The City on Fire

Quote: AZDuffman

heard a quote from some CNN talking head. IIRC it was CNN. But their concern was the riots will hurt Biden's chances!.

That was Don Lemonhead, token Black
faux journalist at CNN. He said they
have to pay attention to the rioters
now because they're showing up in
polls and focus groups. People
heard about the riots even though
CNN/MS never mention them.
And it's hurting Dems big time.

Never mind people are dying and
property is being destroyed, it's
the polls that matter.

I still cannot believe they are covering this in OZ, but they are. And they are noticing the reality of what BLM is.

It appears that he already shot someone when he got chased down by protestors trying to stop or disarm him, as he stumbled to the ground. His entire case basically hinges on the circumstances of the first guy whom he shot and who later died. You don't get to claim self defense if you recklessly shoot somebody and then try to run away, with people attempting to stop you. If he provoked that first victim then the self defense claim couldn't apply with the second victim.

Further, if he's not legal to carry a rifle--he's a minor-- from his state or from the state he's transporting it to, then the self defense claim, again, doesn't apply here, since he's breaking the law with carrying the rifle.

He'll get convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter.

Quote: quadriga

It appears that he already shot someone when he got chased down by protestors trying to stop or disarm him, as he stumbled to the ground. His entire case basically hinges on the circumstances of the first guy whom he shot and who later died. You don't get to claim self defense if you recklessly shoot somebody and then try to run away, with people attempting to stop you. If he provoked that first victim then the self defense couldn't apply with the second victim.

Further, if he's not legal to carry a rifle--he's a minor-- from his state or from the state he's transporting it to, then the self defense, again, doesn't apply here, since he's breaking the law with the rifle.

He'll get convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter.

Self-defense would still apply. He might face a gun charge only if that was the case. One should not void the other.

Either way, he appears to be in the right here. He was clearly attacked.

Looks to me like the second shooting is likely the problematic one.

I was wondering why a guy might walk up so close to shoot him. (yes, I guess it could be that he has a handgun and not as accurate)

Word is, he was trying to disarm him not shoot him.

Well, I guess we'll see when the investigation is finished.

Quote: AZDuffman

Self-defense would still apply. He might face a gun charge only if that was the case. One should not void the other.

Either way, he appears to be in the right here. He was clearly attacked.

You need to be acting in a legal manner in order to invoke self defense as a legal argument
Once your actions are illegal, the invocation of a self defense argument cannot be made.
You must be 18 in the state of IL to possess a long gun
You must be 18 in the state of WI to possess a long gun unless it is being used for hunting.
This 17 year old doesn't qualify as a legal possessor in his home state of IL or in WI
Therefore, the simple act of walking on the street holding his rifle makes all of his actions that night illegal
He has no right to defend himself with an illegally possessed long gun.
You cannot invoke a the self defense doctrine while simultaneously breaking the law.
He is going to be convicted of crimes.
My guess is he spends time in prison, which as SooPoo pointed out, won't go well for him

Quote: JCW09

You need to be acting in a legal manner in order to invoke self defense as a legal argument
Once your actions are illegal, the invocation of a self defense argument cannot be made.
You must be 18 in the state of IL to possess a long gun
You must be 18 in the state of WI to possess a long gun unless it is being used for hunting.
This 17 year old doesn't qualify as a legal possessor in his home state of IL or in WI
Therefore, the simple act of walking on the street holding his rifle makes all of his actions that night illegal
He has no right to defend himself with an illegally possessed long gun.
You cannot invoke a the self defense doctrine while simultaneously breaking the law.
He is going to be convicted of crimes.
My guess is he spends time in prison, which as SooPoo pointed out, won't go well for him

If that is true then no gang banger could ever be charged with murder since they never do a drive by with a legal gun.

Quote: JCW09

You need to be acting in a legal manner in order to invoke self defense as a legal argument
Once your actions are illegal, the invocation of a self defense argument cannot be made.
You must be 18 in the state of IL to possess a long gun
You must be 18 in the state of WI to possess a long gun unless it is being used for hunting.
This 17 year old doesn't qualify as a legal possessor in his home state of IL or in WI
Therefore, the simple act of walking on the street holding his rifle makes all of his actions that night illegal
He has no right to defend himself with an illegally possessed long gun.
You cannot invoke a the self defense doctrine while simultaneously breaking the law.
He is going to be convicted of crimes.
My guess is he spends time in prison, which as SooPoo pointed out, won't go well for him

Unless you are an attorney you are speculating.

Wis. Stat. § 948.60(2)(a). These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations set forth in Wis. Stat. §§ 29.304 and 29.593.

If not a short barrel looks like he is in the clear.

He will likely get off. Will only take one holdout on the jury.

Quote: AZDuffman

Unless you are an attorney you are speculating.

Wis. Stat. § 948.60(2)(a). These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations set forth in Wis. Stat. §§ 29.304 and 29.593.

If not a short barrel looks like he is in the clear.

He will likely get off. Will only take one holdout on the jury.

Please list your link as I am not finding any reference to the "short barrel" requirement in 948.60(2)(a).

Quote: JCW09

Quote: AZDuffman

Unless you are an attorney you are speculating.

Wis. Stat. § 948.60(2)(a). These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations set forth in Wis. Stat. §§ 29.304 and 29.593.

If not a short barrel looks like he is in the clear.

He will likely get off. Will only take one holdout on the jury.

Please list your link as I am not finding any reference to the "short barrel" requirement in 948.60(2)(a).

Closed the link, just did a google search to pull it.