Thoughts on Kenosha

This is being written the day after the not guilty verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case.  I assume you know the basics of the case.  Over the past year, I paid about as much attention to the case as the average person, no more than that.  It was streaming the trial the past couple of weeks that got me thinking.   This is to share some of what has come up for me for your consideration.

I was impressed with Rittenhouse on the stand and his two defense attorneys.  This contrasted with my take on the defense attorney in the Derek Chauvin case, Eric Hanson (Chauvin didn’t testify), whom I took a close look at as part of writing a critique of his closing argument.1  I wound up concluding that Chauvin’s defense couldn’t have been worse. Taking in Rittenhouse’s lawyers’ performance was an affirmation of what I wrote about Chauvin’s defense, including the bad decision not to have Chauvin testify.

I was somewhat disappointed with Mark Richards’ closing argument in defense of Rittenhouse.  Don’t yell at a jury, don’t fume.  Positively, conversationally, respectfully, share your wisdom.  Explain that Rittenhouse had a legal right to be armed with the weapon he possessed that night.  Don’t  trash the people who died or were injured.  Calmly explain why, in accordance with Wisconsin law—and, really, human law—Rittenhouse believed he was in danger of death or great bodily harm and justifiably acted as he did.  Personalize it—show how this 17-year-old perceived this circumstance with remarkable maturity and accuracy; indeed, if he hadn’t defended himself, he would have ended up dead or severely injured.  Point out that the prosecution introduced the false notions that possession of a weapon and provocation preclude self-defense.  And pull up your pants and button your coat.

The prosecution in the Rittenhouse case piqued my interest.  I wondered what they were up to.  They charged Rittenhouse with six counts, six violations of Wisconsin law.  One of the six, that Rittenhouse had no right to possess the AR-15 he had that night, was dismissed because it was factually ungrounded.  I asked myself, how could the prosecution have missed that?  As for the other five counts, despite what I was reading and hearing about how complicated the case was—all the possible angles and verdicts—it came down to a self-defense case.  Was shooting those three people, killing two of them, self-defense as defined by Wisconsin statute?  I checked into the relevant section of that statute:

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others. 

(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person.  The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Watching the testimony and the videos shown the jury—remarkably, all three shootings were recorded—I couldn’t figure out how the prosecution thought they could get a conviction on any of the charges.  There was no way I could envision twelve people unanimously agreeing that any of the three shootings wasn’t self-defense.  The best the prosecution could get was a hung jury, one or two jurors refusing to go along with an acquittal.  If a hung jury is the best they could do, what did the prosecution get out of bringing this case to trial?  When the jury went into a fourth day without reaching a verdict, I speculated that an outlier juror was holding up an acquittal and that there was a good chance of a hung jury.   I never imagined a conviction.

When the not-guilty-on-all-counts verdict came in, I was taken by how similar the response from those opposed to it was to that of the people who didn’t like the grand jury’s decision in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri back in 2014, a case I wrote about.2 The Ferguson case had been headline news for three months with a strongly racial story line: unarmed Black teenager murdered by racist White cop. In the Brown case, the evidence and testimony the grand jury reviewed in the process of coming to its decision was released to the public.  It put Brown in a very unfavorable light.  Plus, there was the compelling fact—compelling to me anyway—that a grand jury of twelve local citizens had concluded that there was no probable cause to charge Officer Darren Wilson with a crime.

It intrigued me that none of that had the slightest impact on the those who had decided day one that Brown’s death was yet another instance of the murder of Black men by a White police officer, and that it was symptomatic of the pervasive racial injustice in America. These people didn’t speak to the new information from the grand jury, didn’t refute it or explain it away, didn’t incorporate any of it into how they looked at the case.  For them, the grand jury report didn’t exist, or it didn’t compute; in any case, it didn’t matter.  What did matter was a narrative, a story: from the earliest days of America, Black people have been oppressed by White people.  They simply plugged what happened in Ferguson into that narrative. They reiterated the position they held before the grand jury report: Brown had been shot with his hands up (or in the back) trying to surrender and a terrible thing is still going on in America.

