More is becoming known about the situation of the teen in Kenosha who shot three people…and the earlier officer-involved shooting in that city that led to the disturbance there in the first place.  My take on it is here:

or click here for the audio.

Run time is about 15 minutes for my segment.

Thanks to radio personality Lars Larson for exploring the issue. New information is still coming out.


  1. The speed with which charges were brought against Kyle Rittenhouse shows the political motivations at work here. It is interesting that no charges or disciplinary actions (to my knowledge) have been brought to bear (yet) against the officer who shot and crippled Jacob Blake. This makes me think the following:

    1) The radical Left and their media attack dogs immediately jumped on the Blake shooting to whip up racial strife and rioting. From their point-of-view, the facts of the case did not matter. All that mattered was that it was a White cop that pulled the trigger and a black man that got shot and crippled. The preset “BLM Narrative” was kicked into motion.
    2) The politicians and prosecutors, with responsibility in this matter, felt the pressure to throw the cop “to the wolves”. However, unlike the George Floyd case (which can be reasonably argued as a police abuse-of-force case), the shooting of Blake (as Mas notes in his voice comments above) was pretty clearly justified. The politicians knew that if they threw this Officer to the wolves, it would not stand. The case would ultimately fail, they would look like fools and the Officer could, when the dust settles, sue the crap out of them for wrongful prosecution and damage to his reputation. Given the plain facts of the shooting, they wanted to resist throwing this officer to the wolves. Not for his sake but rather for theirs!
    3) Then the Rittenhouse shooting occurred. This was a god-send to the politicians. Instead of throwing the officer to the wolves, they could throw them this kid. He was only a civilian not a cop. In addition, he brought his own gun to the protest and could be painted as a “Right-wing Extremist” who was “out for blood”. The fact that he has a good case for self-defense is beside the point from their point-of-view. He is “Red Meat” that they can safely “throw to the wolves” to distract them from focusing too much upon the officer who shot Blake.
    4) That is why charges were brought against Rittenhouse so quickly. That is why they did not bother doing a real investigation or bring the matter before a Grand Jury. The investigation would not be helpful (from their point-of-view) since it might confirm self-defense. A Grand Jury might also confirm self-defense and refuse to return a “True Bill”. Those would have been (politically) the WRONG ANSWERS. The politicians wanted and needed the “Red Meat”.

    Conclusion: The charges against Kyle Rittenhouse are motivated by politics and public relations. They have nothing (NOTHING AT ALL!) to do with justice and the law. Kyle Rittenhouse is now a “Political Prisoner” here in the United States and his trial will be a politically-motivated “Show Trial” driven by left-wing ideology rather than any desire for truth or justice. I am glad that he has good attorneys because, with the Media and Radical Left all howling for his blood, he will need them!

    • Just a note about George Floyd. He had 3x a fatal dose of fentanyl in his system when he died, and was experiencing trouble breathing while sitting in the police car, well before the kneeling restraint. Autopsies also showed no damage to his throat consistent with being choked. A decent jury is likely to exonerate the officers, given this evidence.

      • @ James Kenzak – “He had 3x a fatal dose of fentanyl in his system…”

        Yes, I am fully aware that George Floyd had a massive dose of narcotics in his system and that he also had pre-existing heart disease. Please understand that when I wrote the line that said this case could “be reasonably argued as a police abuse-of-force case”, I was not ADVOCATING that it WAS a police abuse-of-force case. I am well aware that it can also be argued as a drug overdose fatality.

        In the case of the death of George Floyd, it is clear that a number of factors contributed to his death. His pre-existing heart condition was one factor. The narcotics in his system were another likely major factor. It may (or may not) be that the force used by the police to restrain George Floyd combined with the accompanying stress of being arrested also contributed.

        The jury is going to have to try to sort out all of these issues. I expect that we will have competing experts on the subject with some arguing that it was the drugs and pre-existing heart condition that killed him while others argue that it was excessive and/or improper use of force by the police that “tipped” Mr. Floyd over into becoming a corpse.

        All I meant in my above comment is that an argument for excessive use of force by the police can be made. This is especially true given the video evidence which can be viewed in a bad light.

