FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

What "non lethal force" would you use against a looter? And if a person has insurance then they should just let people steal from them?

It's a shame that you put more thought into defending looters than the victims they steal from.

I put more thought into defending lives over things.

[RainMaker]

What exactly does looters have to do with the 17 year old? There is zero evidence he owned any of those stores or that the people he shot were looting from stores.

Originally Posted by Radii

I'd rather deal with my insurance than a self defense/not guilty plea at a trial, and above all else I'd prefer to not take another human life.

To add to this, I value my life too so I wouldn't want to put myself into a dangerous situation to save some Levis. Like I'd be pissed if my store was looted, but I also want to stay clear of chaotic situations where bad things can happen.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I put more thought into defending lives over things.

So you would just let people loot you and then move on to loot other people?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It's a shame that you put more thought into defending looters than the victims they steal from.

It's a shame the length you go to defending murder.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So you would just let people loot you and then move on to loot other people?

YES, like how many fucking times do they have to answer this question

There is a reason robbery is not met with the death penalty in court

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What exactly does looters have to do with the 17 year old? There is zero evidence he owned any of those stores or that the people he shot were looting from stores.



To add to this, I value my life too so I wouldn't want to put myself into a dangerous situation to save some Levis. Like I'd be pissed if my store was looted, but I also want to stay clear of chaotic situations where bad things can happen.

I value my life too, which is one reason why I'm not a looter. The other reason is that looting is just plain wrong.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Is looting a minor crime to you? How about arson?

Neither deserve the death penalty - and fwiw most states believe this (in most states you can't kill someone unless your life is in danger)

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Radii

It's a shame the length you go to defending murder.

So people shouldn't be able to defend property?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So you would just let people loot you and then move on to loot other people?

As I'm not a murderer, yes. I'd contact the police, but I'm not killing someone over things.

[Butter]

Wisconsin is a castle doctrine state, btw. In addition, we still don't know this guy was looting but even if he was, this kid had nothing to do with the store's owners.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So people shouldn't be able to defend property?

NOT WITH DEADLY FORCE.

Like, do you have a reading problem this evening?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So people shouldn't be able to defend property?

"(in most states you can't kill someone unless your life is in danger)"

as stated above.


You've made it abundantly clear that you value property over black people. We get it.


As Rainmaker has said, is there any actual proof that this blue lives matter MAGA piece of shit was defending anything of his or his family's when he killed three people anyway?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Butter

NOT WITH DEADLY FORCE.

Like, do you have a reading problem this evening?

So if someone invaded your property, what would you do?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So if someone invaded your property, what would you do?

TRY NOT TO GET IN A LIFE OR DEATH CONFRONTATION BECAUSE I AM NOT INTERESTED IN TAKING A HUMAN LIFE AND I DO NOT VALUE A SINGLE THING I OWN MORE THAN MY CONSCIENCE KNOWING I HAVE NEVER TAKEN A HUMAN LIFE, AND MY SAFETY. I HAVE INSURANCE TO COVER MY POSSESSIONS.


how are you not getting this? Does the caps help?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Radii

"(in most states you can't kill someone unless your life is in danger)"

as stated above.


You've made it abundantly clear that you value property over black people. We get it.


As Rainmaker has said, is there any actual proof that this blue lives matter MAGA piece of shit was defending anything of his or his family's when he killed three people anyway?

Don't pull that identity politics shit.

When did I ever mention race when it came to looters? I believe all looters should be treated the same regardless of race, don't you?

And I haven't said a word directly related to Kenosha shooter because I don't know the facts.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Don't pull that identity politics shit.

When did I ever mention race when it came to looters? I believe all looters should be treated the same regardless of race, don't you?

And I haven't said a word directly related to Kenosha shooter because I don't know the facts.

Ah I see. So while the entire rest of the discussion is about a 17 year old white person affiliated with a militia killing black protestors, you're just innocently wanting to discuss non-descript looting situations that have nothing at all to do with any of the rest of the discussion.

Wow, how silly all of us feel now.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Radii

Ah I see. So while the entire rest of the discussion is about a 17 year old white person affiliated with a militia killing black protestors, you're just innocently wanting to discuss non-descript looting situations that have nothing at all to do with any of the rest of the discussion.

