This message was self-deleted by its author

[mzmolly]

60. I might buy that nonsense

if the liar had dropped and/or given up his assault weapon. He did not. Thus, he did not retreat. He maintained control of a deadly weapon and pointed it at people prior to being chased. He shot numerous times, to kill those trying to defend themselves.

By your logic, Rittenhouse can walk into a local Wisconsin high-school, point his gun at people and if someone attempts to disarm him, he can legally slaughter them? Bullshit.

Read the article for the portion of the law that pertains to the quote I mentioned above.

Also: 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.

Great bodily harm does not mean you're adverse to a black eye. It means you reasonably fear your life is in immediate danger.

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

Adding: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48/2/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.