        How the jury will jump in the end is hard to say. For myself, I think that the murder charges are ridiculous. Even if excessive force was used, it will be almost impossible to show intent to take his life. At worst, even granting excessive use of force, I can’t see anything beyond a manslaughter conviction being justified.

        If the primary cause was the drugs and pre-existing heart condition, then it was just an accident that he died during his arrest. In that case, an acquittal on all charges would be just.

        Anyway, I have never believe the media and BLM narratives that George Floyd was murdered.

      • Mr. Konzak:

        You may also wish to note that the position in which Floyd was being restrained is directly out of a training presentation for the Minneapolis PD. See this site:

        From the article:

        “This is an illustration from the Minneapolis Police Department’s official training materials on how to safely and properly subdue a suspect suffering from “excited delirium,” a potentially lethal medical condition which, due to the rising use and abuse of illicit drugs, has grown to epidemic proportions on the streets of America.

        Look closely. The depicted suspect is flat on the ground with his head turned to the side in what the illustration calls “the recovery position to alleviate positional asphyxia.” The officer on the left is kneeling on the side of the suspect’s neck.”

        Combine this with the fact that several of the officers can be heard on the body-cam audio portion discussing the potential of Floyd having “excited delirium”, and stepping up the urgency of the ambulance arrival as well should play a significant role in their defense.

  2. If you criticize BLM for being a Marxist organization, own guns, plan to vote Trump, and decry the violence going on in our cities, you are automatically labelled a racist, white supremacist, and are targeted for destruction.

    Even the most educated, professional, seasoned leftists in our society are buying this, and labeling innocent people who merely open their mouths.

    It’s unbelievable.

  3. I really, really wish podcasters and vlogger would remember that there are those of us out here who don’t hear well and could benefit greatly from transcripts.

      • We have native born adult Americans who can’t understand English and could barely speak it although they’re fluent in ebonics, and these people are allowed to vote, mostly for Democrats who give them free stuff or allow them to plunder it from businesses. Depressing!

    • You can make your own transcripts. If you have a google account…
      1. Download the above mp3
      2. Go to a service like
      3. This will upload the mp3 to youtube (google) and after a certain amount of time (maybe a day) it will be transcribed automatically. You’ll see this when you go back to the video and try to access the transcript.
      If you don’t understand this you will have to search the web for keywords in these instructions and you will see how it is done. It is much better than feeling left out. These people already put a great deal of effort in bringing us this information as is. If we all do a little, we can get a lot done.

      • that’s fine and dandy IF you actually use Google, which I refuse to do for many reasons.

        Further I’ve seen some real hash jobs come out of google for both transcripts and translations.

        The podcast producers WOULD to many of us a favour by providing their own accurate and checked transcripts. I personally do NOT like to listen to these things.. but will read easily. And I do speak and understand both spoken and written english very well. While your stereotype subjects may exist, they are far fron the only ones who prefer t read than listen. And my hearing is near perfect, so dont’t make that left turn against a red light.

  4. I live in wa and listen to Lars when I drive. I happen to catch the interview live. You delivered the same criteria for defensive shooting in class. I’ve had the pleasure of taking two of them from you. The vast majority of people don’t think about or know about the large variety of situations lethal force can be used justifiably. Even my neighbor who is a shooter didn’t think the kick to the head or the skate board was a issue. Until I explained the affect of a boot or 5# board to the head. Not every one will listen to reason. That is a given. But what is happening is playing out as politically motivated. I don’t know all the facts. But I hope he still thinks his desire to help was worth the cost he now is paying.

    My personal stance is this. Get home safe to my family every day. Protect my family at all costs.
    The people around me I will protect and council to self protection if possible. But not every one is willing to accept help or council till it’s too late.
    Mas saidin class “Every bullet has a lawyer attached.” In this day and age I would add to that a camera and a media outlet with their spin.
    Stay safe, stay alert,

    • One whak to the head with a large ecomony sized skateboard where the flat of the board connects well, might not be fatal. But, having got clean away with the first blow, such a deranged individual will certainly rare back and let fly again.And again. And again, using different parts of the board… imagine getting whacked on th crown of your head with the whell trucks and their sharp, hard, central pivot point. One such blow could kill.
      This situation is much like an earlier one we all know, ahers a slab of concrete was the tool used to repeatedly bash a head against in what appeared to the p=victim to be a clear intent to contu]inue until the victim is dead.