Wow, how silly all of us feel now.

You should feel racist for assuming all the looters were black.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

You should feel racist for assuming all the looters were black.

I thought he was fairly clear that most of the rest of the the last page or two was about Kenosha so it made sense that your post would be.

EDIT: But, sure, try the "nuh-uh, you're a racist card". I guess it could work.

SI

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I thought he was fairly clear that most of the rest of the the last page or two was about Kenosha so it made sense that your post would be.

EDIT: But, sure, try the "nuh-uh, you're a racist card". I guess it could work.

SI

Maybe people should read my posts instead of spending their energy to build straw-men.

[NobodyHere]

Anyways I'm out of here for tonight.

Enjoy your looter circle-jerk.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Maybe people should read my posts instead of spending their energy to build straw-men.

I... guess? I mean, again, most of the people in this discussion appear to be talking about a specific situation, not hypotheticals. So, um, which is the straw man?

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So if someone invaded your property, what would you do?

The 17-year old kid wasn't a fucking property owner. He was some dipshit kid from Illinois who broke the law and tried to play vigilante. I have seen no evidence the people he shot were looters. Again, what does this have to do with looting?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Anyways I'm out of here for tonight.

Enjoy your looter circle-jerk.

Yeah, but what would you do if you were getting looted? I feel like that question wasn't adequately answered the 8 times it was asked.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So you would just let people loot you and then move on to loot other people?

Yes. Also, if someone carjacked me, I would let them take my car because I don't want to risk getting in a violent confrontation over my insured Nissan Altima.

Like I get protecting property and all that. People can decide for themselves what they value. But I sure as shit am not dying so I can protect the local Arbys.

[BillyMadison]

This devolved quickly.

Lets talk about the Kenosha Police aiding and abetting armed vigilantes and telling them they "Really appreciate" them. Lets talk about how a white guy with a gun who shot 3 people was able to just walk by 3 police vehicles. Do you think that would have happened if he was Black? Lets talk about how the Kenosha Chief of Police tacitly condoned a gunman who has been charged with first degree murder.

[BYU 14]

Jesus Christ guys, this thread has spiraled out of control in place, where even with differences we can usually enjoy civil conversations. Some of y'all need to grab a beer and step away from the board for a night.


And yes, I think this entire situation reeks of some stupid, unstable kid going out with bad intent. I don't see anyway to justify his actions, but all the conjecture on this tragic event has brought out the worst in the board tonight. Shit, let's be better than some of what we are posting towards each other.

[GrantDawg]

You can disagree with stealing, looting and etc. and not think people should get the death penalty for it. I really don't understand the attitude that people deserve to die over things like that. Places can be rebuilt. Things can be replaced. Death is permanent. And unless you are a psychopath killing someone, even justifiably, damages you. I just don't get the level of hate you have to have to wish death on people.
Btw, I am also in the camp that mourns for life of the 17 year old. I hate when kids throw their lives away like that. It is heartbreaking.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

You can disagree with stealing, looting and etc. and not think people should get the death penalty for it. I really don't understand the attitude that people deserve to die over things like that. Places can be rebuilt. Things can be replaced. Death is permanent. And unless you are a psychopath killing someone, even justifiably, damages you. I just don't get the level of hate you have to have to wish death on people.
Btw, I am also in the camp that mourns for life of the 17 year old. I hate when kids throw their lives away like that. It is heartbreaking.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

All of this. Every time someone dies young or wastes their life it's a tragedy. That doesn't mean crimes are excused, but there's no joy for me in seeing ruins of lives.

[BillyMadison]

And now here's a video of a vigilante explaining that Kenosha Police Officers told them they'll "push them towards you" so "then you can get them"....

Police told armed militia 'Were gonna push them down by you because you can deal with them' - YouTube

[thesloppy]

It's also depressing that all of the collective chaos in the US has somehow served to move gun control even further from the conversation.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

And now here's a video of a vigilante explaining that Kenosha Police Officers told them they'll "push them towards you" so "then you can get them"....

