Top Menu

Clear, Daily Analysis of Kyle Rittenhouse Trial With Attorney Andrew Branca

Those of you who routinely ready our posts understand that we promote a complete mindset regarding self-defense.  This mindset involves much more than just a good trigger press.

kyle rittenhouse trial

In other words, protecting yourself has many facets – from regular training with your everyday carry (EDC) gun to considering ahead of time what you will do in various scenarios so at that moment you can confidently act.

Part of knowing how to defend yourself is not just tactical but also legal. Some people say “better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” In our opinion that’s a stupid idea. Instead, why don’t we avoid both?

Our Partner for Self-Defense Legal Opinions:

law of self defense andrew branca

We regularly partner with the foremost expert on self-defense law in all 50 states, Attorney Andrew Branca. He has been a guest on several episodes of our Concealed Carry Podcast (episode#148, episode #212, episode #330, episode #440) and a guest for our Guardian Nation members.

The above advice is solid. However, knowing what to do when the time comes is also considerably influenced by politics when your case ends up on national news, as it has with a young man, Kyle Rittenhouse.

How the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Could Affect Your Use of Force:

If you are unfamiliar with his case, we want you to learn about its implications for your self-defense. Here’s why: the media-political establishment is gearing up to put his case through the rigamarole of the mainstream media news cycle, all but guaranteeing a skewed result.

Fortunately, Mr. Branca works hard to give a fair and accurate account of many spotlighted trials, including Kyle’s. His analysis is not just enlightening for his readers; it’s profoundly important for those unfortunate enough to defend themselves and end up in a politically hot trial, whether or not they did so legally.

kyle rittenhouse

I am encouraging anyone reading this post to follow his analysis as the trial plays out. It isn’t important – it’s critically important.

We need to see the reality of Kyle’s situation to dispel the propaganda sure to end up on CNN and other media outlets and better fight the fight before we end up on defense ourselves.

CCW Safe:

Another partner company with us, CCWSafe, agrees.

Their agreement is strong enough to syndicate much of Attorney Branca’s analysis of the case for free on CCWSafe’s blog. I'll also mention that our podcast listeners can save 10% on their CCWSafe membership by using the code ‘ccpodcast.'

If you're not familiar with CCWSafe, I highly recommend spending a few minutes on their website. Then, it will be clear why we recommend them as the preeminent choice for a self-defense legal representation membership.

Free Membership to Andrew Branca's Legal Content:

Better yet, you can get an even deeper understanding of the case and your state’s laws directly from Attorney Branca by getting a membership.

His silver membership starts at 99 cents for 2 weeks and is sure to provide far more insight than even what is being offered free.

I can’t recommend it enough. Attorney Branca’s analysis is thorough without being boring. He enlightens us through practical analysis that keeps us interested while showing us valuable and essential elements of self-defense law.

We want you to check out his coverage of the Rittenhouse trial – for your benefit!

So here are your two options again: FREE or Premium (99 cents).

andrew branca

, , , , , , ,

4 Responses to Clear, Daily Analysis of Kyle Rittenhouse Trial With Attorney Andrew Branca

  1. Stone Jones October 20, 2021 at 7:05 pm #

    I’m already a member of Mr. Branca’s Law of Self-Defense. have been for a couple of years. New content posted several times a week. Quite insightful and well worth the pittance to get the knowledge.

  2. Roy Tiffner October 22, 2021 at 3:39 pm #

    Regardless of the outcome of the encounter, Rittenhouse was underage and illegally in possession of a firearm.
    I fully support the right to carry and to self defense “under the law”. He was in violation of the law and put himself in harms way resulting in a need for self defense while doing exactly what his perpetrators did, “break the law”. This does comply with the laws surrounding the use of deadly force.
    Had he been in his home and was attacked instead of mounting a counter-protest, my feelings would be markedly different.
    The idea that the laws as written do not apply to an illegally armed citizen will only add fodder to the fire of disarmament.

    • K. Roemer October 23, 2021 at 3:31 pm #

      No, Rittenhouse wasn’t in illegal possession of a firearm. Clearly you aren’t familiar with the laws in those states.

      First off, it’s not illegal in Wisconsin or Illinois for someone under 18 to possess a rifle. Look it up. Even the judge had to admit that the laws for possession of a rifle in Wisconsin were unclear.

      Secondly, it’s not against the law to protect other people’s property by standing in the streets with a weapon and simply telling people they can’t vandalize it. The prosecutors said Rittenhouse acted as a vigilante, but they are misapplying the label. Vigilantes go out looking for criminals to punish summarily. Acting as a security guard is not being a vigilante.

      Thirdly, Kyle ran from the people trying to attack him. He only fired when people tried to take his rifle away from him. The third person he shot was a convicted felon aiming a pistol at him that the felon was not legally permitted to possess.

      As for your laughable deadly force argument, his defense has already secured the testimony of a police use-of-force expert named John Black, who has said, and I quote,

      “A citizen in that position, given those indicators, would it be reasonable for them to believe they were about to be assaulted? I would argue yes.”

    • Thomas November 18, 2021 at 11:56 am #

      Sir – you do not understand the law in this case… Witness that the Prosecution was forced to agree that there was no evidence of violating Wisc Law in carry his weapon and Gun Charge was DROPPED.
      It matters naught that he was in wrong place at wrong time as you and others seem to argue, in fact and law, he was allowed tp be there, was fully legal in that presence and therefore it is not prejudicial to the case for Self Defense.

      Finally, You are free to assert your beliefs as a person or a Parent, but those do not apply to the rule of law and do not have any impact on this trial.

Leave a Reply

All comments are moderated to ensure compliance with our community guidelines