(08-31-2020, 04:13 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(08-31-2020, 03:26 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: If you are going to play lawyer and read statutes and use them for your argument, you need to read the whole statute and not cherry pick a few phrases.

1.  The unlawful conduct that he might have been engaging in was possession of the firearm.  That wasn't  "the type likely to provoke others to attack him" and not the reason why he was attacked.  Read the rest of the first sentence of the statute.  "except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm".  He was attacked initially for putting a dumpster fire out intended for more unlawful destruction by the assailant.  He was not attacked for possessing the firearm.  From the video evidence and testimony that I've seen I'm pretty sure that he had every reason to believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

2.  Read the second sentence fully, especially the part that says "the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense" and the part that says "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".  From the video evidence that I have seen as well as the testimony that I have read, it looks like he made every reasonable means to escape.

The fact of the matter is that the young man appeared to be very controlled and disciplined in his use of his firearm, especially in a fast high-stress environment.  I haven't seen where he ever fired randomly or at anyone not attacking him.

So again, you are wrong.

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.