Looking at young Rittenhouse from another Angle

State laws vary on the right to use deadly force to protect property. In Texas, for instance, you may use deadly force to protect YOUR OWN property, but NOT the property of another.

We do not know all the facts yet, but let's assume that Wisconsin law is similar and that the car lot did not belong to young Rittenhouse. Maybe someone knows the answers to these questions.

Set aside the self-defense question for a moment, because that is addressed LATER.

"Deadly force" is usually defined to include threatening the use of ACTUAL deadly force. If young Rittenhouse used that sort of "implied" deadly force to defend the car lot, he might be considered the initial aggressor, even if Molotov guy was the first to actually commit a PHYSICAL use of deadly force.

Under the laws of most states, the initial aggressor loses the protections of the self-defense affirmative defense. If that is the case in Wisconsin, he may run into problems

Again, I have not researched Wisconsin law on this point, and I would welcome input from anyone familiar with it.

There is no doubt in my mind that he was ACTUALLY defending himself. The question I raise is whether the LAW will allow him to present that defense.

I anticipate 10:1 downvotes for even asking the question, but this thread still might generate some interesting analysis from those who LIKE analysis and not just pep rallies. In other words, about one person in ten will even understand the purpose of the thread.


EDIT: I was close. Looks like about 12:1 right now.