(08-31-2020, 05:05 PM)mikesez Wrote:

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

---