they are trying to portray this kid as an active shooter and the skateboard guy as a hero. Now, people were yelling "he just shot people" and it may have looked like an active shooter situation to skateboard guy. The whole situation is a mess. This is why these situations should not be left to grow with police stand down orders.
From what I can tell the shooter has some level of reasonable fear for his own safety, he was fleeing an attempted assault and he shoots someone in what looks like self defense when the person caught up. He doubles back to check on the person he shot and appears to be calling the police (or someone, for his sake I hope it was the police). He then fears for his life again, and retreats a second time. While retreating he falls and is assaulted by an angry mob acting in concert. He then shoots someone who is assaulting him with a skateboard and is trying to take his weapon and shoots another person confronting him with a pistol. These people might be in mistake of fact thinking he was a fleeing felon or an active shooter, but that does not negate his right to self defense.
He then tries to surrender to police and is ignored. He ultimatley "flees the state" to his home less than 12 miles away where he is arrested.
exactly - I am conceding, however, that skater dude may have had pure motives in "stoping an active shooter" based on his perception of the facts, but that still does not in any way mitigate the shooter's rights to defend against an assault. The kid was there to defend property he was exercising a right, more so than the people who were rioting. I have watched every bit of video, and to me he was justified in each moment. Unfortunately, the political environment demands he be charged. A competent defense can easily prevail here. First, only a preponderance of the evidence is required to offer up the affirmative defense of self defense. This evidence objectively exists. Secondly, the state must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his affirmative defense is not valid. So, thankfully, the law and the evidence is on his side.
Who is the dead BLM terrorist on the ground? I would like to know more about him.
they are trying to portray this kid as an active shooter and the skateboard guy as a hero. Now, people were yelling "he just shot people" and it may have looked like an active shooter situation to skateboard guy. The whole situation is a mess. This is why these situations should not be left to grow with police stand down orders.
From what I can tell the shooter has some level of reasonable fear for his own safety, he was fleeing an attempted assault and he shoots someone in what looks like self defense when the person caught up. He doubles back to check on the person he shot and appears to be calling the police (or someone, for his sake I hope it was the police). He then fears for his life again, and retreats a second time. While retreating he falls and is assaulted by an angry mob acting in concert. He then shoots someone who is assaulting him with a skateboard and is trying to take his weapon and shoots another person confronting him with a pistol. These people might be in mistake of fact thinking he was a fleeing felon or an active shooter, but that does not negate his right to self defense.
He then tries to surrender to police and is ignored. He ultimatley "flees the state" to his home less than 12 miles away where he is arrested.
exactly - I am conceding, however, that skater dude may have had pure motives in "stoping an active shooter" based on his perception of the facts, but that still does not in any way mitigate the shooter's rights to defend against an assault. The kid was there to defend property he was exercising a right, more so than the people who were rioting. I have watched every bit of video, and to me he was justified in each moment. Unfortunately, the political environment demands he be charged. A competent defense can easily prevail here. First, only a preponderance of the evidence is required to offer up the affirmative defense of self defense. This evidence objectively exists. Secondly, the state must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his affirmative defense is not valid. So, thankfully, the law and the evidence is on his side.