Kenosha Cowboy – Kyle Rittenhouse

UPDATE 19/11/2021: KYLE RITTENHOUSE CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES AS CNN SIMULTANEOUSLY BACKTRACKS ON MANY LIES.


I used to volunteer in Kenosha.

The riots, this scenario, it hit my heart pretty bad.

Here you have a kid who if we look at the entire story, he was volunteering to help when few would – when the police did nothing but watch it burn, and yet now he faces punishment for what appears to be legal self-defense.

The prosecutor is maliciously making up evidence and being caught in it via the full trial feed, hours long videos that I suggest anyone confused watch in full.

I’ve been following the #RittenhouseTrial since it’s been on the news. Regardless of ruling or whether we individually believe it was legal self defense, there is something else very alarming.

CNN, MSNBC, and ABC all LIED when reporting on this.
Facts Wrong.
Clear Bias.

We need to be careful who is sent to prison over self-defense claims, it will affect how everyone can be affected in self defense legal cases. Trust me when I say, we don’t want the precedent in case law that someone cannot injure an attacker before they harm the victim – it is a cruel ‘eye for an eye’ law which some locations, such as the State of New York, already enforce.

Injuring an attacker further than they have injured you is usually still punishable there in New York – with imprisonment.

In that situation, good luck.

We should not want corrupt police, judges, prosecutors, politicians, FBI, NSA, corporations, or anyone else, taking advantage of our smallness and stealing away our freedoms in a system designed to seize everything from us.

Back to the Kenosha Cowboy…

Regarding the assailants not being referred to as victims by prosecution.

In any trial where self-defense is claimed by the accused, it is common practice to disallow possible attackers from also being known as victims - it is a manipulative way of saying someone is already guilty, when they may not be.

Allowing the prosecution to use this term continually can absolutely implant a belief in someone's head and guide them in the wrong direction. This is also a tactic of Social Engineering, e.g brain hacking.

Gaige Grosskreutz admitted to have no evidence to believe Rittenhouse was a threat, knew Kyle Rittenhouse was going to police (in conversation with Kyle), and still came ran after him at the behest of others. He drew a firearm (handgun carried illegally) and attempted to fire upon Rittenhouse – at which point (kyle) Rittenhouse fired quicker and shot Grosskreutz in his gun-hand’s forearm which destroyed Gaige’s bicep.

To be clear, Gaige is not a paramedic – he was in the past trained to be one but hasn’t been one for years. This same scenario applies to his CCL (Conceal Carry License) – which was expired for over a year. In most states if your license is expired and you are carrying a handgun, you will go to prison if police catch you.

Gaige openly admits in court he lied to police, and lied to the court on a number of occasions.

The prosecutor maliciously concocts evidence, rekindling even the theory that War Games (First Person Shooter Video games) inspire gun violence and essentially blames call of duty for Kyle being blood thirsty or similar language.

It’s been a wild ride.

The prosecutor should have been placed under arrest for maliciously trying to convict someone who, given the evidence, even the judge admits none of it points toward guilt. All of the evidence provided by the prosecution (when it is not a proven lie), pushes over the top that Kyle was in fact the victim of multiple attackers.

The Judge and overall procedure has been mostly by the book for Self-Defense cases.
On the other hand, the prosecutor shows how evil government can be – and the judge reveals how naive those of kind hearts will remain, even in the face of overwhelming and brazen lies.

It is sickening.
Regardless of beliefs on if Kyle Rittenhouse is Guilty or Innocent, we cannot allow legal precedent itself to be smeared as that can affect anyone else in a self-defense case. Someone on trial shouldn’t worry if proved innocent that a mob will show up and hang them along with the jury.

The fact that the judge has been told about an occasion where people tried to film the jury when they went into the courtroom, for the sake of recording identities – is alarming and shows how the trial is only a show to appease would-be-rioters.

As is mentioned in this cited opinion piece, many criticize Kyle Rittenhouse for the open carrying of an AR-15 Semi-Automatic Hunting Rifle. While I agree, that was not the optimal decision – one must consider the law.

Wisconsin and Illinois law forbids anyone underage from carrying or possessing a concealed handgun, which ironically, would have been safer because it would prevent visually others from seeing him with a gun that they believed they could steal from him – and do who knows what with.

That in of itself is a conundrum if one is not permitted to carry a safer and more effective method of self-defense, instead Kyle was forced to abide by both state’s laws and only carry a provided Hunting Rifle (AR-15) which anyone over the age of 16 is legally allowed to carry openly in most circumstances (even outside of hunting.)

