Do you think he should’ve just drawn on the kid rather than try to dive on him? Seems in the state the shooter was in he would’ve shot him if he had pulled his weapon, not surrendered. Should he have just shot him while he was down? What was tactically the best option? And legally?
I’m not sure whether it’s a weakness or a strength that for someone on the left, the non-lethal option was what he went for. You just know any CHUD would’ve shot first asked questions later, as proven by the fash baby.
He was illegally posessing a firearm the whole time, which was an active felony, so he can't claim self defense. I'm not a lawyer but I really think he's fucked
Possesion of a deadly weapon by a minor is a class A misdemeanor in Wisconsin. The distiction might be important. As you and others have brought up he could well be fucked but only if Wisconsin explicitly prohibits self defense when someone is taking part in a criminal act which could be restricted to felonies. If not, kids got a chance of beating the murder charge.