I didn't realize how close Wisconsin's Provocation Provision in their Self Defense law is to Florida's Use of force by aggressor provision in their Justified Use of Force statute.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html
If it was 1 on 1 and he provoked the altercation he would most likely lose his right to self defense. 3 on 1 and being beaten with a deadly weapon should allow him to regain his right to self defense in the event he provoked the altercation.
Would your opinion change if you knew the shooter had an extensive felony criminal record? I am betting the shooter has a record and that is why they are holding him. If he has a record, he can't legally have a gun. If he can't legally have a gun, he ultimately can be charged and imprisoned for that.
Would your opinion change if you knew the shooter had an extensive felony criminal record? I am betting the shooter has a record and that is why they are holding him. If he has a record, he can't legally have a gun. If he can't legally have a gun, he ultimately can be charged and imprisoned for that.
Um, this is Wisconsin, we are a little more civilized up here.
Unlike Florida where every shooting is good, the law is much tougher up here in Wisconsin.
-snip-
How was he able to produce the gun while he was being held and beaten? He was being beaten with a baseball bat yet he didn't even need medical assistance, those facts point to the conclusion that those teenagers weren't really out to kill him. It really only takes one good blow to incapacitate somebody. That being said I don't feel sorry for them, attacking someone outnumbered 3 to 1 with a baseball bat is just cowardice. Good riddance.
1. The OP clearly states he was hospitalized.
2. How many times can I hit you with a bat before you start to wonder if I'll escalate to the point of caving your head in?
-snip-
2. that's the point, if your're using full strength, one maybe two blows should be enough to cause serious head trauma or even kill.
I would guess he didn't remain motionless so as to be an easy target.
Evidently he squirmed around enough so that, while injured enough to require medical attention, he avoided any disabling blows.
I would also guess the fact that he didn't shoot the third attacker gave him the benefit of the doubt. I.e., he was trying only to defend himself.
Fern
So, there were 3 total aggressors, but only 2 were shot? I'd love to know how all that went down, sounds like the old timer was extremely lucky. It's usually kind of hard to draw a gun and fire accurately when people are holding you down and beating you with a large blunt object.
Possibly, but at the same time it doesn't mean that their intention was to kill. I heard of a lot of cases where people beat each other with weapons such as baseball bats but they didn't intend to kill one another. This kind of behavior is especially common among hooligans who pose as sports fans. We have a lot of those in Europe the vast majority of them consider themselves soccer "fans". They fight all the time but fatal incidents are rare. On the other hand it very well may be that they wanted to inflict grievous bodily harm but were just grossly incompetent. It's hard to tell as we don't even know what caused this whole incident.
What I'm curious about is how they reacted when they saw the gun if they even noticed it before he pulled the trigger. Most people would back off.
If they're close enough to hold you down and beat you, you're essentially sticking the gun into their chest and firing. You'll hit something.
This is fucking retarded, even for you.
Note to retards, hitting someone with a bat IS grievious bodily harm.
Note to retards, beating someone 3 on 1 without a bat IS grievious bodily harm.
If you're not sure, go tell an on duty cop that you're going to beat him with a bat or 3 on 1 and see what happens.
Also a PSA, if you make a habit of 3 on 1 beatings or beating with a weapon don't expect to be given a chance to react to the gun being presented. You may be shot before you even realize what's going on.
Nah, I've seen a lot of cases where the intention was to intimidate or coerce into doing something. If all you want to do is murder someone there are much better weapons to do that.
Nah, I've seen a lot of cases where the intention was to intimidate or coerce into doing something. If all you want to do is murder someone there are much better weapons to do that.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he was wrong to shoot. If I found myself in a similar situation and had a gun, I would have done the same thing unless they immediately started to flee when they saw the gun. The law in my country is very different then in the US and it's very easy to go to jail just because you defended yourself. If the court deems that you used more force then necessary to defend yourself you end up in jail. It's sickening that the law defends criminals but that's the way it is.
I've never gotten the impression that you supported us style rights to self defense before. You usually give some ludicrous "what if" scenario such as it being reasonable to make sure that the guys beating the victim have a chance to see the gun and back off before they should be shot...
If they're close enough to hold you down and beat you, you're essentially sticking the gun into their chest and firing. You'll hit something.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he was wrong to shoot. If I found myself in a similar situation and had a gun, I would have done the same thing unless they immediately started to flee when they saw the gun. The law in my country is very different then in the US and it's very easy to go to jail just because you defended yourself. If the court deems that you used more force then necessary to defend yourself you end up in jail. It's sickening that the law defends criminals but that's the way it is.