By Guy J. Sagi @ Shutterstock.com
Dana Loesch examines the evidence available so far in an attempt to determine if Kyle Rittenhouse fired in self-defense. She writes on her website, Danaloesch.com (abridged):
This is the million dollar question.
There are questions surrounding the lead up to the gunfire, but everything on video seems to start with a guy wearing a red shirt tied around his head chasing Rittenhouse across a parking lot.
So far, this is the best all-angles breakdown online. Warning, this is graphic.
Leon Wolf has information possibly related to the man wearing the red shirt on his head. I don’t know what happened before this person began pursuing Rittenhouse. I don’t know whether it was in response to aggression from Rittenhouse, if Rittenhouse had shot someone before reportedly first shooting the guy in the red shirt after said guy began pursuit, or if the guy with the red shirt on his head was simply behaving as a member of the rage mob and decided to charge at Rittenhouse and, as a couple of reports say, throw a molotov cocktail at him. Wolf writes that Rittenhouse was part of an armed group harassed for protecting businesses. No one knows when the aggression began and with whom, but a lot of people on Twitter are pretending that they do.
I think the entire thing will hinge upon whether or not Rittenhouse was the aggressor and whether or not the prosecution can prove that Rittenhouse’s use of deadly force was unreasonable. If the guy in the red shirt sought to single out Rittenhouse because he was younger and the aggression began there, then this appears to be self defense. As I understand it, Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state, though they do have castle doctrine, which is entirely different and would be misapplied in this case — unless the business Rittenhouse was protecting was his or as I understand it, his employer. The basic difference between these statutory rights:
Castle Doctrine: means the victim can defend themselves against an intruder if that intruder unlawfully enters victim’s home, vehicle, place of business. Not all castle doctrine laws are the same with some more restrictive than others. Missouri, for instance, is considered to allow more leeway than others in the country.
Stand Your Ground: means the victim has no duty to retreat before defending themselves from threat of bodily harm or death. You don’t have to be only in your home, vehicle, or place of business.
A few things:
1) Let’s dispense with this silly argument that a supporter of law enforcement immediately translates to mass murderer. I see a lot of write-ups suggesting that because Rittenhouse had Blue Lives Matter stuff on his Instagram that he was angling for retribution. This is moronic, such insipid arguments should be publicly ridiculed, and I have nothing but contempt for silly people hellbent on expediting our national descent into Idiocracy with their reductive remarks.
2) Why the hell was a 17 year-old out on the streets at night during a riot? I’m not asking this as a Second Amendment advocate, I’m asking this as a mother who is also a Second Amendment advocate. I see his 17 year-old age as the immediate issue. He’s one year off from even being old enough to serve his country in battle. My teenage son is more proficient in firearms than most adults and an excellent marksman (to the point where he helps manage the range when we’ve taken large groups with us to shoot) but I can guarantee you that there is no way in hell I would ever allow my minor offspring in the street at night during a violent riot. Was Rittenhouse protecting his family’s business and they were short on people to help? I want to understand this. I also bring it up because depending on how aggressive the prosecutor is in this case, I’m curious as to whether or not they’ll try to lob charges at the parents. This interview was done before the shooting:
I interviewed the alleged shooter before the violence started.
Full video coming soon: pic.twitter.com/G3dVOJozN7
— Richie🎥McG🍿 (@RichieMcGinniss) August 26, 2020
Read more from Loesch here.
