Timeline for How does context nullify the Rittenhouse self-defense?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 27, 2021 at 13:46 | vote | accept | gatorback | ||
| Nov 27, 2021 at 13:46 | comment | added | gatorback | Given the recent verdict, this must be the correct answer. In my mind, when the defendant cited protecting property, I was thinking "mall cop", similar to Michael Drejka. To be clear: I would have thought a Wisconsin jury would not suffer minors crossing state lines with AR15s to play mall cop, but then again IANAL | |
| Sep 1, 2020 at 0:37 | comment | added | gatorback | The initial bold statement is a very strong statement in the sense that it takes the position that it is not possible the two cited line items could establish mens rea, which could be leveraged to diminish if not nullify a self-defense claim. | |
| Aug 31, 2020 at 9:49 | comment | added | Ryan M | @MaxB Hmmm, good point. If the question is whether criminal intent affects it, that would suggest that this is largely the same question as yours. I mostly wanted to have some alternative to the other answer, which is definitely incorrect. | |
| Aug 31, 2020 at 9:45 | comment | added | MWB | OP is suggesting that Rittenhouse's stated intent was criminal (see his comment under my question) | |
| Aug 31, 2020 at 9:32 | history | answered | Ryan M | CC BY-SA 4.0 |