(08-31-2020, 04:53 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(08-31-2020, 04:47 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: 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.

---