I am writing this on the morning of Wednesday, November 10. The defense phase of the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse has just begun.  So far, the prosecution’s performance has been an embarrassment to prosecutors everywhere. It turns out that the State is alleging that the first man to be shot was too far away from Rittenhouse to have been a danger to him when the boy opened fire, yet they never ordered a gunshot residue test to determine distance.

They are hanging a lot of their case on the assumption that the kid being there at all shreds the mantle of innocence necessary to a successful self-defense claim.  Indeed, on the gun-related internet, I’m seeing a lot of people who should know better claiming that they’re unsympathetic to Rittenhouse because he “went there looking for trouble.”

I respectfully submit that this attitude just ain’t right.

Look, strongly advise people to stay the hell away from protests and demonstrations such as these, let along the full-blown riot that Kenosha had become by the time Kyle Rittenhouse arrived there.  My long form explanation can be found here, courtesy of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.

Or watch video here.

If you don’t have time for that, the short version can be found here, courtesy of Wilson Combat.

Or watch video here.

That said, implying that the kid is guilty simply because he went there seems over the top. People got sick and died from the toxicity they encountered when they went to help look for survivors in New York City after 9/11. Should we withhold sympathy and say “They asked for it?”  I know people who came down sick after going to New Orleans to assist survivors after Hurricane Katrina.  Should we sneer at them and say “They went looking for trouble?”  Kyle Rittenhouse was photographed there cleaning up graffiti and offering medical assistance. I think we should take those motives into consideration.

And I certainly hope the jury does, very soon.


  1. Rittenhouse’s attorneys have done a good job of shredding the prosecution’s case, though there doesn’t appear to have been much of a case in the first place. It will be interesting to see the defense case and if Kyle takes the stand. This whole thing stinks of political persecution and hopefully the numerous attempts at intimidating the jury will not succeed.

  2. These shooting, by Kyle Rittenhouse, are all clear self-defense. This is one of the most clear-cut cases of self-defense to ever make it into a courtroom. Indeed, when one examines the evidence, as is being done in this trial, the case for self-defense only becomes stronger and stronger.

    Self-defense is so clear, in this case, that no reputable prosecutor (who has a true interest in Justice) would have ever charged Rittenhouse in the first place. Therefore, this is not a legitimate prosecution under the Law. Rather, it is a Political Prosecution that is being pursued to push a political narrative rather than to seek Justice.

    Indeed, the case presented by this political prosecution has been such a joke that this trial has now moved from being a drama into being a farce. Clearly, the American Left does not mind if some of their minions look incredibly stupid just as long as it keeps up the narrative.

    To paraphrase Shakespeare “The Narrative’s the Thing”. At least, that is clearly the way that the Left views it. The sacrifice of a few low-level minions seems like acceptable losses, to them, if it buys the continued support of the “Narrative du jour”.

    If Rittenhouse is not acquitted, the Good People of the USA ought to be the one’s protesting. Protesting because it will then be clear that there is no longer any justice to be had in our courts. The only justice would be that which would flow when the People take the authority for administering justice from the false hand of the State and secures it back to its original source. As the Declaration of Independent puts it:

    “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

  3. I do think Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there. But just because he did something that was unwise doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the right to defend himself when things go south. He had a legal right to be there — more so than the protesters who were setting fires and inciting violence.

    It should be OK to recognize that some things aren’t the smartest course of action (a woman dressing provocatively in a bad part of town at night alone, anyone getting cash from an ATM after dark in a poorly lit and poorly attended area, etc.), and also saying that their attackers are wrong and should be stopped with lethal force if necessary. In these sorts of things, the victim could have taken steps to avoid the situation, but that is not a complete free pass for the attacker.

    • There are degrees to unwise decisions. Draping a very visible, very symbolic weapon around you and roaming around in the flash point of leftist anger in 2020 is a different degree of unwise than dressing provocatively around the wrong people or withdrawing money at a late hour in a sketchy part of town. I won’t say this is either, but at some point plain unwise becomes willful recklessness, which at some point becomes baiting.

      • There were dozens of people armed during this incident. Many of them, like Rittenhouse, armed with long arms which they openly carried.

        Why single out Rittenhouse for special criticism? Why describe his actions as “plain unwise” and say that it “becomes willful recklessness”. Were not all these many other people reckless too? If you think so, then what does that say about your views upon the right to keep and bear arms?

        Would you say that the right only exists in calm and peaceful times and places? That when civic unrest ramps up, the right to keep and bear arms must be suppressed?

        If it was so reckless, why did one cop tell Rittenhouse, before the trouble started, that “we really appreciate you guys”?

        Reckless was a mental hospital releasing a dangerously unstable mental patient, by the name of Joseph Rosenbaum, into the public with no oversight and during a time when the streets were torn with civic unrest. That was the recklessness that caused this incident.

        For myself, I am losing patience with all these “blame the victim” memes aimed at Rittenhouse.

      • Except it wasn’t “bait” as you claim (this is now the main talking point of the leftist mob). The Federalist has an excellent piece discussing this very thing and their case is quite strong. I don’t know if I’m allowed to post this link but I’m sure that it will be removed if not, but the title of the piece is “Left’s Attacks On Kyle Rittenhouse Are Part Of A Bigger Plan To Disband The ‘Well-Regulated Militia’” Here’s the link: https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/12/lefts-attacks-on-kyle-rittenhouse-are-part-of-a-bigger-plan-to-disband-the-well-regulated-militia/

      • jertex,

        It is 7:30am Eastern Time Sun 14 Nov, and I just read the article to which you linked. Jim Hanson wrote a wonderful, yet short piece. It gets better as it goes along. Thanks.

  4. I watched a few minutes this morning and I am VERY impressed with that young man. Calm, cool, and collected. The frustration is plain on the prosecutor’s face and I am loving it. Assuming the jury is fair, which is a big ask these days, the only charge that has half a chance is possession of a weapon by a minor. Is that even a thing there? Kyle was making the point that he could not purchase but it was legal to possess.

    • Is that even a thing here?

      Great question.

      From my understanding (IANAL, but thanks to the amazing Andrew Branca at http://legalinsurrection.com and http://lawofselfdefense.com), that Wisconsin “possession of a weapon by a person under 18” statute is quite vague, perhaps unconstitutionally so.

      Yes, it prohibits possession of “dangerous weapons” (including any firearm) by a person under 18.

      If that were the whole of the statute, it would be pretty clear. However, it then contains two exceptions for which the prohibition doesn’t apply — or more correctly, two “clarifications” to which the prohibition only applies. Those exceptions/clarifications are confusingly written in the form (paraphrasing), “[prohibition] applies only to persons not in compliance with [other statute] and [other statute]”.