In the days following the grand jury decision, protests by those outraged by it erupted in Ferguson and a number of cities across the U.S., many of them violent. Left-leaning politicians and members of the media never missed a beat: racist White America was on display in Ferguson. President Obama weighed in, pointing out that the Michael Brown case reflected “real issues” around race in this country, and that we should “not deny them or try to tamp them down.”

I won’t bore you with the details, you know them; the Rittenhouse case was déjà vu all over again, with President Biden substituting for President Obama. Let the riots begin.

*   *   *

An unpleasant truth about human beings may help us understand what’s been going on: people will do just about anything, and sincerely believe just about anything, that will get their personal needs satisfied.  And what are those personal needs?    Sustenance and safety.  Sex.  Social approval and inclusion.  Status.  Self-worth and self-respect.  Excitement and a good time.   If you are in a position to satisfy people’s basic needs, or wants—you own a movie studio, cable station, or a newspaper, control the internet, are a politician or clergyman, or you stand up in front of students seated in rows with a grade book in hand—you can get them to think and do just about anything.  If its 1938 in Germany, you can make National Socialists out of them.  If it’s 1943 in America, you can get them to cross the Atlantic and anonymously slaughter these same National Socialists.  If it’s 2020 Facebook/New York Times/CNN America, you can create woke crusaders who will proudly set cars on fire in Kenosha, Wisconsin and chase down people and beat their heads in or kill them.  Human beings are remarkably suggestible, malleable creatures.

Looking at the prosecutors and protestors in the Rittenhouse case from this satisfaction-of-basic-needs angle helps explain both.  For the prosecutors, going to trial was a winning play even if a guilty verdict was highly unlikely and would cause Rittenhouse undeserved grief.  Rittenhouse’s grief–fear, anguish, disruption of his life, and so on—was his problem; they had their own needs to satisfy.  Who knows, they might win the lottery and get a conviction, and even if they don’t, they’ll get the personal payoffs from fighting the good fight: feeling good about themselves and getting stroked and rewarded by the audience they play to.  As for a protestor, hitting the streets with a book of matches and a crowbar makes you feel in the know and righteous; you’re somebody important, and it is exciting and fun and might even get you laid.   All you have to do to make those good things happen for yourself is buy a simple story—the Rittenhouse case exemplifies White supremacy and racist, rotten-to-the-core America.  Mucking around with the particulars of the case and reason and logic isn’t the way to get your needs met.

*   *   *

If you have problems with the prosecutors and protestors—or rioters, whatever you want to call them—in the Rittenhouse case, it would be worth your time to think up ways to make the sort of things they did basic needs aversive, call it that.  As it stands now, charging obviously innocent people and setting buildings on fire are good personal moves.  (Or at least they were for the Kenosha protestors until Rittenhouse showed up.  Yell “Fuck you!’ and go for his gun and instead of him giving it to you and cowering, he shoots your ass.  Hell of a deal.)

Colorado attorney Andrew Branca suggests what he calls Kyle’s Law as a way to put a crimp in politically motivated prosecutions in self-defense cases.

Too often, rogue prosecutors bring felony criminal charges against people who were clearly doing nothing more than defending themselves, their families, or others from violent criminal attack. We’ve seen this happen in the George Zimmerman trial in Florida a decade ago, in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial just completed in Kenosha WI, and in plenty of cases in between. These are cases where there is little or no evidence inconsistent with self-defense, such that there can be no good-faith reason for a prosecutor to drag that defender to trial.3

Branca points out that in these circumstances the prosecutor very likely will not get a conviction, but he will get personal aggrandizement and political capital.  And no matter how it turns out, the defender will lose big: demonized by the media as a murderer, racist, and white supremacist; emotional stress; fear for his safety; the loss of income and educational opportunities; a failed relationship or marriage; and the prospect of never living a normal life.  It’s time, Branca declares,

to compel prosecutors to have skin in the game, to have something to lose if they bring a laughably weak, yet horribly destructive, felony prosecution in a case of self-defense.  And it’s time to provide a path for the wrongfully prosecuted defender to get compensation for his monetary, reputational, and emotional damages.

