This is a good question, and I think honestly most of us are ill-equipped to answer.
Was his presence legal? We don’t know.
If it was legal or illegal… does it matter? We don’t know.
I can hope maybe @MikeBKY can answer? Although he may not want to wade into this thread, 
No doubt he wears a grin as he watches the rest of us pontificate! 
@MikeBKY seen recently…:
OK, I will admit when I do not know something.
‘Clean Hands’ is a contract law issue as far as I know. I can find no reference to clean hands in self defense.
I did see at least one other person use the phrase ‘clean hands’ but did not address it as it was not actually pertinent to the reply I was giving.
Where is there a reference to ‘clean hands’ criteria for self defense.
Another maybe better way is an innocent party.
An excerpt from a book, “Concealed Carry and Home Defense”
2 MUST BE AN INNOCENT PARTY At this point, you are in immediate risk of death or great bodily harm, but since you’ve broken rule #2, you should expect to be charged with a crime. ›› After entering a bar, another individual steps on your toe. ›› You mutter “asshole” under your breath. ›› The individual bumps into your shoulder, knocking you back. ›› You shove the individual to the floor. ›› The individual jumps up from the floor and charges you with a knife. ›› You shoot the individual charging you with the knife. SCENARIO #2 You failed the “innocent party” rule again. You failed the “innocent party” rule. THE LEGAL USE OF FORCE CHAPTER FOUR 137 What it Usually Means: ›› In a deadly force situation, you must be the innocent party—you cannot be seen as the aggressor. That is, you must not be the person who started or escalated the conflict. ›› Shoving someone at a bar obviously violates this rule, but how about flipping someone off on the freeway? If the situation escalates, don’t be so sure what the prosecutor will think. ›› The prosecutor will not only analyze the timeline of the incident itself, he’ll also want to go back in time before the incident occurred to understand whether or not you knew the attacker, whether there was bad blood between you, and if there are any witnesses or evidence (prior arrests, etc.) to suggest that you’re not as innocent as you claim to be. What it Usually Doesn’t Mean: ›› It doesn’t mean that you are barred from everyday disagreements, but it does mean that if you see the situation escalating, you must disengage, allowing the situation to de-escalate. ›› You are not barred from coming to the defense of another person, but unless you can clearly identify who is the attacker and who is the innocent victim, a prudent course of action would be to call 911 and be a good witness. Don’t assume that the guy who has the upper hand in the fight is the bad guy.
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.
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.
Listen to Colion Noir’s view at this time. Kyle Rittenhouse - Let's talk facts in the Kenosha Wisconsin shooting from a Lawyer's standpoint - YouTube
This is NOT legal advice!
The 'clean hands doctrine" is not applicable in criminal law and is more acquainted with contract law. It is a doctrine that a court will not grant equitable relief if the party did not exercise good faith in the transaction.
Did Kyle Rittenhouse have a right to be where he was or, in other terms, was he in Kenosha legally. Two issues have come up with respect to this. First, is he there legally if he is in possession of a rifle at 17 years old, which is illegal under Wisconsin law? Second, is he there legally if he was there after the curfew started?
With respect to the first, possession of an illegal object does not generally make your presence illegal. The exceptions to this are who you are in a place that prohibits possession of that object. For instance, firearms are generally prohibited in courts. So if you are there with a gun, you do not have the right to be there with a gun. So, his possession of the firearm does not make his presence there unlawful.
The curfew, you could argue, is different because no one should have been there. If that is the case every person there, except police/fire/ems, are there unlawfully and are in an equal position. Frankly, this did not play a role in the incidents that occurred.
In cases like this, the big question really becomes who started the altercation or who was the initial aggressor. In my opinion, Rittenhouse was verbally accosted by Rosenbaum who then threw what is believed to be a brick at him as Rittenhouse was running away (retreating) from Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse fired only after Rosenbaum caught up with him and was trying to disarm Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse called the police to tell them of the shooting when a crowd started coming at him and he ran. When running away, he tripped and fell to the ground. This is when Huber appeared to kick him in the head and attack him with a skateboard. Rittenhouse fire one shot which killed Huber. Then Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with a pistol. Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz in the arm, go up and continued on his way.
