Once again Mikey you are wrong.

1.  Just for the sake of playing along with your fantasy let's take a look at the first part.  First, openly carrying a loaded firearm is not likely to provoke an attack (unless the attacker is a complete idiot).  The fact that he is underage at this point is irrelevant because it is possible that he was legally carrying the firearm (it's not known at this point).  Violating curfew is not likely to provoke an attack.  Let me remind you that the attacker(s) were violating the same order (not a law).  So that throws your whole theory of him "being limited" in how he defends himself is out.

The "man" caught up to him and was attempting to take his firearm from him.  The "man" was violent and demonstrated that by attempting to destroy more property.  The "man" attempted to assault him already by throwing an object at him.  This happened as he was trying to get away.  I'm sure that even a weaker person like you would believe that you were in imminent danger of bodily harm or death. He had every right to defend himself.

2.  He never provoked the attack(s) on him with unlawful conduct.  The first attack was because he put a fire out.  The second attack was because the peaceful protesters rioters were going after him and attempting to cause great bodily harm to him.

No matter how you attempt to spin it with your fantasy, the young man was justified in using whatever means necessary to protect himself.

Try to convince a jury otherwise.

1) I said the combination of the two together is provocative.  Both are unlawful on their own, but neither is provocative on its own.  The combination together indicated he was looking for trouble.
2) The man who threw something at him, never touched him. The bolded text is you making an assumption without justification.  But we're getting closer to the real problem with his behavior.

1.  Other video evidence including an interview with him along with testimony proves otherwise.  In fact he indicated in his interview that he had his firearm for protection, but his real reason for being there was to provide first aid and showed his "medic pack".  "Looking for trouble" is just part of your fantasy.

2.  The part about the "man" attempting to take his firearm came from eyewitness testimony.  Either way the fact of the matter is that a "man" that had already demonstrated that he was violent was chasing him and had the intent to cause bodily harm to him is enough.

Again, play your "fantasy lawyer" game and prove to a jury otherwise.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

1) No, there was more unlawful conduct than mere firearms possession.  The first unlawful conduct was openly carrying a loaded firearm while underage. The second was violating curfew.  These two together are likely to provoke attack, although neither is provocative by itself.  Then you have where he unloaded 5 rounds into someone who was not imminently threatening him with great bodily harm, while he had better options to de-escalate with that man.  You guys keep on brushing past that point - why does this shooter get to assume that the man who hasn't touched him yet is imminently going to cause him great bodily harm? 

2) Now you're cherry-picking.  Yes, he was privileged to act in self defense, but, because he had provoked the attack with prior unlawful conduct, his privilege is reduced in two ways.  One is he can only defend himself if he believes he's in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; before he could defend himself from any harm.  And now he can only use lethal force if all other means of ending the threat are exhausted.  Before, he was only obligated to try to escape, not to use non-lethal weapons he may have.

(3) He  chased him, threw a projectile at him, and then went after his rifle there J-Dub. (4) The others chased him down and were beating him while he was on the ground. You trying to spin it any other way just shows your desire to be the King Contrarian.

Is chasing an imminent threat of great bodily harm? No.
Is throwing a projectile (and missing badly) an imminent threat of great bodily harm? No.
Neither is.
These only become threats because of the possible outcome where the gun gets taken away.
If he had not provoked the attack via unlawful conduct, he would be allowed to defend himself with lethal force (shoot the gun) after making a reasonable effort to retreat (which he did).  
But because he provoked both attacks with unlawful conduct, his privilege is reduced, and he must also exhaust all non-lethal means of defending himself or ending the confrontation.
He had options.  He could have ejected the clip, and held it out, showing the man he's not going to shoot.  If that didn't work, he could have and thown it at the guy; after all that guy threw something at him.  If that didn't work, at least he's now eliminated the possibility that the rifle will be used to shoot him, so he should feel free to use either end of the rifle as a club.

---

1) I said the combination of the two together is provocative.  Both are unlawful on their own, but neither is provocative on its own.  The combination together indicated he was looking for trouble.
2) The man who threw something at him, never touched him. The bolded text is you making an assumption without justification.  But we're getting closer to the real problem with his behavior.

1.  Other video evidence including an interview with him along with testimony proves otherwise.  In fact he indicated in his interview that he had his firearm for protection, but his real reason for being there was to provide first aid and showed his "medic pack".  "Looking for trouble" is just part of your fantasy.