Police told armed militia 'Were gonna push them down by you because you can deal with them' - YouTube

Things like this make it pretty hard to keep faith in America. I am really not one of those "I'm moving out of the country because......." But, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least somewhat happy that I still have dual citizenship in England.

[Edward64]

Some additional details from AP.

https://apnews.com/97a0700564fb52d7f664d8de22066f88

Before the shooting, the conservative website The Daily Caller conducted a video interview with the suspected gunman in front of a boarded-up business.

“So people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business,” the young man said. “And part of my job is to also help people. If there is somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle -- because I can protect myself, obviously. But I also have my med kit.”

Based on his words, it would seem he wasn't protecting his/family/friend's store/business.

In Wisconsin, it is legal for people 18 and over to openly carry a gun, with no license required.

I read reports he was 17 so does this mean it was illegal for him to open carry?

Witness accounts and video indicate the shootings took place in two stages: The gunman first shot someone at a car lot, then jogged away, fell in the street, and opened fire again as members of the crowd closed in on him.

A witness, Julio Rosas, 24, said that when the gunman stumbled, “two people jumped onto him and there was a struggle for control of his rifle. At that point during the struggle, he just began to fire multiple rounds, and that dispersed people near him.”

“The rifle was being jerked around in all directions while it was being fired,” Rosas said.

No details on why or if he really shot (or missed) someone at a car lot and what happened to the target.

If I carrying a weapon and was "jumped on and there was a struggle for control of his rifle", yeah I would do what I needed to do to get out of that situation, including shooting my weapon.

[Drake]

It's a cogent criticism of the Republican pro-life position that it seems to be just about stopping abortion (or stopping sex), but they don't give a hoot about life (or quality of life) issues that cluster around what it means to be fully human. I agree with all of that.

Dems, on the other hand, tend to want to celebrate life, including outrage that we can explain in some post-modern crisis-of-outrage perspective-mongering where poverty or outrage conveys a sense of moral superiority. We seem to want to frame it as "people are worth more than property"...which is technically true, but it doesn't accurately count the cost in lives, in hours wasted to replace livelihoods, to entire families losing their sense of place and security because we're going to give a pass to someone who decided to take by force because we happen to agree with their cause or commiserate with their circumstances.

If you break into someone's home or business with the intention of stealing from them and exerting some form of force to get what you want at their expense, it shouldn't be an unreasonable conclusion that they might just as morally meet force with force.

It's not any more or less callous toward life in a holistic sense to kill a home invader or someone who has decided to destroy the framework of your individual life than it is for the person perpetrating the offense to decide that you are a legitimate target of opportunity.

In an ideal world, yes, bitches would hug it out and see each other's humanity and come back of the brink of stealing or looting or killing each other over it. People are more valuable than property. But if you're going to dehumanize the people on the other end of the property you want to exploit, I'm not really sure you can really complain when they dehumanize sufficiently in return enough to kill you over it.

But if we want to say that life is more than petty crimes, where do we then draw the line? If you have some sense that the person invading your home is just going to take your stuff but leave your spouse and kids alive...do you just let him have it? Stuff can be replaced, kids can be put in therapy to restore their sense of safety, houses can be sold and neighborhoods abandoned for your own peace of mind, marital therapists can be engaged to help your spouse sort through lingering feelings that you're not the sort of person who can be relied on to protect the people who rely on you.

This, admittedly, ranges a bit further than just talking about people burning down an Arby's or a generationally single-family-owned office supply business. But I'm not sure it's quite so simple as stating people are more valuable than property and holding that up as a principle, because sometimes property is a stand-in for all of the time and work and hope and future and existential sense of place and purpose invested in building a meaningful life.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If I carrying a weapon and was "jumped on and there was a struggle for control of his rifle", yeah I would do what I needed to do to get out of that situation, including shooting my weapon.

But if he's already fired a shot how does anyone know who is dangerous? Aren't we also going to praise the heroes that jump a mass shooter? This is one of the many problems with encouraging this sort of vigilanteism. There's a reason why we greatly restrict who can use violence in the name of the state.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But if he's already fired a shot how does anyone know who is dangerous? Aren't we also going to praise the heroes that jump a mass shooter? This is one of the many problems with encouraging this sort of vigilanteism. There's a reason why we greatly restrict who can use violence in the name of the state.

