He was, but it’s not self-defense if the only reason you are in that situation is because you created it.
If I put myself and another person in some room that’s rigged to lock and not unlock until the other person is dead… Technically I am fighting for my life, but it’s not self-defense because this wouldn’t have happened if I didn’t seek this out intentionally…
And that’s basically what Rittenhouse did waving that gun around
Self-defense is a response to a threat from someone else, “putting yourself” into a situation doesn’t change that. If that were true, we’d be free to blame victims of other crimes (e.g. cyclists and pedestrians hit by cars) for putting themselves into dangerous situations. But that’s absolutely not the case, it’s not my fault if a car hits me while I’m legally riding/walking on the side of the road, nor is it my fault that someone attacks me because I’m holding a firearm.
That said, Rittenhouse was a minor and AFAICT not legally allowed to possess a firearm in that situation. That is the problem here, and anyone who enabled him to bring a firearm to that situation should be held at least partially accountable. But his actions in the moment were self-defense.
The court disagrees. Just because somewhere is dangerous, doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to be there. If you want to go somewhere dangerous and you do not want to be at more risk, you bring protection.
It’s not that he went that out all, it’s that there was a boatload of evidence implying that killing was his motive for wanting to go in the first place.
He was, but it’s not self-defense if the only reason you are in that situation is because you created it.
If I put myself and another person in some room that’s rigged to lock and not unlock until the other person is dead… Technically I am fighting for my life, but it’s not self-defense because this wouldn’t have happened if I didn’t seek this out intentionally…
And that’s basically what Rittenhouse did waving that gun around
Self-defense is a response to a threat from someone else, “putting yourself” into a situation doesn’t change that. If that were true, we’d be free to blame victims of other crimes (e.g. cyclists and pedestrians hit by cars) for putting themselves into dangerous situations. But that’s absolutely not the case, it’s not my fault if a car hits me while I’m legally riding/walking on the side of the road, nor is it my fault that someone attacks me because I’m holding a firearm.
That said, Rittenhouse was a minor and AFAICT not legally allowed to possess a firearm in that situation. That is the problem here, and anyone who enabled him to bring a firearm to that situation should be held at least partially accountable. But his actions in the moment were self-defense.
The court disagrees. Just because somewhere is dangerous, doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to be there. If you want to go somewhere dangerous and you do not want to be at more risk, you bring protection.
Don’t fuck around if you don’t want to find out.
It’s not that he went that out all, it’s that there was a boatload of evidence implying that killing was his motive for wanting to go in the first place.