First off I came here only to post this, believe me or not.
We were told not to even worry about the second or third shooting, only the first shooting. We are instructed to mainly interview witnesses from the first case. If the D.A can prove that’s murder, the second and third become almost automatic.
Here’s the concept for a layman, say someone robs a bank, kills a teller and is fleeing the scene. A random citizen tries to stop the fleeing suspect with a skateboard or any weapon and he kills him. When fleeing a crime, you aren’t protected under self defense.
I’m not saying I agree nor disagree, just this is what we were instructed. To focus on making shooting 1 unjustified
I 100% agree that the later events are somewhat of a distraction. They're worthy of investigation, but I think the absolute number-1 question is: Should Kyle have Allowed Joseph to steal his weapon?
I did see someone try to argue that Kyle was in illegal possession of the weapon, therefore should have allowed Joseph to disarm him, which is complete clown-world as if Joseph was being a hero, and not worthy of any further discussion.
Kyle's lawyers are saying the weapon was legal.
Wisconsin allows open carry at 16, and the weapon was given to him on site, meaning it didn't cross state lines
My prediction, the prosecutor will argue that Kyle committed a provocative act by showing up to the riot with a gun and waived his right to self defense before Joseph even tried to take the gun. In that situation, Joseph was wrong to try to take the gun, and Kyle was right to shoot him, but it was wrong of Kyle to be there with a gun in the first place, so anything that results from carrying a gun into a riot is on him, including 2 deaths and a maiming.
For the record, I think that's bullshit, but I don't think the DA will find a murder 1 charge in the altercation, so they will have to fall back on his mere presence at the riot.
That argument is clown-world, but that doesn't mean they won't try it.
I can see them trying, but there's no way it'll hold up. You've a right to self defense and a right to bear arms. He was committing no crime, such an argument is mega weak.