Wisconsin Law:
938.48 (a) In this subsection: 2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates. Rittenhouse can't claim self defense because he was in the act of protecting a business he neither owned or operated.

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity - By Wisconsin and Federal law, he was not allowed to legally open carry a weapon because he was under the age of 18, therefore he was engaged in a criminal activity One of the charges against him is possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows: (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant. Two of the charges against him are first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide. The second one was committed while he was in the act of retreating and shot the person attacking him with the skateboard. But the first one, there can be no claim of self defense as Rittenhouse did not have the right to protect a place of business and was illegally carrying a weapon.

You going to accept my challenge or run away like a scalded ape as you usually do?

^^ you're still an illiterate idiot who can't read.

YOU claimed a minor has no self defense rights.
And YOU were full of crap.

And the above Wisconsin statute is their version of the Castle Doctrine - NOT WISCONSIN SELF DEFENSE LAW MORON.

My statement was he can't claim self defense because he was committing a crime at the time he shot three people. So I will ask you one question, if it was self defense, why is he being charged with multiple felonies? I gave you Wisconsin law, let's see if you can find a legal reason why he shouldn't be charged. Or you just going to deflect (again) and insult me because that's all you got.

Just because someone charged him doesn’t mean anything. I give you the couple in Missouri as an example. On the videos I watched, a mob of people were attacking him with guns and skateboards. If that ain’t self defense, we are done.

TexasNative, I think we all know why hes being charged, dont we? How many people do you think were breaking the law within a mile of him that night?

Which side are you pulling for?

Why did the cops show appreciation to him earlier and give him water? Its clear to me he tried his best to retreat in both shootings

yall two get a room (wm and texas)

Sonofa.... Didnt need spell check for that one...

The McCloskey's didn't leave their home to protest. The protesters came to them. Rittenhouse, a minor, left his house armed with an AR15. He traveled 30 miles from his home with a firearm. He then proceeded to "open carry" in a public place. All these acts are illegal under Illinois, Wisconsin, and/or Federal law. He can't claim self defense, since his actions in itself were illegal. I can't claim self defense if I shoot a store owner I'm robbing because he pulled a gun on me.

I'll open up my 30 challenge to anyone on here. You win if Rittenhouse is found not guilty or receives only misdemeanor conviction(s). I win, if he is found guilty or one or more felonies. We can debate all day long about this. What only matters is how the legal system will judge him. He would be facing the same charges if he had committed those same acts in Alabama. A 17 year old cannot open carry in a public place in this state either.

He openly admitted to voting for Doug Jones, so.........

The legal side. Which side you pulling for?

You have to ask that?

And you kept saying COVID 19 was a fake virus, so.......

The side of law AND order. If the police were ALLOWED to do their jobs NONE of this would be happening. All things being equal, if he were an adult from Illinois, had his 'papers' in order I believe you'd still want to see him in jail. Be sure to stay home, with your mask on and mail your vote for Biden.

Wth is going on in here

Not much, just Texas Native practicing law without a license.

Funny thing 95% of self-defense laws are similar across the 50 states. Rittenhouse most likely will walk. Course I'm not a lawyer.

You gave Wisconsin's Castle statute which does not apply - again, you are ILLITERATE liberal pos.

And LIAR - you didn't even post the self defense part of the statute.

Here it is Commie Boy:


"939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.

(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."


And here is the Jury Instruction on self defense used in the State of Wisconsin:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-i...ely-to-cause-death-or-great-bodily-harm/


And a statement from ONE of his lawyers:

"An attorney representing Rittenhouse says his client was acting in self-defense when he opened fire.

In a statement to NBC News attorney John Pierce said, "This was classic self-defense and we are going to prove it. We will obtain justice for Kyle no matter how hard the fight takes or how long it takes."


You are wrong again AS USUAL.

Anyone that's votes Democrat needs their head examined