From what we know so far, probably not self defense, unless "someone threw something close to me in a politically charged situation that I deliberately put myself in" counts as "needing to kill in self defense", in which case a lot of the protestors have those grounds as well. Perhaps the person throwing the whateveritwas was doing so in self defense!
Every protester now has the right to gun down the cops for throwing tear gas.
Granted, and now every cop is justified to return fire.
The cops DID say that when one of them threw BACK the tear gas that it was "assault with a deadly weapon" so, according to the police themselves, they are using a "lethal weapon" on the protestors, ergo, they have the right to self defense!
It wasn't, for previously discussed reasons that he can't claim self defense in any of these situations.
Remember that fight at a cafe in Texas (I think) last year. It was all on tape. Someone was annoyed at someone else and pushed them. They pushed back and eventually push them onto the ground. The person on the ground shot the person who pushed. They shooter didn’t get any sentence based on stand your ground doctrine
The laws are not universal in the US. Each state has it's own laws and they are all different. Even within the state, each county and city can have their own laws as well. What applies to Texas ONLY applies to Texas, not the US. Texas is referred to as " The Wild West: Where lawlessness ran rampant and the cowboys ruled the land" for a reason. That shit is crazy here. Wisconsin does not have a stand your ground law so the shooter in the cafe would go to jail in Wisconsin.
From what I understand, the state this shooting took place in isn't a stand your ground state, so the shooter had a duty to retreat, which he did not, making him shooting the first person NOT self defense, at the very least.
That is not wholly true. A state can be neither SYG or DTR, and Wisconsin is neither. It's up to the jury to decide if you should have run or not.
No because he killed someone while committing another crime, which then disqualifies him for stand your ground. He legally was not able to be there with the gun in the first place so he does not qualify for self defense. Otherwise we would consider armed robbers killing a cashier for attacking them " self defense" and it just does not work that way.
That’s all wonderful. I just wouldn’t be surprised about some BS being made up to justify it. And it working
Well he isn’t rich and won’t get a Dershowitz to defend him, so it’s extremely unlikely he gets off unless the case is horribly bungled, perhaps internationally.
I would but the Washington Post has a paywall so it can kiss my ass.
After Tucker Carlson sings the kid's praises, tho, there'll probably be some rich conservative donor that covers the court costs.
USA
