Should Gaige Grosskreutz Have Been Arrested Instead of Kyle Rittenhouse?

As the current trial unfolds, the case for why Gaige Grosskreutz, alongside Kyle Rittenhouse, should have faced arrest and legal action becomes increasingly compelling.

Video Evidence and Prosecutorial Focus

It is evident from video evidence that Grosskreutz indeed appears guilty of aggravated assault and attempted murder. The prosecutor's aggressive stance towards the barely pubescent Rittenhouse raises questions about the fairness and consistency in their approach to justice.

Update 11-13-21: Convicted Felon Possession of a Firearm

A recent update reveals that not only is Grosskreutz a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, but he also had charges for DUI and refusal to submit to blood alcohol testing dismissed by the prosecutors shortly before his testimony in support of the prosecution. If Rittenhouse is acquitted, one must wonder whether the prosecution will still pursue the felony firearms charge against Grosskreutz.

Update 3-14/22: All Charges Against Grosskreutz Dropped

Interestingly, the prosecutor dropped all criminal charges against Grosskreutz before he was called to testify against Rittenhouse. This move appears to be conveniently timed and begs the question of actual intent behind dropping the charges.

Assault, Brandishing, and Criminal Record

Both Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse broke curfew, and with Grosskreutz's criminal record, it is highly questionable whether he should have possessed a firearm in the first place. The assault charge alone, not to mention the act of brandishing, is against the law. His prior conviction makes any discussion of his ability to legally carry a firearm even more pressing.

Rioting and Misconduct

As soon as Grosskreutz started yelling to get someone taken down, he no longer served as the medic he claimed to be. Any attempts to use his actions as a defense are undermined by his clearly erratic and unlawful behavior.

Legal Responsibilities and Actions

Both Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse should have been arrested for their actions that night. Rittenhouse was not protecting the dealership, and Grosskreutz was not merely expressing his First Amendment rights. The presence of multiple felony charges, including criminal negligence, makes their behavior unacceptable. Consequently, Grosskreutz’ celebratory behavior and threat to Rittenhouse place him in an entirely different category of culpability.

Apart from the assault charge, the question of Grosskreutz's possession and use of a firearm further complicate the situation. His criminal record makes any lawful possession of a firearm highly improbable, and his threat to Rittenhouse, who was not at the dealership to protect it, further highlights the dangerous and unlawful nature of his actions.

This raises further questions about the prosecution's handling of the case and the broader implications for public safety and criminal justice in controversial situations.

Conclusion

Further legal action against Gaige Grosskreutz is not only warranted but may set a crucial precedent for the handling of similar situations in the future. The events surrounding the Kenosha incident demonstrate the need for stricter enforcement and oversight in ensuring that individuals with criminal backgrounds do not misuse firearms. As the case unfolds, it is crucial to consider these factors to ensure that justice is not only served but also seen to be served.