56GraNma [he/him]

No worries. I was unemployed for like 3.5 months and had ample time to listen to podcasts and snoop.

@cheerstary Commrades, I would tred VERY carefully with Russel's stuff, avoid it if there are alternatives. He is disingenuous about some things in his past,such as his dismissal from Columbia, as well as the political theories and understandings of socialists and marxists, often conflating liberals and the left. (Something a former socialist who is concerned with precise arguments would not do). In regards to education, his purpose is to discredit and destabilize one of the few universal public programs in the U.S. and open it up for more private profit. This is not suprising from someone who contributes to Reason magazine and is affiliated with Koch front groups. Of course this is not to mention his other faults like climate change denial (obfuscation really), light holocaust denial (it happened but he claims the Nazis were forced to do it by the Americans and they werent really that bad. They just wanted 'autarky') To letting fucking Kevin Williamson portray himself as some sort oppressed free speach warrior. All these among other problems he has. Russell's work is fundementally about expanding capitalist relations and entrenched power. This is covered up with Russell's oppositional disposition and antiwork attitude but at the end of the day its all window dressing. He doesnt care about equality, rights, or freedom from oppression. He's grifting. Stick with Freire.

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.

Not according to the case the defense will make. They will say that,despite possesing a deadly weapon illegaly, the kid was justified in his actions. Thus an attack on hin, according to this narrative, renders an attack on him illegal. Not saying its right but this is probably the defense that's going to be used and as far as I can tell, its got a chance because wisconsin's self defense law appears to have a carve out for self defense despite illegal actions. (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)

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.

Yes school shooters dont get to claim self defense but the process of how the law actually works doesnt play out on moral or ethical grounds is more what I mean. Rather it plays out on the terrain of narrative and perception. Moreover the situations are not great comparisons. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doudt that this kid murdered someone. This means the defense just has to create doudt. In this case, the defense can claim, as some others already have, that the kid shot someone because, he says, they threw a molotove coctail at him. As such they will claim he was in danger and responded with justified lethal force. Because this is off camera it is easier to create doubt via conflicting testimony, etc. If there is doubt about what happened before he is running down the street on camera, it becomes more difficult to prove, according to the court, that this kid murdered someone and assaulted/attempted murder someone else. The defense can now create a chain of events where their client did nothing illegal and was wrongfully assaulted by protesters. Here the legal code is strucured in a way that allows such a narrative to be compelling in court. Again I dont believe any of this. I think this kid is a murderer and if he has a legally plausible defense (again not moral or ethical) we need to know that so we can apply preasure if this is the case.

As you mentioned, the above point is moot if self-defense is not a legal option while one is commiting a crime. If this is the case, the kid will be convicted. I glanced at the state's self defense statutes and nothing jumped out at me in this regard. Doesnt mean its not there just that I didnt see it and you and at least one other are right to raise that point because if its true we dont need to concern ourselves with his court case because he has no defense and a conviction, barring gross corruption, is a sure thing.

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

deleted by creator

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

That's a really good point but I dont see anything in Wisconsin's statutes that lays this out as far as minors in possesion of a deadly weapon. He will get be hit with a misdemeanor but there is nothing I can see that then renders any action taken after as automaticaly criminal. (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/55) It doesnt say anything about it in Statutes in regards to self defense either. (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939)

That's true but that's not how the law works. I have no sympathy for the kid here. What I am trying to explain though is what I see as the most probable way this will be framed and handled within the legal system. It doesnt make it right or true or any less fucked up but, based on what I know today, this kid's defense team has a good hand. Its fucked up but its not enough to say that. We need to understand how and why things play out the way they do.

He will be tried as an adult. All seventeen year olds in Wisconsin will be handled by the regular justice system. To paraphrase a post I made elsewhere, a conviction is far from a sure thingin this case. As long as the first shooting is not on video, this kid will claim he was attacked, feared grave bodily harm and iced someone. He will then say he fled to surrender to police, was attacked again and shot in self defense once more. The real kicker is what happened before video is rolling. If the defense is able to muddy the waters he wont be convicted.

Here's the thing: by not shooting the guy probably did the right thing. The state of Wisconsin requires that deadly force be used only if "such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48) A gunman fleeing the scene with his back to you will not meet this definition. The 'imminent' requirement is not met. Moreover they teach you this standard in Wisconsin's concealed carry classes. One of the hypotheticals they give is that a fleeing assailant is not a legitmate target of deadly force. Those guys made the right play as far as the law goes.

This same standard though will be deployed by cop kid. He will say that he was attacked earlier off camera, believed he was in danger and fired in self defense. This then will render his second shooting legit. He commited no crime before and was being wrongfuly attacked when he was taken to the ground. He will say he believed he was at risk of grave bodily harm and shot in self defense again. As long as the initial shooting is off screen it will be easy to obfuscate when happened and create doubt making conviction far short of a sure thing.