2.  The part about the "man" attempting to take his firearm came from eyewitness testimony.  Either way the fact of the matter is that a "man" that had already demonstrated that he was violent was chasing him and had the intent to cause bodily harm to him is enough.

Again, play your "fantasy lawyer" game and prove to a jury otherwise.

The people who engaged him that night hadn't seen those interviews.  They see a snot nosed kid with a rifle strapped to his front.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

(3) He  chased him, threw a projectile at him, and then went after his rifle there J-Dub. (4) The others chased him down and were beating him while he was on the ground. You trying to spin it any other way just shows your desire to be the King Contrarian.

Is chasing an imminent threat of great bodily harm? No.
Is throwing a projectile (and missing badly) an imminent threat of great bodily harm? No.
Neither is.
These only become threats because of the possible outcome where the gun gets taken away.
If he had not provoked the attack via unlawful conduct, he would be allowed to defend himself with lethal force (shoot the gun) after making a reasonable effort to retreat (which he did).  
But because he provoked both attacks with unlawful conduct, his privilege is reduced, and he must also exhaust all non-lethal means of defending himself or ending the confrontation.
He had options.  He could have ejected the clip, and held it out, showing the man he's not going to shoot.  If that didn't work, he could have and thown it at the guy; after all that guy threw something at him.  If that didn't work, at least he's now eliminated the possibility that the rifle will be used to shoot him, so he should feel free to use either end of the rifle as a club.

---

1.  Other video evidence including an interview with him along with testimony proves otherwise.  In fact he indicated in his interview that he had his firearm for protection, but his real reason for being there was to provide first aid and showed his "medic pack".  "Looking for trouble" is just part of your fantasy.

2.  The part about the "man" attempting to take his firearm came from eyewitness testimony.  Either way the fact of the matter is that a "man" that had already demonstrated that he was violent was chasing him and had the intent to cause bodily harm to him is enough.

Again, play your "fantasy lawyer" game and prove to a jury otherwise.

The people who engaged him that night hadn't seen those interviews.  They see a snot nosed kid with a rifle strapped to his front.

I know you are struggling right now, but it's going to be ok. To answer all of your concerns, the answer is "yes", being chased by a man who was yelling at you and throwing things at you absolutely, positively causes a person to be in fear of imminent bodily harm. Everything else that you put out there after that one fact is just your normal attempt to be special.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

(3) He  chased him, threw a projectile at him, and then went after his rifle there J-Dub. (4) The others chased him down and were beating him while he was on the ground. You trying to spin it any other way just shows your desire to be the King Contrarian.

Is chasing an imminent threat of great bodily harm? No.
Is throwing a projectile (and missing badly) an imminent threat of great bodily harm? No.
Neither is.
These only become threats because of the possible outcome where the gun gets taken away.
If he had not provoked the attack via unlawful conduct, he would be allowed to defend himself with lethal force (shoot the gun) after making a reasonable effort to retreat (which he did).  
But because he provoked both attacks with unlawful conduct, his privilege is reduced, and he must also exhaust all non-lethal means of defending himself or ending the confrontation.
He had options.  He could have ejected the clip, and held it out, showing the man he's not going to shoot.  If that didn't work, he could have and thown it at the guy; after all that guy threw something at him.  If that didn't work, at least he's now eliminated the possibility that the rifle will be used to shoot him, so he should feel free to use either end of the rifle as a club.

---

1.  Other video evidence including an interview with him along with testimony proves  otherwise.  In fact he indicated in his interview that he had his firearm for protection, but his real reason for being there was to provide first aid and showed his "medic pack".  "Looking for trouble" is just part of your fantasy.

2.  The part about the "man" attempting to take his firearm came from eyewitness testimony.  Either way the fact of the matter is that a "man" that had already demonstrated that he was violent was chasing him and had the intent to cause bodily harm to him is enough.

Again, play your "fantasy lawyer" game and prove to a jury otherwise.

The people who engaged him that night hadn't seen those interviews.  They see a snot nosed kid with a rifle strapped to his front.

Regarding the first part in bold, he did not provoke the attack via unlawful conduct (unless putting a fire out in a dumpster is somehow against the law).

Second, your "possibilities" as far as what he could have done has gone off the stupid scale.  Throwing the "clip" at an attacker looking to cause physical harm to you?  Seriously?  Use a rifle as a "club"?

