How does context nullify the Rittenhouse self-defense?
<p>The Rittenhouse defense has invoked self-defense justification for the shooting deaths of 2 in Kenosha Wisconsin.</p>
<p>Given the context of:</p>
<ol>
<li>Protesters: similar to a &quot;place of nuisance&quot; in the sense there is a high probability of violence.</li>
<li>Rittenhouse indicating intent to protect property from protests</li>
</ol>
<p>How, if at all, does said context nullify the Rittenhouse self-defense?</p>
<p>RyanM has written <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/55783/10793">a good response</a> to a <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/q/55781/10793">question</a> 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:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Does this latter fact [of being a minor in possession of firearm] make
it impossible for him to claim self-defense?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This questions serves to cast a &quot;wider-net&quot; to consider the context ('all the facts') to determine the validity of self-defense.</p>

<h2>None of this affects a claim of self-defense</h2>
<p>I've described <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/55783/32651">elsewhere</a> the things that <em>do</em> affect a self-defense claim in Wisconsin.  These do not affect it.</p>
<h3>Protesters</h3>
<p>I'm not sure what you mean by this: the existence of protesters has nothing to do with a claim of self-defense.  The standard for lethal self-defense is <em>much</em> higher than could be satisfied by simply being near an angry crowd.  Specific actions of protesters could affect it, but you'd need to detail which actions you're referring to.</p>
<h3>Rittenhouse indicating intent to protect property from protests</h3>
<p>This might affect the claim if it were <em>his</em> property (which it was not).  <a href="https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48/1m/ar" rel="noreferrer">Section 939.48(1m)(ar) of Wisconsin law</a> provides for a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine" rel="noreferrer">castle doctrine</a> if, basically, the person has unlawfully broken into or is currently unlawfully breaking into the defendant's home, vehicle, or place of business.  Since it was not his property, this defense doesn't apply.</p>

<p>The argument is that rittenhouse provoked attack by being there knowing he was in danger. Self defense is not available if it follows from the original crime- I struggle to think of what specific crime he committed but weakly provoking easily provoked people into attacking you might be considered an assault.</p>
<p>The concept of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words" rel="nofollow noreferrer">fighting words</a> may apply even though I dont think there were any words actually exchanged.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which &quot;by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Injury is part of assault.</p>
<p>Basically any minor procedural point can be made to argue that an original crime occurred, therefore self defense is invalid- yet the circumstance were such that if you were to rule against him, the law would no longer be taken seriously by anyone.</p>

self-defense wisconsin