Zorn: All the Evidence Points to a ‘Not Guilty’ Verdict for Kyle Rittenhouse

Kenosha rittenhouse shooting self defense

Twitter screen grab

Kyle Rittenhouse is going to walk.

This is my conclusion as I emerge, blinking in the light, from the rabbit hole I’ve been down all week of self-defense law, jury-instruction language, charging documents and online, frame-by-frame analysis of the videos of the tragic shootings in Kenosha during street protests on Aug. 25.

Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois, has been charged with first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, attempted first-degree intentional homicide and possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, in the shooting deaths of two protesters and the wounding of a third. The homicide charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 65 years.

Those of us on the left who are already outraged that it’s legal for civilians to openly carry military-style assault weapons in public spaces should begin now to brace for the inevitable resolution of this case.

Kyle Rittenhouse is probably going to walk.

He’s going to plead self-defense — his lawyers have already signaled as much — and from what I’ve seen, read and heard, I predict he’s going to be acquitted on the most serious charges.

– Eric Zorn in Here’s why Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen shooting suspect in Kenosha killings, is likely to get off


  1. avatar blackice85 says:

    >Those of us on the left who are already outraged that it’s legal for civilians to openly carry military-style assault weapons in public spaces

    That’s rich, we’re outraged that violent mobs and riots have been virtually unchallenged by police for three months.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      You mean that we don’t get to control the narrative?

      1. avatar Paul says:

        Put another way, ‘The enemy always gets a vote’ when it comes to battle plans.

      2. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

        “You mean that we don’t get to control the narrative?”

        Fortune favors the bold…

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        22 shots fired…and he can account for only seven….the prosecutions case is paper-thin and was only brought against him for political expediency….sooner or later they’re going
        to quietly back away from this one

        1. avatar NTS says:

          Then Lyn Wood can sue the hell out of those who slandered the kid.

    2. avatar Dude says:

      “we’re outraged that violent mobs and riots have been virtually unchallenged by police for three months.”

      The Left (for months): Riots? What riots? Those were mostly peaceful protests!

      *polling changes*

      The Left: The violent riots are because of Trump!

      1. avatar blackice85 says:

        I can still hardly believe that they’re trying to pin it on Trump just because he’s in office. Everyone sees the police inaction, and they know the president doesn’t command them. But now it suddenly occurred to them that burning down their cities might be a bad thing after all.

        1. avatar Wiregrass says:

          Because it’s Trump’s fault that these social justice dipshits are on the warpath. Their lack of self control and intelligence has nothing to do with it.

        2. avatar Joel says:

          TDS is real. Several people I respect and care about who normally seem like reasonable, rational, thinking people, are completely blinded by it. One person in my family recently called him “that vile man” and went on to praise the virtues of Joe Biden, while AT THE SAME TIME, saying the gov. Has too much power, and stressed the importance of Christian morality.

          One one hand, I agree, our president isn’t historically known for being the kinda guy who takes the high moral high ground. (I would argue that’s why he is president, and not one of the other 2016 candidates.)

          But Trump’s actions speak louder than his words. Which is really saying something. 😉 His actions, say he is a friend to the constitution, and generally speaking very pro-American in the historical sense.

        3. avatar FedUp says:

          The riots were Making America Great For Communism Again, until a week or two ago, when the Dems looked at their poll numbers and decided that the riots were going to make riot supporting Democrats lose elections.

          Now, the riots are all Trump’s fault, and Dem politicians always opposed them, especially the ones who supported riots the loudest, like Commie-La Harris.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Commie-La? You may consider that stolen.

        5. avatar frank speak says:

          the emphasis of this election was to make it a referendum on Trump….which they continually try to do…but the need for public safety may surpass that….

        6. avatar frank speak says:

          but when is he going to invoke the Insurrection Act?….that he can do anytime he wants

        7. avatar Robert says:

          Now the fact is that no one is burning down any cities, now Portland consists of 27 square miles and only a 3 to 5 block area is being destroyed, that is about 1/16 of a square mile if that the same is true in other cities. Now another fact is never mentioned, that most steer clear of the protest area, just persons wanting to start trouble go there. The police have the destruction well contained to a very small area, and everyone knows that. It is just Trump over exaggerating what is going on and how much damage is in fact being done. Now when the laws of this USA say demonstrators are not to be bothered with in any way, it seems to be just the Trump Administration who is blowing this out of proportion at every chance.
          Now if this 17 year old gets off it will show just how political that a crime is, now neither of the victims was armed with any gun or knife, so it is the same as with anyone else Murder at minimum.

