Since Rittenhouse went into a riot area, armed in violation of the law and in violation of the curfew, then can the prosecution say he can't claim innocent intent when things turned bad? I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent but wondering if that's why they charged him with murder?
I don’t know, but it seems to me if he was using his weapon and shot the person, he’s guilty
They can say it, but it probably won't hold up.
There are several cases where felons, armed in violation of the law, were found to have acted in self-defense, then charged with felon in possession of a firearm.
You do not give up your rights to self defense because you are a felon.
In this case, I expect the defense to challenge the constitutionality of the Wisconsin law, because it makes no provision for security or defense, which are specifically protected in the Wisconsin Constitution.
Those conditions aren't true, so there is no basis for your analysis.
Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha, and was with a group of people he knew in the area where the rioting happened before the rioting even started. Going to work as a lifeguard at a pool isn't illegal.
It is very likely that Rittenhouse's carrying of the rifle was legal under Wisconsin law.
Rittenhouse was present before the curfew, and he like everyone else in the neighborhood was trying to deal with the ramifications of the government's abject failure to enforce the curfew.
The predicament Rittenhouse ended up in was a direct result of the blundering police. The police drove the rioters towards where Rittenhouse and others were, and then after Rittenhouse provided medical aid to injured people the police were ignoring, the police prevented Rittenhouse from returning to the building where he and others were sheltering from the riot.
IMO that's the only possible reason. Other than the infliction of financial and emotional pain through prosecution.
I think this is a chicken and egg example.
I'm no expert on these matters, but I wonder why the matter of Rittenhouse going into a "riot area" would be held against him more than the matter of the others creating the "riot area" in the first place?
I'm personally disgusted by the current doctrine that people should let rioters go about their business, and trying to stop them is the crime. To me, it's the rioters who venture into peaceful neighborhoods to terrorize that are the criminals, and that anyone who tries to stop them is justified.
I can't speak to the legal citations, but setting aside "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" principles, what about "good Samaritan" laws? Even if Rittenhouse wasn't a resident of the area he was protecting, if there was a recent pattern of nightly terror and destruction and good reason to conclude it would happen again that night, wouldn't a "good Samaritan" be allowed to give reasonable assistance to the locals (who may not have the means to protect themselves from a mob) who are in peril or in fear of being injured?
Wouldn't good Samaritan principles justify Rittenhouse's presence, and then the others (stand your ground, castle doctrine) would justify his use of force when the mob turned on him?
-PJ