(note: this is reported erroneously in the opinion piece below from MSNBC, and the judge already provided the jury written commands on the illegal carrying of a weapon – that it was not so and will not be allowed a conviction.)

Rittenhouse testified Wednesday that he went to the scene only to protect property and offer first aid. It seems like those tasks could have been accomplished with nothing more than his physical presence and a medical bag. Instead, Rittenhouse openly carried an AR-style semi-automatic rifle.

Rittenhouse is charged with shooting and killing two men and wounding another. In addition, he is charged with reckless endangerment for firing his weapon at someone allegedly while a reporter stood close by and for illegal possession of a firearm because he was under the age of 18 at the time.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-s-trial-verdict-hinges-wisconsin-s-self-defense-n1283806

Prosecution went on to argue that someone ‘pulling a gun and aiming it point blank at another individual’ did not meet the requirements for someone to shoot in self-defense. This is alarming because, if this is true, that means virtually no one has the right to defend themselves in anyway from anyone!

The reason self-defense law exists is so that, one is not prosecuted or held for murder, in the event that someone else tries to harm you in ways that could result up to and including death. Generally, almost any state’s self-defense law dictates that if one is afraid the action another takes on them will result in death, they may resort to likened measures.

Some states go even further and have either a Castle doctrine (allowing the self-defense shooting of home invaders or car break-ins while you one is inside), allow the defense of another if they are in mortal danger, or even laws specific to property theft.

The law matters.

Prosecutors and Federal Agents, Police, none of them should be allowed to lie and not be held personally liable – or better yet, charged – when they maliciously try to lock another human being away without cause or evidence.

Wisconsin’s self-defense law allows someone to use deadly force only if “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.” The jury must decide whether Rittenhouse believed he was in such peril and whether that belief was reasonable under the circumstances.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-live-defense-to-continue-its-case-will-teen-take-the-stand/2679441/

Given Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked at least in once circumstance by multiple assailants with weapons, it would be laughable to say he was not concerned of great bodily harm. To be clear, it is a crime to point a gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot. This means, even if Gaige Grosskreutz believed Kyle Rittenhouse was a threat – when he claims he was not going to shoot the young man who had not shot anyone visibly in Gaige’s line of sight, Gaige violated the law by threatening him with a handgun.

Gaige unfortunately listened to the mob and with the other man who is now dead, a skater who slammed his board into Kyle’s head, they attacked Kyle on the basis of what others told them – rather than actual evidence of wrongdoing by Kyle Rittenhouse. This unfortunately is a crime as well, as only one party can be privy to self-defense law; and it isn’t Grosskreutz and the skateboard-man who was shot and killed (after hitting Kyle in the face with a skateboard).

I highly recommend watching the Trial in its entirety to see what the News Companies have been lying to you about.

It is shocking.

Eye opening.

Horrifying.

Long trial.
This is not how the government should be treating it’s people.

Note: other useful links below: self-defense law information worth reading.

November 2nd 2021
November 5th 2021 – WI v. Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Day 4 – On The Stand – Ofc. Pep Moretti – Kenosha PD
November 8th 2021 – Day 5
November 10th 2021 – Defense Testimony
November 11th 2021

November 12th 2021
Gaige Grosskreutz – lied on Police Report
Judge argues with the Prosecutor – yelling at him for violating multiple precedents in ‘basic law’ for 40-50 years. Attorneys I am familiar with have indicated this prosecutor is lucky not to face charges, and that he should know the law(s) / precedents he is violating. Quite Alarming.

Useful Links

WISCONSIN

Three Common Self-Defense Considerations

Duty to Retreat. Wisconsin does not impose a “duty to retreat” on the public, but a defendant’s ability to retreat from the situation prior to the use of deadly force will often be considered in self-defense cases, particularly if the defendant was the instigator. Juries are often asked to consider whether the use of deadly force was the only option left available to the defendant or if the defendant had an opportunity to remove themselves from the situation, i.e. retreat, before it escalated. If the defendant did have an ability to retreat and did not do so, a jury is less likely to accept the self-defense argument.

The Castle Doctrine. Wisconsin has the Castle Doctrine rule, which falls into self-defense laws. The Castle Doctrine applies if a person is on their own property, such as a home, vehicle, or place of business, and uses deadly force against an intruder. In order for this self-defense argument to work, the intruder must have been present on the property after unlawfully and forcibly entering it. The Castle Doctrine cannot be used against an invited guest, for example. The Castle Doctrine also does not apply if the property owner pursues the intruder off of the property.

