"robbing a bank"'

What is it that you think Rittenhouse was doing that was ACTUALLY illegal (in Kenosha) ?

@FearlessFly Just because the weapons charge was dismissed doesn't mean he wasn't breaking the law...
[politifact.com]

@JeffMurray "'breaking the law"'

IMO, it is LUDICROUS to compare "robbing a bank"' with the (even according to Politifact) murky circumstances around the State law and Rittenhouse.

@FearlessFly It shouldn't matter the severity of the crime (and I'll grant you those are of a vastly different severity) you shouldn't be able to put yourself in a dangerous situation by committing any crime and then claim self-defense.

@JeffMurray That's a nice OPINION you have there . . .
Let us know how you feel about it AFTER you are in a situation in which you are following your rights/belief(s) and YOU are attacked by someone carrying a pistol or other weapon while you are unarmed.

@FearlessFly But he wasn't following his rights, because it was likely illegal for him to possess that weapon while not hunting, and he only got away with it on a technicality. And he wasn't unarmed (obviously) as your suggesting I would be. And he shouldn't have been there armed because it probably wasn't legal for him to possess that weapon for any purpose other than hunting, which would be a hard sell in the middle of a city during social unrest. And how someone feels about something shouldn't really have any bearing on what the law should be. Given what I've read by you before, I figured you were too logical and rational to make such a silly argument.

@JeffMurray "he shouldn't have been there armed because it probably wasn't legal"''

IMO, YOU are making the 'silly' argument(s) -- that despite the crappy/murky state law, it should be followed/obeyed because that is YOUR opinion and that is the way YOU (and perhaps others) WANT.

I think crappy/murky laws should be 'challenged' -- thank you ACLU.

I think laws OFTEN DON"T (and should not) work on the basis of your/my/others OPINION(s), and are often misused/misinterpreted -- even by lawyers, and especially by non-lawyers like us.

That is the job of judges, and ultimately by SCOTUS, not us.

We have only the rights that we can defend.

The reason your argument is not analogous is the word someone, as in, not a police officer. In Wisconsin, self-defense or self-defense of a 3rd party from real or apparent unlawful interference of the person being threatened cannot be claimed for a desire to protect a business from interference, because a business confers no such privilege under the law.

939.48(4) (4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.

@JeffMurray Perhaps there will be other consequences for Rittenhouse (i.e federal) but the Judge (and the defense) do/did NOT agree with YOUR "legal" interpretation of that law.

@JeffMurray Let's not try to confuse the situation here. Rittenhouse was not standing there defending a business and then opened fire on people who were just protesting/ or someone attempting to destroy property. He was purposely followed, threatened and chased by an individual who had a record for previously victimizing children. The whole "protecting a business" idea does not apply to the moments leading up to the shooting. Apparently Kamala thinks the minor should have been the victim here and the fact he wasn't means there is a problem with our justice system. A mind boggling conclusion coming from someone who worked as a prosecutor herself. And it is in fact HER work experience and the fact she can hold that opinion on the matter that is the most indicative of a failed justice system. I fear for other youths she had disregard for and put in harm's way.

And for the record if it was a reality that Rittenhouse shot others unprovoked, my opinion would be different. I do not support a self-defense argument for violence directed at protesters who are not engaging in violence toward other people. That would be illegal.

They live in fear.