He’ll walk for the self defense, but he still showed up to a protest with an illegally-acquired weapon. This was also following him shooting two other people at the protest. It’s not like Rittenhouse is innocent.
@jachee: You don't have to "transfer" a gun to carry it across state lines, only when you first buy it through the FFL.
@croes: being armed by itself is not a threat, if you point a gun at someone you are the aggressor and that person can defend themselves.
just because you "see" someone with a gun doesn't mean you can shoot them, if they aim it at you that's another story. the first aggressor matters.
@happytoexplain: no you would be wrong to try to restrain the man who is simply armed. if that state had a open carry law you would be in the wrong trying to confront him if he was not pointing it at you or others. there are plenty examples of both sides openly carrying at protests.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-revea...
Second, Black has been charged but not convicted, and I don't think the charge will stick: the argument is that while this was technically legal according to the letter of the law, the law in question was written with only underage hunters in mind, and should not apply in this case. Since the law itself makes no such distinctions, I don't see this as anything more than an empty gesture. Maybe I'm wrong.
If you buy a firearm in your home state and then take it to another state you don't have to transfer or register it.
If two sides are armed each side sees the other as a threat. So both can claim self defense and both are wrong.
He does face a possession charge, but according to NBC, that charge, "possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18", is only a misdemeanor.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kyle-rittenhouse-s-...
> 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.
> The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/4...
Maybe it was justified in the case where Rosenbaum chased down the kid, but certainly not in the other two cases. Either way, I'm skeptical that there was "adequate notice".
I agree that people probably wouldn't jump on a dude walking down the street with a holstered pistol at his hip, but if that guy had said pistol out, they might try to defuse an active shooter situation.
I get your point about the situation after shots had been fired though, and that's where it starts getting sort of weird from a self-defense perspective. It's entirely possible that both Rittenhouse and his latter assailants could successfully claim self-defense. In the case of Rittenhouse, it would be because his previous actions were lawful self-defense, and then he was attacked again, with an imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. For Grosskreutz and Huber, they could argue that they thought Rittenhouse was an imminent danger to the people nearby. That would be a tougher sell I think though, given how Rittenhouse was retreating towards the police line, and neither of them actually witnessed the first incident.