The fact that he’s 17 is relevant. In that state, you need to be 18 to open carry. He was committing a crime just by holding that gun. Which means he doesn’t get to claim self-defense. You can’t claim self-defense if the killing was during the commission of a crime. Otherwise, every robber who shoots someone during the robbery would claim self defense.
i’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 , this saying has been around for a long time. even I used to carry without a license a couple decades back. can’t seem to find anything with google on any court cases though. I wonder how it holds up in real life cases .
There are numerous cases of felons, prohibited from gun ownership using guns in lawful self defense. Often they are convicted of the weapons violation, but nothing else.
1st. The original post is a lie. He did not bring the gun from another State. He borrowed it.
Although he does live in another State, the shooting occurred in the city were he works, so bringing up the “other state” thing is deceptive.
2nd. Long arms are specifically exempted and allowed to be carried by persons over 16, without an adult present. Likely one of the reasons he carried a rifle and not a pistol, however it also likely saved his life.
3rd. He would have been legally carrying anyway, without that exemption, as he was with a group of adults.
4th. Even if he would have been in violation of the law, his first action, in all three self defense shootings was to retreat, which satisfies Wisconsin’s requirement for a person to retreat if they were engaging in unlawful activity or the instigator. Thus all three shootings met a lawful self defense.
The kid is not only going to walk, but likely win an epic civil rights lawsuit for malicious prosecution.
he DID bring the gun from another state, there isn’t a single report he didn’t. If you’re right about him using someone else’s gun, that’s even more of an issue.
The fact that he’s 17 is relevant. In that state, you need to be 18 to open carry. He was committing a crime just by holding that gun. Which means he doesn’t get to claim self-defense. You can’t claim self-defense if the killing was during the commission of a crime. Otherwise, every robber who shoots someone during the robbery would claim self defense.
i’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 , this saying has been around for a long time. even I used to carry without a license a couple decades back. can’t seem to find anything with google on any court cases though. I wonder how it holds up in real life cases .
There are numerous cases of felons, prohibited from gun ownership using guns in lawful self defense. Often they are convicted of the weapons violation, but nothing else.
1st. The original post is a lie. He did not bring the gun from another State. He borrowed it.
Although he does live in another State, the shooting occurred in the city were he works, so bringing up the “other state” thing is deceptive.
2nd. Long arms are specifically exempted and allowed to be carried by persons over 16, without an adult present. Likely one of the reasons he carried a rifle and not a pistol, however it also likely saved his life.
3rd. He would have been legally carrying anyway, without that exemption, as he was with a group of adults.
4th. Even if he would have been in violation of the law, his first action, in all three self defense shootings was to retreat, which satisfies Wisconsin’s requirement for a person to retreat if they were engaging in unlawful activity or the instigator. Thus all three shootings met a lawful self defense.
The kid is not only going to walk, but likely win an epic civil rights lawsuit for malicious prosecution.
he DID bring the gun from another state, there isn’t a single report he didn’t. If you’re right about him using someone else’s gun, that’s even more of an issue.