The only way Rittenhouse can claim self-defense is that he didn't intend to kill people. Kind of hard to maintain when he said he was there to do so. The only way he can claim self-defense is that UNARMED people could be reasonably be assumed to gonna kill someone armed with a high-powered rifle. The only way he can claim it was self-defense is that he canYes. Under WI the DA has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Rittemnhouse could not have reasonably believed the people chasing him intended to cause him harm.
He was running away. He turned and shot in response to the people chasing him preparing to attack him.
If there was a burden to de-escalate, he met it.
Even if true, under WI law, as soon as you disengage from that provocation, your right to self-defense resets.
Running away = disengaing
1: He was running away
2: See above.
The only way to soundly argue Rittenehouse did not act in self-defense is to soundly argue the people chasing him with the intent to harm him had a right to do so.
Please proceed.
a) show that running was his ONLY option and not for instance staying where he was and call the police (something he didn't do although he did find the time to call a friend saying he killed someone right after the first shooting.)
b) that the first shooting was justifiable. Again hard to do since he was faced with one person throwing a plastic bag.
I have continued and I still like the DA's chances.