Thread: A few thoughts on the Kyle Rittenhouse case. The media have drawn conclusions based on political prejudice, as usual. Seeking to learn more about the case I interviewed his lawyer yesterday on "@BreitbartNews Sunday" on @SiriusXMPatriot 125. (1/6) breitbart.com/politics/2020/…
He has what seems a coherent argument he was acting in self-defense. The prosecutors themselves provided exculpatory details in their charging document. According to the *prosecution*, in each case when he fired the gun he was attacked first. The videos seem to corroborate. (2/6)
The difficult legal question concerns the firearms charge. I am not knowledgeable about that area of law -- especially in Wisconsin -- but it is odd that no one seems to have explained (yet) how he obtained the rifle. His lawyer said the charge would go away. I am not sure. (3/6)
The left has focused on a claim that the police let him pass without arresting him, after a "signal." I do not think we know enough to conclude anything about that. One source told @1310WIBA the police pepper-sprayed him. They seem to have been focused on clearing the area. (4/6)
We also do not know enough about Rittenhouse's affiliations. There is no evidence (yet) of any kind of racist ties (perhaps some will emerge). We do not know how he met up with other armed people. Those facts will eventually come out and they may be unfavorable to his case. (5/6)
What is clear is that @realDonaldTrump has adopted a correct approach. The video *does* provide evidence to corroborate claims of self-defense. At the same time, there is much that still needs investigation. That's what the president said and it's the most that can be said. (6/6)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