      ANY treatment that COULD lead imminenttly to death or SERIOUS BIDILY HARM justifies lethal force being introductd to stop the threat. The modern skateboards ARE lethal weaons.. just like a baseball or cricket bat. Same with the frozen one itre water bottles and pavement tones so commonly used by the rioters. Not to meniton fire, as the one in the dumpster Mr. Rittenauer attempted to extinguish, prompting the ire of his attackers. Even a bare fist being applied to the human head can easiy lead to the death of the victim.
      Fully justified self-defense. Also, noe]te well his astounding restriaing. Three separate attackers, in different stages of the incident, each aproached, applied lethal force or attempted to, and Kyle fired ONE ROUND in each setting, checked to see whter the tr]hreat was stopped, and held his fire. Few seasoned adults display sich restraint in a live fire multi-actor lethal threat situation. NO ONE ELSE was hurt but the three attackers. Two dead, one injured sufficiently to cause him to make an informed decision and end his assault. I hope as his life proceeds, he will remember his stupidity and the hatred/murder in his heart toward that man who shot him, and realise once more he is lucky to still be able to breathe. His two cohorts, also foolish enough to assault this man, no longer can perform that common function.

  5. Yeah, I question Kyle’s judgement for being there even if his motives were good.

    I would not want to be protecting someone else’s property with deadly force and, frankly, would prefer to not be defending my own business property with deadly force (I don’t live in TX).

    Be that as it may, Kyle did appear to be attempting to retreat when he was attacked,

    On the Blake deal, I read so many comments that suggest (or bluntly state) that Blake’s actions have no bearing on what happened to him. Seriously?!?! It’s like people don’t want to admit that one’s decisions have consequences.

    • Yeah we wouldnt be caught in this situation but maybe we would if we were 17. Still it seems he was there for noble reasons. Sad that his life might be ruined over this. Let’s hope it turns out well for him

  6. Mas, could you please address the many that have said that even if Jacob Blake was armed with a knife, he was walking away from police and not a threat to them. Is there any accepted police SOP that would require the police officers in this particular situation to stand down, let Mr. Blake enter the vehicle with children in the backseat, with the possibility of Mr. Blake then driving away from the scene?

    • From what I’ve heard and seen on the news, Blake told the police he was going to get his gun, then headed for his car, ignoring commands from the cops to stop, leading them to believe he was going to carry out his threat and resulting in him being shot. Blake is responsible for his injuries, not the police or President Trump despite what Creepy Joe and the sleazy liberals falsely claim

    • 1. Like Tom606 said, he said he was going for his gun. 2. had he obtained that gun and turned and killed those kids out of spite against his girlfriend, then the crowd would have then blamed the Officers for their inaction. 3. If he’d have retrieved said firearm, and killed or injured any number of Cops, again, their fault.

  7. I’d have loved to listen/watch the segment, but I don’t join up for stuff to enable them to sell my information etc,

  8. On the Blake shooting:

    Were the officers correct in being so close when he leaned into his vehicle? I can see how this could go both ways. On the one hand, he had a knife, so keeping a close distance has obvious problems. Otoh, maintaining space could allow him to hop into the car and drive off.

    Was there a better way to have handled this on the part of the officers involved?

  9. Glad that young Mr. Rittenhouse had an AR in his hands instead of a handgun. The rifle may not have been as handy to maneuver when Kyle was surrounded at close quarters by assailants, but it may have intimidated other wannabe attackers from closing on him more than a handgun could. His survival is nothing but something to celebrate. No valid reason appears to exist why he should not be exonerated. Furthermore, he should not feel guilty for surviving such mob violence. Let’s make sure that he gets generous financial support. Non-radical America appears to be under some increasing financial pressure from well-heeled enemies of our constitutional democratic republic. Let us be wisely active, and hold the feet of foolish politicians and misguided journalists to the fire they are feeding.

    • he was too young to possess a handgun in pubioc, although he did not ietend to possess the long gu in public. He was stationed on private peroperty, but was forced to flee that space when assaulted with lethal force by a mob. Thus he COULD have lawfully possessed a loaded handgun on the private property and would have a strong affirmative defence by virtue of being forced to flee for his life when assaulted.
      In any case, his possession of the rifle loeaded in puclis is fully permitted by Wisconsin law. So there is no question now about his long gun being in his possession in public. A handgun, theyd likely have tossed that grenade at him in their lust for overcharging.