Stand Your Ground Laws. Stand Your Ground laws are similar to the Castle Doctrine in that they both apply to the use of deadly force on private property. As long as you have a legal right to be in that location, were not the instigator, and don’t provoke the confrontation, and the other party continues to threaten you, you are within your rights to use deadly force under Stand Your Ground laws. The difference between Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine is location. The Castle Doctrine requires the intruder to be inside the property; Stand Your Ground laws do not. Intruders can be outside of homes, businesses, or vehicles. The wrench in this self-defense argument is that Wisconsin does not have a Stand Your Ground law. However, the defense argument can be made that the victim was simply protecting themselves in fear of their life.

https://www.eisenberglaw.org/self-defense-laws-in-wisconsin-common-self-defense-tactics/

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.

(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

(1m) 

(a) In this subsection:

1. “Dwelling” has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).

2. “Place of business” means a business that the actor owns or operates.

(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:

1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.

2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.

2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:

a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.

b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person’s assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.

(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person’s intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.

(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.

(6) In this section “unlawful” means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

History: 1987 a. 399; 1993 a. 486; 2005 a. 253; 2011 a. 94.

Judicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (3) is amended by conforming references to the statute titles as affected by this bill. [Bill 191-S]

When a defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot or use force, he could not claim self-defense. Cleghorn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 466, 198 N.W.2d 577 (1972).

Sub. (2) (b) is inapplicable to a defendant if the nature of the initial provocation is a gun-in-hand confrontation of an intended victim by a self-identified robber. Under these circumstances the intended victim is justified in the use of force in the exercise of the right of self-defense. Ruff v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 713, 223 N.W.2d 446 (1974).

Whether a defendant’s belief was reasonable under subs. (1) and (4) depends, in part, upon the parties’ personal characteristics and histories and whether events were continuous. State v. Jones, 147 Wis. 2d 806, 434 N.W.2d 380 (1989).

Evidence of prior specific instances of violence that were known to the accused may be presented to support a defense of self-defense. The evidence is not limited to the accused’s own testimony, but the evidence may not be extended to the point that it is being offered to prove that the victim acted in conformity with his or her violent tendencies. State v. Daniels, 160 Wis. 2d 85, 465 N.W.2d 633 (1991).

Imperfect self-defense contains an initial threshold element requiring a reasonable belief that the defendant was terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person. State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).

The reasonableness of a person’s belief under sub. (1) is judged from the position of a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence in the same situation as the defendant, not a person identical to the defendant placed in the same situation as the defendant. A defendant’s psycho-social history showing past violence toward the defendant is generally not relevant to this objective standard, although it may be relevant, as in spousal abuse cases, where the actors are the homicide victim and defendant. State v. Hampton, 207 Wis. 2d 369, 558 N.W.2d 884 (Ct. App. 1996).

The right to resist unlawful arrest is not part of the statutory right to self-defense. It is a common law privilege that is abrogated. State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), 96-0914.

While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person. A jury instruction to that effect was proper. State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1739.

When a defendant fails to establish a factual basis to raise self-defense, prior specific acts of violence by the victim have no probative value. The presentation of subjective testimony by an accused, going to a belief that taking steps in self-defense was necessary, is not sufficient for the admission of self-defense evidence. State v. Head, 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9, 99-3071.

Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.

A defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of 1st-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A defendant asserting the defense of unnecessary defensive force s. 940.01 (2) (b) to a charge of 1st-degree murder is not required to satisfy the objective threshold showing. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.

When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state’s burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 801 informs the jury that it “should consider the evidence relating to self-defense in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct created an unreasonable risk to another. If the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, [his] conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another.” This instruction implies that the defendant must satisfy the jury that the defendant was acting in self-defense and removes the burden of proof from the state to show that the defendant was engaged in criminally reckless conduct. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.

When the circuit court instructed the jury to “consider the evidence relating to … defense of others, in deciding whether defendant’s conduct created an unreasonable risk…. If the defendant was acting lawfully in defense of others, his conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another,” the instruction on the state’s burden of proof on defendant’s defense of others defense was wholly omitted and the instructions were erroneous. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.

Sub. (1m) does not justify continued use of deadly force against an intruder when that intruder is no longer in the actor’s dwelling. The applicable definition of the actor’s dwelling, s. 895.07 (1) (h), requires that the part of the lot or site in question be “devoted to residential use.” While s. 895.07 (1) (h) lists several parts of a residential lot that are part of a “dwelling,” it does not include a parking lot. The common denominator of the listed parts of dwellings is that all are property over which the actor has exclusive control. An apartment building parking lot is not exclusive to one tenant or devoted to the residential use of any one tenant. State v. Chew, 2014 WI App 116, 358 Wis. 2d 368, 856 N.W.2d 541, 13-2592.

