top of page

The Kyle Rittenhouse case should never have gone to trial.

The case of Kyle Rittenhouse should never have gone to trial. What was already clear from the outset, but later confirmed by the state’s own witnesses, was that the entire production was a sham. The prosecution had no case.

In his closing address, ADA Thomas Binger referred to the mob on the streets of Kenosha in 2020 as a “crowd full of heroes” who tried to stop an “active shooter.” But among his deceitful and misleading comments, he stated:

"You lose the right to self-defense when you're the one who brought the gun."

What has become patently obvious over the course of this trial is that the Rittenhouse case is a textbook example of an individual acting in self-defense. And yet, from the vantage of leftists, race-baiters and even Wisconsin’s ADA himself, this case is a question of whether a young man accused of “white supremacy” even has the right to act in self-defense at all.

Well, according to Binger – he does not. That should alarm any freedom-loving American.

The Rittenhouse case is a gross miscarriage of justice, whether he’s acquitted or not. It is also a stunning attack on Americans’ right to self-defense and the second amendment. The constitutional right to carry firearms is, in part, designed to allow citizens to protect themselves.

ADA Binger is trying to turn that right into a crime. And, more importantly, make an example of a young man who interrupted a BLM riot that we’re told was designed to combat “white supremacy” and “police brutality”. There certainly was brutality in August 2020, but it was not at the hands of a young man who turned up to a tortured city with the intention of protecting a business and providing first aid.

It came in the way of opportunistic cretins who decided to loot, riot, burn and murder - people who have been conveniently forgotten in the conversation surrounding Kyle Rittenhouse.

What may not have been clear from the outset was that this case hinged upon a misdemeanor gun-possession charge. A charge that has since been dismissed. The prosecution must have known their position was dead in the water. For it to make any sense at all, for them to crush self-defense, they needed a clincher.

Under Wisconsin law, if a person engages in unlawful conduct that provokes others to a violent attack, that person can lose their right to self-defense. The problem is that Rittenhouse was not an aggressor. In each instance, he was attacked by the three men he shot – two fatally. For the state’s case to hold water, it was Rittenhouse who’d have to provoke each shooting.

It is why the state has clung so desperately to this charge. If Rittenhouse possessed a firearm illegally – for being a minor – they can argue it was a provocation, and therefore, the reason for the violence and death that followed.

Yet, while the Wisconsin law in question does prohibit gun possession by minors, the exception being long-arms, even if the gun possession was not legal, it’s a reach to say simply having it was a provocation. One would think seeing a gun, safely openly carried by a law-abiding citizen, would have the effect of dissuading violent criminals, not provoking them.

With all these technicalities squared away, anyone who has seen the August 25th, 2020 footage knows that Rittenhouse is not the person who should be on trial. While some might argue he had no business being in Kenosha that night at all, the fact remains that his actions were not premeditated or planned. They were not those of an aggressor, but of someone operating from a position of self-defense and certainly not those of someone looking for trouble.

It has become clear over the past year or so that any second amendment supporting person is only a degree of separation away from being in Rittenhouse’s shoes – sacrificed on the altar of woke for having the audacity to interfere in a riot that should never have occurred in the first place.

If we can take one simple and salient truth from this trial, it is that the state and bad faith actors will find a way to undermine the second amendment and our right to self-defense wherever possible. Once they do – once they set this precedent – it is unclear if we will ever be able to go back.

572 views8 comments


I don't think he is a hero. He defended himself in the face of 'criminals' attacking him. That is what he did. He will get a large book deal, no doubt. His fifteen minutes of fame is over.


Walter Blanc
Walter Blanc
Dec 29, 2021

Absolutely Correct.


Sydney Watson agree


Agree 🇺🇲


Daniel Lindberg
Daniel Lindberg
Dec 07, 2021

Kyle was just a child!! He was chased down by monsters!

bottom of page