  10. I truly wish the young man would have stayed home but he didn’t. As you stated in the interview, he had absolute justification to use deadly force. He had to fear for his life on multiple fronts. We all know deep down in our hearts that he would have been beaten or shot to death. If this young man is convicted of 1st degree homicide, we are all done as a nation of law and justice.

  11. As I noted in my comment above, I believe that the politicians running the show in Kenosha decided to exploit Kyle Rittenhouse as a convenient scapegoat to distract the rabid left and their media attack dogs from focusing too closely upon the officer who shot Jacob Blake. This initial shooting was seized by the Marxists to foment chaos. The leftist politicians felt that they could not safely throw this officer to the wolves so they threw Kyle Rittenhouse instead.

    I don’t believe that they anticipated the response. I am sure that, since Mr. Rittenhouse is an ordinary citizen and has limited means of legal defense, their original intentions was to over-charge him and then pressure him to confess to a lesser offense just to get out of their Lawfare trap. This is a technique that the Leftists love to use. They have used it against a number of President Trump’s supporters. Most notably, General Flynn who is still struggling to escape his Lawfare trap to this day. See this latest news on the Flynn case:

    So, I think that the leftist political Plan-of-Action (against Rittenhouse) was as follows:

    1) Skip the investigation. Skip the Grand Jury. Go straight to charging maximum offenses (effectively first degree murder) against Kyle Rittenhouse.
    2) Squeeze and bankrupt him using the crushing power of big government and by using typical Lawfare tactics.
    3) Really apply the pressure. Tell Rittenhouse that if he goes to court and is convicted, then (in the words of the Merle Haggard song), they will make sure that he “turns twenty-one in prison doing life without parole”.
    4) On the other hand, if he pleads guilty to some lesser offenses, say two counts of manslaughter plus one count of assault with a deadly weapon, then he will only get (say) 15 years (sentences to run concurrently). With good behavior, they will tell him, he might get out in less than 10.
    5) Broke, with the media calling for his blood, and with a life sentence hanging over his head, he folds and “cops a plea”.
    6) The leftist politicians can then throw his scalp to the wolves and pat themselves on the back for diverting attention away from the initial shooting of Blake.

    So, I am guessing that some variation of the above was the original plan that the leftist Bosses decided to go with. They set things in motion by immediately charging Rittenhouse with the maximum charges that they could dream up.

    But then something unexpected happened. People on the Right began to support Rittenhouse. The Leftists have had their own way for so long now that they no longer anticipate any push back. Some people tried to start a “Go Fund Me” project to help Rittenhouse with legal fees.

    Now, the last thing that the leftists wanted was for Rittenhouse to have a REAL DEFENSE. All they wanted was a “Show Defense” by a junior Public Defender who would advise Rittenhouse to quickly accept the plea deal that they would offer.

    So, the Leftists moved quickly to deny Rittenhouse his “Go Fund Me” support. They pressured (and got) his “Go Fund Me” page shut down and cancelled.

    To their horror, however, people just jumped to alternate means of raising defense funding. Worse yet, several experienced “Big Name” attorneys have offered to represent Rittenhouse. Dang it! The Marxists are going to be frustrated again. Instead of an easy target that they could run over and crush with the Power of the State, Rittenhouse is likely to have the funding and support to actually mount a capable defense.

    Indeed, given the facts of the case, their plan to “use” Rittenhouse as a scapegoat may be in the process of blowing up in their faces!

    Dang it! Those poor Marxist SOB’s just can’t win for losing! It’s that blasted streak of FREEDOM and LIBERTY in the AMERICAN Character that does it! The Kyle Rittenhouse “Show Trial” is likely to be another disappointment for the Marxists. Isn’t that just TOO BAD! 🙂

    • TN_MAN:

      It’s possible Hillary Clinton will turn over a new leaf and volunteer to represent Kyle Rittenhouse at no cost and with her amazing legal expertise, will exonerate him just like she did for the pedophile rapist she defended in her past life. Bill Clinton would gladly defend Rittenhouse for free, but unfortunately he’s no longer allowed to practice law, thus depriving the legal profession of one of it’s greatest and most horny barristers of all time.

