Nope. it doesn't. I get that you're not a lawyer, nor am I, but it should be obvious to a layperson that the law can't function on such as subjective standard.
Self defence rests on believing that your life or wellbeing are in imminent danger. Rittenhouse shot 1 unarmed man who (along with a mob) chased him and attacked him, tackling him to the ground. He then shot another man how was armed with a skateboard (guns aren't the only weapons, you could easily be beaten to death with a skateboard). He then shot another man who aimed a gun at his head.
That's 1 unarmed man who physically attacked him, 1 armed with a melee weapon who physically attacked him, and 1 armed with a gun who pointed it at his head. 3, not 4.
When Huber attacked Rittenhouse he absolutely was not *currently* firing on protestors. Seriously, this is absolute nonsense. Please, do some actual research about the case before talking about it. Because having a conversation where I'm just correcting basic factual errors isn't a good use of my time. Especially when I went to the trouble of filling the article with sources and video evidence.
I didn't say it wasn't valid for Huber to respond the way he did. Huber thought he was doing the right thing. It's especially tragic that he died. But that doesn't mean Rittenhouse wasn't acting in self defence when he shot him. Huber's death was a tragic misunderstanding.
There are many points of failure here:
Rioters shouldn't have been setting fire to innocent people's businesses and property. The police should have got the situation under control. The Governor should have called in the National Guard if the police were overwhelmed. Rittenhouse shouldn't have gotten involved. 17-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to carry semi-automatic weapons in public (actually I'd argue that nobody should be). Rosenbaum shouldn't have attacked Rittenhouse.
All of this is true simultaneously. Again, I didn't suggest that Huber's actions were invalid. He's the only person in all this who I think is blameless. But Rittenhouse clearly acted in self defence. This isn't remotely in dispute for anybody who actually knows the details of the case.