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          …now neither of the victims was armed with any gun or knife…

          Utterly and completely irrelevant. No self-defense statute anywhere in the country that I’m aware of requires an assailant to be “armed with a[] gun or knife” in order for the use of deadly force in self-defense to be justified.

          …so it is the same as with anyone else Murder at minimum.

          I suppose the facts of the case be damned, eh? There is likely no clearer case of justified use of deadly force in self-defense – with ample video-recorded evidence – than this one.

        9. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          Thanks, Chip. Now allow me to complete the destruction of this moron…

          only a 3 to 5 block area is being destroyed, that is about 1/16 of a square mile if that the same is true in other cities.” and ”The police have the destruction well contained to a very small area, and everyone knows that.

          Oh, really? Do tell! On second thought, unless you’ve taken a stroll through Kenosha this week, as I have, I happen to know that you are clueless and/or full of shit… So if you haven’t actually been there, STFU.

          As for your other contention, that “the laws of this USA say demonstrators are not to be bothered with in any way“….. Wow. Just wow. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

          No, mental midget, what the Bill of Rights actually says is, “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” If you can read those simple words and claim that your leftist comrades’ Burn, Loot, Mayhem tactics are somehow a “peaceable assembly”, then I simply can’t comprehend that level of cognitive dissonance… you’re beyond help, IMO. These were destructive riots during which people were killed, not peaceful picnics! Luckily it appears that the right people lost their lives… the violent felons intending great bodily harm to a kid who had harmed no one, up to that point.

          Yet you leftists also claim that the clear verbage “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” somehow does not mean what it plainly says… it actually means the diametrical opposite. That assertion will never pass the smell test for anyone with more that 2 functioning brain cells!

          Guess we know where that leaves you…

        10. avatar Eagle525 says:

          Re to Robert: Your silly assed justification of how many square blocks destroyed is absurd. To bad it Is not your block. To bad it’s not your possible financial ruin. Robert you can sit on your left leaning butt and vilify and hate Trump while insurrectionists destroy the fabric of our Republic. You have no idea of what and who is driving what is now international BLM riots. The operative word here is international … think about the implications of that … that if you can. Robert there are people who have eyes and can not see, ears and can not hear … you are one of them.

        11. avatar Mike Walden says:

          Its kind of dumb that the kid even got put in jail without bail. He was free and clear 100% justified. Open and shut in fact. They shouldn’t have chased him down, he was legally open carrying, people fucked around people got chopped up for fucking around seems simple

  2. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Free Kyle…!

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      I read that Discover Financial services is refusing…


      I wonder if there is a way to add money directly to Kyle’s commissary. Not sure where he is being held even.

      1. avatar Shadow says:

        Well, as the saying goes, “there is more than one way to skin a cat”. With my one credit card, I can pull cash from an ATM using a pin number, such as I would for a saving account debit card. Use the credit card that is refusing to send the money by just removing cash, and then turn around and send an old fashioned money order (which costs around a dollar) to Kyle’s legal team in the mail. After all, two can play that game.

        1. avatar possum says:

          “skin a cat” actually references to skinning a squirrel, just a tidbit. To “Go well heeled”, was conjured from when Fighting Cocks was a sport, and a well heeled rooster as in the gaffs, spurs, were adjusted to the roosters gymnastic abilities ensuring a favorable outcome. ,,,,, Do yah all know how hard that was??? The fancy words.

        2. avatar Shadow says:

          Oh brother….

      2. avatar Ing says:

        So self-defense is insupportable according to the financial industry — but the surviving guy who tried to murder him is good to go on GoFundMe, and unless I missed something, hasn’t yet been charged with a crime for it. Yeah, seems legit.

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        a number of prominent lawyers appear interested in this case…which does not bode well for the prosecution….

    2. avatar FedUp says:

      How much did you donate?

  3. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

    This combined with the killing of the ANTIFA trash up on Washington effectively declares open season on ANTIFA.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      he had the basis for a self-defense case as well….but then he chose to flee the scene…and then the state…and now he’s dead…there’s a lesson there somewhere…..

  4. avatar Vinny says:

    Eric is outraged that peaceful protests were interrupted. Eric emphasized ‘civilians’, as if we are but ‘subjects’ of the ruling class.

    1. avatar Kenneth Phillips says:

      ” As if we were subjects of the ruling class. ”
      IMHO : That is how the blg shots see the common working class people. They thank they are masters, rulers, and above poor people.
      FACT: The only thing that keeps us from being totally slaves is the 2 Amendment.
      That and the fact that we out number them 1000 to one. If push comes to shove, we can, should, and will win the fight.
      It’s going to happen, get ready for it.

  5. avatar Pb_fan59 says:

    Zorn’s closing line” likely to get off” makes it sound like the defense team is getting him off on a technicality. Reviewing various videos, I’d say it’s pretty clear cut self defense , and hope none of the rest of us would have to count on a probono team of top lawyers to come to our aid after a self defense action… it’s pretty clear how the other side would like to see what all defensive shootings get framed as!

    1. avatar DDay says:

      agreed. “get off” implies he’s guilty but will escape punishment.

      A fair review of the videos and evidence should result in never being charged in first place. It’s clearly self defense and there is no probable cause to support an arrest.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        The police report reads like a recitation of the reasons for engaging in lawful self defense.

        I was astounded when the Deputy DA and Assistant DA signed their names to that police report after adding a list of charges and titling it a Criminal Complaint.

      2. avatar Timothy says:

        I’m always guilty of something when I “get off”. Never been arrested though

  6. avatar possum says:

    17 years old and he didn’t take a rice paddy prone and cut loose. If he was my son I’d be mighty proud of that MAN. I hope his jailors were nice to him.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Oh, you can bet Kyle’s getting the hero treatment. Some of the LEOs interacting with him undoubtedly are glad he delivered the much-needed message to the Mob. You know the one…”mess around and find out”.

      The Mob has been messing around, and some of them found out. Imagine being that first guy who tried to jump-stomp Kyle, right before Skateboard Guy stepped forward and got shot center mass and Glock Boi got his elbow red misted. The first guy missed out on being given a 55gr message literally “by the seat of his pants”.

      My only concern is that we may see the Mob stepping up their game and bringing even more guns to the field. Several have already started shooting at unarmed Trump supporters and LE vehicles.

      1. avatar possum says:

        I try to stay away from mobs and I don’t like getting shot at or shot, that could make me angry

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        guy with the pistol is on record as saying he wanted to “empty the magazine” into Kyle…when you grab someone’s gun you’re described as being armed as well…and it’s pretty clear what his fate would have been had they succeeded…..

    2. avatar ak47 says:

      Jailers you uneducated Trump Trash…

      1. avatar George Washington says:

        GTH you mouth breathing communist POS…. Take yo ghetto a$$ back to the projects cause they ain’t gone be no communism in America the great you scum bag mfer…. 😉

      2. avatar Spicy says:

        Ahem it is “gaoler”

        1. avatar jwm says:

          I prefer ‘turn key’.

      3. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        It’s screw you leftist boob

  7. avatar Amanda Chase says:

    Kyle is gonna walk free and get right back into the fight because it’s Open Season on Antifa. Clap more dirty Commies for Mommy son!! 🌴🌅🌺

    1. avatar Amanda's baby says:

      You got that right AMANDA….OH AMANDA…. LOL

    2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      Kyle “dead commies in a pile” Rittenhouse

  8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Those of us on the left who are already outraged that it’s legal for civilians to openly carry military-style assault weapons in public spaces should begin now to brace for the inevitable resolution of this case.

    An AR15 is not an assault rifle, and “military style” is semantically meaningless. A 1911 or a Beretta 92 pistol are “military style.”

    Also – and yet again – the author of the linked article is wrong with respect to Rittenhouse being guilty of unlawfully carrying a long gun at 17 years old.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      Yep. He was in a rabbit hole looking for video, law, etc. but wrongfully believes Rittenhouse was illegally carrying that rifle. He was not illegally carrying that rifle and will be found not guilty of all charges if a sane DA doesn’t drop the charges first for lack of cause.

      I’d never go to what we know is going to be a riot but Rittenhouses bad decision doesn’t negate the fact that all his other actions that night were legal.

      1. avatar Jim Bob says:

        The Koreans in LA went to a riot to protect their property and livelihood – nothing wrong with that.

        1. avatar DDay says:

          Yes, their property. I’d protect my property but I wouldn’t go to protect others I have no connection with. It’s not worth the risk and those rioters don’t give a damn about life at all.

        2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          The Koreans didn’t go to a riot, a riot went to them.

          The owner of the, at the time, twice burned and vandalized car lot asked for help. Help came. The owner of the car lot did not feel as capable of defending his property as the Koreans were. Most of the Koreans had been required to serve in the Korean military and thus had some degree of training prior to immigrating to the US. I have no problems with a person who is not capable calling for assistance from people who are capable.

          Rittenhouse was there protecting property, removing graffiti, and helping the injured when, like the Koreans, the riot came to him.

        3. avatar possum says:

          @DDay, Dude you suck. Protect my property but not yours, fck that, you suck.

        4. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to The Crimson Pirate
          “The riot came to him”
          Very well said. And I will steal that one.

        5. avatar Spicy says:

          If you aren’t willing to fight to stop the riot from destroying your neighbor’s property when they finish with him yours will be next.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        The LA Koreans had more than some military training. The mostly RoK Marines and their equivalent of the Rangers. If you were in the RoK combat arms you are badass. They also receive firearm training for riot control. Watch the videos. They they fired to disperse first and the looters got the message.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          they engaged at long range just to send a message…and apparently it was delivered…

    2. avatar Mad Max says:

      Revolvers used to be “military style”.

      They OK with a Model 29, or two, or three?

      How about a 1858 New Army .44 and a few spare loaded cylinders, or two, or six (revolvers and cylinders – New York reloads plus) Comes with automatic concealment smokescreen🙂

      1. avatar possum says:

        When the Constitution was written “We The People” were permitted to have access to any of the types of weapons that the military or government processed. But along comes Paddock and bumpstocks are banned

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          What is this “permitted” of which you speak?

          When the constitution was written, We The People asserted our pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, and prohibited the government we were establishing from infringing upon that right. It is We the People who give the government permission (…by the consent of the governed…), not the other way around.

        2. avatar possum says:

          Thank you Chip👍

        3. avatar 9x39 says:

          @ Chip

          At this point in history, one regrets the fact that the portions of the Magna Carta that were assumed to remain common knowledge as the base foundation of the U.S. Constitution & BoR, should have been enshrined within. That they were not enumerated in Constitutional law is what has allowed this slow watering down throughout the ages by the false “interpretations” of our freedoms.

          Let no one forget, our rights within the BoR are not limitations on & for the people, but express hard prohibitions on the government actions against those rights of the people documented within. It’s time ‘We the people’ start enforcing that contract with us & make them hold up their end of the bargain, that’s in part, what the 2A is there for.

          If they refuse, that is also what the 2nd is there for.

    3. avatar Gman says:

      All of the discussion about what is or is not “military style” is superfluous. One can easily argue that any firearm has relation to efficacy in the military. SCOTUS in US. v. Miller, specifically cited the introductory phrase in the 2nd Amendment as protecting weapons of efficacy to the military for the People. We want, under that precedent, to call all weapons “military style” and cite Miller as to why they are protected. The Miller case was not represented at the Supreme Court by Miller’s side. They heard no arguments supporting that short barreled shotguns were of efficacy to the military and, lacking such testimony, decided they were not and upheld Miller’s conviction under the law prohibiting them. Certainly our special forces might have something to say about the use of short barreled shotguns.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Not even special forces, we had those for door breaching and crowd control for MP and infantry at the least.

