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

If the court agrees

Even if it's a 5-20% chance it's enough grounds to me that reasonably you could use deadly force to protect yourself from the risk of death.

I can present you with the argument the prosecution would make here, @D EMC , because it is also a logic one.

for it not being self defense.

Isn't it enough to prove you even had reasonable chance of believing you had risk of serious bodily harm?

Yes.

But that's defined differently in many states.

So the skateboard alone is already evidence

Bruises can constitute serious bodily injury, no I'm not joking.

The footage definitely helps him more than harms. Right?

For sure.

I happen to be a bruise specialist. That is a wierd thing, @Maw , as they can even be spontaious.

If not for that, nobody would prolly believe his side. He'd be fucked by the system.

Bruises are the weakest evidence in the world of forensic medicine.

But a broken bone is reasonable for that

Internal hemorrhaging may look like just a bruise on the surface, but it's generally not good at all.

@D EMC If he walks, it is due to the filmclips.

And I think he could easily argue that