One of the reasons why I follow people who I consider stupid is that they often say stupid things that I never would have thought of and that drives me to do some research on things that hadn't occurred to me.
One of the things that stupid people were shouting for more than a year was that Kyle Rittenhouse lost the right to claim self-defense because he was in illegal possession of a firearm and you can claim self-defense if you're actively committing a crime yourself.
That's not even half true. It's more like 10% true.
This case is a good, recent illustration of the issue because it took place in the same state and the defensive shooter, Enoch Wilson, was in fact in illegal possession of the gun that he used to defend himself at the time.
Now, it's worth clarifying that the partial truth behind the claim that you can't claim self-defense if you yourself are in the process of committing a crime exists if the crime you're committing caused the forceful response. If you're committing an armed robbery and you shoot somebody who is trying to forceably stop you, you can't claim self-defense. Still, it should be clear to anybody with a brain that you don't forfeit the right to claim self-defense if you happened to be jaywalking at the time you were attacked.
It should also be clarified that Rittenhouse wasn't carrying illegally and that the whole argument was legally irrelevant while the "hang Kyle" crowd's hero, Gaige Grosskreutz, was illegally in possession of his firearm and, by their own rhetoric, if Grosskreutz had shot and killed Rittenhouse, the "hang Kyle" crowd should be calling for Grosskreutz's blood. We all know that they wouldn't be because leftism and intellectual honesty aren't compatible.
The reality is that, so long as you meet the standards of innocence, imminence, proportionality, avoidance and reasonableness in direct relation to your defensive actions, you should be justified in the use of defensive force. Obviously, we've learned from Rittenhouse and Alba that there's no level of clear and obvious self-defense that will protect you from having your life destroyed by a bad DA and a mendacious media. Still, the principles are there in theory.
That said, we can go back to Bernie Goetz on this issue. Goetz was carrying a firearm without a permit in New York when he shot four men in self-defense. He was acquitted of any wrongdoing except for the illegal possession of the gun for which he served less than a year in jail.
So, even in insane state like New York, the illegal possession of a firearm doesn't negate the claim of self-defense. If you use a gun that you're not legally allowed to have in a legitimate act of self-defense, you're still possibly facing charges for the illegal possession; but, it's simply wrong to claim that self-defense immediately becomes murder if the weapon used was illegally carried.
Fortunately, it looks like Wilson is facing no charges in this case. He killed a bad person who had already killed somebody and was trying to kill others. I personally don't care that Wilson's permit expired two weeks prior to the incident. I don't even think that he should need a permit to begin with.
Frankly, if you're gonna step in and say that Wilson should be charged, jailed, and lose his job over an expired permit in this case, I question your values.