Quote (thundercock @ Nov 1 2021 07:22pm)
And? Isn't that called taking responsibility for your actions? Take a look at the George Zimmerman case how different it would be if he was the one who initiated violence (he didn't). Had he did, he would have lost the right to claim self-defense. Obviously the Zimmerman case doesn't mirror this one and we should let the facts dictate the verdict, but there are plenty of scenarios where you lose the right of self-defense. Suppose Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people telling them to go home or he'd blow their head off...do you think he'd still have a self-defense argument?
That sounds an awful lot like provocation, doesn't it?
Rittenhouse has a stronger case for self-defense than Zimmerman does, and I thought Zimmerman had a pretty solid case. If he was initiating conflict, or interrogating rioters, it would be a very different story. But he was guarding a gas station. The only argument I can really think of, from a prosecutorial point of view, is that his gun crime makes him responsible for whatever comes afterwards. I don't know enough of the relevant case law to comment on that.