      Of those two named “other statutes”, one prohibits possession by a minor under age 16 (Kyle was 17 at the time, so he’s NOT “not in compliance”), and the other seems to require hunter education and licensing before engaging in “hunting activities” (Kyle was not “hunting” in the conventional or statutory sense, so he should be fine … though the prosecution seems to think they can obfuscate and broaden “hunting activities” enough to get it to apply).

      That odd phrasing, as you might imagine, could be extremely confusing to lay-persons. It’s a clear prohibition … that only applies to people “not in compliance” with other prohibitions? On top of that, the two “other statutes” are joined by the word “and”, so one would have to be “not in compliance” with both to violate the prohibition — one or the other is OK? How is a jury of non-lawyers supposed to decide on this?

      This, among other reasons, is why the judge didn’t seem sure on dismissing this charge or letting it stand. As it is now, he’s letting it stand, but there’s a big enough question over whether the statute applies that he’s asked both sides — the prosecution and the defense — to provide their suggestions for jury instructions for this charge, since the standard instructions don’t mention the exceptions or how to decide if the statute applies or not. (As Mr. Branca notes, it probably shouldn’t go to the jury; the jury is the “finder of fact“, but this is a question of law, and it’s the judge that is the “finder of law”. If he’s not sure, the charge should be dismissed.)

      Clear as mud?

  5. “I think we should take those motives into consideration.” Good point. And, this is just one very small step in a long discussion of where our society ought to take evaluation of self-defense cases.

    My personal policy is to live in and frequent only very safe communities such as those which are “gated” or otherwise free of obvious signs of potential trouble. Nevertheless, in recent years: a drug dealer killed four customers a couple miles from my home; a sexual predator was living a couple hundred yards from my home.

    If we shouldn’t tell Kyle “don’t go there” why should we tell ‘Kylee’ “don’t live there” in an inner-city precinct she well knows to be dangerous?

    As you (Mas) know so much better than all the rest of us, a self-defense trial can turn on the perception of just a single bit of evidence. Might be something as ambiguous as the opportunity to avoid jeopardy. (‘Ms Kylee, when you saw those youts loitering on that corner did you consider whether taking a different route home might be the better part of valor?’)

    When – if ever – do you think the carry-for-self-defense community might start pushing-back? Where are the ambiguous points of split-second decision-making most appropriate for reconsideration? Should we begin this discussion in the popular press in anticipation of promoting safer harbors in state legislatures?

    • Back a year or so ago, news that a BLM protest was going to occur in my town hit the social media sites, so I called my local PD to get the scoop on location, time, and duration.

      The dispatcher told me what I wanted to know, and then asked if I planned on attending. I responded “Hell no. I wanna make sure I’m far away from any of that until it is over, and dispersed. I don’t need that sort of aggravation.”

      The dispatcher agreed that was probably a very good idea.

      I cant’ understand why a 17 year old kid would think it’s a good idea to enter a riot zone, illegally armed with a black rifle, in another state. As a friend of mine said, “I don’t think this kid is splitting atoms on weekends.”

      When it comes right down to it, was it worth the cost, aggravation and risk to liberty for this kid to protect property, or provide free medical care to protesters?

      Homie don’t think so..

      • He did it because he was a 17 year old kid and therefore dumb, by definition. But he had a right to be anywhere he wants to be in this country. And he has a right to defend himself if facing the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

  6. If Rittenhouse is guilty because “he was there” wouldn’t the same hold true that the idiots that were shot got what they deserved because “they went there with the intent to cause violence!”

  7. “So far, the prosecution’s performance has been an embarrassment to prosecutors everywhere.” ~ Mas Ayoob

    ABSOLUTELY!!! I’ve been watching it on Fox. The prosecutor sounds exactly like a black gun-hating spokesman for the Brady or Giffords people.

    And hey, WHO AMONG US HASN’T BOUGHT A GUN BECAUSE IT LOOKED COOL?! I’m SO glad Rittenhouse didn’t take the prosecutor’s bait about ‘needing’ the gun. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with ‘need.’


    • Russ,

      I thought prosecutors were supposed to prosecute criminals, and thereby protect law-abiding, tax paying citizens. This prosecutor is prosecuting the victim. I wish the judge would hold him in contempt of court. I don’t have much legal training, but if I was that judge, I would examine the facts, then make a summary judgment in Kyle’s favor. He should not have to endure this trial. However, he is doing a good job. May he be freed from the government persecutors, and allowed to return to a somewhat “normal” life. May he be allowed to get a good job in the future.

      The judge is a good man, and is doing a good job. Imagine if he thought like the prosecutor thinks. Yikes!

  8. Actuall the prosecution has done a good job of shredding their own case. Rittenhouse should not have been put on the stand as it provided the prosecution the opportunity to distort the events and ask questions beyond the expertise of Kyle attempting to make him appear vicious, foolish, and incompetent.

    Kyle went there to help and he had training in first-aid and carried an appropriate medical kit. But he also saw the danger and went armed.

  9. I read about the Prosecutions final witness.. the man who conducted the autopsies of the two dead men. His testimny ws so clear, and when the ADA tried getting him to fudge a little bit, he stood his ground, even going so far as to put together a quick deminstration of WHY he says one of the dead guy’s hand ws actually ON THE MUZZLE of Kyle’s gun when he fired. ADA tried flubbing that demo, but the Do
    ctor set him straight.

    Seems both the ded guys had powder reside embedded near the bullet entry wound, and this can ONLY happen when the target of the round is within four feet of the muzzle of the gun. One of them had soot surrounging the entry wound.. proof his hand was within inches of the muzzle….. and the pattern could ONLY have come from the guy’s hand being ON the muzzle (as in, grabbing it as if to take it away from Kyle) when the round sent off.

    Also saw one of th eDefense witnesses make monkeys out of the entire prosecution team… the photographer guy who was “subtly” asked to “change his story” right after he first filed his statement wiht Kenosha cops. That ADA was VERY embarrssed, as the photographer masterfully stood his ground and it almost seemed as if the man ws carefully baiting the prosecutor, who was conducting a first, and re-cross, who rather came unglued nd made of his sorty self an utter fool…. right out there in open court. That should go down as a case study in “know your witnesses and what they will say” advice. Crazy thing is, the clown DA actually led this witness into that situation to try and trap him into changing his story now. That backfired right in hus ugly mug.

    Two of the Defense witnesses also gave clear and coorborating tesimony that the owners of the business (car lot) where this all started out had approached the several people who were there and even offered to pay them money to help protect the business property that night. (none would ccept payment) So they were there AT THE OWNERS” REQUEST. Kyle did not just show up “looking for trouble” he responded to an honest plea for help to protect this business. Kyle has not yet taken the stand, (I’m guessing they will save the good part till last) but it is rather certain his statements as to how/why he showed up there that night, armed, will match the three we’ve already heard from.