 

I need to save this post for future comedy.  Throw the "clip" at an attacker.     I'm literally LOL'ing.  Even my wife who is not real gun savvy mentioned to me "does he mean the magazine?".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Regarding the first part in bold, he did not provoke the attack via unlawful conduct (unless putting a fire out in a dumpster is somehow against the law).

Second, your "possibilities" as far as what he could have done has gone off the stupid scale.  Throwing the "clip" at an attacker looking to cause physical harm to you?  Seriously?  Use a rifle as a "club"?

 

I need to save this post for future comedy.  Throw the "clip" at an attacker.     I'm literally LOL'ing.  Even my wife who is not real gun savvy mentioned to me "does he mean the magazine?".

The fact that he even typed it should be all the affirmation needed to let everyone know the level of intellect your dealing with concerning his posts. Absolutely comical.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Is chasing an imminent threat of great bodily harm? No.
Is throwing a projectile (and missing badly) an imminent threat of great bodily harm? No.
Neither is.
These only become threats because of the possible outcome where the gun gets taken away.
If he had not provoked the attack via unlawful conduct, he would be allowed to defend himself with lethal force (shoot the gun) after making a reasonable effort to retreat (which he did).  
But because he provoked both attacks with unlawful conduct, his privilege is reduced, and he must also exhaust all non-lethal means of defending himself or ending the confrontation.
He had options.  He could have ejected the clip, and held it out, showing the man he's not going to shoot.  If that didn't work, he could have and thown it at the guy; after all that guy threw something at him.  If that didn't work, at least he's now eliminated the possibility that the rifle will be used to shoot him, so he should feel free to use either end of the rifle as a club.

---

The people who engaged him that night hadn't seen those interviews.  They see a snot nosed kid with a rifle strapped to his front.

Regarding the first part in bold, he did not provoke the attack via unlawful conduct (unless putting a fire out in a dumpster is somehow against the law).

Second, your "possibilities" as far as what he could have done has gone off the stupid scale.  Throwing the "clip" at an attacker looking to cause physical harm to you?  Seriously?  Use a rifle as a "club"?

 

I need to save this post for future comedy.  Throw the "clip" at an attacker.     I'm literally LOL'ing.  Even my wife who is not real gun savvy mentioned to me "does he mean the magazine?".

a police officer should be a little bit nicer to a civilian who doesn't use the same terminology as him, especially when that officer clearly understands what the civilian is trying to say about the parts of guns.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand what I'm saying about the law. You're only there to catch and detain the people who cause trouble and report on what you saw. And you don't ever envision using a firearm as anything other than a firearm. You shouldn't have to. That's fine.  
But if you were the prosecutor, or a member of a jury, you absolutely would have to ask these kinds of questions. 
If he simply ejects his *magazine* at the beginning of the confrontation, all threat to life on either side is over. 
I know it sounds silly. 
It is an unusual situation. If his presence there was provocative, but lawful, the law wouldn't work out this way. If his presence there was unlawful, but also unprovocative, the law wouldn't work out this way. But as it stands, his presence was both unlawful and provocative, ergo his obligation to end the confrontation by the least meet lethal means possible never ended.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Regarding the first part in bold, he did not provoke the attack via unlawful conduct (unless putting a fire out in a dumpster is somehow against the law).

Second, your "possibilities" as far as what he could have done has gone off the stupid scale.  Throwing the "clip" at an attacker looking to cause physical harm to you?  Seriously?  Use a rifle as a "club"?

 

I need to save this post for future comedy.  Throw the "clip" at an attacker.     I'm literally LOL'ing.  Even my wife who is not real gun savvy mentioned to me "does he mean the magazine?".

a police officer should be a little bit nicer to a civilian who doesn't use the same terminology as him, especially when that officer clearly understands what the civilian is trying to say.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand what I'm saying. You're only there to catch and detain the people who cause trouble and report on what you saw. And you don't ever envision using a firearm as anything other than a firearm. You shouldn't have to. That's fine.  
But if you were the prosecutor, or a member of a jury, you absolutely would have to ask these kinds of questions. 
If he simply ejects his *magazine* at the beginning of the confrontation, all threat to life on either side is over. 
I know it sounds silly. 
It is an unusual situation. If his presence there was provocative, but lawful, the law wouldn't work out this way. If his presence there was unlawful, but also unprovocative, the law wouldn't work out this way. But as it stands, his presence was both unlawful and provocative, ergo his obligation to end the confrontation by the least meet lethal means possible never ended.

