So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!
Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.
There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes.
Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in?
Well, therein lies the rub. The prosecution’s entire theory rests on his pointing the gun at Ziminski just before Rosenbaum chases him. But remember, they must prove that is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. So what’s the evidence of that? Rittenhouse sure as hell didn’t admit it. It’s all based on a grainy video that the prosecution enhanced. Even then the judge admitted he couldn’t determine if it showed what they purport. Here’s the still.
View attachment 36092
There’s a couple of problems with this picture. One, Rittenhouse is not left handed As this shot would seem to imply. He’s a right handed shooter. Second, the white blob above the arrow is supposed to be Rittenhouse’s right hand on the weapon, but the white blob is there before Rittenhouse ever shows up. here’s a screenshot from a split second before Rittenhouse shows up.
View attachment 36093
The same white blob can be seen to the left of the pole before he walks to that point. This is part of a vehicle that is parked there. it can’t be his hand. And thus this picture does not depict Rittenhouse pointing a rifle at anyone. It’s just way too unclear what this is. It’s got to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
there are other problems as well. Supposedly Zaminski is the one targeted. But Zaminski admits he was armed and had fired a shot in the air. Zaminski doesn’t go after Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum did. And Zaminski denies knowing Rosenbaum.
The whole thing is insane. You’ve got a kid with a weapon, another guy with a handgun, and a third guy whose made violent threats before and just been released after a suicide attempt. IMHO, they’re all a bunch of losers. Rittenhouse is no hero. Now he’ll have to live with the consequences of his stupid decision to go down there. But in the end he gets off on self defense.