Originally Posted by
TheMadBaron
Here's your lawyer pointing out the major flaw in the self-defense argument, while admitting that he doesn't know Wisconsin firearms law:
"Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.
The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18."
Just by being there with an illegally held rifle, Rittenhouse was engaged in unlawful conduct. After that, the question of whether provocation might nullify the privilege of self-defense gets a bit complicated, but I'll have a go as soon as someone presents such an argument (one that doesn't require that the offence took place in Canadia, Narnia, or anywhere but Wisconsin).
.