You are absolutely correct and the consequences thereof may not be avoided either as Mr. Rittenhouse is discovering now.
There's no question that actions have consequences.
The problem comes when it's stated or implied that because unwise decisions led to an situation, that actions taken in that situation by the person who made those decisions are therefore illegal, or likely to be illegal.
If a person walks home alone through a crime-ridden neighborhood late at night and is victimized and ends up killing the attacker, the fact that the initial decision was unwise and the consequences were perhaps predictable, doesn't have any bearing on the legality of the attacker's death. The legality of that death will be determined based on the specific circumstances of the actual interaction between the person and the attacker.
The fact that the person chose to do something stupid that resulted in an interaction that could have been avoided by making a different decision is irrelevant unless the specific interaction was instigated by the person. For example, if someone intentionally begins a confrontation with another person (as opposed to just being somewhere it wasn't smart to be) then that fact could possibly be relevant. It won't insure that the person starting the confrontation is in the wrong regardless of how things play out, but it could be a factor.
In fact, a person can even be breaking a law (sort of the ultimate unwise decision) and still have the legal right to self-defense, depending on the circumstances.
The use of a firearm in self defense should only take place when all other options are off the table.
Incorrect. The law does not require a person to exhaust all other options before resorting to deadly force. It only requires a person to exhaust all other REASONABLE options.
All options were not off the table. The young man should have not been there in the first place much less with a firearm.
These two statements do not go together.
The fact that he should or shouldn't have been there and perhaps shouldn't have possessed the firearm doesn't automatically mean he had other reasonable options available to him once he was actually in the situation.
You can't keep going back and back and back until you find a step that the person could have avoided and say that by taking that step they now bear the responsibility for everything that happens thereafter. This would be like saying that if you have a wreck, it's automatically your fault for deciding to go to the grocery store--because if you had stayed home the wreck wouldn't have happened. Or like saying that because a driver cut someone else off in traffic, they are guilty of homicide for the death of a passenger who was shot by another driver in the resulting road rage incident.
I'm a huge fan of avoidance as a valid self-defense strategy. It's way simpler and cheaper and safer than shooting it out. If I had been Kyle, I wouldn't have gone to the riots. If I had been Kyle's parents I wouldn't have allowed him to go to the riots. If I had been a friend, I would have advised him not to go to the riots.
But I absolutely do not agree with the implication that by going, he gave up the right to self-defense. That is simply not correct.