Branca argues that a prosecutor has no business bringing a self-defense case to trial unless at least 90% of the evidence counters a self-defense claim.  He proposes that in every self-defense case, the jury instruction on self-defense includes this question: “If you are acquitting this defendant on the grounds of self-defense, did you find that the prosecution failed to disprove self-defense by a majority of the evidence?”  If the answer is yes to that question, the defendant would receive compensation for losses that resulted from this prosecution. The compensation would come from both the state and the prosecutor personally.  Branca notes that Washington State already has a statute that does precisely this.  Might the prosecution in Wisconsin have decided not to proceed with its obviously unjust charges against Rittenhouse if such a statute had existed in that state?

Defense of one’s person was the central element in the Rittenhouse case.  But what about the defense of property?  What about making rioting and looting and the wanton destruction of what other people have created less personally rewarding?  In Kenosha, the rioters were free to run wild smashing and burning to their hearts content with the police parked in their cars at a safe distance.   I had always assumed that the first responsibility of government was to protect life and property from threats “both foreign and domestic,” as it was put. But this is the new America, or so those in power tell us anyway.   As for the citizenry, we have been conditioned to hide out in our basements until things blow over.

Watching the Rittenhouse trial and taking in the media coverage, I picked up the idea that we have no business defending our property.  That’s the government’s business, if they decide to take it on, which increasingly they have decided not to.  The best we can do is hope the rampagers will call it a night before they sacrifice what we have produced to what they have going that evening.  This sounds like the pussification of my country and me, if you’ll pardon the term.  There was a time in my life when there would have been outrage from the president on down at what went on in, among other places, my hometown of Minneapolis. It wouldn’t have been “Please be peaceful.” It would have been “We’re not going to stand for violence and destruction!”

While I was looking up the Wisconsin statute on the defense of one’s person, I checked the one about the defense of property and found this. 

939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.

(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person’s property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one’s property.

My reading of this statute is that, at least in Wisconsin, while you can’t use force that could cause death or great bodily injury to protect your property, you can indeed use force.  You don’t have to stand by and watch somebody burn down your house or place of business.   That got me thinking about what besides deadly force might make, say, smashing windows and burning cars at that car dealership in Kenosha an unrewarding experience.  What if the rioters were sprayed from head to toe with some kind of foam that looked and smelled like shit—stuff that wouldn’t come off easily and itched like holy hell?  Covered from head to toe in what looks like shit and stinking and itching frantically might make you look and feel less cool bashing car doors with a hammer.  You’d look like the pile of dripping diarrhea you are.

Maybe, probably, my foam idea is no good, but how about getting people with more informed and creative minds than mine to come up with non-lethal, non-great-bodily-damage–and yes, personally humiliating—negative consequences to violent demonstrations.  Perhaps a deterrent along these lines already exists (rubber bullets?).   And perhaps there is an altogether different, better way to protect property.  My hope is that you and I—maybe with the help of a few others—can successfully defend our property when our president, governor, mayor, and police chief have abandoned us, or at least go down swinging.


  1. Robert S. Griffin, “If I Had Made the Closing Argument in Defense of Derek Chauvin,” The Occidental Observer, posted May 13, 2021.
  2. Robert S. Griffin, “Epistemology Matters: Reflections Prompted by a Death in Missouri, in the writings section of my website,
  3. Branca has a website. http://lawofselfdefense,com. The material on him in this article is from his publication, available on his site, “Why Kyle’s Law Matters.”
19 replies
  1. Coll Doll
    Coll Doll says:

    The Israelis spray Palestinian protesters with a stink bomb that smells like shit or skunk and takes days to evaporate.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      No doubt, though I thought it was hilarious when Palestinians stored old rubber tires for months, then dumped them all at northern point in the Gaza strip, waited for a slight north wind, then set the whole thing on fire, covering practically all of Israel in toxix, stinking poisonous black smoke.
      Of course it’s nothing compared to what the Israelies do to them, but did at least show some spirit to fight back. Even one tyre lit can cause problems if the fumes go your way, & this was thousands of them.
      And I still think “we are all Palestinians now” should be our rallying cry, as it will give us the support of honest leftists we need. And it’s true. Plus it’s penance for us being not streetwise enough to realise that we on the right should have done so much more to help the Palestinians, even although we were obviously put off by who was supporting them, the exact type of leftists we hate in our own nations. It’s our fault we weren’t wise enough to see past that.
      Time to make up for our past foolishness.

