​In Defense of Kyle Rittenhouse: A Hero in This Ongoing Civil War

Three BLM Domestic Terrorists Attacking Hero Kyle Rittenhouse at the Same Time

Recently, cowards and traitors in the government surrendered another city to the democrats’ BLM terrorists: Kenosha, Wisconsin. But on August 23, 2020, several patriots—including heroic 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse—arrived in Kenosha to prevent the murder and mayhem that is typical of cowardly BLM domestic terrorists.

Eventually, BLM terrorists LARP’ed a little too hard, and began attacking Kyle Rittenhouse. Thanks to his strength and training, Rittenhouse survived. USA’s Zionist-controlled media rats are reporting that two of the “peaceful protesters” are dead. In addition to those two cowardly now-dead BLM terrorists who attacked Rittenhouse—two others were seriously injured, including the BLM terrorist who attacked hero Kyle Rittenhouse with a pistol—only to have Kyle shoot the terrorists shooting arm, nearly severing it completely.

The major incident arose after Joseph “n-bomb” Rosenbaum begged, over and over again, for Kyle Rittenhouse to shoot him. Then Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse—and so the self-hating wigger got his wish. Rosenbaum is now dead. But do not worry: Rittenhouse is ok (besides being held as a political prisoner on charges of successfully defending himself against democrats’ BLM mob).

Now, the traitors in U.S. government, and their Zionist-controlled media, are frantically telling every possible version of Kyle Rittenhouse’s heroism—except the truth. The cowardly leftists want to make an example out of Rittenhouse: they want to the remind all the cowards and snakes who fear them—that protecting yourself will not be tolerated.

Any governing official who holds Rittenhouse for longer than the due process necessary to ascertain that Rittenhouse obviously was defending himself: such an official is a domestic terrorist, aimed at formally outlawing self-defense.

Additionally, many leftists who are lying about Rittenhouse—are also pretending an interest in “law and order.” Some, like Roderick L. on YouTube, are even posting Wisconsin self-defense law—and being too stupid to realize that the law does not help their rabid, anti-Rittenhouse lies.

Following, is an analysis of Rittenhouse’s heroic self-defense, as it fits with Wisconsin’s self-defense laws.

In Wisconsin:

“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 intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. 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.” 939.48(1).

The relevant part of the law is the last sentence: “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.” And here is the same law translated from a negative phrasing (what you cannot do) into a positive phrasing (what you can do):

“The actor may intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.”

So the entire democrat-terrorism case against Rittenhouse will rest on whether a jury finds that Kyle Rittenhouse reasonably believed that he was preventing his own death or great bodily harm to himself, when he shot those BLM domestic terrorists.

Wisconsin law defines great bodily harm as “bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury.” 939.22(14).

In the case of hero Kyle Rittenhouse: Video of August 23, 2020, shows several people chasing Rittenhouse, then attacking him, as Rittenhouse clearly was retreating. Several people against one is called “disparate force,” which creates the presumption that Rittenhouse can reasonably fear that he may suffer serious bodily injury or death, due to the amount of people attacking him—especially if they manage to disarm him and use his gun against him. Further, the trial will show—as the video does—that the BLM domestic terrorists were armed and dangerous. In fact the BLM domestic terrorists were deadly:

(1) one BLM domestic terrorists used his entire body as a weapon to assault hero Kyle Rittenhouse: the terrorist tried to jump on hero Kyle Rittenhouse, while Rittenhouse was on the ground—an attack that could easily have been crippling or even deadly;

(2) Anthony Huber, a second (now-dead) BLM domestic terrorist, attacked hero Kyle Rittenhouse with a skateboard, which the now-dead terrorist used as a dangerous weapon against Rittenhouse, while Rittenhouse was on the ground and being attacked by several other BLM domestic terrorists;

(3) Gaige Grosskreutz, a third BLM terrorist—after cowering and invoking hero Kyle’s heroic restraint—assaulted Kyle with a deadly weapon: a gun. Kyle benevolently spared the life of cowardly BLM terrorist Gaige Grosskreutz: only shooting the terrorist in the arm with which the terrorist had held a pistol—instead of shooting the terrorist center-mass and killing him. (Gaige Grosskreutz should be charged with attempted murder, under the Deadly Weapons doctrine, for assaulting Kyle Rittenhouse with a pistol.)