The AP article added pieces to the puzzle but still not near complete. I'm not ready to make my judgement yet based on the information so far.

Was it confirmed he really shot first? Was there really someone hurt in the (supposed initial) shot at the car lot (e.g. why wasn't that victim identified?), was he shooting at the ground to scare of people? Was he trying to help another person that was being jumped on? Beats me ... it'll come out soon.

However, what I meant to convey was the description, taken in isolation from all the other questions, if I was "jumped on and there was a struggle for control of his rifle", I would do what was needed to get out of the situation.

In other words, if he was walking around with a rifle and there wasn't an earlier incident (e.g. shooting at a car lot) and he was jumped on, I can see where it would be self defense if he shot those that jumped on him.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In other words, if he was walking around with a rifle and there wasn't an earlier incident (e.g. shooting at a car lot) and he was jumped on, I can see where it would be self defense if he shot those that jumped on him.

The question it actually begs is what sort of dumbass, unorganized militia leaves a 17 y.o. kid with a rifle on an island in the middle of a mob.

Either he was poorly disciplined and trained or using the term "militia" to describe the group of folks to which he was presumably attached is an abuse of the terminology.

And I say that as someone whose complete knowledge of military tactics comes from YouTube videos.

[RainMaker]

Can a criminal claim self-defense if someone is stopping him from committing a crime?

[Neon_Chaos]

Us foreigners watching from afar:

America 2020: Valar Morghulis

:|

[Butter]

Drake, your whole post is bullshit because we're not "giving a pass" to anyone. I'm trusting in the criminal justice system to find and prosecute the perps. You may find it some kind of trauma to come back from to have your livelihood and property taken, but personally I would find it more of a trauma to take a life, no matter if the person was maliciously targeting me or not. It has nothing to do with feeling morally superior but my own personal value system. I will defend my life and the lives of my family with my life, but I won't defend my car or my TV or even if I had a business with the same force. I'm just not going to take a life in those circumstances no matter how condescendingly you frame it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Us foreigners watching from afar:

America 2020: Valar Morghulis

:|

Philippines 2020: Valar Dohaeris

[Drake]

You're welcome to that opinion, Butter. I'm trying to think my way through the consequences of the mindsets.

Thanks for being civil.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Butter

I will defend my life and the lives of my family with my life, but I won't defend my car or my TV or even if I had a business with the same force. I'm just not going to take a life in those circumstances .

Pretty much the same philosophy I have. Taking a life is a burden I would not want anyone to bear.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The AP article added pieces to the puzzle but still not near complete. I'm not ready to make my judgement yet based on the information so far.

Was it confirmed he really shot first? Was there really someone hurt in the (supposed initial) shot at the car lot (e.g. why wasn't that victim identified?), was he shooting at the ground to scare of people? Was he trying to help another person that was being jumped on? Beats me ... it'll come out soon.

However, what I meant to convey was the description, taken in isolation from all the other questions, if I was "jumped on and there was a struggle for control of his rifle", I would do what was needed to get out of the situation.

In other words, if he was walking around with a rifle and there wasn't an earlier incident (e.g. shooting at a car lot) and he was jumped on, I can see where it would be self defense if he shot those that jumped on him.

But you can't take the earlier shooting out of the equation. I don't know how the law will be interpreted, but morally, shooting people that are trying to stop you from shooting people isn't justified.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Drake

The question it actually begs is what sort of dumbass, unorganized militia leaves a 17 y.o. kid with a rifle on an island in the middle of a mob.

I don't disagree. Earlier comments implied he may have been protecting his store/business. Based on the AP report, it does seem that he was a volunteer "protector/vigilante".

Per your earlier post, I agree with much of it. No I wouldn't kill someone trying to steal my car from my driveway or trying to steal my Air Jordans (okay really Merrill Moab 2). But yeah, I would shoot someone trying to break into my house.