  2. doug
    doug says:

    thats what attorneys do.They dont care even when they know the charges are baseless.Its called false prosecutition.I wonnder what would happen if they were charged with that?They need some time on ice to think about it!

  3. Brad Wilson
    Brad Wilson says:

    This fake trial was simply more jewing. The Armed Robbery trial is jewing.
    The C’ville trial is jewing. It’s all jewing.
    The war on white people is just more jewing.
    The jews do not want white people to protect their property, their lives,
    or even the lives of their own children. Truth be told, the jews want us dead.
    It’s hard to figure out how to deal with this level of evil. None of us want violence.
    None of us want to be forced into situations where we have to meet violence with violence.
    But we can only run away for so long. It’s getting to where there is nowhere to run.
    Small town Christmas Parade results is massive casualties.
    We’re living in a nightmare thanks to organized jewry.
    How do you fix this?

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” This fake trial was simply more jewing.”

      Superb observation . Furthermore , it is entirely possible that the entire Kenosha riot event was contrived by the nefarious global powers-that-be ; and that Rittenhouse was manipulated by their agents to attend the event where it was choreographed to obtain his lethal defensive actions and subsequent emotional breakdown in court ; and then have him reverse his position , during the exclusive Tucker interview , on opposition to BLM terrorism ( Tucker’s journalism is coincidentally a boon for White Nationalists . However , “the jews” play the long convoluted game and may have manipulated Tucker into his interview where Rittenhouse betrayed his BLM opposition — at this point who knows ? )

      In any case , have no doubt the global oligarchy chosenhite jewmasterss are fully empowered and capable of creating the actual Kenosha riot event as a covert Orwellian media stunt to facilitate the manipulation of public majority political opinions in order to accommodate a NWO oligarchy agenda .

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        Anyone disappointed by Kyle’s seeming endorsement of BLM has nothing to worry about. Even if you are the the type of cartoon racist who hates blacks for being blacks, the type that only really lives in two places, mostly in the Jewish/leftist fevered imaginations, and sometimes in whites who have had brutal experiences with blacks, but even those I doubt would hate black kids, women or old timers.
        Kyle stated he wasn’t political, so won’t know BLM is simply a Jewish run attack on white people and our civilisation.
        So it’s normal he supports BLM, to him they’re just blacks who feel their people get a bad deal from the justice system. We must all agree that this, until the last few years at least, was true. Although it was happennig mainly because they were so much more prone to crime.
        Kyle can understand a corrupt justice system, and would understand that blacks would have been suffering under this. So it’s no surprise at all, a kind hearted soul like him would be taken in by the BLM scam.
        To read this website, never mind comment on it, you must understand politics, and most people simply don’t.
        When I want an idea of how confusing politics can be for the average person, I try to wrap my head around partial physics, astro physics, chemistry etc. My brain don’t let me understand such things.
        And if commenters here do understand sciencetific disciplines, they should see how far they can keep up with baseball geeks, or the ins and outs of Star Treck. None of us can understand everything, us here get politics, but must always remember most people don’t.
        It’s a gift and a curse to be so blessed to get politics, as a hobby it is fulfilling, and gives us a idea of what is going on in the world, and makes politics’ twin sister, history, understandable to us. Though it will never make us any cash money, sadly.
        Though it has come in extremely handy lately personally as I’ve been able to prevent myself & those closest to me from taking the Jewish gene therapy.
        As all the vaxxed sheep sucome to their clots, heart attacks and sudden death, perhaps us pure bloods will be the ones to inherit the earth?
        I can handle not leaving the county until this Satanic system collapses. I do hope they are hubristic enough to attack Russia or China, as these two would waste the evil empire in short order. Probably the quickest way to bring about the death of this demonic regime we suffer under. I’ve always said the only way an American resistance inside America would have any chance would be with support from an outside power. Here’s hoping.
        The only wild card is the secret black projects the MIC mafia have control over, but high technology is not enough to defeat a unified PLA and Russian Army, with Iran and North Korea as allies. America’s EU allies would be like Hitler’s Italian allies, total garbage, with zero support among the people for war, and far more trouble than they’re worth.
        The spine of the American army has always been white southerners, and there is no way they’d fight for a regime that hates and wants to kill them. Let America see how far it gets with its diversity army of woman blacks, spics and fith column Muslims, against Russia and China.
        A loss here might just be the thing to finally topple this ZOG.
        If I woke up one day with the news that Russia/China had attacked the innocent USA, it would be the greatest thing to happen in years.
        Obviously we’d need to wait till the end of hostilities to get the obvious truth that it was America that attacked Russia/China.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          ” A loss here might just be the thing to finally topple this ZOG.”