      Warning: Please don’t hold your breath waiting for this to happen.

  12. Mas – In your previous blog (Crap in Kenosha), I asked a question in one of my comments. You directed me to “stay tuned” to your next post (this one). This implied that the information presented in this post would provide an answer to my question.

    While your radio segment, provided in this post, was very interesting and informative, it still did not really address the question that I previously asked. So, with your permission, I will ask it again.

    If the seventeen year old man, Kyle Rittenhouse, had compromised his “mantle of innocence” by coming to the scene while carrying a long-gun, in violation of the law, does he regain his innocence when he demonstrates, by running away, that he is trying to avoid these fights, thereby re-gaining the legal ability to claim self-defense despite it being (perhaps) previously compromised?

    I looked into Wisconsin firearm’s law. Wisconsin seems to be an open carry State (even for rifles) but only for adults. So, given Rittenhouse’s age, he would be a minor and (technically) I believe that simply by carrying around his loaded rifle (absent any intention to engage in hunting or sport shooting), he was committing a misdemeanor offense. I don’t believe that it was a felony weapons violation so I don’t think that felony murder could be made to apply to these shootings. At least, not with the felony being weapons-related.

    His attorney says that he did not cross State lines with this weapon so a Federal felony weapons charge would also seem to not apply. So, his loss of innocence would seem to be limited to a misdemeanor criminal weapons violation and (perhaps) to the argument that by going to that location while armed that we was “looking for trouble”.

    Nevertheless, he was running away (retreating) on both occasions before he resorted to shooting. This suggests that he was not the “aggressor” and is, therefore, entitled to claim self-defense. Anyway, that argument seems valid to me.

    I realize that you are neither the judge nor jury in this case and cannot offer legal advice. Still, with your considerable experience in this area, could you offer us a general opinion pertaining to the above question? You can take Rittenhouse out of the equation and treat it as a general question on retreating during riots if that helps.

    • TN, latest from the defense side is that the kid went up there to help clean up riot damage; danger at scene escalated; and he was given a gun for protection purposes. That would come under a doctrine of competing harms (doctrine of necessity, doctrine of two evils) defense: one is forgiven for breaking the law in the rare instance where following the law appeared likely to result in more danger than breaking it.

    • can’t remember where but I saw a post elsewhere that takes apart Wisconsin law regarding possession of long guns. The fisr esection doe sindeed place a lower age limit on the conduct.. and Kyle would not be allowed to lawfully carry that gun in public.. EXCEOT for the “exceptions”. And he clearly is included in one or more of the exceptions. Thus he legally was able to carry that long gun, loaded, in public with out viilating Winsconsin law.
      Furhter, he initially possessed that gun on private propety, which is also anohter exception in his favour. As he was being attacked, he was forced to flee or stand and ffitght. He chose to flee.. and, faced with the option of abansinding the rifle as he fled, almost certainly having his assailants gain possession of it and almost as surely being killed with it, he chose to take it along.
      Thus he not only was in full compliance with the law in possessing that gun, he also has an affirmative defence in being forced off the private property and either abanding the gun to be recovered by his assailants, or take it with him to prevent that.

      His handiling of that firearm unsder stress is remarkably proficient. Thus I question whether this was the firsat time he had ever held or used that particular weapon. I did read it was purchased IN Winsconsin so he did not bring it across state lines. It would be amusing to learn the full story of the provenance of that weapon on that evening.

  13. I hate blanket statements. I’m left of Bernie Sanders and I own firearms. While the DNC and I have not been on speaking terms for decades. I really wish people in the Firearms Community, like the NRA could stick with training and arms safety. Been a reader of Mas since he started showing up in publications. Own more than a few of his books. His wealth of knowledge and information is worth more than gold. Until America as a whole remembers UNITED WE STAND failure is an option. Truth should unite all thinking honest people of all political stripes. Without facts anyone no matter how patriotic or caring can be mislead. Return TRUTH to its pedestal. Before Democracy falls. Guns will not save it. Truth will. Thanks again Mas.

