Kyle used deadly physical force. He "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."
Kyle is not allowed to use deadly physical force to defend property. That's pretty much a universal truth. Someone steals your car or busts a window you can't just go shoot them in the head. The question is was the deadly physical force used to protect the car lot or him? He didn't shoot the people before they entered the lot. He shot them when they were charging at him. There is a violent riot going on and buildings are being set on fire around the city. Did he think the guy was coming to ask for a cigarette? Kyle's belief was reasonable he was about to be assaulted given the totality of the circumstances.
He doesn't have to show anyone intended to kill him. Only that his belief of great bodily harm was reasonable.
Are you somewhere you're lawfully allowed to be? In this kid's case yes. He was asked by a property owner to protect his property. He wasn't trespassing. He wasn't on public property. More on this later.
Are you the initial aggressor? No. Video evidence. The State can argue all they want that he drove 30 miles looking for a fight but if that's the case then why did he wait for the rioters to come to the property he was protecting to start shooting? He waited until they got close enough to harm him before he started shooting? Nonsense. No merit to that position if the State takes it.
Were you engaged in an unlawful activity? No. Felons are precluded from owning guns/possessing them BUT when engaged in self-defense (in most jurisdictions - I'm not admitted in Wisconsin so if someone can correct me that would be helpful) even a felon is allowed to use a firearm in self-defense. In this country we elevate a person's right to life above a regulatory scheme to prevent firearm ownership by felons. He is not required to just lay down and die. This is the State's ONLY hope if they have a chance at conviction.
Under Wisconsin law "[w]hile there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person."
This kid was not concealing his weapon, he was openly carrying it and being interviewed on TV and talking to police officers. Concealed laws don't apply to him.
Wisconsin permits open carry for people over the age of 18. This was kid 17. If I were his lawyer I'd laugh and say sure we'll plead guilty to a misdemeanor for unlawfully open carrying a firearm goodbye.
He possessed the rifle before it became necessary for defense so odds are he's guilty of unlawfully open carrying a firearm. Man that $600 fine is really gonna smart. Meanwhile multiple families are left paying for funerals of rioters because they fucked around and found out.
I greatly appreciate your analysis, which almost equals my layman's understanding.
A couple other snafus for Kyle: he crossed State lines with a rifle. Is that illegal in itself? He may not be allowed to legally own this in IL, where he lives.
Others say use of deadly force is perfectly legal in WI if you are defending another from death or severe bodily injury. I don't know but it would be good to be certain.
There are States where deadly force is legal to defend property. Any pretense otherwise is in direct violation of the 2A, and that's really what these riots come down to. All the areas with problems have this pussified misconception that "shall not be infringed" really means you can fuck shit up all day and all night and nobody better dare lay a finger on you. It was never possible to have a civilized Nation like that, this is merely the first time that's been tested here.
You're correct. Here is a quick self-defense primer:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48#:~:text=While%20there%20is%20no%20statutory,with%20his%20or%20her%20person.
Kyle used deadly physical force. He "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."
Kyle is not allowed to use deadly physical force to defend property. That's pretty much a universal truth. Someone steals your car or busts a window you can't just go shoot them in the head. The question is was the deadly physical force used to protect the car lot or him? He didn't shoot the people before they entered the lot. He shot them when they were charging at him. There is a violent riot going on and buildings are being set on fire around the city. Did he think the guy was coming to ask for a cigarette? Kyle's belief was reasonable he was about to be assaulted given the totality of the circumstances.
He doesn't have to show anyone intended to kill him. Only that his belief of great bodily harm was reasonable.
Are you somewhere you're lawfully allowed to be? In this kid's case yes. He was asked by a property owner to protect his property. He wasn't trespassing. He wasn't on public property. More on this later.
Are you the initial aggressor? No. Video evidence. The State can argue all they want that he drove 30 miles looking for a fight but if that's the case then why did he wait for the rioters to come to the property he was protecting to start shooting? He waited until they got close enough to harm him before he started shooting? Nonsense. No merit to that position if the State takes it.
Were you engaged in an unlawful activity? No. Felons are precluded from owning guns/possessing them BUT when engaged in self-defense (in most jurisdictions - I'm not admitted in Wisconsin so if someone can correct me that would be helpful) even a felon is allowed to use a firearm in self-defense. In this country we elevate a person's right to life above a regulatory scheme to prevent firearm ownership by felons. He is not required to just lay down and die. This is the State's ONLY hope if they have a chance at conviction.
Under Wisconsin law "[w]hile there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person."
This kid was not concealing his weapon, he was openly carrying it and being interviewed on TV and talking to police officers. Concealed laws don't apply to him.
Wisconsin permits open carry for people over the age of 18. This was kid 17. If I were his lawyer I'd laugh and say sure we'll plead guilty to a misdemeanor for unlawfully open carrying a firearm goodbye.
He possessed the rifle before it became necessary for defense so odds are he's guilty of unlawfully open carrying a firearm. Man that $600 fine is really gonna smart. Meanwhile multiple families are left paying for funerals of rioters because they fucked around and found out.
I greatly appreciate your analysis, which almost equals my layman's understanding. A couple other snafus for Kyle: he crossed State lines with a rifle. Is that illegal in itself? He may not be allowed to legally own this in IL, where he lives.
Others say use of deadly force is perfectly legal in WI if you are defending another from death or severe bodily injury. I don't know but it would be good to be certain.
There are States where deadly force is legal to defend property. Any pretense otherwise is in direct violation of the 2A, and that's really what these riots come down to. All the areas with problems have this pussified misconception that "shall not be infringed" really means you can fuck shit up all day and all night and nobody better dare lay a finger on you. It was never possible to have a civilized Nation like that, this is merely the first time that's been tested here.
926A federal statute covers this. Next to impossible for feds to convict on it.