    Put yourself in the shoes of the car lot guy who had already suffered heavy damage the previous night or two, and consider that you know of a few honest folks who might be willing to come and be present the next night.

    DUring the Portland Oregon riots, quite similar to those in Kenosha, though of far longer duration, one car lot, a Toyota dealership on Broadway, suffered a few millioin dollars in damage when rioters took to destroying cars.. nineteen of then, =brand new, totalled. Another lot, not far away, had a few folks standing guard… that lot was not touched.
    Whatever Kyle’s “real” motive was to be there and armed, he RETAINED the right to protect himself from all three of the attackers who tried to kill him that night. Don’t forget, there were two others who also rushed Kyle during his run down the street, but when he (Kyle) pointed his rifle at them they immediately stopped, stepped back, and raised their hands in a clear “I’m stopping my attack” gesture. Kyle immediately lowered his rifle and continued on his way, NOT firing at them. Seems at least one of them had closed to wellwithin the 21 foot “safe zone” most of us tend to observe. SO he COULD have also fired at one or perhaps both of them and been fully justified. But he instantly recongised the end of those two threats, and stayed his own defense.

    This is the “kid” who fired four rounds in point seven six seconds, hitting his intended target wiht three of them as his attacker quickly closed upon him. Then, as the attacker obviously had ended his attack (he boing fataly wounded) he STOPPED FIRING. Eve as the guy continued moving toward him. This deminstrates a level of control few of us here have I’m pretty certain.

  10. No, I strongly disagree: We should not take his motives into consideration.

    If his motives matter when he was there to cuddle kittens and help grandmothers across the street, then his motives also matter when he was wandering in public holding his high-powered fully semiautomatic military style assault rifle with its high-capacity clipazine, looking for someone to shoot.

    Was the action in question justifiable as self-defense? Would a reasonable person in that circumstance believe himself to be in imminent threat of death or grievous bodily injury?

  11. Rittenhouse took the stand today. Despite the potential downsides, I think that this was a good move for the defense. As Mas has previously noted, only the defendant can testify as to his state of mind when he was under attack. Only he can explain, to the jury, as to why he felt under threat of death or great bodily harm. The jury wants this “state of mind” information as it is critical to evaluating the claim of self-defense.

    The idiot prosecutor grilled Rittenhouse as to the type of ammo he had in his AR. Apparently, it was some brand of FMJ round. The idiot prosecutor tried to make some point about how FMJ ammo will over-penetrate but that hollowpoint ammo will “explode” inside the body. The Judge told him that (1) it was not his job to offer testimony and (2) his facts were incorrect.

    I think that the idiot prosecutor was trying to get some admission from Rittenhouse about how dangerous FMJ ammo was for over-penetration. Trying to plant the idea, to the jury, that it was irresponsible for Rittenhouse to use FMJ ammo given the crowds of people on-site. The idiot persecutor even indicated that you would want to hunt deer with a hollowpoint round (in a .223? Saint’s preserve us!) rather than with a FMJ because it would “explode” inside the deer!

    Rittenhouse simply admitted that he did not know much about ammo. Clearly, the idiot prosecutor knows even less.

    FMJ ammo can over-penetrate in a pistol round. However, in a .223 rifle, at ranges under 10 feet, the velocity of a standard .223 FMJ round would be over 3,000 FPS at impact. The FMJ round would yawl, tumble and then, likely, fragment. Thus, the chances of a .223 FMJ rifle round over-penetrating, at these ranges, are greatly reduce.

    If this idiot prosecutor wanted this kind of testimony, about the performance of .223 rounds on the human body, he should have put a firearm’s expert, like Mas, on the stand. As it is, he was only spouting ballistic nonsense to the jury.

    The idiot prosecutor’s behavior was so bad, today, that people are speculating that he is deliberately trying to trigger a mistrial.

    • I caught that comment about “hollow-point” rounds for .223. My question was, “Do such things exist?”

      In my area, I can get any centerfire pistol round in FMJ or JHP; hollow-points are not prohibited here. And I can get any centerfire rifle round — including .223/5.56 — in FMJ or JSP (jacketed soft-point). The soft-points are supposed to expand similar to hollow-point pistol rounds (but penetrate a little deeper) and are intended for hunting (.223 in JSP is supposed to be a “small-game” round), but they are NOT “hollow-point”.

      Maybe the available ammo selection is different in Wisconsin?

      Or maybe the ADA has no flippin’ clue what he’s talking about.

      (And yes, I can see the possibility that the ADA is trying to misbehave enough to get a mistrial, but not so badly they get a mistrial with prejudice. I’m sure the DA’s office would love a “do-over” with this one; they might fix their errors and get convictions, and they’d force Kyle to cover the expense of TWO legal defenses. A mistrial without prejudice would be a win-win for a partisan DA’s office.)

  12. When I watched ABC’s coverage at lunch, the judge was shredding the prosecutor over ignoring rules of evidence. The most publicized criticism I’ve seen is over the judge’s supposed bias against the prosecution. However the prosecution is doing a good job destroying their own case. I guess we will see if this ever gets to the jury.

  13. Watching the play by play, frame by frame displays of video, I’m reminded of the contention of various authorities that the defense should strenuously object to this action. The participants in any dynamic event don’t have the ability to call a tactical time out and review slow/stop motion video before deciding on a response. Therefore, the prosecution shouldn’t have the ability to provide this point of view to the jury.

    I also have to admire Mr. Rittenhouse’s composure in the face of the prosecutions inane, repetitive questions. I expect the jury might be getting tired of the approach.

    • I was struck by the repetitive questions, too. And the ADAs aren’t even smart or creative enough to vary their wording to try and get a different response.

      (Note: this is all paraphrased to make the point; no exact quotes here.)

      ADA: Rosenbaum was shot in the back while he was falling?
      Witness: No, he was lunging at the defendant, and was shot while lunging.
      ADA: So, he was falling?
      Witness: No, he was lunging.
      ADA: But by ‘lunging’, you mean falling?
      Witness: No, lunging.
      (12 minutes of this)

      We saw it again with Kyle himself on the stand.

      ADA: You had your rifle to kill protesters.
      KR: No, I had it to protect myself and stop attackers.
      ADA: When you say you wanted to ‘stop’ them, you mean you wanted to kill them.
      KR: No, I mean I wanted to stop them.
      ADA: But by ‘stopping’ them, you mean killing them.
      KR: No, I just wanted to stop them.
      ADA: By killing them.
      (goes on for several minutes)

      I’d like to think I would have called him on it from the stand. “Sir, you’ve asked the same question a dozen times now. I’ve given my answer a dozen times, the same answer each time. I understand it’s not the answer you want, but I’m not going to sit here and commit perjury for you, no matter how much you seem to want me to. Would you please move on?”

