Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Galloism wrote:I may have been wrong about Wisconsin's duty to retreat, or he is.
He says the act of retreating "resets" the status of initiator of force. If the initiator tries to run, someone who pursues them becomes the initiator of any further violence.
I thought there might be some legitimacy in chasing Rittenhouse to capture or restrain him, but it seems there's not. In retrospect that's fair enough: you shouldn't have to trust the good intentions of some other civilian who says all they want is to disarm and capture you. And particularly with a group of people (any one of them could harm you when you're captured).
I don't think you got it wrong. I think the duty to retreat still applies (where possible) but it applies to everyone, initiator or victim. Which would be good, considering in a lot of confrontations both sides think "the other one started it".
So here is how citizen's arrest and self defense interact. There may have been an argument that a citizen's arrest of Rittenhouse would be reasonable. However, there is no duty to submit to a citizen's arrest, so that would not remove his right to defend himself. It is also unlikely they would view that as a citizen's arrest as the audio is more along the lines of beat his ass, get him and not hey you stop until the police get here.