  14. I did finally manage to listen to Mas’s remarks. Just above, he took care of my concerns about Rittenhouse’s reasons for going there and the probable presence of the firearm. Seventeen was many decades ago, but I do believe that if I had found myself in a situation where I had to arm myself, I’d have realized it was high time, if not past time, to depart the scene. The question at that point is his ability to do so safely.

    If one has never personally seen a mob, or had to participate in facing one, it’s excessively easy to wrap oneself in a cloak of self righteousness and comment upon what should have been done or what was “really happening”. Less charitable folks might call that cloak ignorance. The big question there is if the ignorance is willful or not. As Ron White has noted ” You can’t fix stupid.”

    • Yes. the hypocrisy of these charges jumped out at me too. Here is an excerpt from a story in The Guardian which discusses the charges filed against Kyle Rittenhouse:

      “The charges have been filed by prosecutors against Rittenhouse in Kenosha county include first-degree reckless homicide in the death of Joseph Rosenbaum and first-degree intentional homicide in the death of Anthony Huber, according to the complaint….

      Rittenhouse could face a life sentence if convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, the most serious crime in Wisconsin. He also faces one count of attempted first-degree intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment.

      Rittenhouse was also charged with possession of dangerous weapon by someone under the age of 18. Authorities allege Rittenhouse used a Smith & Wesson AR-15 style .223 rifle.

      Under Wisconsin law, Rittenhouse, who is 17, was too young to legally possess the rifle he was alleged to have been carrying as he confronted protesters….

      Rittenhouse was assigned a public defender….. Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system.”

      As I understand it, the weapons charge is a misdemeanor under Wisconsin Law but all of the other charges are felonies. So, Kyle Rittenhouse is being simultaneously treated as a minor for the weapons charge but as an adult for the felony counts.

      In my opinion, one of the first things that his Defense team should do is file a motion attacking this contradiction. They should ask the Judge to either (A) treat Rittenhouse as a minor, across the board, for all charges or else (B) ask the Judge to throw out the weapons charge since an “adult” may legally “Open Carry” in Wisconsin. Even if the Judge denies the motion, it will (A) provide a point for a possible future appeal and (B) illustrate the foolishness and make-fun of the Prosecution’s case.

      Here is the link to the complete Guardian Story:

      By the way, I understand that the Defense funds for Kyle Rittenhouse are approaching 0ne million dollars. That is according to some of the news reports that I have read. I gave a contribution myself here:

      Not everyone gets the publicity that Rittenhouse received. It can cost a fortune to, as Col. Cooper put it, solve Problem #2. For that reason, I joined the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. In these days and times, unless you are independently wealthy, you will need financial help if you exercise your Right to Self-Defense.

  15. I have watched dozens of Democratic politicians, news readers and pundits, all acuse Rittenhouse of assaulting the protesters/rioters. Every piece of video and eyewitness evidence I have seen this far, in my opinion, shows that narrative is not true. President Donald Trump, over and over again, refuses to condemn Rittenhouse.

  16. So is there anyone to raise some kind of lawsuit against the lawyer who spread the lies, leading to so many losses?

    • Probably. The leader of Rittenhouse’s legal represents (ed) Nick Sandamann. the McCloskys, Richard Jewell, Herman Cain, Gary Condit, various Ramseys. The only defeat I can find is the lawsuit against Elon Musk. He has threatened to take down Jack Dorsey for censoring his statements about Rittenhouse. Dan Rather called him “the attorney for the damned” in the Jewell case. I think he qualifies as a legal pitbull.

      Not sure if your post was about Benjamin Crump who is the lawyer for Blake and defined much of the early narrative. Crump has been involved with every high profile police shooting plus the Zimmerman trial. Or was it about the Kenosha DA but I think everyone is getting sued.

