 I'm not sure what's going on, but the judge just stopped everything as the prosecutor was questioning Kyle about whether or not it's okay or illegal to protect property with an AR-15. Your Honor, Mr. Bingard is either forgetting court's rulings or attempting to provoke a mistrial on this matter. He knows he can't go into this and he's asking the questions. I asked the court to strongly admonish him and the next time it happens, I'll be asking for a mistrial with prejudice. He's an experienced attorney and he knows better. Mr. Bingard? First of all, Your Honor, this was the subject of emotion. I'm well aware of that and the court left the door open. For me, not for you. My understanding is you should have come and asked for reconsideration. You did on the one motion and in fact I granted your motion for reconsideration. That was not a motion. Excuse me. I did. We did not move for reconsideration. We have not filed any motions to reconsider in this case. That was their motion for reconsideration which I denied. But I said, I denied it or I indicated a bias towards denial is what I did. Held it open with a bias towards denial. Why would you think that that made it okay for you without any advance notice to bring this matter before the jury? You are already, I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post arrest silence. That's basic law. It's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years. I have no idea why you would do something like that and it gives, well I'll leave it at that. So I don't know what you're up to. Yes, he is not having it. We filed another ax motion on this exact issue because in my mind and I argued this, it is identical to what was going on on the night of August 25th in the sense that the defendant was using this exact same weapon. He was using it in a manner to try and protect property. No, he wasn't. There was no, it was hypothetical. Your Honor, with all due respect, I'm not going to rehash the motion. That's absolutely untrue. It is. No, no, no. Your arguments of record, my comments are of record and why I ruled as I did is of record. There's nothing that I heard in this trial to suggest anything's changed even if you're correct in your assumption that you know more than I did at the time. You should have come to the court and say I want to go into this. Why you would think that you could go into it without any advanced notice to the court? I don't understand that and as the defense is pointing out you're an experienced trial lawyer and this should not have been going into. He's desperate. Your Honor, there have been things in this case, testimony in this case that I believe opens the door to this. For example, the defense has introduced evidence that the defendant pointed a gun at a man wearing yellow pants because that person was on a car on the car source lot. Now there's no justification that I can think of why the defendant would point that gun at someone. He said he didn't. The defendant has just testified this morning that he agreed with that person in the yellow pants that he pointed the gun at him. He said I was joking when I said that to the guy in the yellow pants but he said he's acknowledged that he told the person in the yellow pants, yeah, you're right. I did point a gun at you when you were sitting on a car. He said I did. Exactly. So he's agreeing, may I finish please? I'd like to have a chance to make a record if I could without being interrupted if that's okay. He has mentioned that he has, he's acknowledged that he's used this gun to protect property. He's also just acknowledged that he knows he can't do that. I am attempting to impeach him now with the prior August 10th incident, 15 days prior involving the same gun where he is threatening to use that gun to protect property. It goes, he's going to get destroyed he is saying he wished he did so he could shoot people. You know there's a lot of difference between commenting about something when you haven't got a gun and threatening someone when you do. You know it's interesting your honor because the entire defense theory in this case is Joseph Rosenbaum who was unarmed. Tell me what the defense theory of the case is. I want, may I respond to what you just said your honor? I'd like to respond to what you just said. I apologize Madam Court Reporter but I'd like to try and make a record without anyone interrupting me if that's okay. I believe that there is a central part of this case that Mr. Rosenbaum is making threats that he has no ability to carry out. So to your point your honor you're arguing that this August 10th incident, one aspect of why you don't believe it's relevant is the defendant didn't have the gun with them. This case is about someone who didn't have a weapon and yet the jury is being told because of those threats that means the defendant has to defend himself. So with all due respect your honor, mere verbal threats have already been shown to this jury and used as a basis for someone's subsequent actions. I am attempting with the defendant to use his mere verbal threat on August 10th 15 days prior that he's going to shoot shoplifters with his AR-15 to impeach the defendant in a murder trial. I would ask the courts for variance to do that. I apologize your honor you're right I probably should have brought this to your attention earlier. I may have misunderstood your ruling because I thought your ruling was if the evidence in this case made that more relevant you would admit it or at least consider it's an admittance. I believe based on the evidence that we've heard and more specifically exactly what the defendant said earlier about admitting pointing a gun at someone who was merely jumping or sitting on a car that the door is open now to this testimony. And I continue to believe that his state of mind, his intent, his belief as to self-defense is the core of this case. That was the basis for my motion. You are strongly inclined against it. I understand that. But now we're in the middle of trial and there's been a lot of evidence that's come in that I think makes this relevant. So I'm attempting to impeach the defendant on his beliefs. I believe I'm entitled to impeach the defendant on his beliefs and on his statements. I think that's what they call his statements to your honor because he just said can't use deadly force, can't threaten to use deadly force to protect property. So now I'm impeaching him on that. He's misrepresenting what was said. The court has seen no reason to change its ruling. And just so this record is clear in spite of the lengthy statement by Mr. Binger, before we started today, the court specifically stated in Mr. Binger's presence, there's been nothing to have me change any of my rulings. There have been numerous occasions during this trial where they've opened the door the one time when they're going into Mr. Rosenbaum's prior reason he doesn't like guns. And I said something. I whispered in Mr. Krauss's ear, it's because of the prior convictions. Please stop. And he did. He knows if you're going to go into something that's been excluded in a pre-trial order, you better ask the court, you better get permission. This is ridiculous. Yeah. It wasn't excluded, your honor. You know why it was excluded in the first place? Because it was propensity evidence that is exactly what 90404 is designed to prevent. You're talking about his attitudes? His attitude is he wants to shoot people. Now I've admitted that kind of evidence in other trials when it's been appropriate. I didn't admit it in this case because to me what I've heard in this trial, and by the way Mr. Richards absolutely correctly points out that just hours ago I said I had heard nothing in this trial to change any of my rulings. So why? That was before they passed my. Don't get brazen with me. You knew very well. You know very well that an attorney can't go into these types of areas when the judge has already ruled without asking outside the presence of the jury to do so. So don't give me that. That's number one. Number two, this is propensity evidence. I said at the time that I made my ruling, and I'll repeat again now for you, I see no similarity between talking about wishing you had your AR gun, which you don't have, so that you could take fire rounds at these thought-to-be shoplifters, and the incidents in these cases, which are not, there's nothing in your case that suggests the defendant was lying and wait to shoot at somebody, or reflecting upon the shooting for a vast amount of time. Every one of the incidents involves matters that involve seconds in time. So I don't, I comment at the time, I don't see the similarity, and I don't see the similarity now. If it's not similar, that's the whole rule. Those are all the exceptions to 90404. Check the authorities. We need more evidence. Judge Weinstein, Colonel McCormick, it's the prior act has to bear the signature of the accused, or it has to be so similar as to suggest it's a common plan or something like that. You have an incident where he's making comments about some lead shoplifters versus crimes that involve instantaneous actions, whether premeditated murder or whether self-defense, that's for the jury to decide. But I don't see the similarity. I said it couldn't come in, and it isn't coming in, no matter what you think. Number two, I have to be concerned that with what Mr. Richards has said about the progress of the trial, and when you were way, well I said you were over the line close to, or over the line on commenting on the defendant's pretrial silence, which is a well-known rule. I'm astonished that that would have been an issue. So I don't want to have another issue as long as- This prosecution is dirty. I mean, we've seen that. Thank you. That's the truth. Damn. Nice.