>Let's also compare to Kyle Rittenhouse. Attorneys wanted to use the fact that one of his victims was a sex offender as a defense [3]. There are two possibiliti

>Let's also compare to Kyle Rittenhouse. Attorneys wanted to use the fact that one of his victims was a sex offender as a defense [3]. There are two possibilities here: >1. Rittenhouse didn't know of this, in which case it's immaterial; and >2. Rittenhouse knew, in which case this was a targeted killing (ie murder). >No one is arguing Rittenhouse knew. The whole point here is post facto justification. This is for the court of public opinion and to give the jury something to hang their hat on with an acquittal. That's it. No, the whole point is arguing that Rosenbaum likely instigated the altercation, using his repeated violent behavior in the past as character evidence to show this. If Rittenhouse had instigated the fight then he would have had to additionally prove in court that he attempted to retreat in order for his shooting to be considered self-defense, if Rosenbaum instigated then it remains simple self-defense.