Soon after, Rittenhouse was seen with his hands raised and telling police he killed someone. Police can be heard telling him to get off of the street and drove past him.
In none of these exchanges was Rittenhouse the initial aggressor.
@MikeBKY, I have a question that maybe you can answer. Is there not a conflict in charging Kyle as an adult, but then pursuing him as a minor when it comes to weapons charges?
Many people here are looking at multiple posts so you may have already checked this out, but I would highly recommend folks go to another post about Kenosha and listen to a radio interview posted by @OldSchlPunk
This post is under Responsible Citizen or Reckless Vigilante? under the News & Current Events.
Great information and background for the Kenosha war.
Thank you @MikeBKY
Good question, but I would think…charging as an adult is not dependent on age, and the rifle charge would be… but I would like to see MikeBKYs answer.
There is no conflict in charging as an adult and charging with possession of a firearm by a minor. The decision is based on the defendants ability to understand the legal process, to comprehend right from wrong and to assist in their defense.
The people that should go to jail is the Mayor and Governor for just letting this happen! Just like Portland…the Government just packed up and LEFT the country and in danger the community, what did they think was going to happen!!..I agree with Colin Noir’s view at this time…he was not there to be a Vigilante, he was there to protect people and property and the people that got shot were not your law abiding citizens and you can threw that him being 17 with his rifle out the window, like I mentioned the Government & Laws packed up and left!! The kid should win his case if the facts don’t change.
There are a lot of comments on this thread, and I’ll agree with 2 groups of them: (1) there’s not enough info yet, so let’s not rush to judge based on a few seconds of contextless video, and (2) many incidents like this could be avoided if people, innocent or guilty, would just OBEY THE LAWFUL COMMANDS OF A LEO.
I speak from personal experience. When I was a 19-year-old in Texas in the ‘70s, I was working 2 part-time jobs and going to community college in a city on I-20 about 40 miles from my parents’ house. It was about midnight on Friday night. I was tired, I’d just closed the ice cream parlor where I worked part-time by myself, and I was going about 65 mph on the 55 mph interstate (like everyone else). LEO lights pop up in the rear view, so I pull over and roll down my window, thinking about how much I was about to lose paying for a ticket. The next thing I know, I’ve got a LEO on each side of my car, one with a pistol pointed at my head and shouting for me to keep my hands in sight on the wheel. A glance to my right showed the other LEO pointing a shotgun at me. I did as I was told. They got me out of my car, patted me down, got my ID, and started peppering me with questions. Why was I out so late? Where was I going? Where had I been? What was in my car (Mr. Shotgun was already searching it)? Long story short, they had an APB for a “young white male in a little orange car” who had robbed a store, and shot and killed the clerk 50 miles north. The description fit me to a T: 19, Caucasian, driving a Sunkist orange '77 Pontiac Astre (Pontiac version of the infamous Chevy Vega). I think I was about to be cuffed and taken in when their radio canceled the APB, reporting the perp had been captured elsewhere. Both officers (one white and one Black) apologized for scaring me out of my wits, shook my hand, and sent me on my way. I was still shaking when I got home.
The moral of this true story, boys and girls, is DO WHAT YOU’RE TOLD EXACTLY HOW YOU’RE TOLD TO DO IT BY LEOs, ESPECIALLY IF THEY’VE GOT THEIR GUNS DRAWN. I wasn’t the guy they were looking for, but I fit the description and was in the right (or wrong) place at the right (or wrong) time. I’m ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that if I’d twitched the wrong way, they’d have splattered me all over the inside of my car. And under the circumstances, I wouldn’t have blamed them.
Mike,
I know it’s early in the process, but I don’t see this ending up well for this kid. Do you have a prediction for the outcome of this trial?
I just reviewed Wisconsin’s self-defense statute and I think it applies to Rittenhouse’s use of force. I think the firearm charge will be a problem. (Class A misdemeanor with up to $10,000 fine and 9 months in jail.
A DA that actually doesn’t drop a firearms charge. He must be a unicorn.
I just think they are going to want to be able to convict him for something and that is the easy one.
I am curious if Kyle was a USCCA member would USCCA have funded his defense despite him being 17 and carrying in a state requiring you to be 18?