  17. I am amazed at the general level of ignorance, pertaining to self-defense, that exists among supposedly educated people. Take this article for example:

    Let us examine what happened to Kyle Rittenhouse:

    1) He was threatened by a mob thereby creating a many-to-one threat condition. So, we had disparity of force right off the bat.
    2) Multiple attempts were made to disarm him. The author pretends that such “disarming” would be fine. No big deal. Maybe even a good thing to take a firearm away from a reckless child. The thought that the mob would promptly use the firearm against Mr. Rittenhouse, as soon as they got it away from him, never seems to occur to the author’s mind. I guess he just could not imagine that these saintly “Peaceful Protesters” would do such a thing!
    3) Some of the mob were, themselves, armed. Other people were firing as Rittenhouse retreated. It would be reasonable for him to believe that some of these shots were being fired at him. In addition, he shot one attacker who was actually threatening him with a Glock handgun. Clearly, he was facing deadly force from the firearms possessed by the mob.
    4) He was knocked to the ground, kicked, and hit with a skateboard. Simply being on the ground put him in positional disadvantage. That is disparity of force again. As Mas has noted, the shod foot can also be considered a deadly weapon. Especially if you are being kicked and stomped by a mob. Finally, the skateboard represents a type of club. Potentially a deadly weapon too.

    Yet, the author seems to understand none of these issues. Clearly, to him, it is still “vague” as to whether there was really any threat of death or great bodily harm from these “Peaceful Protesters”.

    Also, the author speculates, without evidence, that Mr. Rittenhouse did something to “provoke” these “Peaceful Protesters” prior to the events captured on video. If so, he would be guilty of being the aggressor in the eyes of this author.

    Leaving aside that there is no (ZERO) evidence of such provocation, Mr. Rittenhouse’s retreat and clear desire to not engage with the mob would “reset the incident” and allow him to re-gain a right of self-defense. The author actually quotes the section of Wisconsin Law that supports this but, clearly, does not understand the significance of the law that he is quoting.

    The author writes as if he is knowledgeable on these matters while actually displaying breathtaking ignorance regarding the laws pertaining to self-defense.

    What do you think, Mas? Seem to me that this author badly needs to attend one of your MAG-40 classes before he next sits himself down at a computer and starts misleading his readers with this kind of bad information!

  18. Here is a leftist who is a firearms prohibitionist and who totally rejects the concept of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. No big surprise there!

    He as much as says so in this article:

    Nevertheless, he (at least) had the intelligence to actually study the laws of Wisconsin before he sat down at his computer to write about the legal situation of Kyle Rittenhouse. As a result, he reached the correct conclusion about his likely self-defense claim.

    As a leftist and a hater of firearms, firearm-owners and the concept of self-defense, he clearly reached his conclusion sorrowfully.

    I, on the other hand (not being a nut-job leftist), regard the likely result as good news and an affirmation of liberty.

    Of course, the liberty of the People is also something which the Left hates and treats with contempt!

  19. This entire Rittenhouse Case is filled with such irony and hypocrisy.

    One such area was pointed out in my comment above. The hypocrisy that Rittenhouse is being charged with a host of felony crimes AS AN ADULT while also being, simultaneously, charged for carrying a dangerous weapon as a minor.

    Another deep level of hypocrisy revolves around the facts of this case itself. Do you remember the Zimmerman/Martin shooting that the Left seized so effectively to sow racial hatred? The shooting that is said to have sparked the creation of BLM?

    What was the media narrative in that shooting? It was that Martin was only a 17-year old black teenager and that he was stalked, run down and then MURDERED by evil white-Hispanic George Zimmerman. It was the older man killing the young boy in the narrative pushed by the Media and the Left.

    George Zimmerman was 28 years old at the time.

    In the Rittenhouse Case, we have a gang of older men (Rosenbaum was 36. Anthony Huber was 26 and Gaige Grosskreutz is 26, plus others) who actually did attempt to run down 17-year old Rittenhouse to murder him. They tried,multiple times, to take his rifle away from him so that they could shoot him with his own gun, they kicked him and struck him with a skateboard, and Grosskeutz was advancing upon him with a pistol in his hand when he was shot by Rittenhouse.

    Yet, where is the media outrage over THIS ATTEMPT to murder a minor child? They flew into foam-at-the-mouth rage over the false allegation that Zimmerman has engaged in this type of behavior. Yet, in this case, the media condemns the minor child and supports the mob that was trying to kill him? WTF!

    Why is this case different. I tell you why. It was because Martin was BLACK while Rittenhouse is WHITE.

    You know, the leftist are correct about one thing. There IS systemic racism in America today and the biggest RACISTS that have ever lived in the history of the World are, today, to be found in the ranks of the news media and BLM.

Comments are closed.