LOL.  Please don't stop posting.  I haven't had this good of a laugh in a long time.

For the record, I am not a police officer.  I was back before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye (late 1980's).

Regarding the part in bold.  Do you think that a convicted felon causing property damage and pursuing a clearly armed person is going to stop because the armed person ejects the magazine from his weapon?  Is all threat to life on either side really over?  

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Regarding the first part in bold, he did not provoke the attack via unlawful conduct (unless putting a fire out in a dumpster is somehow against the law).

Second, your "possibilities" as far as what he could have done has gone off the stupid scale.  Throwing the "clip" at an attacker looking to cause physical harm to you?  Seriously?  Use a rifle as a "club"?

 

I need to save this post for future comedy.  Throw the "clip" at an attacker.     I'm literally LOL'ing.  Even my wife who is not real gun savvy mentioned to me "does he mean the magazine?".

The fact that he even typed it should be all the affirmation needed to let everyone know the level of intellect your dealing with concerning his posts. Absolutely comical.

The self-portrait you use for your posts is just as much a fair warning for the level of intellect we are dealing with.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

A grown man chases down a kid with a loaded gun, I’m sure he’s just going to back off and leave him alone once he disarms himself. Seems completely reasonable.

I’ve read some silly crap on this board before, but that one takes the cake.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

a police officer should be a little bit nicer to a civilian who doesn't use the same terminology as him, especially when that officer clearly understands what the civilian is trying to say.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand what I'm saying. You're only there to catch and detain the people who cause trouble and report on what you saw. And you don't ever envision using a firearm as anything other than a firearm. You shouldn't have to. That's fine.  
But if you were the prosecutor, or a member of a jury, you absolutely would have to ask these kinds of questions. 
If he simply ejects his *magazine* at the beginning of the confrontation, all threat to life on either side is over. 
I know it sounds silly. 
It is an unusual situation. If his presence there was provocative, but lawful, the law wouldn't work out this way. If his presence there was unlawful, but also unprovocative, the law wouldn't work out this way. But as it stands, his presence was both unlawful and provocative, ergo his obligation to end the confrontation by the least meet lethal means possible never ended.

LOL.  Please don't stop posting.  I haven't had this good of a laugh in a long time.

For the record, I am not a police officer.  I was back before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye (late 1980's).

Regarding the part in bold.  Do you think that a convicted felon causing property damage and pursuing a clearly armed person is going to stop because the armed person ejects the magazine from his weapon?  Is all threat to life on either side really over?  

I was born in the first half of the 1980s.

Your question is not really relevant to the law. the man might keep charging him, and even try to tackle him and start beating him, but if there is no magazine, and nothing in the chamber, the threat of death or great bodily harm is greatly reduced. Almost eliminated.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

LOL.  Please don't stop posting.  I haven't had this good of a laugh in a long time.

For the record, I am not a police officer.  I was back before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye (late 1980's).

Regarding the part in bold.  Do you think that a convicted felon causing property damage and pursuing a clearly armed person is going to stop because the armed person ejects the magazine from his weapon?  Is all threat to life on either side really over?  

I was born in the first half of the 1980s.

Your question is not really relevant to the law. the man might keep charging him, and even try to tackle him and start beating him, but if there is no magazine, and nothing in the chamber, the threat of death or great bodily harm is greatly reduced. Almost eliminated.

To the perpetrator, not to the kid that’s getting beaten! Are you really this dense, or are you trying to punk the board with this stupid argument???

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

I was born in the first half of the 1980s.

Your question is not really relevant to the law. the man might keep charging him, and even try to tackle him and start beating him, but if there is no magazine, and nothing in the chamber, the threat of death or great bodily harm is greatly reduced. Almost eliminated.

To the perpetrator, not to the kid that’s getting beaten! Are you really this dense, or are you trying to punk the board with this stupid argument???

Whynotboth.jpg

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I was born in the first half of the 1980s.

Your question is not really relevant to the law. the man might keep charging him, and even try to tackle him and start beating him, but if there is no magazine, and nothing in the chamber, the threat of death or great bodily harm is greatly reduced. Almost eliminated.

To the perpetrator, not to the kid that’s getting beaten! Are you really this dense, or are you trying to punk the board with this stupid argument???