      • Archer,

        When Prosecutor Thomas Binger was asking questions about playing video games, I was wishing Kyle could have asked him, “Sir, have you ever played shoot ’em up video games?” I’m pretty sure 100% of American males and 50% of American females have played those games. I am older than Kyle and Binger, and I have played those games a little bit. We had shooting video games in the 1970s, but they were machines in arcades for which you had to pay a quarter. I have also played the modern games a little on TVs and computers. That line of questioning was hilarious, infantile even.

  14. I have given this quote before, in relation to the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial, but it now seems appropriate to list it again:

    “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. – Carl Sandburg”

    I have said before that both the facts and the law are against the prosecution in this case. I speculated that the prosecutor would follow Carl Sandburg’s advice, given above, and conduct this trial by “pounding the table and yelling like hell”.

    Now my speculation is confirmed and my crystal ball has, once again, proved to be operating on “High Beam”. If you have watched any of the coverage of the Rittenhouse trial, today, you would have seen the prosecutor, continuously, pounding on the table and yelling like hell.

    That is the only thing that this leftist prosecutor can do. He has nothing else. Not one single fact or point-of-law upon which to stand. Nothing but screaming and making noise. I hope the jury understands that this prosecutor’s case is nothing except a 2-year old throwing a tantrum.

    • He’s yelling like hell and pounding the table.

      He may as well be whining and stamping his little foot. Maybe if he threw himself on the ground and flailed his fists and feet while screaming, it might help his case. I don’t see how it could hurt his case any.

  15. “I am writing this on the morning of Wednesday, November 11.” You mean Wednesday, November 10. Don’t worry. This happens to all of us.

  16. Very angry at this prosecuting team and the DA office. I have never believed they had a case against Rittenhouse, but seeing them in action has shown me how vile these people are.

    Mas, I’m curious, in your experience in watching trials and participating in them as an expert, if their kind of contempt for ethics and the law is rare in courtrooms?

  17. he didn’t go looking for trouble. there was plenty of it and he could have found it any time. the friends he was with weren’t either.

    they did make a risky decision in going to clean things up, render aid, and uphold order at that place of business in what had been described as a “war zone” the night before, and Kyle was the one to run into bad luck. but that’s all. he wasn’t looking for trouble. the restraint he showed proved that. after Rosenbaum, there were dozens of rioters chasing him, undoubtedly hundreds more that would have liked to participate in killing him. we saw his restraint in dealing with that. he used the minimum force necessary.

    but what everyone seems to be missing, is that their guns were to protect themselves, while in the process of serving and protecting (as they were), NOT to use the guns TO protect the business property. they didn’t say they were going to shoot arsonists/looters/vandals. the guns were to protect themselves while doing that.

    it is a fact that more people were armed than not, as the cop testified the other day, and we can assume that was on both sides of the issue. anybody making the poor decision to voluntarily go into that, would have nevertheless been prudent to arm themselves for the purpose of self protection. so you can see that is a legitimate reason to have a gun, although a stupid place to be.

    for those that say that he shouldn’t have been there in the first place, neither should the arsonists, looters, vandals, and hundreds of rioters. nobody should have been. but when you have one you get the other. him and his friends were there to clean up after them and protect against them. they prepared for the worst with body armor and guns, and that indeed saved one of their lives.

    • ralph,

      I understand the thinking behind the rule that you can’t shoot someone over property. A life is supposedly more important than any piece of property. But maybe we need to re-examine that rule in light of current events.

      Business owners are having their livelihoods burned down, as police, whose salaries are paid for by the business owners, are told by politicians to stay back and allow lawless individuals to loot, and then burn those businesses down. So the business owner now goes to collect the insurance money. Well, that is not very good for the owner of the insurance business. At a certain point, insurance companies run out of money.

      Maybe deadly force should again be authorized against property destroyers. I doubt riots would go on for 100 days if the law was changed. Life is precious, you say? (I am a Christian, and I am supposed to believe that). Well, there are now 7.9 billion of us on this planet. Are the lives of violent, repeat criminals really that precious that we need to house them in prisons, where they probably live better than half the people in the world? Yes, some criminals do reform, but most don’t. Maybe we could have a time limit for violent criminals to reform. After that, execute them. Or, since some people don’t like using laboratory animals to test new medicines, they could be used for medical experiments, perhaps. Whatever, but their lives are not precious. Their lives are harmful to society. They prey on the innocent.

      Would the police would stand down if Patriotic rioters tried to burn down buildings at Harvard at 3:00am in the morning, or if they got everyone out of a CNN building and then tried to burn it down? I doubt it.

      Just like certain people, (future democrats) are allowed to enter America illegally, certain people the left likes get to loot and burn down buildings. Kyle Rittenhouse goes to help, and he gets arrested, not the politically-correct rioters. First America’s moral compass was broken, and now America’s legal compass has been broken.

  18. I am so cynical I expect the mainstream news to continue to tell lies about this trial, and deluded Democrats to believe what the mainstream news tells them. The Communists and Patriots in this country have nothing in common. Years ago, Glenn Beck said we can no longer even agree on what the facts are. How can you have a discussion if you can’t even agree on what the facts are?

    Does anyone know what can be done to help the political prisoners who trespassed at the Capitol on January 6th? They made bad decisions, but do not deserve to be kept in jail for months.

    • @ Roger Willco,

      I don’t know what can be done about the Political Prisoners who are being held, unlawfully, in the Left’s D.C. gulag. This is being done to suppress our Rights, under the 1st Amendment, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In other words, it is a totalitarian “Fear-Tactic” designed to intimidate the People into silence and into accepting their illegitimate rule.

      Certainly, we can’t go to Washington to protest this unjust imprisonment. The response of the Deep State would be to arrest hundreds more people and add them to those already in their gulag.

      There is an article on the American Thinker web site that addresses this injustice. Here is a link:


      Maybe the best we can do, at the moment, is what is suggested in this article. Flood our Senators and Representatives with letters of protest about Political Prisoners being indefinitely detained, without bail or trial, here in America. Remind them that we are watching and will hold them accountable come election day for these Constitutional Violations.

      Maybe we can drum up enough of a political stink to at least get them to grant bail and get these prisoners released from the American Gulag in D.C.

      • Only if the jail wardens and guards allow it, and there’s no reason to think they will.

        The J6 protesters aren’t getting bail, aren’t getting officially charged with crimes, aren’t getting legal representation, and aren’t getting their days in court. All those are required by the Constitution, yet are being denied.

        Money to buy stuff from jail … isn’t.

