I often criticize the way most media outlets turn to generalist talking heads who give uninformed takes on complex news stories. So, instead of just complaining, I had an actual Wisconsin self-defense lawyer on to talk about the Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal.
Firearms lawyer John Monroe explains why the Rittenhouse prosecution's arguments that he forfeited the right to claim self-defense by bringing a gun to town that night and that he should've used his fists during the first encounter don't hold water.
He also explains why Rittenhouse crossing state lines did not play a role in the case. And, he describes why a poorly written statute played a role in the judge dismissing the weapons charge against him.
We also discuss how the Kyle Rittenhouse case and the Ahmaud Arbrey case are similar in some respects but different in one key aspect. Monroe says that important distinction makes an acquittal in the Arbrey case much less likely.
You can watch the full interview on YouTube or listen to it on your favorite podcasting app. Just search for The Weekly Reload Podcast.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
