You are reading a single comment by @rhb and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
rhb-
Dunno what your going for but you’re making me wonder if I misread anything.
for clarity, iirc he yelled the N word
!Again, dunno what you mean, but ‘fighting words’ and sufficient provocation are a thing. Is that a fighting word? I’d say very strongly yes, but is the provocation sufficient to chase him down and attack him, knowing he’s armed? Legally, that’s a harder sell.
Eseman
He definitely displayed foolish judgement as you pointed out, but Wisconsin is a permissive open carry state, so any non-prohibited person >18 can carry an unconcealed firearm on their person in the vast majority of places and situations. That includes protests (which ≠ riots), and it includes any subjectively ‘dangerous’ places where one is legally entitled to be. The defence was 17 at the time, but the prosecution isn’t focusing on that.
The underlying legal notion is that no one has the right to use or threaten to use serious or deadly force against someone who isn’t a real immediate threat, unless they’re police (not being snide, literally different laws apply to them). If someone is attempting to use or is using serious or deadly force, like an adult swinging a skateboard in this case, and they’re not acting in self-defence, then they’re aggressors, and their victim has the right to defend themselves including with deadly force, which is why the state allows unregistered open carry.
As per the current facts of the case, he didn’t brandish the weapon at the men he shot, or threaten them causing them to reasonably fear for their lives. The defence has shown he was putting out fires and eventually he got into a verbal altercation that became racially inflamed (for clarity, iirc he yelled the N word), and then they attacked him, 3 vs 1, even chasing him down. The first man weaponised a skateboard, and he was shot; then another man forcibly tried to take the rifle (itself reasonably a deadly aggression given he’d just used it in self defence) and he was shot. Then the third man came at him with a drawn handgun, probably in a moment of fear/anger/confusion, and he was shot. The prosecution hasn’t shown, imo at least, that the defendant shot at someone he didn’t reasonably believe was an immediate deadly threat, like if the 3rd guy had just had his hands up.
Is it bizarre that he could just be carrying a gun? Hell yeah if you’re outside the US looking in, but afaik he didn’t start the physical fight, which is what the law cares about.
*It was the second man he shot who used a skateboard.