He went into a situation which did not require his armed presence and he is going to claim self-defense?
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.
Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.
Rittenhouse is being charged as an adult with six criminal counts: first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, attempted first-degree intentional homicide, and possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under the age of 18. The first five are felonies; the weapon possession charge is a misdemeanor.
So Rittenhouse hears gun fire from somewhere and when someone lunges at him he shoots him in the head. Anyone in that protest/riot/group carrying a weapon illegally is committing a felony. Killing someone in the act of a felony is felony murder.
Rittenhouse cannot claim self defense against all of those charges. Stop being a bitch and calling me names and discuss the law. He illegally carried a weapon into a dangerous situation and fired into a crowd. Do you think he would have been attacked at all if he stayed home or was not carrying a large rifle? If the people attacking him with a skateboard committed assault then Rittenhouse at least committed recklessly endagering safety.
To argue that the protestors burning down stuff was a crime and there he had a right to go there with a gun and defend property no one asked him to do is a bullshit argument. The police were there and the law does not support vigilantes armed and roaming the streets shooting people.
he is going to jail..sorry it bothers you but vigilantism is not condoned in the U.S.
