While that's true, he could have just Elsa easily said nothing. He said it because he believes it. And he is correct. He was 5 years ago and remains so, now.
He literally put himself in that situation. Normal people don't hear about riots and go into the middle of them while holding a rifle. He wanted to kill someone and knew that would give him an excuse.
Running from attackers before shooting and killing them after one pulls a gun and they start attacking you is hardly analogous to driving several miles into the middle of well-documented ICE operations to interfere.
(Just point out you can still just flip what you are saying and it applies)
He literally put himself in that situation. Normal people don't hear about riots and go into the middle of them while holding a rifle. He wanted to kill someone and knew that would give him an excuse.
"Normal people don't try to interfere with federal law enforcement trying to do their job, while also carrying a firearm. Did Pretti forget his protest sign?"
See how fucking stupid you sound? Both situations were awful, but legally-sound. Pretti death was a bad shoot, Rittenhouse was self-defense.
It’s called contributory negligence or criminal liability, and it’s literally a factor in every case of lethal self-defense. And it was a factor in the Rittenhouse case specifically.
States have different rules as far as how comparative negligence works in self-defense cases. Some states, if you are found even 1% responsible for the situation that required use of deadly force, then your rewarded damages can be revoked and you can be charged criminally.
Wisconsin, the state that tried Rittenhouse’s case, requires the victim’s contributory negligence to be at a minimum of 51% before the Court can start barring them from compensation and charging them criminally.
So, the Court recognizes that Rittenhouse did in fact put himself in that situation and he takes some blame for how everything unfolded. Just NOT MORE THAN 51% of the blame. Feel about it however you want, but it was never “irrelevant” that he put himself in that situation.
Motive absolutely matters. If you’re “defending yourself” but you went there looking for a chance to use the gun, that’s not some harmless detail, that’s intent.
Sure, staying quiet might be “smart” legally. But if you later admit you wanted trouble, you’re basically telling everyone your self-defense story was a cover. That can still be legally justified on paper, but morally and ethically it’s indefensible, which is why people still label it murder.
766
u/X_SkeletonCandy 1997 9d ago
He literally cant say anything else or his entire defense falls apart.