That’s Probably a Good Idea, as the Prosecution Has No Case

The Media Prepare Their Readers for a Possible Kyle Rittenhouse Acquittal - The Truth About Guns

This case should never have gone to trial.

The experienced journalists at the eminently credible Associated Press are acknowledging the evidentiary hill prosecutors have to climb. In an article titled Legal experts see strong self-defense claim for Rittenhouse they note that . . .

Legal experts say under Wisconsin law he has a strong case. What’s less clear is whether prosecutors will be able to persuade the jury that Rittenhouse created a deadly situation by showing up in Kenosha with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle — and that in doing so he forfeited his claim to self-defense. …

Rittenhouse’s attorneys say he came to Kenosha not to hurt anyone but to protect businesses from damage and looting. And they say the people he shot left him no choice.

You can definitely argue that a 17-year old kid should not have traveled across state lines with a gun to “protect” people from a riot he had no interest in.

He was stupid to be there.

His parents were stupid to have let this happen.

But, once there, he did what he had to do. If he’d not done what he did, he’d be dead today.

The defense doesn’t even have to prove that. Which frankly, is pretty trivial. All they have to prove is that he had reason to think he’d be dead. That bar is so low a snail could jump over it.