So I was listening to the cross examination by the prosecutor and it seems like his argument was that Rittenhouse was essentially looking for trouble and I assume he is also arguing that Rittenhouse instigated the altercations. And as a result is guilty no matter how things unfolded.
This is not my area so I was wondering first, are there differing legal distinctions between self-defense and self-defense with a gun? Also, even if someone is looking for trouble, so to speak, I would assume that they would still have a right to defend their self if attacked, correct?
Has to do with whether his action was shocking and provoking enough that a reasonable person would be acting in self defense to stop him. Grasping at straws. What the prosecutor is trying to do at this point is goad the judge into a mistrial so he can blame it on the judge when Rittenhouse gets off instead of it being his fault.
I am not a lawyer, seems the argument for self defense I have seen in Wisconsin is as follows
939.48 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.
So the way I interpret this is did Kyle Rittenhouse shoot the three people because he felt he could be killed or receive a beating.
Cite the child neglegence statute she that violated. Cite the reference that tells us what transpired between Rittenhouse and his mom before she dropped him off.
Obviously, you are just spreading a wide net looking for more scapegoats to blame for two thugs being killed and another kid, who was very much like Rittenhouse, getting shot before he could shoot Rittenhouse.
Not exactly, but “self-defense” generally requires a proportional response. There are different levels of force allowed, depending on the circumstance. For example, you can’t kill someone because you were afraid they were going to punch you.
Yes, they still have the right to self-defense - unless their actions can be shown to have instigated the altercation. For example - you can’t punch someone in the face, and then kill them when they respond.
Actually you can, if their response to the punch can reasonably result in grievous injury or death. You do not have to accept death just because you started the fight. There may be legal consequences for your actions, but everyone has the right to defend their own life.
That is immaterial. What you or I think we would do has absolutely nothing to do with what transpired between Kyle and his mom or about her reasons for driving him to the protest.
Seems like she would have been negligent had she dropped him off unarmed. He might very well been badly injured or killed by that rampaging Rosenbaum fellow had he been unarmed.
No I wouldn’t, if I had a son I would do my best to talk him out of going. I think the prosecution went to strong and maybe just stuck with possession of a dangerous weapon under 18 and maybe reckless homicide. I don’t know if they would even be able at this stage to get reckless homicide the prosecution has been really bad imho at their jobs. Especially the witness that was shot he not only admitted that Rittenhouse didn’t shoot him until he pointed his gun at him, but also said it was his opinion the second person who died was trying to harm Rittenhouse.
You could see the prosecutors face palming after his testimony.