  19. Regarding this Armistice Day, I once worked on active duty with, and for, a civilian weather forecaster for the USAF who was WWII veteran fighter pilot whom I knew as “Mr. Groves.” He was one of the original Tuskegee Airmen. If there ever was a better man than he was, I can’t imagine who it would be. You can find a memory of him at . I used to pretend to accuse him of probably having chased a German fighter plane down to the ground, which I knew had been against the USAAF Rules of Engagement of his day. Mr. Groves used to refer to me thereafter as “that CIA guy,” and it turned out much later that he had actually broken that exact same USAAF ROE! Not a bad guess. eh? I got in a fight in a parking lot one night outside a Denny’s in Tacoma with some fellow “Caucasian” who voiced some stupid prejudice against blond men and punched me in the face a couple of times and then tried to kick me you-know-where. I side kicked the punching kicker in the knee that he was standing on and pretty well crippled him, and then flipped him on his belly. He and his buddies made off when police sirens headed our way. I made the mistake of going to the medics at Fort Lewis later, and the fight got reported to my commanding officer. Mr. Groves saved my bacon from an Article 15 for brawling when he asked me in front of my DETCO who exactly threw the first punch. I was able to answer truthfully “the other guy did.” Mr. Groves then simply said “you’re OK then,” and charges were not brought against me. Thank you again Mr. Groves, and God rest your good soul for standing up for me. Let NO ONE now in my presence put down good men of any color like the veteran that Mr. Groves was. He was the kind of man who has gladly helped to keep this country truly free in the face of much adversity, in the form of real, arrogant enemies who were trying to kill him. May God bless him, and all such men.

  20. I find two things terrifying about this case.

    One is that the prosecution has not simply withdrawn all of the charges other than the underage gun possession. (Not that I think Rittenhouse deserves to be punished for that, but that all claims that the shootings were unjustifiable have all been shown to be based on lies.)

    Two is that thought that the jury might not find him innocent, despite all this.

    I’ve read about Jury Nullification, in which the jury conspires to declare a defendant even though they are convinced he violated the law — because they disagree with the law.

    What is less often mentioned and probably happens more often is the other side of this phenomenon — when the prosecution prosecutes and the jury convicts because they disagree with the law that vindicates the defendant.

  21. I find it interesting that the prosecutor tried to accuse Kyle of buying/bringing the gun to KILL someone …… does that mean that people become cops so they can kill someone??? Stupid prosecutor 🤷‍♂️
    I’ve yelled at the tv more times than I can count while watching

  22. It is not that ‘being there’ makes him guilty or innocent. It’s a 17 year old going to a riot with an AR-15 is asking for trouble.

    Yes the evidence shows the shooting was self defense… but he would not be in the pickle he is in now if he had not knowingly gone to such a violent situation armed with such a weapon.

    I am pretty sure in some way he will be declared innocent via mistrial with prejudice, Judge declares a directed verdict of acquittal, or the jury says he is innocent.

    But… he has had a hell of a ride due to his actions.

  23. “I do think Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there.”

    You still see many people who think this way. There may be some on the jury who will do it too. The problem with this thought-pattern is that it directs blame toward the victim rather than the aggressors. It warps one’s perception of the events around this defensive shooting. It leads to playing “what if” games with reality.

    Instead of thinking about Rittenhouse’s “Original Sins” of exercising his 1st Amendment Right of Free Association and of exercising his 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms, let’s consider an alternate “What if”?

    What if the mental hospital had not chosen to discharge a dangerous psychopath, by the name of Joseph Rosenbaum, on the same day that known civil unrest was occurring locally? Boy, that was sure a BRILLIANT decision by the doctors and administrative staff of that hospital!

    I can hear the doctors and psychologists talking about the question. Do we release a bipolar mental patient, with a felony arrest record of sex crimes, today? After all, the City partly burned during last night’s riots and more rioting is expected tonight. And what was the decision? Sure, let’s turn him loose so that he can join the FUN!

    It is too bad that the Defense can’t call the hospital staff, who were responsible for Rosenbaum’s discharge, to the stand and grill them about their decision-making process, isn’t it?

    Rosenbaum joined the rioting and his mental stability went downhill even more. His behavior all that evening was dangerously erratic. Right up to the point where he made a suicidal attack to try to grab the rifle from Rittenhouse and got shot for his trouble. Does anybody doubt what would have happen if a deranged Rosenbaum had actually been able to disarm Rittenhouse that evening? I suspect that Rittenhouse would have merely been the first victim as unstable Rosenbaum went into full “Active Shooter” mode. Rittenhouse probably saved multiple lives when he shot Rosenbaum (in addition to his own).

    If this trial comes to a righteous end and Rittenhouse is acquitted, he ought to sue a bunch of media agencies for their lying, biased coverage of his case. Also on his list, he should sue the mental hospital for all that they are worth. They failed their Hippocratic Oath (to do no harm) and they failed their duty to the Public when they released a dangerous psychopath into an already unstable and riot-torn environment.

    • Playing Devil’s Advocate for a moment.

      Rittenhouse probably saved multiple lives when he shot Rosenbaum (in addition to his own).

      But if Rittenhouse hadn’t been there with his rifle, Rosenbaum wouldn’t have tried to disarm him and would be just another angry, unarmed protester.

      [end Devil’s Advocate]

      I can see where these people are coming from, but they’re trying to justify the assault on Kyle, who had just as much right to be there as anyone else.

      On one hand, maybe Kyle shouldn’t have been there. OTOH, if Kyle shouldn’t have been there, then how is it OK for Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz to have been there?

      Similarly, on one hand, maybe Kyle shouldn’t have been armed. OTOH, if Kyle shouldn’t have been armed, then how is it OK for Grosskreutz to have been armed? With a concealed pistol for which he did not have a valid license to carry, no less!

      (On that note, why have there been no charges for Grosskreutz’s admitted — and videoed — “unlawful possession of a weapon”? I believe that is also a felony in Wisconsin, is it not?)

      Basically, I’ve seen no variation of the “Kyle shouldn’t have been there” argument that doesn’t equally apply to one or more of the men he was forced to shoot, so I wish the people spouting that would drop it; it just creates noise and drowns out discussion on the actual merits.

      • Archer – “But if Rittenhouse hadn’t been there with his rifle, Rosenbaum wouldn’t have tried to disarm him and would be just another angry, unarmed protester.”

        You are missing my point. Rittenhouse was not the “spark” that ignited this series of conflicts that ended with two (2) people dead and another, “Lefty” Grosskreutz, injured for life. Don’t believe the lying propaganda and made-up narratives of the American Left that seek to portray Rittenhouse as the “spark”.

        No, the individual who really got this ball rolling was none other than Joseph Rosenbaum. So, the question to ask is:

        What if Rosenbaum had not been there? What if the mental hospital had decided to keep him “hospitalized” for a few more days? Or, alternatively, instead of just handing him a bag of goodies and showing him the Exit leading to the street riot, they had arranged for Rosenbaum to go to a shelter or “halfway house” where he could have been supervised until the civil unrest in the streets calmed down.

