Those two scenarios are about instigating violence or the situation or altercation that led to the end result of someone being injured or killed.
If you flip someone off and they go road rage on you, you may have been the instigating cause, which can be mitigated to some degree by attempting to de-escalate and escape. If they then pursue you, and you end up in a self defense situation, you may… may have a case.
Correct.
‘Clean Hands’ is an error I think, as that deals with contract law, and may confuse the issues.
In this case in Kenosha, Rittenhouse is NOT the aggressor, and he is clearly defending himself from aggressors.
I do not think this criteria, ‘innocent party’ (or non-aggressor), is germane to this situation. Rittenhouse is not an aggressor, he is an innocent party in this context. He may not be totally innocent, meaning he may have violated the curfew, which may have legal ramifications and he may have violated the law regarding carrying a dangerous weapon (rifle) under the age of 18, which may have him face legal ramifications, but neither negate his self defense claim as he was not the aggressor, and I do not think it means what you might have been trying to imply.
Rittenhouse may not be innocent of all legal issues, but he was an innocent party regarding the violence, as he was not the aggressor, he was not the instigator.
Self defense.
- There is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death
- You are not a party to the violence, not an aggressor. The attack is unprovoked. (some exceptions which depend on the situation such as the initial aggressor may become the victim and self defense is valid if the initial aggressor deescalates and tries to retreat.)
- reasonableness or reasonable fear, Would a reasonable person conclude the threat was lethal
- Force must be met with equal force.
- For those states that require it, a duty to retreat if possible and safe.
None of those (and they may be worded different by different people) mention anything about if the person under attack is violating a carry law, or a curfew.
Not sure what legal ramifications there are with a curfew, as each state and locality may have different penalties. The only possible argument would be the legal right to be where he was, and if the curfew actually denied the right to be in Kenosha, or just being outside on the street.