Rittenhouse: Atty. Andrew Branca on Fox News, Laura Ingraham Show

Atty. Andrew Branca on Fox News, Laura Ingraham Show

16 thoughts on “Rittenhouse: Atty. Andrew Branca on Fox News, Laura Ingraham Show”

  1. I knew people in the army that couldn’t show Kyle’s level of discernment, target acquisition and trigger discipline. I prayed for justice and it was done. Watching Robert Barnes and Andrew Branca on Nick Rekieta’s streams was immensely interesting and educating. Thank God for men like this. I hope Kyle comes to know he did nothing wrong and that he rose above the level of professional soldiers facing the most horrific of scenarios and the amazing strength he showed as he faced a prosecution that would do anything to end him.

    1. Well said Kyle. I keep seeing people say if Rittenhouse had the not have a 30 round magazine like the progressives want to saddle everyone with, he may not have survive. I like to point out that this is probably a bad example to use because even if he had a 10 round magazine, he would have had 2 bullets left after this encounter. Granted as Mr Branca has pointed out on the Rekieta stream, Rittenhouse could have justifiably shot MORE people that were attacking him and still have be innocent under self defense.

      I get annoyed at people who say..it was self defense but he was dumb for being there…and then go on to blather about that and how he is not a hero and blather about how the human brain isn’t fully formed etc. They CLEARLY haven’t watched the encounters and or don’t understand them. His reactions honestly could not have been any better to reduce the number of casualties and yet survive. Its different if you says, “yeah it was a bad idea for him to have been there.” But…except for his judgement in the most stressful dangerous situation ANYONE could have been in, literally being kicked in the face and hit in the head with a skateboard which would clearly and inherently leave a person at least a little confused, rattled and disoriented, he didnt just unload that magazine into the people charging him.

  2. “Kyle’s Law” sounds good, but there are two more cases that need to be included. You need to make it the “Rittenhouse, McCloskey, McMichaels Law.” Three cases of malicious prosecution where the affiant and prosecutor conspired to violate the defendant’s constitutional right not to be arrested or charged without probable cause. In each of these cases there was not sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to have probable cause to believe the conduct charged constituted a criminal offense. These affiants and prosecutors should not only be held personally liable for the defendant’s injury, they should also be held personally liable for the taxpayer’s injury as well as criminally punished for violating the defendant’s civil rights.

    1. While there may have been prosecutorial conduct in all of these cases, it would be a bad idea to try and link these together. It should remain focused on Rittenhouse and that’s it. Trying to add in McMichaels would be particularly problematic for a number of reasons, one of which is, I think reasonable people could find that McMichaels had provoked the incident. Did Aubrey “attack” McMichaels and grab the gun? I honestly haven’t looked at it since it happened but to my recollection the answer would be “Yes”. But that’s because some guy with a firearm jumped in front of Aubrey. He was totally justified to attempt to grab the gun and defend himself.

      The McMichaels are another matter unto itself. I think they were totally justified in what they did. What if that gated community were back in the Wild West and that mob had shown up and started to break down that gate to gain entrance? I think in that case they would have been justified to not only brandish the weapon but to preemptively shoot the people attempting to break in. Also, with police departments standing down these days, people might claim they should call the police, but how does that even work? You call, they don’t come at all? Even in normal times a 5 minute response time in a situation like this could me you are dead or injured.
      Throw in that Mr. McMichaels pled to a misdemeanor which did not have far reaching long term ramifications, that still makes it harder to argue with many about their justification. “He admitted to it!” Will be what they say.

      As someone that has lobbied legislative bodies and testified about many different laws, conflating all these cases would be problematic. Keep It Simple, Silly.

      1. ” He was totally justified to attempt to grab the gun and defend himself”
        NOBODY is justified in attempting to grab a gun away from an armed individual in this scenario. Unless you are on a battlefield wearing your country’s uniform and engaged in mutual combat. All Aubrey had to do was stop and place his hands in the air. Had Aubrey done so and then been shot it would be murder. On the other hand, all they had to do was follow Aubrey and be “the eyes and ears” for law enforcement to locate him. Instead, they were attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of Aubrey which at the time of the incident in Georgia was legal and in my opinion is never a good idea.

  3. Nelson Kloosterman

    I cannot find words adequate for expressing my deep and heartfelt gratitude to you, Mr. Branca, for your competent, calm, and courageous analysis of the Rittenhouse and Zimmerman cases (and much other helpful content). My wife and I read/listen to you daily, devouring all your comments and videos. Please receive our best wishes for some well-deserved rest after these grueling weeks. Stay well!