      2. avatar Kenneth Phillips says:

        I got out of the air force about the time the viet nam war heated up, but I know a lot of people who went there. Quite a few of them carryed sawed off shotguns in action.
        There is no firearm that is not militarily useful.
        That don’t exist.

        1. avatar 9x39 says:

          USAF issued SBS’s, in point of fact. Serbu Super Shorty.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        US v Miller was pre-WWII. The applicable proof at that time was use of SBS in WWI trench warfare. SCOTUS knew that, but could not consider their own knowledge when the prosecutor *lied* and there was no defense.

        1. avatar 9x39 says:

          Of that there it no doubt. I’ve made the case repeatedly that the precursor blunderbuss, the forerunner shotgun was definitively employed in the the Revolutionary War. George Washington himself firmly advocated their use publicly in the “buck & ball” comment. That the prosecutor in Miller, as well as SCOTUS ignored these facts when convicting Miller in absentia was, & still is outrageous.

          That ruling was simply used as a political backstop for NFA 1934, even though the text of the ruling itself directly contravenes it. That said, the ruling itself is still useful to us in it’s declaration that the 2A is unequivocally explicit as protecting only “militarily useful” arms of the people from government interference.

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          For the record, the SCOTUS is ONE THIRD of the government the Second Amendment prohibits from infringing on “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

          The ONLY jurisdiction the SCOTUS should have on the matter is to state plainly and in bold letters: “THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS.”

        3. avatar 9x39 says:


          True. USSC is also the only institution in the (dot)gov that can vacate the illegal laws of the legislative, or executive orders from other two branches. Don’t overlook that very important detail.

        4. avatar Skeptical_Realist says:


          No, The USSC unconstitutionally usurped that power themselves in Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution actually gave that power to the States and the People.

        5. avatar frank speak says:

          just another attempt to eliminate “gangster guns”….without any real knowledge of the subject being presented……

        6. avatar 9x39 says:

          @ Skeptical

          That they did, it doesn’t change the fact that the current status is that they are the sole holder of that power until something is done to rectify the situation. May I ask, who should the people trust to do that? Another branch of the fed government to keep it for themselves?

          It being obvious for ages the States won’t take action again. Or, We the People ourselves? As I said earlier, this is also what the 2nd is for.

      4. avatar Defens says:

        One might ask why underage youth are permitted to roll through neighborhoods and take place in “peaceful protests” with long skateboards that are only cosmetically different from medieval melee weapons.

    4. avatar J says:

      Colion Noir seemed to think he may be guilty on the carrying charge. Can you explain why he isn’t?

      1. avatar Timothy says:

        My understanding of Wisconsin law is that carry is a misdemeanor for minors with the exception of “long guns” for 16 and 17 year olds who are not engaged in illegal activity.

        The hinge there is “illegal activity”. Kyle, like the rioters was breaking curfew. Would a jury find that deterring looters and arsonists through a curfew count as “illegal”, then Kyle is in fact also guilty of carrying a rifle during said activity.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          Not quite. According to Colion Noir the WI statutes say that to carry a dangerous weapon a 17 year old would need a (IIRC) “hunting permit”. To me it sounded like their version of Oregon’s hunter’s safety permit for minors. In any case CN said that the law seemed tailored to allow minors to hunt.

          So his opinion was that if the DA did want to charge him with a misdemeanor for carrying the gun it would probably stick. Which would be plenty bad enough since it seems like that could throw a wrench in the kid’s plans to be LEO.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          According to Colion Noir the WI statutes say that to carry a dangerous weapon a 17 year old would need a hunting permit (that might not be the actual name).

          Nowhere does 948.60(3)(c) say that. This is what 948.60(3)(c) says:

          This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

          941.28 is the statute prohibiting SBRs/SBSs.

          29.304 is the statute regulating hunting by persons under 16 years of age.

          29.593 lists the requirements for applying for a hunting permit (and the required safety course that is a prerequisite for that application, in particular). If one is not hunting, then one cannot be in violation of the statute regulating the application for a hunting permit. Nowhere does 29.593 state that a hunting permit is required for anything other than hunting.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Coilion is simply wrong regarding the hunting permit. Nowhere do the statutes say that a hunting permit is required for anything other than hunting.

