What I don't get in the Kyle Rittenhouse murders is how someone can illegally put themself in a risky situation and then claim self-defense. For example, if I take a weapon into a bank and try to rob it, I can't claim self-defense when I return fire at a guard and kill a customer. Clearly walking through a riot with an AR-15 in a sling is inherently provocative. Further, Kyle testified he went to Wisconsin to protect people's property. Yet he also admits that the law does not allow you to shoot someone to protect property.
The judge is allowing the defense to enter testimony on Kyle's state of mind leading up to the shooting but not allowing the prosecutor to focus on anything but the moment of the shooting. Taken out of context, yes Kyle was acting in self-defense, but he put himself in that position, was the provocateur, and did so illegally in several ways as a minor.
The judge is allowing the defense to enter testimony on Kyle's state of mind leading up to the shooting but not allowing the prosecutor to focus on anything but the moment of the shooting. Taken out of context, yes Kyle was acting in self-defense, but he put himself in that position, was the provocateur, and did so illegally in several ways as a minor.