happened during the back lives matter protest over the police shooting of an african-american man. there were a number of counterprotesters. the scene was violent at times, and chaotic. as the prosecutor said in his closing argument, the only person who killed anyone was kyle rittenhouse. we know that armed civilians are now part of the american political landscape. what some may take from this verdict is that vigilante justice prevailed. and that's a serious public safety concern. >> i want to go back to that moment in time in the summer, when all of this stuff was bubbling over, and just draw a really fine line between the protests that we would see during the day, the largely peaceful protests that we would see during the day, where thousands of people, sometimes more, were marching for equality and for black rights, for not being treated differently by police officers, not being treated like you are a criminal if you have a certain skin color. and then what happened at night in some of these protests, at night when different people came into the picture, different provocateurs came into the picture, that the people that were not out there during the day peacefully protesting. shaq, i know you were there for so many of these protests. can you just help me draw the line here, so we are very clear about who was out there that night, in comparison, in contrast to who was out during the day? >> yeah, the great point you make, katy, because it's a pattern that you see that existed not just here in kenosha. it existed in minneapolis, it existed in louisville, kentucky. whenever you have these situations, yes, there are the protesters that come out during the daylight. they're usually led by members of the clergy sometimes, they're the more organized groups that come out and they have the organized protests with their signs, you have them exercising that first amendment right. usually you see the crowd shift over the course of the evening. as it goes into the evening hours, into the night, sometimes the crowd gets younger. sometimes you have people coming out dressed differently. sometimes in all back. sometimes you see the military rifles come out. and it just leads to that clash, it leads to that mix of potentially dangerous, in this case it was dangerous, potentially dangerous mix of people. that night specifically that we're talking about that was litigated with the trial of kyle rittenhouse, was one where you had the daytime protests. they turned to evening clashes with police. it was here in this actual park in front of the courthouse, there was actual fencing that was up. and behind the fence were members of the national guard and police in riot gear. there were