        4. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          I said IIRC there to mean that if that was an error then I’m probably misquoting him. To restate, according to CN (an actual lawyer who looked at the statutes) there’s *some thing* that a minor needs to exempt themselves and Kyle is unlikely to have had it as a non resident.

          Get it from the horse’s mouth, CN’s vid is pretty interesting breakdown of the self defense claim and the laws that Kyle has variously been accused of breaking.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          …according to CN (an actual lawyer who looked at the statutes) there’s *some thing* that a minor needs to exempt themselves and Kyle is unlikely to have had it as a non resident…

          This is merely appeal to authority. I love Colion Noir and appreciate 99% of what he has to say; but whether or not he is a lawyer, in that video (I did watch it) he was misreading and/or misstating the applicable WI statutes.

          IMHO, getting it from the “horse’s mouth” means reading the underlying statutes – which is what I did, and which is how I came to the conclusion that I did. IANAL but I can read plain English.

        6. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          It wasn’t an appeal to authority, I was noting that you are trying to contradict someone who has the actual credentials that your comments try to pretend. The comment that the law is “plain English” is a perfect example of that.

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          …you are trying to contradict someone who has the actual credentials that your comments try to pretend…

          This is literally the textbook definition of appeal to authority. You are implying that he is correct and that I am incorrect, because he is a lawyer and I am not. Further, I have never pretended to have any particular credentials or in any other way pretended to be a lawyer. I’ve always been 100% clear on that.

        8. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          Being convicted of that won’t matter much, since he most likely will be behind bars for a year or so awaiting trial. The conviction will be on his record, but ‘time served’ will cover the potential 6-month sentence…

        9. avatar Hannibal says:

          Having a legal degree is not sufficient credentials to make one an expert on a particular complicated statute in a state.

          Does C.N. practice in Wisconsin in the area of firearms or hunting regulations?

          Does he practice at all?

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        I’ve explained it, multiple times, citing, linking, and quoting the statutes.

        Simply put, 948.60(3)(c) states that the “minor in possession of dangerous weapons” section does not apply to long guns, with certain exceptions that do not apply to this situation (i.e. the long gun wasn’t an SBR/SBS, he wasn’t hunting under the age of 16 or hubting without a permit).

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Increasing numbers of attorneys and pundits have been researching WI law and opining in agreement with you, Chip. Don’t worry too much about the stragglers who haven’t been paying attention. The info’s out there if they really want the answers, and Kyle’s attorney seems to have his defense wrapped up nicely with a ribbon and bow.

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          “Kyle’s attorney seems to have his defense wrapped up nicely with a ribbon and bow”

          Thankfully that part is true, at least.

    5. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      I’ll accept an AR15 pattern rifle being defined as “military use” instead of “military style”. Along with AK pattern rifles, these are the perfect weapons—-every bit a perfect as the long rifles in revolutionary times—for allowing an armed citizenry to defend itself against tyranny. An AR15 is exactly the kind of weapon the 2nd Amendment intends for us to own.

    6. avatar frank speak says:

      mitigating factors there…even that charge may not stand up….

  9. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Kyle should have never been charged let alone arrested, now it’s time to charge and arrest the prosecutor .

    1. avatar DDay says:

      there is absolutely no probable cause to sustain an arrest of Rittenhouse. I hope this gets tossed by the courts soon. The DA should face discipline with the BAR in Wisconsin for this farce

      1. avatar Umm . . . says:

        A Browning Automatic Rifle would definitely take care of that POS, and there’s no “immunity” to that!

        1. avatar possum says:

          Browning made all the cool shit, the rest are just posers

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        There is probable cause. Probable cause is a weak, weak standard. And the thing is, the prosecutor doesn’t have to weigh the self-defense claim. The defense team needs to present that defense.

        This is why many states have various laws to put the burden on the prosecution to show that a shooting was NOT self-defense. Wisconsin has no such law.

    2. avatar Dan from Detroit says:

      Prosecutor has immunity. That’s just how it works and there’s not much legal recourse
      Prosecutor should be careful because some might see this as a “if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself” scenario.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        He doesn’t have immunity from being disbarred

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Or shot.

