New 11-min Kyle Rittenhouse video reveals
powerful evidence refuting murder charge

Keep reporting real news Tucker!

While it is to be regretted that a fifteen year old was out and about - unsupervised - with an AR 15 slung over his shoulder. Look at his motive. He was willing to risk his life to protect citizens and property. He was no different than a young Marine going ashore at Guadalcanal or a young NY Fireman charging into the burning towers. The circumstances were unusual .and extraordinary. And the responsibility of creating such a situation lies fully on the shoulders of the Left political ideology and organizations. We cannot put this burden on the young man's shoulders. IMO, he deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

#2, I just can't get past the 17 year old out and about, on his own, unsupervised, with an AR15 slung over his shoulder.

Good thing those 17- and 18-year olds, out and about, with guns slung over their shoulders were willing to fight two world wars for us!

No disrespect intended, #3, but your reaction is what we see with the leftists, that is, when they encounter some uncomfortable fact in the narrative, they stop thinking, example being with George Floyd, they simply “couldn’t get past” the fact he was a black man and Derek Chauvin was a white man.

The thing I can’t “get over” is those who are years younger than this 17 year old young man, yet are “out and about unsupervised”, carrying guns and committing criminal acts from armed robbery to murder. This young man is obviously mature beyond his years. His ability to handle a gun responsibly doesn’t come as a surprise to me. That is something most young people in the South learned to do long before their teenage years, when I was a girl decades ago. Respect for the weapon and responsibility leading to bringing home the first wild game for the table was a matter of pride in many homes, and still is in some areas. That responsibility would extend to protection and self-defense if needed. The good thing about my growing up years was that the need didn’t usually include marauding humans. This is solid proof that it isn’t the weapon. It is the heart and intent of the person who holds it.

Addition to #7... this should go without saying, but times have changed. #7 was true of blacks as well as whites, et al.

It has been established that a teen can have a long gun in Wisconsin. Whatever his reason, and we can argue about it, he was clearly defending himself. During an insurrection I wouldn't stand on coded law and niceties. There may be charges but murder isn't any of them.

A 17-year-old boy with a rifle! Why, I NEVER!!! (clutching my pearls as I write this). Such things should be forbidden! A teen aged boy lacks the maturity to handle weapons. It's just common sense. Oh, wait; what's that you say? Audie Murphy, the most decorated American soldier of World War II, was 17 when he enlisted in the Army? He was 17 when he landed in Sicily with the Third Infantry Division? He had just turned 18 when he earned a Bronze Star with V device for valor? He was still 18 when he was awarded the Combat Infantry Badge and another Bronze Star? He had just turned 19 when he received the Distinguished Service Cross and his first Purple Heart? While still a teenager, he earned the Medal of Honor? He did all of that while armed with a RIFLE?! IMPOSSIBLE! All of that could not have happened because (and I believe we are all in agreement) teenage boys lack the maturity to handle weapons. s/off

As to the charges of murder in the first degree, Rittenhouse acted in self-defense in all three shootings. Case closed. What remains to happen (but likely never will) is that the so-called protesters who attacked him should be arrested and charged with assault, attempted assault, assault with a deadly weapon, reckless endangerment, rioting without a permit, etc etc etc.

In earlier eras, 17 years old was considered old enough to fight in wars and work a farm. Many were married and heads of households. It does seem young, but in today's society many people never mature. They don't have responsibilities nor do they face hardships. I think it's admirable that he was brave enough to join the effort to protect this community and amazing that Kyle was able to so capably defend himself. I find no fault in any of his actions. He should be given a medal.

Good compilation and freeze framing of things I have already seen from different sources. Certainly a good job making it all easily and properly available. The one new thing for me was the video showing the muzzle flash from the first shot fired, which was fairly near, say 25-35 yards from Rittenhouse. I can tell you for certain, a shot fired that close to you will put you very much on edge, and in an urban setting, the sound reflects off of buildings, is redirected and it is almost impossible accurately tell where a shot came from. Probably scared the hell out of Rittenhouse, who very likely thought he was under fire himself, in addition to the thug in front of him attacking him and trying to take the rifle away. And the matter of the three additional shots, not fired by Rittenhouse. Do they have evidence that Rittenhouse actually fired the fatal shots for the first thug shot? Is it possible that these extra shots were either aimed at Rittenhouse or at the dead thug? Much is unclear about those three extra shots. And we have heard nothing directly from Rittenhouse, although we can presume that what we are hearing from his lawyer (this video, for example) is a good summary of what Rittenhouse knows about the events. LOTS of videos were going on, lots of stills. I still say it is clearly self-defense.

I saw Tucker's video. First death, can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and self-defense. 2nd Death, self defense. Injury - The kid deserves a sharpshooter's medal. And for all the work he did, a letter of Commendation!