          The root problem is not the ZOG per se . It is totalitarianism ( aka tyranny ) which is just a technical term for modern enslavementism .

          USA neo-con Zionists are primarily Jews whom are an integral part of the predominantly Jewish Global despotic oligarchy .

          The origin of the worldwide Covid-19 despotic totalitarian pandemic response agenda began in 1902 in the USA when Massachusetts state laws mandated vaccinations for adults to protect the public even if members of the public , such as pastor Jacobson , did not want the proclaimed protection . Jacobson refused to surrender his inalienable sovereign right to decide what medical practice he would permit on his self and the issue went to the USA Supreme Court which upheld the Massachusetts legislated medical tyranny in 1905 . An exegesis of that notoriously spurious SCOTUS argument against Jacobson is beyond the scope of this comment . Suffice it to say that three of the most important foundational principles of USA Constitutional law are enshrined in the 1776 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE as these world famous self-evident Truths ___

          …” that all Men are created equal [ under the law ] , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life , Liberty , and the pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights , Governments are instituted among Men , deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the governed ,”…

          Coerced vaxxes are :

          against Your inalienable right to life since they have a proven fatal potential ;

          against Your inalienable right to liberty from unwanted medical practice upon your self ;

          against Your inalienable right to pursue happiness in knowing the government will respect and protect your inalienable rights .

          The public of Massachusetts in 1900 was as clueless about the ramifications of medical tyranny ( coerced vaxxes ) then as many of them still are today .

          The origin of the world wide ILLuminati sponsored and UN promoted Covid-19 despotic medical coercesions began in the late 1800s when Massachusetts passed unconstitutional coercive vaxx laws that the SCOTUS subsequently and notoriously upheld with an egregiously spurious legal argument in that 1905
          “Jacobson v. Massachusetts” court decision
          ( re: Wikipedia ) .

  4. TJ
    TJ says:

    “The cops always show up after the fact.” Yes, just like they are supposed to. Protection is NOT to be of government- not in a fully free society. Protection is of free citizens acting as militia, using their own methods, devices, and weapons. Patrols are of private citizens. There shall be two kinds of arrests- the first being citizen’s arrest[s], the second being government arrest. Government arrest is in preparation for the legal proceedings. A shift from informal to formal, to avoid capricious use of force and kangaroo courts.

    The citizens have handcuffs and so on to hold the suspects. The cops are summoned, the people explain, the people give up the suspects to the cops, the cops give up the suspects to the court [having probable cause], court proceedings begin. This latter is what some call a monopoly on the use of force- by having records, testimony, and so on, to have maximum fairness and objectivity. Most folks do not know that they have the same rights to make arrests that cops have.

    Courts could have a monopoly on a certain use of force- to avoid “necktie parties.” Cops would be halfway between the people and the courts. The purpose of courts is maximum objectivity.

    LAPD vehicles will need “TO PROTECT” removed. The people will need a new way of thinking- outside of government schools. . .