      2. avatar Debbie W. says:

        Someone probably said that to mike nyfong and he took it seriously.

      3. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        “Prosecutor has *absolute* immunity. That’s just how it works and there’s *absolutely no* legal recourse”

        You were right, but it’s even worse than you said. The prosecutor will never and can never face any legal sanction for prosecuting someone, even maliciously. They can be disbarred, but that’s not a *legal* sanction. Mike Nifong is a good example here; he prosecuted three young men who he knew were innocent, literally hiding the evidence of their innocence. For these crimes he served *one day* in jail, for lying about the DNA tests in court.

        Heck, look at Steven Avery’s first case (the one he was definitely innocent of); he spent 18 years in prison after the prosecutor lied about and hid his evidence too and the prosecutor faced no consequences there at all.

  10. avatar Dude says:

    But he crossed state lines! /s

    Serious question. Does it matter if a prohibited person crosses state lines with a firearm, like that 100% Antifa-BLM dude in the other article?

    1. avatar DDay says:

      The rifle was in Wisconsin, he didn’t bring it in from Illinois.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        /s = end sarcasm.
        It was just a talking point (pushed by the usual suspects) to make Kyle’s situation seem worse. Serious question though: was it illegal for the BLM assassin to cross state lines with a firearm? Apparently he’s a prohibited person.

        1. avatar possum says:

          Yes. A felon cannot legally cross his legs with a firegunm in his possession ,,,,Unnnnnless he’s had his felony conviction expunged after ten years ,with no arrest or criminal allegations ,and stating that owning a firegunm was reason for the expungement ,and a judge validated his appeal.

        2. avatar SkyPilot in Florida says:

          Dude…thanks for sharing /s = end sarcasm. I have often been reading TTAG and wondered if the guy was serious or not. And not just me. Some would get real mad about a post that was not literal.

  11. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Well, that may be the current situation, but liberals aren’t done with making shit up yet and polluting the jury pool…

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    And Antibrain/Black Looters Murder will get more precious martyr’s after Kyle is freed!😀😎😏

  13. avatar possum says:

    BLM, Antifa,Gangstah’s, Crows, Robins and Catfish, you don’t run up to somebody with a rifle and smackem in the head with a skateboard. Your bound to get shot. Case closed

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Most people would consider that a given.

    2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      peacock bass.

  14. avatar Josh says:

    “Those of us on the left who are already outraged that it’s legal for civilians to openly carry military-style assault weapons in public spaces” – Eric Zorn

    I’m outraged that Eric Zorn is so profoundly stupid, but there’s nothing I can do about that, either, is there?

    1. avatar possum says:

      Well yes there is , but we both might get in trouble, coughtea poisoncough cough

      1. avatar DinWA says:

        Poison poison tastyfish…

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      apparently it’s ok to pass out AR-15’s from your car trunk though….

  15. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Mr. Zorn believes children should be murdered. Tortured, raped, kidnapped, never to be seen again by their parents. Instead of the children being taught to use guns responsibly. And also carrying the same guns responsibly. Conservatives have been saying for decades the Liberals/Leftist want to get a hold your kids.

    Its very true in ways that are a nightmare for loving parents.

    Liberal gun owners like Kat Ellsworth are just like Eric Zorn.


  16. avatar Fred says:

    So as not to bore everyone with lines on social justice and gun bullshit. regarding Rittenhouse getting acquitted… just 1 word


  17. avatar TweetyRex says:

    So should I assume you’re on your way down there to stand to protect lives and property? Or are you waiting for them to get closer to home? You will be in plenty of trouble just for protecting what’s yours. Protecting someone else’s, when the State has decided not to is a fool’s game. If the car shop owner hasn’t bought a gun to protect his stuff himself by now, he doesn’t think his stuff is worth protecting. And he sure as hell doesn’t think YOUR stuff is worth protecting. Unless he’s a disabled vet, screw him and his stuff.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      possum ain’t in kenosha cadillac ville. where he’s at the body gets nibbled all around except the yucky guts; they don’t leave much for the turkey buzzards.

