It's not actually different. Because the self-defense plea is going to fall apart when it's pointed out he willingly went into a dangerous situation. And he was so far removed from the dangerous situation himself that he's from another state.
Here's some case law, not that this law from Louisiana applies to Wisconsin (or Illinois, the state that is charging him), but it's a start:
" A person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict. "
EVEN IF we want to say that Rittenhouse is the aggressor, because he chose to be there, or something:
He absolutely withdrew from the conflict, and his adversaries knew he was withdrawing and desired to discontinue the conflict.
In every video clip we've seen of him, he was running away.
He's running, and his attackers CHASE HIM DOWN and KNOCK HIM DOWN. Only when they are within striking distance does Rittenhouse turn and fire.
He's withdrawing.
He's discontinuing the conflict.
All of this in good faith (it's not a false surrender like the guy with the pistol)
So if you want to claim that self-defense won't fly, you should produce better evidence than I have here.
Last edited: