It’s muddy but in isolation no. However if you’re being pursued by a mob and are in fear for your life, that context probably clears him of that specific crime.
Yes, especially as part of a larger group of people following you.
Based on the actions of the mob? I’d have been more afraid if I was unarmed personally.
Hunters don’t usually get chased by their prey.
1 Like
He was a 17 year old boy hunting a communist pedophile, it was always anyone’s guess as to who was hunting whom.
3 Likes
Well no, not because of that. But if you’re a 17 year old who is used to having a long gun in your possession at home and using it, it makes complete sense that you would consider it legal to own and use.
We allow farm kids to have drivers permits well before the normal age, and a good portion of those kids also end up driving into town to drop things off - which might technically be against the law but which nobody enforces since it follows logically from working on the farm.
In this situation it may be that it was a hunting rifle - if it was legal for him to own that, then it is feasible to claim a defense
I believe in some states the n word is considered fighting words.
Even if it were illegal for him to possess a firearm, I think it’s only a misdemeanor, it doesn’t make it illegal for him to use it in self-defense.
1 Like
The legality, or not, of the weapon is superfluous to a successful finding of self defence anyway.
The Wisconsin code says thusly:
‘1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.‘
Edit: Based on the rules as written, there is a clearly arguable case of self defence here.
For the record, I think @Californiagrown is right to press on why he would put himself in this situation, and his motives for doing so, but that will be the prosecution’s job at trial.
2 Likes
A 17 year old getting attacked by adult criminals, one armed with a gun. Yeah, he probably has all charges dropped once things settle down.
4 Likes
That depends on how much of a reaming the prosecutor desires in court.
There is video evidence to allow such a finding and the state has to then present enough evidence to rebut the defence. I think that’s a tall order, to be honest.
2 Likes
FWIW, no one is disputing he possessed the rifle illegally. His lawyer is making it clear that he didnt bring it across state lines though, to, i assume, avoid any federal crimes.
this case is a very interesting Rorschach test though. It very clearly illustrates where peoples bias’ and beliefs on the riots as a whole lie. Same set of facts, with many people having VASTLY different interpretations.
This is like the trayvon martin case, except even worse. I dont want the kid to go away forever, but i do think there is a serious problem in our society if he gets off and ends up celebrated by any significant portion of the population (as Ann Coulters tweet would suggest).
1 Like
That is likely because it is not determinative to the main crime. Self defence isn’t rendered moot by the weapon being illegal.
Why waste time on the minor crime when the prosecutor is alleging murder?
Edit: this is also an open carry state, which makes this more complicated than my Anglo experience has encountered. If the accused had a long rifle in my jurisdiction, he’d be facing some serious jail time for open carrying that in a public square.
1 Like
It might show that he knew what he was doing was wrong, or at least on the very fringes of legality. Otherwise why would be have to borrow a rifle? etc.
Tell the Kenosha Kid’s lawyer that.
I don’t think there is a federal crime there. You bring a gun illegally into a state, it’s that state’s laws which apply.
But the state of mind for possessing the weapon doesn’t play into whether or not he can raise a self defence claim. Read the Wisconsin legal code I posted.
Edit: I suppose it could be used by the prosecution to allege ill intent here but, again, the video evidence is going to make rebutting the self defence claim a tough row to hoe.
1 Like
In DC, when guns were made illegal (the SCOTUS eventually ruled it unconstitutional) the DA said that anyone using a gun in legal self-defense, a gun they technically were not allowed to own, wouldn’t be charged with any crime.
1 Like
If he weren’t white, he would be called a teen by the Lefty news. Even if he were 19, they would have called him a teen.
Stupendous.
The prick who killed trayvon martin, was actually getting beaten badly and still barely got off using self defense.
this kid doesnt have a scratch on him and killed 2 people in separate, but related incidents. Add in the fact that times are a changin’ and i think its more likely than not he gets convicted of something major. We will see as more evidence comes to light i suppose.