(08-31-2020, 08:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: I don't know if he was a white supremacist, but, per Wisconsin law, he was obligated to retreat and to use the least lethal means available to him if he wants to claim self-defense.  Should have used the butt end of his rifle if he didn't want to be on trial for murder.

No, he doesn't.

(08-31-2020, 02:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: 939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
[font=Times,][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](2)Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:[/font]
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, 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. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant 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.[/font]

Simply put, you don't understand the meaning of this statute. 

1. Violating curfew isn't considered the 'type likely to provoke' an attack. Otherwise, every protester is provoking someone else to attack them. The possession of a weapon, in a public place, is not provoking another person--17-year-old or otherwise. Provocation is considered an offensive act or verbal threats against another person, and that kid didn't do that. It isn't simply committing a crime. 

2. The statement about exhausting other use-of-force options doesn't require that they exhaust every other option every time. It says he must exhaust every other 'reasonable' option. If you're being chased by a mob, it isn't reasonable to using fists, kicks, etc. One person is unlikely to win a fight against a mob. He ran until he couldn't run and then he shot his attackers. What other 'reasonable' option did he have? If he listened to you, then he most certainly wouldn't be on trial for murder--he'd be dead. Even if you consider him the provocateur, that code section still allows him the right to defend himself.

(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.

You ignore words in the code section to fit your narrative.

1. The unlawful conduct has to be 'of a type likely to provoke'. Open carry, even if the person isn't allowed, isn't of the type to provoke others. They don't know if it's loaded. They don't know if he's allowed to carry it. They don't know the weapon carrier qualifications. The mere act of possessing the weapon isn't of the type to provoke others. You're legally allowed to carry a weapon during a curfew; the violation of curfew is another offense entirely separate. Are you truly suggesting that everyone that carried a weapon is provoking others into attacking them? You can't just say it's provoking; you need to be capable of explaining how carrying a rifle in public is provoking you into attacking someone.

2. He clearly did believe he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm as evidenced by multiple people hitting him as he ran. That doesn't include getting shot at, things thrown at him, hit in the head with a skateboard, curb stomped, etc. Being chased by a mob is de facto imminent danger of great bodily harm and there are dozens of videos proving as much. You keep saying he has to use all other means to defend himself and that's incorrect. He only needed to use other reasonable means. It isn't reasonable to use the butt of the rifle to defend yourself against getting hit in the head or as a dude is approaching you with a handgun in his hand.

---