Timeline for How does context nullify the Rittenhouse self-defense?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 10, 2020 at 3:02 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 14, 2020 at 8:12 | |||||
| Aug 31, 2020 at 9:18 | comment | added | Ryan M | My answer to a similar question already establishes that unlawful conduct does not invalidate a claim of self-defense. "an original crime occurred, therefore self defense is invalid" is plainly not how the law works. | |
| Aug 31, 2020 at 9:12 | history | edited | user31975 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 252 characters in body
|
| Aug 31, 2020 at 9:09 | comment | added | user31975 | It's the only argument they would have | |
| Aug 31, 2020 at 9:02 | comment | added | Ryan M | It's pretty unlikely that a court would find this to be a case of fighting words. See, e.g., thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception. Search that page for "Gooding shouted" for an example of some pretty provocative (and, fair warning: offensive) language that was not considered fighting words by the Supreme Court. | |
| Aug 31, 2020 at 8:56 | comment | added | user31975 | Done........ I know it's a poor argument | |
| Aug 31, 2020 at 8:55 | history | edited | user31975 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 527 characters in body
|
| Aug 31, 2020 at 8:48 | comment | added | Ryan M | Could you cite any reference for the proposition that "weakly provoking easily provoked people into attacking you might be considered an assault"? That seems highly dubious. Additionally, unlawful conduct does not completely preclude a claim of self-defense under Wisconsin law, as I discuss in my answer here. | |
| Aug 31, 2020 at 8:08 | history | answered | user31975 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |