(08-31-2020, 04:52 PM)flsprtsgod 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.

(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.

---

(08-31-2020, 05:03 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:

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

---