So two people got shot trying to neutralize the threat by subduing the perp that just shot someone. I don't know how that self-defense claim is going to play out.
Unarmed black man? Shoot 7 times in the back.Armed white kid? Give him some water.
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
The protesters were chasing him because he'd already killed another person. Shot him in the head.Placed a call to his attorney....said "I just shot someone" and took off running
When you decide to destroy and loot, you have to accept that you may be dealt with.
Blacks have given themselves a bad reputation, especially as too few have voiced disapproval of so much resisting of arrest when they become suspects. Too few have stood up to the mobsters. Too many have elevated their races crime rate compared to the white rate, because they've believed those who have told them they have reason to hate the white race, hate the police, or have gotten involved in a culture where any little disrespect can provoke serious violence.
Thus, there are no armed black militias standing up to the rioting mobs. Nor are there yet any blacks among the militias who are standing up to the mob. The cops know this, and they already knew there were white militia men standing up in the area. The police aren't as stupid as you think and could see the guy was not a threat knowing what they know abput the militias . If they knew there were blacks in The militias the black man would probably have been treated the same.
This is the only part I'm having trouble reconciling. There's two possible outcomes:
1. He came to actually protest and brought a gun along. Ended up having to use it. No problems here since WI is an open carry state except obviously the prosecutor is going to have a hey-day with exactly what you said. It'll be up to the defense to prove he didn't cross state lines to kill people.
2. He actually crossed state lines looking for a fight. If so, he's sank and he'll get murder 1 no problem.
Both of these cases hinge completely on whether he kept his mouth shut or not when he turned himself in. If he followed the USCCA guidelines for self defense shootings he likely will walk or suffer significantly less. There's absolutely no way they'd be able to stick a murder 1 charge on him given the video evidence REGARDLESS of the state line crossing. In my non-lawyery opinion his ability to walk free or get hit with manslaughter/murder 2 (10-20 in prison) will completely depend on if he kept his mouth shut and lawyered up. Some facts:
From the video footage it seemed like a pretty clear cut case of self defense. I'd like to make the point now that you should always know the firearms laws and defensive shooting laws in a county or state you intend to carry. This should go without saying but very few people care this much.
point: First guy charged him after he retreated. He had fulfilled his duty to retreat (if that's even necessary in WI) and in the riot making the argument he feared grave bodily injury or death is simple I'd think.
counter-point: He was agitating rioters making his defense case fall flat. Just being around the rioters with a gun in a state with open carry is NOT agitation. If he was attacked for having a gun he is the victim. Only if he agitated them (e.g. brandished, threatened, or coerced them to attack) would he lose this defense case.
point: The second shooting - the guy who got shot in the arm is without a doubt self defense. There are several photos of him faking surrender (the guy who got shot). When he drew his gun that is when he was shot. As a side note this alleged victim should go to prison as well for brandishing. One thing they beat into your head in CCW classes is you are not a cop and you should think very carefully about using your firearm in a situation you can escape.
counter-point: There is none. This was clear cut self defense but again if he agitated the first guy the reason he was attacked was due to the agitation and he can lose here.
point: The third shooting - another clear cut case of self defense. A skateboard is a deadly weapon and he rightfully can argue he feared for his life.
counter-point: same as the above.
One additional point - if WI is not a stand your ground state (I didn't check) the impetus usually falls on the person who defended themselves to prove they were scared for their life. In a stand your ground state I believe it is the impetus of the prosecutor to prove you didnt have a fear for your life. From where I sit I think he's got a good case under the assumption they can successfully defend against him crossing state lines to kill people. Especially with all the video evidence demonstrating he was measured and controlled in his shooting.
If you're a member of the USCCA or follow defense shooting channels you'll see similar videos. Many times the case really does come down to whether or not the person who defended their life remembers to shut up immediately and let their lawyer talk. Again, I am not a lawyer but I have been around the CCW community about half my life and every class I've taken covers the points I made in the analysis above. I don't know any well educated CCW holder who would encourage what he did - walking into a riot, but walking into a riot is not a crime.
Last edited:
I see. Well he must have seen people crossing state lines to destroy property and sometimes people's lives, and ran into harms way to protect someone or someone's business . He probably wasn't thinking state lines as much as going out of his way to face danger for others. Definitely a strange hunt when he must have tricked them into chasing him and then waiting till he trips and falls to shoot down ONLY the most immediate threats to his life that were in process of attacking him. Perhaps it could be called a hunt if you KNOW the Biden voters will attack you of they see you have a gun and are guarding businesses in their arsonic path.
But he did give them a chance to NOT attack him, right?
What are you complaining about? You want to defund the police so he would have never been arrested if you had your way.
Ypu seem confused. Did you see the footage and read my report? He hadn't shot anybody and was running away from about 20 Biden voters and three independant voters. He tripped and fell and probably just wanted them to leave him alone but instead about six approached him simultaneously, three of which (the independent voters) turned back but three came with momentum in nearly simultaneous succession. So whatever they were thinking (besides voting for Joe Biden) they must have thought it the moment the prepared youth tripped and fell after being chased at least a block. Were they trying to disarm him as they were chasing him? Why do you need to disarm someone whose running away, especially if they haven't shot anybody ...yet? Then what happens if the 20 thugs chasing him manage to disarm him? Proof that they were safe from harm are all the independent voters who stopped chasing or charging him WHO WERE NOT SHOT because they stopped chasing or charging him.
Last edited:
2. He actually crossed state lines looking for a fight. If so, he's sank and he'll get murder 1 no problem.
It's no.2, his social media posts make it clear that he crossed state lines to get 'famous'.