That’s not correct. If I’m jaywalking or double parked when someone jumps me, I can fight back. He’s an absolute piece of shit and deserves to root in jail but bringing a gun over state lines is not (I think) enough to waive any self defense argument.
Just to elaborate slightly. I am defending a civil action against a store (ignore this) where the underlying cause of action arises from theft and assault. Specifically, Plaintiff stole items from the store and stabbed our employee when confronted. He claimed at his civil trial that he acted in self-defense since (allegedly) our employee tased him first. Even thought he admitted to the theft, he was able to argue self defense. Further, unless Rittenhouse pleas to the lesser crimes prior to trial, the jury will be ruling on them as well, which begs the question on how he cannot argue self defense because he was allegedly committing crimes to which he neither admitted nor was convicted of. Just saying “hey, he was doing these crimes too” doesn’t fly.
Appreciate the layman's explanation. I pretty much feel US law is arbitrarily applied bullshit - not necessarily worse than other countries, but certainly subject to the whims of whether a judge got his dick sucked and allows an objection or not, and how loud/aggressive the lawyers are. Outcomes correlate more strongly with money, prejudice, and connections than justice. And the more I hear stories from the inside, the more I think I'm right.
Rittenhouse should be knelt in front of a wall and double-tapped. He won't serve a sentence of any sort.