The Rittenhouse defense has invoked self-defense justification for the shooting deaths of 2 in Kenosha Wisconsin.
Given the context of:
- Protesters: similar to a "place of nuisance" in the sense there is a high probability of violence.
- Rittenhouse indicating intent to protect property from protests
How, if at all, does said context nullify the Rittenhouse self-defense?
RyanM has written a good response to a question posing a single issue (suspect's age), whereas my question is more consider with the broader context (suspect's statements, situation, nature of conflict). The narrow question is:
Does this latter fact [of being a minor in possession of firearm] make it impossible for him to claim self-defense?
This questions serves to cast a "wider-net" to consider the context ('all the facts') to determine the validity of self-defense.