He took a weapon to a place of unrest. That is automatically disqualifying for self defense here.

Dunno.

@Doc am I right?

I don't know if he has a moral/ethical opinion about it.

@D EMC No. I have no normtive options. Only descrptive.

I watch, learn, try to understand.

I mean if he says in his system it's murder then I assume he has some view on it

So you're undecided basically

I never state "should" or "aught to" or "clearly is".

No, he's purely looking at the individual systems.

I have very few opinions.

Fair enough.

Wbu @Maw

@D EMC I, personally, would like it possible where I live to defend my home with my weapon. That is not the case. So my opinion is worthless.

If I am to extend this right to some of the dufuses who own weapons, I am more unsure if that is a sane rule.

Again, I find myself incapable of determining what others should or should not due.

So you're a non interventionist

You're neutral basically
Just an observer

But I can, for instance, say that based on my personal experience with such mobs, mr. Rittenhouses position had they gotten hold of him and he was unarmed, could have been life threating. At the very least a wheelchair.

Agreed.

I have mixed feelings about it, but I too usually go by legal definitions.

yes. I prefer to observe. I think of it like a football match. I am not on the grass, and will never be able to get there, so I cant influence the outcome.

If at any point he lost control of his gun, he wouldn't be in court, he'd be in a casket.

I wouldn't say that.

But from a legal perspective you think he was right or nah

Is it reasonable to think he was in fear of his life? For sure. Do I think he likely would of died if he didn't do what he did? Ehhhhh...

It's at least somewhat likely he'd be dead.

Would you agree with that?

"from a legal perspective" - if that means how does it look like when you compare events to law, it looks to me like it is self defense under Wisconsin law.

With Gaige I'm liable to think he had a high chance of being killed, yes.

At the very least severely injured, for sure hospital if not dead. Agreed?

I think it's reasonable for him to fear for his life/serious bodily injury in all cases of confrontation where he used deadly force.

So he did the best thing for his self preservation, cuz at least he's alive now.

any blow to the head has a chance of turning you into Stephen Hawkins, he was struck once in the head with a heavy object. I do believe this is grounds to say his life as he knew it, was in danger.

I do not think it is likely to have ended up with him dying.

But that's not what you have to prove.

Regardless of who he shot in the process, he sucesfully defended himself.

Well it was at least reasonable for him to genuinely fear for his life

That's the point yes.

Once you prove that, you're good.

it would appear so