If you want to prove your status of ignoramus, keep claiming that Rittenhouse lost his right to claim self-defense because he was allegedly violating a curfew and allegedly illegally carrying a weapon and you can't claim self-defense if you're committing a crime.
Yes, I've looked at the wording of the Wisconsin law that you all are pointing to. The thing is, I looked a little deeper and asked a couple of my lawyer friends to take time out of their days to briefly clarify.
First of all, both the curfew and weapons charges were dismissed due to sheer lack of evidence. Rittenhouse wasn't illegally carrying the gun under Wisconsin law. He didn't transport it across the state border. So, you don't have a leg to stand on there.
Let's pretend that you did. Let's pretend that Rittenhouse was illegally in possession of the gun. Even if you were right, you'd still be wrong.
Before the weapons charge was dismissed, the prosecution still wasn't trying to make the argument that illegal possession of a firearm negated the claim to self-defense. The curfew and weapons charges were supposed to be the slam dunks for the prosecution; but, the evidence was so bad that they never made it to a jury. The prosecution tried to use the curfew and weapons charges as a way to attack Rittenhouse's character and, in the end, after the charges were dismissed, Binger made a false claim that Rittenhouse having a gun, legally or not, negated his right to claim self-defense. Still, the prosecution never made a real attempt to claim that illegal possession of the gun removed the right to claim self-defense.
The distinction regarding when engaging in illegal activity negates your right to claim self-defense actually came up in this trial and that leads me to believe that the people who are still making this claim weren't even paying passive attention. This is actually the whole reason why the prosecution's closing arguments contradicted their opening statements.
The distinction is that the illegal activity has to directly provoke and put in motion the events that lead to the person engaging in that illegal activity using deadly force.
Even if Rittenhouse were illegally carrying the gun, that illegal activity didn't directly provoke Rosenbaum or anybody else for that matter.
After the prosecution realized that they didn't have a case they shifted their focus to an out of focus, dark, grainy image that they alleged showed Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Joshua Ziminski and that illegal action directly provoked Rosenbaum's actions. Notice the difference there?
Of course, the prosecution never came within the ballpark of proving provocation beyond a reasonable doubt, especially since Ziminski was armed and flashing his gun around the whole night himself.
If we took the reading of the law as narrowly, myopically, and incorrectly as the people making this claim are, you could be assaulted while jaywalking, use force to subdue the assailant, and you'd lose your right to claim self-defense because you were committing a crime.