        If Rosenbaum was not there, he would not have been free to engage in irrational behavior all that evening. He would not have been screaming “Shoot me, (N-Word)” at other people or issuing his death threats. He would not have staged a violent attack upon Rittenhouse thereby provoking Rittenhouse’s deadly response.

        It takes two people to make peace but only one person to start a war.

        Rittenhouse was the one shouting “Friendly, Friendly, Friendly” and trying to make peace but Rosenbaum was not having any of it. Rosenbaum was the one who started this war. It then “snowballed” to the point where two people were dead (including Rosenbaum himself so there is some Justice) and another crippled for life.

        All this “Blame Rittenhouse” propaganda, that people are pushing, is just a smokescreen. It hides the true initiator of this violence and shields him from blame. This was Joseph Rosenbaum’s War. He is the psycho who really kicked it into motion.

        He is the one who should be on trial. Maybe, by now, he has been judged and is serving his sentence in Hell!

  24. Mas,

    In reference to the weapons charge against Rittenhouse (for carrying a dangerous weapon by a minor under the age of 18), you have raised (in an earlier blog) the possibility of a Necessity Defense (AKA Competing Harms) for use by the Defense against this charge. In effect, arguing that the harm caused by Rittenhouse breaking this statute pales when compared to the harm of being caught, unarmed, in a riot zone.

    Andrew Blanca has put out a piece that addresses this question. He argues that a Necessity Defense could not be applied in this case. Here is a link to his comments.


    If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you will find his discussion of this question under the section entitled: Inapplicability of the Necessity Defense.

    Mr. Blanca’s point seems sound to me but I am not a lawyer. What do you think?

      • I would speculate that the difference arises from having different value systems.

        Firearm enthusiasts, like us, value firearms for many reasons. Therefore, we place a high value on our right to keep and bear arms. This means that we also place a low value on gun laws, such as the one under which Rittenhouse is charged, which infringe on the right to bear arms.

        For this reason, we can (in our minds) easily make a case for using “Necessity” to set aside the infringing gun law. We never did think much of this law in the first place. So it is easy for you or I to cast it aside.

        Firearms Prohibitionists hate and fear firearms. Therefore they love laws which infringe upon our rights and they have no problems, at all, with spitting upon the 2nd Amendment.

        Andrew Blanca strikes me as neither a lover nor a hater of firearms although he does, clearly, value our 2nd Amendment Rights and the Right to Self-Defense.

        Ultimately, Mr. Blanca is a lawyer. He loves the law. For this reason, he is unwilling to cast aside the law, even this law, unless there is a strong reason to do so. Therefore his “Bar” for using “Necessity” to set aside this law is much higher then yours or mine would be. As a lover of the law, he favors a “Strong Necessity Reason” whereas as “Gun People”, we are OK with a “Weak Necessity Reason”.

        In reality, it is not up to our opinion. It would be a matter for the courts to decide and since they are all staffed with lawyers, who also love the law, it is most likely that Andrew Blanca’s view of the matter is what a court would think.

        In other words, I think that Andrew Blanca’s view reflects the reality of our courts. Likely, if Rittenhouse’s Defense Team tried to argue a “Necessity Defense”, the court would end up rejecting it. Not become one view is clearly right or another is clear wrong, but rather because they, also, love the letter of the law too much to allow it to be so easily cast aside.

  25. Jeffrey Toobin thinks that Kyle Rittenhouse is a jerk.

    He also thinks that Rittenhouse’s lawyers might get the jerk off.

    • LOL – Yes, Toobin would know a lot about that subject! 🙂

      Unfortunately, it won’t be a laughing matter if the jury, either through fear of leftist thugs or because they have been brainwashed by their propaganda, comes back with an unjust verdict. Sadly, young Kyle Rittenhouse could find himself singing that old Johnny Cash tune:

      “I turned 21 in prison doing life without parole”.

      • Correction, it was a Merle Haggard tune called “Mama Tried” that contained those lyrics. Still, Kyle does not want to sing Merle’s tune either!

      • If Rittenhouse does get convicted and sent to the Big House, maybe someone can call up Crooked Joe pretending to be George Soros and order him to pardon Kyle, which the senile old fool would obediently do, if he doesn’t forget
        it in the next five minutes.

  26. I saw Kyle break down, and my heart ached for him… I have 19 year old son, who has a license to carry a firearm in the state of Indiana, I hope and pray he never has to drawn his weapon in self defense, but if he ever does, I hope and pray he uses the brains and judgement, and training he has been given..

  27. You’re wrong on this one, Massad. Cleaning up graffiti in an actively chaotic and violent situation involving angry mobs on one hand and cleaning up rubble from a smoldering site in downtown Manhattan after the towers have collapsed when all exitgent that remains is the search for survivors on the other are two things that cannot be equated. Rittenhouse went looking for danger to protect the property of strangers—a far cry from the innocent or even those under the mantel of your protection in a situation that arises around you without any foreknowledge of yours for you to use to avoid it. He had no business being there, thus he knew or should have known that he was liable to create his own jeopardy which he indeed did find himself in. In a sensitive and volatile situation where the upset party will predictably have an strong reaction to an antagonistic figure armed with a symbol of the opposition and everything they stand against, you’re throwing sparks in a powder keg when you make that journey to roam around the action with your rifle dangling by your side. Massad, you once spoke of the Charlie Brown-type fantasizing about shooting his way into the Armed Citizen column of American Rifleman. Maybe this is such a situation, not a case of the wise and peaceful yet prepared person accosted by unsolicited lethal danger.

    • Friend M O, I am on the side of young Mr. Rittenhouse, whose mother taught him to be like my all-time hero, the ironically visibly-incognito, courageous Lone Ranger, who refused to stand idly by while self-righteous lawbreakers ran roughshod over innocent strangers. Furthermore, Kyle acted courageously to defend himself (and at least by extension, others) against frenzied rioters. Apathetic, incompetent, cowardly government officials were promoting riots in the streets while keeping a leash on peace officers. Kyle is not responsible for the lamentable political situation. He deserves honest justice, and commendation for his courage.

      • Such a vignette sounds to me like the complete breakdown of civil society. A state beyond emergency, a wild west. Such a situation would demand a Wyatt Earp. In such circumstances, whoever elects to take responsibility for securing order and safety are the rightful authority, free to use whichever means are in the moment deemed necessary to maintain it since there is no greater authority to dictate otherwise—a far cry from the civil society of laws and institutions to whom we delegate the powers of justice and enforcement of the law that we are all accustomed to and have lived with for some centuries.

        As decadent a trajectory as society may be on, I am not persuaded by such a characterization. There was a momentary vacuum of order, one of a string of several across the country, the causes of which are serious and require urgent attention, but we are not overall left to our own devices. Our institutions have not collapsed. We are not tasked with restoring order from its very basic constituent elements of physical force on an individual basis, every man for himself. Thus, taking law and order into our own hands is wrong yet.