In addition to these facts, the video of Rittenhouse showed the hero’s restraint: Hero Kyle Rittenhouse only reacted lethally to the three cowardly BLM terrorists who directly tried to injure or kill him; but Rittenhouse did NOT—even in the heat of the moment—fire on, or even aim at, the several other BLM terrorist cowards who were merely lurking near Rittenhouse menacingly after they had chased down Rittenhouse alongside the two now-dead BLM terrorists and the one now-crippled BLM terrorist.

Given these facts, in the matter of Hero Kyle Rittenhouse: it is impossible for a fair jury to render any verdict other than “not guilty by virture of self-defense.” Any other verdict would be yet another act of war against average Americans, by the many democrat traitors in government, as they continue to attack America with their BLM terrorist foot-soldiers.

But the tide has turned: heroes like Kyle Rittenhouse will have the last say. For now, I will simply say this: those dead and injured BLM terrorists should not have tread on Kyle Rittenhouse.

—Russ Lindquist
Aug. 28, 2020


free kyle rittenhousedont tread on kyle rittenhousekyle rittenhouse did nothing wrongskateboard biden vs ar-15 trumpkyle rittenhouse not in my cityblame it all on my rootshero kyle rittenhouse as a childare you winning son yes

4 thoughts on “​In Defense of Kyle Rittenhouse: A Hero in This Ongoing Civil War

  1. The kid, Rittenhouse is just as much a product of this propagandized police state of anyone else. Just the opposite side of it; the romanticization of policing and the police state, this “war” mentality that is implanted in many youth around the country.

    Just because someone, anyone, wins against your enemy does that mean they are now your friend?

    I think it’s just an example of armed idiots, charged up by what they see on TV (that is reinforced online), shooting at each other.

    As far as quoting the law, there really isn’t any legal reason for him to be carrying a weapon in the first place over state lines; you cannot own a gun in Wisconsin at 17 in the first place.
    You can contend to how reasonable that law is, but if you are bringing up the law then that has to be acknowledged as well.

    I guess you’ve picked the sides of the “soulless, mindlessly obedient” cop / military types over the “anti-life leftists”. I can’t really find a reason to defend either.

    You call prosecuting him an “act of war against average Americans”. How many Americans have the want or time to just drive across state lines and murder someone on a weekday?

    Obviously this performance destruction over the murder of a sex offender, acting recklessly, is coordinated and going to take an economic toll on the city. But if you really want to send a message, it won’t be from going after the nameless, faceless actors on the ground who are paid to protest.


    1. Dueling Wrongs

      “there really isn’t any legal reason for him to be carrying a weapon in the first place over state lines”

      I would confidently wager a million dollars that if someone offered you a million dollars—then you would magically manage to envision many legal reasons for him to be “carrying a weapon over state lines.” And in any case, as a matter of law: you are wrong.

      “you cannot own a gun in Wisconsin at 17 in the first place”

      And you cannot incite domestic terrorists to destroy property and menace people, based on repetitive lies about violent black criminals like Jacob Blake. And you cannot characterize violent rioters as “peaceful protesters.” And you cannot order law enforcement to stand down during domestic terrorism: to betray their oath to support and defend the Constitution—including citizens’ right to life and liberty. And you cannot say “nigger,” over and over, if you are frail white Jew Joseph Rosenbaum and destined to get trayvonned by Kyle “the white George Zimmerman” Rittenhouse. And you cannot gang up and try to kill an innocent 17-year-old hero, like Rittenhouse’s cowardly anarchist trophies did.

      And yet here we all are: sharing the blame, with our dueling wrongs.

      But don’t get me wrong: there is an amazing freshness to your sassy aloofness, myopic moral-equivalences, thin interest in law, thinner interest in morality, and even thinner interest in natural rights.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Russ has officially shown his face as a man without any ethics. After years of lecturing everyone on how decent it is for the young to fornicate, how the media alters perception, how people do not seek first to understand, and complaining about the fetishization and worshipping of authority.

    He defends a wannabe cop, for some reason cares that a white guy says the N-word, goes off on a 36 year old charged with a misdemeanor against a minor sexually 18 years ago (do the math), and misinterpret the events.

    You left out how the kid called his friend after killing one person. Then was attack by a “BLM terrorist” who had a gun (who’s record is in dispute, whether he was legally allowed to carry) as well and the other person he murdered. That he tripped and fell running away from the scene of the first murder.

    But sure I guess because they had criminal records (like you) they can get shot up by any kid with a boner for the police.

    I find this is more about keeping up and confirming a trend more than you actually applying any standards or attempting to actually find out what happens.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s