To the claim of self-defense. Yes. Irrelevant.You stated that was irrelevant....
The only thing that matters here, under the law, is if Rittenhouse has a reasonable fear for his life, and if the use of force was reasonably necessary for him to protect himself.
None of that other stuff matters. Not one whit.
If you want to argue that Rittemhouse boroke the law against the dicharge of his firearm in city limits - fine.you seem to think that discharging a weapon for self defense negates all other offenses.
He wasn't charged for it, and even if he was, it does not negate his claim to self-defense.
Your personal revision isn't even relatesd to the law on the subject.2. Your personal revisionism is NOT Wisconsin law on the subject.
As Rittenhouse claimed self-defnse - and therefore admittind to the shooting- the trial is to determine if hehad a reasonable fear for his life and if deadly force was reasonably necessary. As in -both- isntances of his use of deadly force he was running away, anyting he may have done to instigate the actions of those who chased him with the intent to harm his is irrelevant, as the right to self-defese resets once he disengages.3. the trial is to determine who instigated the confrontation that resulted in the running shoot out (video does not show this).
So says the law.
All YOU are doing is just repeating your personal idea of what the law should be and what has transpired.Junior can't claim self defense if he goes looking for trouble where he was not asked to be by any local businessman, law enforcement or community activists.