  18. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Make no mistake about it…democRat Party Gun Control is rooted in racism and genocide. That fact makes Gun Control a racist and nazi based agenda. Come hell and high water Americans will not surrender their Constitutional Rights to Gun Control racists and nazis…Period.

  19. avatar YepIllinoisStillSux says:

    Eric Zorn has always been, and will always be a douche bag.

  20. avatar RGP says:

    Everyone knows he’s not guilty. Everyone in the legal system knows they’ll have a jury full of people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

  21. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    Sad thing is that AFTER the kid walks he will have to change his name and go in to hiding for the next decade.. Antifa is trying to get to him in jail.. They will be even more incensed when he gets off…

    1. avatar jwm says:

      It’s a no win situation for antifa. Kyle has already killed 2 and wounded 1. They come at him again and who knows how many he will kill this time. And if they succeed in killing him and they survive the effort then they get to wait for the Marshals to come and get them.

      Talk about the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        . They come at him again and who knows how many he will kill this time.

        Problem is they won’t come at him head on, shot in the back, murdered during a “home invasion” or just ambushed by a crowd in a parking lot… He can’t carry that AR around in Illinois.. AND he has to sleep sometime…

        1. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          Time to move to a free state….

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Kyle is 17. He can join the USMC. Let antifa try to get him, then.

          antifa is a bunch of losers. Period.

        3. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          JWM, DO NOT underestimate these “LOSERS” don’t forget the murderer in Portland was a self-described 100% ANTIFA.. losers or not, enough of them are prepared to go the distance… Every movement has its own Zealots and these “losers” are already out there so their “radicals” are way over the edge.. I take everything they say absolutely literally and if need be will treat them accordingly… Even the Corps can’t protect this kid, Antifa is world wide and if they want him they CAN get him.. I think a remote area of Wyoming, Montana, Utah, N/S Dakota….

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      Or maybe Kyle will find support in other men who will protect him. Antifa has a pretty soft middle, they wear disguises for a reason.

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer will squeeze him through the “loophole” called self defense.

  23. avatar GS650G says:

    Would the author find comfort in government agents carrying fully automatic versions of these guns? How about his favorite leftist party members dropping the water bottles and carrying semi auto guns?
    Who is going to challenge them?

  24. avatar Miner49er says:

    More patriots heading to Kenosha!

    “Karmo and Smith are members of the 417 Second Amendment Militia in Missouri, the complaint said. The group’s Facebook page was taken down as of Friday, but the Kenosha News reported several posts celebrating Rittenhouse and law enforcement.
    The paper said Karmo and Smith are being held in Kenosha County jail pending transfer to the FBI. The Kenosha County Sheriff’s Department did not return messages from Fox News.”

    Uh oh, looks like a slight detour…

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Copypasta that makes no sense. Par for the course.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        It’s just miner. Doing his best to ensure Trump gets a second term. He’s not to bright, but he means bad.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Well, it looks like these Trump voters will be ineligible to cast a ballot this year.

          “ Two Missouri men were arrested on firearm charges after a tipster warned law enforcement the pair were traveling to Kenosha, Wisconsin, with assault-style weapons, according to court documents.

          Michael M. Karmo, 40, and Cody E. Smith, 33, were arrested at a hotel near Kenosha on Tuesday and charged with illegal possession of firearms, the Department of Justice announced Thursday. According to the criminal complaint against them, they were found with a major cache of firearms and weapons in their vehicle and hotel room that included an AR-15, a shotgun, handguns, a dagger, a saw and magazines.”

          So we have right wing felons taking weapons to Kenosha.

          Why are you so upset about providing direct evidence regarding right wing terrorists?

          Remember, The Chosen One said there were ‘fine people on both sides‘.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Don’t worry about Trump, miner. You and the antifa have created so many new Trump voters that even the dems usual illegal voting shenanigans aren’t going to help.

          You are such a retard. You still don’t see it, do you? Damn. No wonder the left is about to collapse.

  25. avatar Hannibal says:

    It’s not even close.

    Frankly, it shouldn’t get to a jury.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      no grand jury involved…prosecutor is free to back out anytime…and would probably be wise to do so at some point…..

  26. avatar Bob in IN says:

    Free Kyle.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email