Wisconsin law establishes a low bar that the accused must surmount to be entitled to a jury instruction on the privilege of self-defense. The accused need produce only “some evidence” in support of the privilege of self-defense. State v. Stietz, 2017 WI 58, 369 Wis. 2d 222, 880 N.W.2d 182, 14-2701.

The jury instruction for self-defense in this case was not erroneous. The circuit court gave the jury a general instruction on the state’s burden to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because self-defense is a negative defense, the state disproves self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt if the state proves the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically criminal negligence. Therefore, the jury was aware that the state had to prove criminal negligence—the element that self-defense would negate—beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Langlois, 2018 WI 73, 382 Wis. 2d 414, 913 N.W.2d 812, 16-1409.

A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one’s self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F.2d 79 (1975).

Self-defense — prior acts of the victim. 1974 WLR 266.

State v. Camacho: The Judicial Creation of an Objective Element to Wisconsin’s Law of Imperfect Self-defense Homicide. Leiser. 1995 WLR 742.

Home Safe Home: Wisconsin’s Castle Doctrine and Trespasser Liability Laws. Hinkston. Wis. Law. June 2013.

939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.

(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person’s property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one’s property.

(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person’s property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person’s property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant’s employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.

939.49(3) (3) In this section “unlawful” means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

History: 1979 c. 245; 1981 c. 270; 1993 a. 486.

Sub. (1) is a defense to criminal liability. It is irrelevant to the issue of whether the emergency doctrine can apply in a civil action to excuse a party’s contributory negligence. Kelly v. Berg, 2015 WI App 69, 365 Wis. 2d 83, 870 N.W.2d 481, 14-1346.

Flight on the part of one suspected of a felony does not, of itself, warrant the use of deadly force by an arresting officer, and it is only in certain aggravated circumstances that a police officer may shoot a fleeing suspect. Clark v. Ziedonis, 368 F. Supp. 544 (1973).

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

ILLINOIS

Statute:
(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

Self-Defense & Defense of Others

Under Illinois Law 720 ILCS 5/Art. 7-1, a “person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.”  The elements necessary to prove that your actions were justified are as follows:

1) Belief that the force used is necessary:  This means your interpretation of the situation is reasonable and that someone in a similar situation would also believe that your or someone else is about to be harmed.

2) Amount of force used is reasonable under the circumstances:  This speaks to the degree of force used.  You must only defend yourself to the extent necessary, meaning you are only justified in using lethal force if someone is about to kill you or cause you great bodily harm.  For example, it would not be justified to shoot someone who is unarmed, but threatening to punch you.  The use of force in this situation is out of proportion to the threat being made.

3) Defense must be against unlawful force:  This means that you cannot use force against someone who is not breaking the law.  For example, you cannot attack someone in self-defense who is yelling at you.  It may be really annoying, aggravating, and even scary, but a verbal confrontation is not unlawful force according to Illinois law.

Defense of Property

Under Article 7-2 of the same law, you are allowed to defend a home or other property (owned by either you, an immediate family member, or member of your household) to the extent necessary to protect it.  The same basic principles apply to the defense of home or property, it must be based on a reasonable belief that force is imminent and your defense has to be in proportion to the force you are protecting against.

When defending your home, deadly force is only allowed to prevent a felony form occurring in the home or if the forced entry is violent and you reasonably believe such force is necessary to prevent an assault on you or someone else in the home.  When defending other property, deadly force is only justified to prevent a forcible felony.

These laws are not available to you if you are the aggressor.  This means you cannot start a fight then claim you were defending yourself by finishing it.  There are very narrow circumstances where the aggressor can claim self-defense, but only where he has tried everything he can to get away without using force.

Life is precious.  You are allowed to protect it, but the law has to draw lines somewhere.  Be sure you consult a qualified Illinois Criminal Defense Attorney if you are ever involved in a violent crime so ensure you receive the best defense.

https://www.eisenberglaw.org/self-defense-laws-in-wisconsin-common-self-defense-tactics/

TEXAS

https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/handgun-licensing/faq/laws-relate-carrying-handgun-faqs

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-31.html

Texas Penal Code – PENAL § 9.31. Self-Defense

Current as of April 14, 2021 | Updated by FindLaw Staff

Search Texas Statutes

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.  The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;  or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;  and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter;  and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;  or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor’s differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02 ;  or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05 .

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;  and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32 , 9.33 , and 9.34 .

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-31.html

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.