As I said all along.

Hey, Twitter! Told you so. Are you going to unblock me now, or will you doxx and ban the unanimous jury members, too?

Self defense is a human right.

While most attention is directed to the fact that the best defense witnesses for Kyle seem to the the prosecution’s witnesses that were supposed to show his guilt, I noticed somethinng on Wednesday that most analysts seem to be blowing off as largely inconsequential.

The curfew violation charge was dismissed.

Sure, that was only a ticketing offense, with no real criminal penalties. But it would have been the way it interacted with other charges that interested me.

Kyle Rittenhouse is claiming self defense. I think I’ve made it pretty clear that, having watched a lot of videos, read witness statements, studied Wisconsin state laws, I agree. But typically, “self defense” claims falter if the claimant was unlawfully present. Home invaders, for instance, generally don’t get to claim self defense for shooting back at — actual defensive — home residents.

The curfew violation charge might have been used to demonstrate that Kyle was unlawfully present, out looking for trouble (more on that in a moment), and thus not entitled to a self defense claim. This shoots — no p… OK, pun intended — a huge hole in the prosecution’s… case.

You might think that the standing unlawful possession charge would also impugn a self defense claim. Due to the constitutionally vague conflicts between state statutes, convicting Kyle on that is questionable, and it doesn’t really affect self defense. Merely being in unlawful possession of a firearm does not mean you have no right right to defend yourself. Possibly the best example of this was a 1993 Colorado case in which the shooter killed two and wounded five with a fully-automatic AK-47. He was acquitted of murder and assault charges on self defense grounds, although later convicted in federal court on NFA charges of possession of an unregistered machinegun.

Let’s “circle back” to the argument (a little late for prosecution to raise it now the state has rested) that Kyle might’ve been “looking” for trouble.

I had noticed that in the most pertinent videos, Kyle seemed to have no ballistic vest/body armor, unlike many of the other neighborhood defenders. In testimony, we learned that he did have armor. But he generously loaned it to someone he deemed more in need of the protection than himself, since he was only out there to help people.

Hardly the act of a vigilante intending to violently confront others. Just one more reason to dust off that Medal of Freedom for Kyle petition.