I have a question about Rittenhouse trial

[genxlib]

I am always appreciative of the various expertise that we have around here so this one goes out to our legal experts.

I understand that there is a feeling that Rittenhouse will be found not guilty because he had reason to be afraid and act in self defense.

OK I get that...BUT

To what degree is that fear a valid defense in the context of an illegal act. If someone robs a liquor store, they are not allowed to shoot the clerk when he pulls out a bat to defend the register. It seems that being in the act of a crime would nullify any claim of self defense.

So the question is, to what degree is a person like this responsible for putting himself into that situation by carrying an illegal firearm into a volatile situation?

Sure seems like some gray area there.

[Zeitghost]

1. In most jurisdictions

You must have a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm to yourself or another to use potentially lethal force to defend yourself.


ETA: The right to self defense is not negated if the person is committing a crime. If for example a person was illegally carrying a firearm, it does not negate his right to use that firearm to legally defend himself.

[SledDriver]

2. How is that balanced then if you put yourself into that situation?

[Zeitghost]

4. It isn't

If I walk through a gang controlled neighborhood and start talking trash and throwing rival gang signs, it might make me stupid, but it doesn't negate my right to defend myself from attack.

[sarisataka]

3. It is a very big grey area

It depends on the specific crime. If a person is putting graffiti on a house and the homeowner comes at them with an axe, very few will say the criminal cannot defend himself. The response is out of proportion.

If it is an arsonist trying to light the house on fire, many more will be on the homeowners side.

In this case my non-expert opinion is that while he was clearly illegally armed, he was not presenting a direct threat to anyone though it could easily be argued he was a general threat. He therefore retained the right of self-defense. If the prosecution could show he was directly threatening a person, without provocation, then he would lose the right to self-defense.

[genxlib]

6. Appreciate the response

I would feel better about a not guilty verdict if I felt like he was at least taken down a notch for some very bad judgement. But he has been held up as a hero and will only be celebrated more upon acquittal.

I get the sense that we have not seen the last of this jackass. Much like earlier cases, I bet this guy will be a bad penny that goes on to cause more trouble.

[sarisataka]

7. Unfortunately I think you are correct

That rather than putting a bad incident behind and being thankful for life and liberty he will go on to be a minor celebrity and take the entirely wrong lesson

[SharonAnn]

9. Ala George Zimmerman.

[whathehell]

10. I was as shocked as anyone when Zimmerman walked after his trial

but to my knowledge,.he's never been a ' celebrity' of any stature, minor or major.

[rockfordfile]

5. The pos was there to murder people. He's not a policeman.

He should never have been there or had a gun. Dressed like a terrorist walking the streets and carrying a gun.

[katmondoo]

8. I am not watching closely, but it does remind me of the Zimmerman trial. Parts of what I hear.