So 1m us interesting but that section is basically a castle doctrine statute and im not sure it will fly. Youre right section two looks promissing but I dont think it says that commiting a crime always negates self defense. (A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant) He could claim he had a molotov tossed at him, as I've seen floating around already, and say he shot the assailant in response and now his illegal possesion of a deadly weapon can be disregarded, or so the defense will argue, and now they're off to the races. This is my best reading but I wonder if there is case law that flushes this out a little. Its certainly not as good a position for the defense as I thought which us good.

Ahhh gotcha. So he's fucked on the first round.

I cant find the statute that says this. Can you point me in that dirrection?