    Neither cops nor citizens shall have force-monopoly. NO WAY WOULD COPS BE VIEWED AS BEING ABOVE THE PUBLIC.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      “The cops always show up after the fact.” Yes, just like they are supposed to. Protection is NOT to be of government- not in a fully free society. Protection is of free citizens acting as militia, using their own methods, devices, and weapons. Patrols are of private citizens”

      This may be true in USA, but it’s false in Britain. When Robert Peel set up the British police force, he faced allot of opposition because the men of his time were well aware of similar bodies on the continent, who ended up acting as tyrannical enforces of state, church or monarchical power.
      Same with standing armies, who could oppress the free people in the same way. We in Britian were saved from standing armies because we had the protection of the English Channel, and so we could put all our wealth into the navy, which had the secondary effect of grabbing a world empire for us.
      Peel’s ingenious solution was a force of men in citizens in uniforms who’s loyalty was to the Queen, not the government. These ‘citizens in uniform’ would work with the honest folks of the town to PREVENT crime before it happened. In this way they had a thousand+ plus eyes providing intelligence, as they were in alliance with the good people of the town against disorder.
      Police are worse that useless when a crime has occurred, they can’t rewind the clock, prevention is .6,000,000x better than cure.
      THATS why British police were the only law enforcement in Europe with a good name with the public. They were on the side of law and order, and against mayhem, criminality and predation on the week.
      Of course, this has all disappeared now, and our police are nothing more than paramilitary social workers who are scared of criminals so take out their frustration on law abiding subjects.
      The McPherson Report went a long way to enacting this sad state of affairs. A typical fight between a black thug and white thugs, the Steven Lawrence case, was used to terrify the police from interdiction of black crime. Obviously the report couldn’t find any ‘racism’ in the Met police, so they instead just used the Marxism phrase ‘institutional racism’ to hobble any attempts for the police to protect the white natives from the predation of black crime.

      As expected, the British police are now treated with just as much contempt as they are in every other European nation.

  5. Sam
    Sam says:

    All these cases show that prosecutors, white and black, are out to excuse black crime and will run roughshod over any white person who dares to disagree.

    Now this case in Waukesha where a black man just mowed down 40+ people with his suv and killed 5 of them (all white I think).

    Just imagine if he was white and the victims were black. We’d never hear the end of it by the Left and blacks.

  6. Anon
    Anon says:

    I thought Kyle might be in trouble because he shot unarmed Rosenblum four times instead of once, but real life is not like a movie. Kyle is not law enforcement, and in the heat of the moment more than one shot may be fired. It happened in a second. I am glad the jury considered the context of the shooting.

  7. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    ” As for a protestor, hitting the streets with a book of matches and a crowbar makes you feel in the know and righteous;”
    People hitting the street with a book of matches and a crowbar are not protesters. The older women from the local League for Life walking on the sidewalk outside your local abortion clinic are protesters.

  8. Realist
    Realist says:

    Rittenhouse now claims to be a BLM supporter. A symptom of how deep the malaise of compulsory white self loathing has been inflicted. The “Kenosha kid” battling the anti-White mob, now says he supports the cause of that mindless mob. An insult, to all those who supported him.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      He will be nineteen years old in January, and he has had a morally warped misinterpretation of what society is and what it ought to be drummed into his head since his first day in kindergarten. He has already had a rude awakening to the contrast between the indoctrination offered by his instructors and the ugly truth about the actual character and behavior of the monsters who have been presented to him as society’s victims. On that basis alone, he deserves to be cut some slack. Besides, what kind of young man would he be—what kind of adult will he become—if he weren’t deeply shaken by having been compelled to take two lives in order to save his own?

  9. todd hupp
    todd hupp says:

    Branca’s you tube presentations are excellent and expert.
    Has any evaluation of the stolen merchandise been done or even considered in the mainstream media?

  10. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    …” the new America “…

    is a de facto new version of communism .

    Americans do not really own their bought and paid for homes which the state/government can confiscate over the slightest tax issue . Accordingly , under communist ideology you have no right to lethally defend your property which ultimately belongs to the state .

Comments are closed.