    • M O,

      Ideally, Kyle should have stayed home that night. Let the businesses burn. Don’t get involved. That would have kept him out of trouble.

      However, I cannot stand the idea of punishing a Good Samaritan. He should not be on trial. If I was the judge, and had to find him guilty of some little gun possession charge or something, I would fine Kyle $200 and say, “Now, don’t do that again.” Kyle, the hero, should not even be on trial.

      What if I came across someone needing first aid? I rendered first aid, and, in the process, made the wound worse, because I really don’t know what I am doing. As a Good Samaritan, should I be prosecuted for my lack of expertise, because the situation didn’t turn out to have a happy ending, like a TV sitcom? Kyle’s actions were imperfect, but they were the actions of a Good Samaritan, and I can’t stand to see him persecuted for trying to help good people.

  28. Rittenhouse’s actions are comparable to draping yourself in raw meat and jumping into the lion’s den right before feeding time, to “clean up the den”, then shooting the lion in self-defense as it attacks you. Yes, your life was in danger, and you have a right to take another to save it, but you created the danger yourself, so you’re still in the wrong.

    • I disagree. Kyle Rittenhouse was not targeted, by Rosenbaum, because he was armed with a “Black Rifle” that symbolizes everything that the American Left hates about America. As I noted in another comment above, dozens of other people were similarly armed but were never attacked.

      No, Rittenhouse was targeted because he looked young and inexperienced. He was cut off from the others of his group. He was isolated and alone. To a mentally-unbalanced criminal predator, like Rosenbaum, he looked like an easy victim.

      Rosenbaum had made an earlier threat to the armed group protecting those businesses. He said that if he catches one of them alone (and thereby isolated) that he would kill them. He caught Rittenhouse alone and he tried to follow through on this threat to kill him.

      In fact, this whole incident can best be understood in terms of a predator/prey response. Rosenbaum was a predator on the hunt. He marked down Rittenhouse as his “prey” and, like a cheetah on the plains of Africa, he tried to run his prey down to make his kill.

      Unfortunately for him, his prey turned out to be dangerous. The prey fought back and it was the predator that ended up dead.

      After Rittenhouse killed this predator, he realized that his isolation made him vulnerable to additional attacks by the many other predators around him. So, he ran back toward the police. In much the same way that an isolated antelope will run to rejoin the herd.

      This was probably a mistake. Rittenhouse might have done better to calmly walk back toward the police lines. Running prey tends to trigger an attack from a pack of predators. This is what then happened. The running Rittenhouse was seen, again, as isolated prey that could be chased down and killed. So, the predator pack took off hot on his heels. The predator pack caught Rittenhouse and, as predators will do, launched a simultaneous attack with multiple members of the pack.

      Normally, a mass attack from a pack of predators will be fatal. However, Rittenhouse’s skillful use of his AR weapon proved up to the task. He had to kill one member of the pack and wound another but he was successful in driving off their pack attack.

      So, the views expressed by M O above are wrong. This was not “Righteous Anger” from a group of “Peaceful Protestors” who were “triggered” by Rittenhouse coming to this event while armed.

      Rather, this was a pack of predators, out on the hunt, eager to make their “Kill” for the night by pouncing upon an isolated person who they perceived as “Easy Prey”.

      As Mas sometimes says, this was a “failure of the victim selection process”.

      • You and I just see this differently, the mischaracterization of my position as defending the attack as “Righteous Anger” or the violent mob as “Peaceful Protestors” notwithstanding.

        To perpetuate the analogy, Rosenbaum et. al. were not on a hunt in the wild for defenseless prey. They were part of a zoo habitat breakout contained within the confines of the zoo. Rittenhouse went into the closed zoo, dressed like an interloping lesser rivaling species suitable as prey and drawing attention like a lightning rod in a thunderstorm while encroaching on the rabid predators newfound territory—granted, alongside others making a similar appearance from the view of the predators—and found himself isolated and attacked, yet fortunately was able to overcome the attackers and flee to safety outside the confines of the zoo.

        My objection is not with the fight and flight once Rittenhouse was the object of the unjustified rage. Rather, it’s with his being there at all. He was not a zookeeper or containment personnel with responsibilities for the unfolding chaos, nor was he a guest caught in the chaos. Presumably, he was there because he was damned tired of the lack of order and civility in a place where you’re supposed to be able to take your family for a peaceful and enjoyable time. Nobody can blame him for being sick of the chaos and lacking response, or for wanting to show initiative, however, journeying into a confined violent situation which does not directly concern him, dressed as prey and gunning down the predators when they predictably attack him, is not a right akin to just walking the streets, it is recklessness.

        It could have been avoided. He has the right to self-preservation, but his actions leading up to the attack were not those of a sensible, unaware passerby, instead they amount to seeking out a serious, avoidable risk. They were foolish and arrogant.

      • M O – “It could have been avoided.” and “mischaracterization of my position”

        First, as to the mischaracterization of your position, truly, I do not want to construct a “strawman” to be cut down. However, taking a strong “Blame Rittenhouse for just being there” position is bound to lead to assumptions that you have a favorable view of these left-wing street protestors and/or rioters. I say that because that is the position taken by the American Left and their media attack dogs. That it is ALL Rittenhouse’s fault.

        As for the “it could have been avoided argument”; why is it always focused on Rittenhouse? As if he, and he alone, had a special duty to avoid it. I remind you that Rittenhouse was just a seventeen (17) year old kid. Are you not doling out too much blame for his young shoulders to carry?

        There are dozens of things that “could have been done” to avoid all this rioting and violence. Here is a partial list:

        1) If the State and City Governments, with jurisdiction, had taken firm action to maintain law and order, then it could have been avoided.
        2) If the American Left was not so power hungry and totalitarian and so determined to whip up chaos in America, in order to increase their own power and control, then it could have been avoided.
        3) If the lying, biased Media in America would take a stab at telling the truth, for a change, instead of weaving a continued series of “Narratives” and propaganda to poison the minds of the people, it could have been avoided.
        4) If people would simply support our Constitutional Rights and Government so that we have a common basis for discussion of our problems, in this country, it could have been avoided.
        5) If we had a decent system of mental healthcare in this country so that mental disturbed people, like Joseph Rosenbaum, could be helped instead of being turned loose on society, it could have been avoided.
        6) If we had an even-handed and working criminal justice system in this country, it could have been avoided.

        I could go on but you get the drift. Everybody wants to single out Rittenhouse for blame. Make him the focus of criticism. Label him as the “trouble-maker” who caused these deaths. From my point of view, that is simply wrong.

        Everyone in the streets, during these riots, has a share of the blame. However, if I was to pluck out one single individual to blame for these deaths and injuries, I would name Joseph Rosenbaum.

