..Namely, the person demonstrated innocence, imminence, proportionality, and reasonableness as a precursor for defending him or herself.
Still, it seems that the aggressors in these self-defense cases never get charged themselves.
If Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty in regard to shooting Gaige Grosskreutz, which was the correct verdict -- then Gaige Grosskreutz is clearly guilty of coming within an inch of the wrongful killing of Rittenhouse. Still, Gaige Grosskreutz hasn't faced any criminal charges.
I guess, in the case of Grosskreutz, since he testified during the Rittenhouse trial, one could argue that there's a mess of 5th Amendment problems. Still, if Rittenhouse is not guilty, Grosskreutz is guilty.
This is a weird blind spot in regard to self-defense.
Granted, given how bad we are on self-defense cases, and how likely we are to throw people in prison for the rest of their lives for defending themselves, I'll take this blind spot for the time being while we fix the other bullshit.
Still, if a person is found to have used lawful deadly force in self-defense, that means that the attacker was in the process of committing a crime that justified the defender using a gun. That definitely means that the attacker was committing a serious felony, and simply lost the fight.
I've yet to see a case of self-defense wherein the attacker was charged.
That seems weird to me.