(09-01-2020, 10:04 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(09-01-2020, 09:43 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: No, he doesn't.


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.

1.  It's the combination of the two that is provocative.  Plus it's the way he was holding his weapon.  There is a lot of other video out from that night showing the other militia dudes carrying their weapons strapped behind them.  That's a lot less provocative.

2. If he demonstrated to the mob that his weapon was unloaded, the threat of death or great bodily harm is gone for everyone and the whole statute becomes inapplicable.  I disagree that he would be dead.  If the mob believed that he wasn't about to shoot anyone else, they would have surrounded him and called the cops to pick him up.  They beat on him because he was still shooting them.  Just like all those internet tough guys said they would have done to James Holmes or Patrick Crusius, had they been there.