(08-31-2020, 02:39 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(08-31-2020, 01:44 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: Regardless of the misdemeanor law that he may have broken (underage with the rifle) he has every right to protect himself from great bodily harm which could possibly include his own death.  He is under no obligation to use the butt of his rifle as a means to protect himself.  In each shooting case he was not the aggressor and was in fact attempting to retreat.  There is no restriction as far as how a person can protect/defend themselves.

Regarding the claim that he had the gun illegally under Wisconsin law, that all depends.  The age limit of 18 years of age does not apply if the person has a certificate of accomplishment in order to obtain hunting approval.  It is not known at this time if Kyle Rittenhouse has such a certificate.  Either way if he is in fact guilty of that offense it is a class A misdemeanor.

I'm sure you know all of that though since you studied Wisconsin State Law so much.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
[font=Times,][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](2)Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:[/font]
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.[/font]

If you are going to play lawyer and read statutes and use them for your argument, you need to read the whole statute and not cherry pick a few phrases.

1.  The unlawful conduct that he might have been engaging in was possession of the firearm.  That wasn't  "the type likely to provoke others to attack him" and not the reason why he was attacked.  Read the rest of the first sentence of the statute.  "except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm".  He was attacked initially for putting a dumpster fire out intended for more unlawful destruction by the assailant.  He was not attacked for possessing the firearm.  From the video evidence and testimony that I've seen I'm pretty sure that he had every reason to believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

2.  Read the second sentence fully, especially the part that says "the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense" and the part that says "unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant".  From the video evidence that I have seen as well as the testimony that I have read, it looks like he made every reasonable means to escape.

The fact of the matter is that the young man appeared to be very controlled and disciplined in his use of his firearm, especially in a fast high-stress environment.  I haven't seen where he ever fired randomly or at anyone not attacking him.

So again, you are wrong.

---