  4. I join the prior commenters appreciation for your service to the public Andrew. You are my go-to source for unbiased legal analysis around self defense and use of force Law. And I hope Rittenhouse does not waste this second chance he has been given by the proper jury verdict. Conflating his right of attendance at the riot scene with his right to legal self defense assertion, is not necessary or helpful. None of us would show up armed as Rittenhouse did. We do not have to make him a folk hero for doing so, to insist on his right to acquittal under the law. Justice was done. Leave it to the legislature to change the laws if that is what the people want done, not the courts or the jury. And I want to add too, that I was very impressed by Rittenhouse’s composure and critical self management and discipline under fire, it was striking, and I believe, predominantly responsible for his acquittal. His behavior was almost a text book study case of restraint, and undermined the prosecution’s ridiculous implication that he was a trouble maker looking for someone to shoot. Justice prevailed, let’s hope Kyle does not waste his opportunity for a meaningful life going forward.

  5. “over on your favorite network msnbc” Mr. Branca’s eyebrows raise in astonishment. Would have been a good time to set her straight.
    maybe was trying to slight him, maybe was misspoken, maybe it was an inside joke. I doubt Laura Ingram has any idea what his “favorite network” is

    @4:22 Laura shakes her head no while Mr. Branca is speaking of holding prosecutors accountable, she disagrees and does not want to hear

    what is being said about prosecutors. Sticks tongue out and pulls it back in. Goes straight to Barnes and dismisses Branca’s previous statements about holding prosecutors accountable

    did the same thing when hearing the prosecutor should have given Kyle his weapon back to him on court house steps, she did not want to hear that statement then tilt’s head to the left in disagreement to the statement.

    Joe Navarro- Everybody’s Talking @ amzon

    1. I also have read Joe Navaro’s excellent book on body language but I think you are misreading Laura’s responses. First, the MSNBC remark is undoubtedly a tongue in cheek remark. Fox is a polar opposite to MSNBC. Laura is very conservative and she is interviewing Andrew because she respects his views. She clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The fact that she moved on after Andrew’s comment is the nature of prime time. They are always up against time restraints. Although Atty. Branca remarked about the return of the firearm would have made the situation perfect, I am sure he did not expect that this was a plausible response. It is also unlikely that this would have been a norm of procedure. It was just a statement for dramatic effect. The prosecutor was more likely licking his wounds and was not looking to take part in a Hollywood dramatic moment. The likelihood of this Judge compelling him to do so is also very unlikely, note Andrews comments about how the judge was hesitant to stick his neck out. Thank you, Andrew Branca for your very well thought out analysis of this case. Once again a very educational presentation.

      1. Perhaps, but we both know perceptions are subjective and thanks for sharing yours. Comparing Ingrahams interview to Kelly’s interview which I watched just prior, I saw a stark difference. Kelly being the more “polished” more “professional” more “honest” interview. I think your missing the combinations that tell a more complete story about her. Yes they are polar opposites but they both serve the same media agenda. the “left / right divide” which is nothing more than two wings of the same bird. Neither one of them have the public’s best interest at heart. One side being left wing propaganda the other right wing propaganda.
        After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below.
        How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

        What we are told is news is nothing more than their agenda to control, manipulate, confound, obfuscate, and lead astray the unaware masses from the truth.

        1. I was not familiar with the Megan Kelly interview so I sought it out and watched it. I thought it was interesting. It was not covering the same material since It was pre-verdict. This would be a great interview for anyone who wants to understand what tact the prosecutor was taking. Very well explained by Atty. Branca. Thanks for the heads up.

  6. To the surprise of no one, Big Media decided that the path to take in light of a brutal defeat is to advocate for restrictive gun laws, both federal and state level.

    They will do whatever they can to censor alternative media from the Internet because they know that they played a role in Kyle’s justified and ultimate acquittal. That is because Big Tech, Big Media, and our government consider the people their enemy and anything resembling critical thinking must be thrown out.

    I appreciate your contribution to Nick Rekieta’s livestream and your incredible understanding of self-defense laws. You have my support and I look forward to learning more about self-defense going forward.

  7. Laura’s last comment was spot on, Andrew, you are amazing. I am very thankful for finding your analysis. If God forbid I ever need a self defense lawyer/consultant, you are the man.

Leave a Comment