To both of them.
it is possible to kill somebody with one punch, but it's a lot less likely than killing them with one gunshot. Ergo, the threat is greatly reduced.
I'm afraid you're being dense, not me. You guys keep misunderstanding what I'm trying to tell you. This is a weird situation, and it doesn't work out like you would think.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

To the perpetrator, not to the kid that’s getting beaten! Are you really this dense, or are you trying to punk the board with this stupid argument???

To both of them.
it is possible to kill somebody with one punch, but it's a lot less likely than killing them with one gunshot. Ergo, the threat is greatly reduced.
I'm afraid you're being dense, not me. You guys keep misunderstanding what I'm trying to tell you. This is a weird situation, and it doesn't work out like you would think.

No one is understanding you’re not making sense! If the guy is going to beat him, which you admit is going to happen, THE KID IS DEFENDING HIMSELF!!!! You know, self defense!

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

To both of them.
it is possible to kill somebody with one punch, but it's a lot less likely than killing them with one gunshot. Ergo, the threat is greatly reduced.
I'm afraid you're being dense, not me. You guys keep misunderstanding what I'm trying to tell you. This is a weird situation, and it doesn't work out like you would think.

No one is understanding you’re not making sense! If the guy is going to beat him, which you admit is going to happen, THE KID IS DEFENDING HIMSELF!!!! You know, self defense!

Wisconsin law says that he has to have no possible escape before he uses lethal force. It's not a "stand your ground" state.  Further, because his unlawful behavior up to that point falls under the statute I cited, he additionally has to exhaust all reasonable non-lethal means of resolving or ending the conflict before using lethal force.  Usually the law doesn't work like that.  Usually you can use lethal force when you believe your life is in danger.  But not in this particular case in this particular state.  I'm not saying this is ethical.  I'm saying this is what the law says.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No one is understanding you’re not making sense! If the guy is going to beat him, which you admit is going to happen, THE KID IS DEFENDING HIMSELF!!!! You know, self defense!

Wisconsin law says that he has to have no possible escape before he uses lethal force. It's not a "stand your ground" state.  Further, because his unlawful behavior up to that point falls under the statute I cited, he additionally has to exhaust all reasonable non-lethal means of resolving or ending the conflict before using lethal force.  Usually the law doesn't work like that.  Usually you can use lethal force when you believe your life is in danger.  But not in this particular case in this particular state.  I'm not saying this is ethical.  I'm saying this is what the law says.

What part of "he was running" means "standing his ground" in that odd bizarro world you inhabit?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Wisconsin law says that he has to have no possible escape before he uses lethal force. It's not a "stand your ground" state.  Further, because his unlawful behavior up to that point falls under the statute I cited, he additionally has to exhaust all reasonable non-lethal means of resolving or ending the conflict before using lethal force.  Usually the law doesn't work like that.  Usually you can use lethal force when you believe your life is in danger.  But not in this particular case in this particular state.  I'm not saying this is ethical.  I'm saying this is what the law says.

What part of "he was running" means "standing his ground" in that odd bizarro world you inhabit?

"These aren't the facts you're looking for"

---

Wisconsin law says that he has to have no possible escape before he uses lethal force. It's not a "stand your ground" state.  Further, because his unlawful behavior up to that point falls under the statute I cited, he additionally has to exhaust all reasonable non-lethal means of resolving or ending the conflict before using lethal force.  Usually the law doesn't work like that.  Usually you can use lethal force when you believe your life is in danger.  But not in this particular case in this particular state.  I'm not saying this is ethical.  I'm saying this is what the law says.

What part of "he was running" means "standing his ground" in that odd bizarro world you inhabit?

He was obligated both to run and also lost his privilege "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."

Plastic bag man was not a risk of death or great bodily harm unless he managed to get the gun.  Drop the magazine, discharge what's in the chamber into the ground, and the threat posed by plastic bag man is reduced to minor bodily harm instead of "great".

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Taking the bullets out of the gun would be the dumbest possible thing you could do there lol

---

Taking the bullets out of the gun would be the dumbest possible thing you could do there lol

Each time you make a dumb choice, your best possible future choices get dumber and dumber.
Taking the bullets out might have given him some broken bones at worst, but he wouldn't have gotten arrested, and he wouldn't be facing charges.
He chose the old "better tried by 12 than carried by 6".
And now he's going to be tried by 12.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.