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

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

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.

---