  29. Get your head up! The Rittenhouse persecution is a message to those who might try to defend themselves or their business “next time”. Neither Democratic Prosecutors, nor the Feds prosecute underage gun carriers, even if they are not Black, unless there is a “reason”. Kenosha used to be a Democratic area until it went for President Trump. That put them on the target list as “traitors”. There will be more riots and burning. It is the Compton (Calif) model. Compton was an all Black ghetto until a population of Hispanic immigrants took over and made it into a “peaceful”, prosperous community. Trashing the core of Kenosha makes it suitable as a colonizaation site for all those Illegal Aliens that the Regime has bgeen recruiting. Kenosha might have been ignored, but as “traitors” they can expect to be punished by having their White business core savaged to make room for the replacement population. I am sure that the prosecutor would have preferred to not look like such an incompetent fool, but he was out to get Rittenhouse for something, maybe “felony jay-walking”, just to send the message. The big push for “gun control” is just part of the program to disarm or to discourage White locals. The local Democratic authorities have not and will not protect Kenosha. The Democratic Governor will never lend a hand. The “traitors” are on their own when the next wave hits. The “trial” is a stage-show to keep the intended “victims” preoccuppied.

  30. People say that Rittenhouse should have stayed home. If he had, those three people wouldn’t have been shot. No one points out if the three rioters had stayed home, they wouldn’t have gotten shot.

    • We must not forget that here in present day America, criminals and those on the Left have a constitutional right to roam the streets to cause havoc and commit violence. Law abiding citizens are discouraged from protecting themselves, especially with firearms, and told no property is worth a life. So, if a person had worked hard for numerous years and saved up a million dollars which he/she kept in cash at home (dumb, I know) and a scumbag breaks in to threaten the owner and grabs that money, the armed resident should not interfere because the crook’s life is more valuable than his/her’s life savings. That’s the current justice system.

      • Friend Tom606, what about criminals who break in just to see if there is anything that they might want to steal? My home is my castle. My car is my home away from home. Heck, my bicycle is almost as precious to me as my car and house. Not to mention my dogs’ sentimental value. Let the perps beware of my own belief in justice, and bring on all the trouble that they want. I will let them meet a real Peacemaker. Only if necessary and appropriate, of course.

      • S.S. just remember that if you ever have to take action to protect any property, tell the police your life was threatened by the deceased, and you were defending yourself and not your property. I loved my dog too, who recently passed after spending over 16 1/4 years with me, although I considered him more family than “property”.

      • I’m not advocating breaking the law or blatantly lying to the authorities. If an armed intruder breaks into a residence, shoots the homeowner’s dog(s) and states “I’m just going to take your property and promise not to hurt you if you don’t resist!”, are you going to believe that and take you chances he’ll honor those words and not kill any witnesses? I wouldn’t and would shoot as many times as necessary to stop the intruder, then tell the police I was defending myself and not my property. To state otherwise would get you a long prison term and open you to a bankrupting civil lawsuit by the “victim’s” family.

        I do understand from a liability standpoint Mas, you have to say what you did, and would have done the same. I do trust the readers of this blog to use their own discretion and common sense concerning the opinions stated here.

      • Tom606,

        Recently, I briefly heard on the news that two criminals wore sweatshirts, with the word “POLICE” on the back, and carried fake badges. I don’t remember the rest. Perhaps they knocked on the door, yelled, “Police!” and showed their badges.

        Anyway, I am pretty sure I could be fooled by a good imitation of a policeman. As long as they don’t look like Slob Slovinskys I would probably believe it was really the police at my door.

      • Roger, young women have to be especially careful about fake police coming to their homes or trying to stop their cars on the road. Many have fallen victim to these sexual predators.

        I had read years ago about a rash of home invasions where the suspects dressed up as cops and robbed people in their residences. I remember most of these were raids on drug dealers who the invaders knew had lots of cash and narcotics available. I used to joke that criminals like to participate in the ‘Shop at Home program’. That is, someone else’s home.

  31. Aside from self-preservation, the reason we’re advised to avoid events of public disorder is the huge danger of suffering a politically motivated gross miscarriage of justice should we have to defend ourselves.

    That’s certainly not a justification for excusing (much less supporting) a gross miscarriage of justice against someone who went there.

  32. Mas, what’s your opinion on the final video the prosecution was able to get into evidence. If it does show that Kyle pointed the rifle first does that make him into the initial aggressor? Should the defence have covered that possibility?

    • On that crappy, “enhanced” video, I can’t say that he pointed it at all. One observer said it appeared to be a person aiming from the left shoulder. Depending how his single-point sling is constructed and was adjusted, he might or might not have even been CAPABLE of doing that. So, my answer is, at this time I can’t say.

      • Someday soon we may be at the point where still photos and videos will not be admissible in court because it will be too easy to alter them. I’m sure Hollywood could create or corrupt any video to make it look like anything at all. Years ago, a photographer friend made a video of famous movie scenes, but he dubbed in another friend’s face. It was hilarious!

      • Roger, years ago there was a tabloid paper called the Weekly World News, placed next to The Enquirer and The Star at grocery store checkout lines and it was the funniest of the three. There were articles with photos of then president Clinton shaking hands with a space alien, which the accompanying text stated had landed in Washington D.C. to meet Slick Willy, who then flew on the spacecraft to give his new alien friends an aerial tour of the city.

        Another good series of later articles was of the Bat Boy, who was reported to be at the time, helping American soldiers hunting for Osama bin Laden in the caves of Afghanistan due to his ability to move quietly and silently in dark places. One photo showed the Bat Boy biting Osama on the neck after finding the terrorist mastermind. I really miss reading that tabloid where I got most of my trusted news.

      • @ Tom606 – “…years ago there was a tabloid paper called the Weekly World News, placed next to The Enquirer and The Star at grocery store checkout lines…”

        Based upon your description, it sounds like the information published in the Weekly World News was a whole lot more reliable then the drivel published by most of today’s media. I would sooner believe that Slick Willie was riding around with aliens or believe in a Bat Boy then believe in the propaganda pushed by our Anti-American Media.

        All one has to do is compare their “reporting” on the Rittenhouse Case against the actual facts that came out at trial to properly measure the accuracy (or lack thereof) of their work!

      • TN_MAN:

        The Weekly World News if it still existed would have a field day with current events as reported in the Mainstream Media. As you’ve mentioned, some of the current news is even stranger than fiction and less accurate. I think many of the writers of the WWN have gotten new jobs with the New York Times and Washington Post, whose owner Jeff Bezos may very well be an alien (he certainly looks like one, and then there’s his mania to go to space). Remember the movie Men in Black where a large screen at headquarters showed the various aliens living amongst us including Sylvester Stallone, Dr. Ruth, and many other famous celebrities?

Comments are closed.