Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
the facts don't support your claim.
|
Well, they do. There's little reason for you to deny it.
Fact: Defence of others is a valid defence under Wisconsin law (same section as self defence)
Fact: Grosskreutz believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter
Fact: Even without testimony from the two deceased individuals, the situation between Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz was clearly one where both believe they were justified, as noted by both individuals under oath.
We can guess what would have happened had Grosskreutz pulled the trigger before Rittenhouse, so there are no "facts" about how things would have played out in that reverse scenario, but we can certainly guess that his defence would have been defence of others, as this is a fairly by-the-book example.