I would argue that had he not been carrying out the crime of illegally possessing a firearm there would’ve been no need for self defense and technically if someone is in violation of the law requiring him to use self defense his violation is responsible thus he is

He has been cast out from the left for his stance on Rittenhouse.

Or rather, specifically the far left.

How was him having the rife illegal?

@LrnAshly I'm pretty sure that people carrying illegally, and use it in self defense, are routinely not charged for murder, but I dunno about WI

@Maw I am not a fan of paternal libertarians

You would be correct. @realz

I don’t say I agree personally

Generally they're talking about burglary being a case where you cannot validly claim self defense.

Since you were instigating the violent confrontation.

but also, I think the constitutoinal argument is strong as well; a state has no right to stop you from your constitutional right to arm yourself, in the case of you defending yourself, which is an obvious right attached to the 2nd amendment, which means applying that law to being armed illegally is unconstitutional

Not general misdemeanors.

@Maw yea that law was written very sloppily IMO

Illegally possessing a firearm is a misdemeanor

it could be interpreted to basically destroy the self defense argument; they merely have to find some law you are breaking at the time

Theft is also another where you cannot claim self defense IIRC.

So if you're mugging someone, etc.

Stealing property, etc.

AGREED on the law being written in a sloppy way and I’m not saying I agree or don’t think he should have responded how he did. Legally I think the defense stance is weak if he was in possession of the weapon and illegally so.

No, it's still not weak.

there are defenses to that

I've listed a few

I do believe convicted felons have won self-defense cases when using firearms.

I would argue that having said gun open carrying may have been an instigating factor for his needing to defend his life

Which is a felony.

there are probably more

@LrnAshly it doesn't matter, the aggressor had no knowledge of his age

But he was committing a crime during the self defense

By possessing the firearm

I bet you are committing a crime right now 😛

That does not likely forfeit his right to live.

I’m totally playing devils advocate

it is very hard not to commit crimes in the US

You have to keep that in mind.

Btw y’all

Commission of a crime is also normally legally defined as act of perpetrating an offense. And @LrnAshly has not described how his having firearm was illegal

It is very hard to get caught committing crimes in the US I would argue hahaha

Saying he could not use a firearm in self-defense in that scenario is very well saying you forfeit your right to live.

Which is simply not true.

> @DeathRhodes666 .
>
>
> "The law says that if you are violating any crime, self defense doesn't apply. Kyle was out after Curfew, and he was illegally carrying a weapon, so ..."
>

@realz (I know that isn't you but still want to talk about it) if they wanted to do that then they should have charged him with that. But they didn't so that point it moot. And if they did charge him with than the argument would made that they would need to get everyone else that was there the same charge.

@xephael I explained, it is a grey area if it is legal for a 17 year old to carry in WI