There is no way you could know the thug wasn't planning to hurt me or other family members so you'd better believe I would shoot him. And no, skin color wouldn't make a difference - black, white, red, brown, yellow ... I'd shoot.

Either he was poorly disciplined and trained or using the term "militia" to describe the group of folks to which he was presumably attached is an abuse of the terminology.

I'm don't know if he really belonged to a militia. There was some news about how his FB had pics of his weapons, wannabee police etc. but nothing I read about militia. My guess is if he really belongs to a militia, it would be on his FB feed.

Yeah, I agree that if he didn't have his own/family business/store to protect, there was no good reason for a 17 year old to be out there with an open carry weapon. That would be dumbass.

I do want to learn more about the supposed first incident where he shot someone/something in a car lot.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But you can't take the earlier shooting out of the equation. I don't know how the law will be interpreted, but morally, shooting people that are trying to stop you from shooting people isn't justified.

And I'm saying you can't assume he was the one that actually did do the supposed earlier shooting based on what we know now. If there was an actual shooting at a car lot, shouldn't the victim's name be out by now? Wouldn't CNN have confirmed this story after 24 hours or so? I don't know but that's why I'm saying let's wait.

If that first incident did not happen or it was someone else that did the shooting, then I am saying I would be morally right in defending myself if I was jumped on.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Philippines 2020: Valar Dohaeris

Quite true. Our government is selling out to China every passing moment.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Quite true. Our government is selling out to China every passing moment.

You guys have to wait till 2022?

If you had to pick one based on what you know, would you want a Trump or a Duterte as President of Philippines?

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You guys have to wait till 2022?

If you had to pick one based on what you know, would you want a Trump or a Duterte as President of Philippines?

Duterte. I may think he’s an autocrat at heart, but he has >30 years of executive experience. He just likes to run the country like a Mayor runs his city. And he does believe in the policies he puts in place (war vs drugs, war vs crime, etc)

The last four years of Trump has shown that he has no beliefs, no convictions, no agenda other than Trump.

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Some additional details from AP.

https://apnews.com/97a0700564fb52d7f664d8de22066f88


Based on his words, it would seem he wasn't protecting his/family/friend's store/business.



I read reports he was 17 so does this mean it was illegal for him to open carry?



No details on why or if he really shot (or missed) someone at a car lot and what happened to the target.

If I carrying a weapon and was "jumped on and there was a struggle for control of his rifle", yeah I would do what I needed to do to get out of that situation, including shooting my weapon.

Regarding his interview before the shooting happened and his comments there. A lot of people were saying he probably had a decent case for self defense, besides himself breaking several laws based on crossing state lines, and weapons charges.

These comments from a lawyer on reddit are interesting though after he saw that interview you posted. According to him this line from that interview may be the kiss of death: ""...I'm running into harms way, that's why I have my rifle..."

This isn't a home and the prosecutor could easily argue he was actively there to aggravate the crowd like another dumb-fuck (who got book thrown at him for a similar style incident except he was brandishing a pistol at protesters) when the Ferguson protests happened. He attempted to claim self-defense and it failed. It would then be up to the defense to find evidence that he didn't aggravate the protesters but it's gonna be leaning against him cause yelling "fuck you" on camera during the incident isn't very helpful either. It also doesn't help he was apart of a militia as that means they were organized and "preparing" for trouble. What will save him is if there is video evidence of what started the confrontation and it's in his favor on the first charge. But frankly - it does not look good for this kid. He's going to get slapped with some type of charge.
TL;DR: If I was his lawyer, I would tell him to plead to a lesser charge. Only because he's going to get slapped with a bunch of minor charges as well quite possibly because he was out-of-state and nobody invited him or his militia to help "Defend" shit. Some of them are a felony. Even if he got cleared on the first shooting, he would be fucked on the second for the other two people. Frankly, he's lucky that there wasn't a non-militia member with a gun present at the time, because they would have thought he was a mass shooter and blew his brains out.
edit 2: Oh he's fucked.
"...I'm running into harms way, that's why I have my rifle..."
He's really fucked.

Someone then says: "He was fleeing when he tripped to the ground, at which point #2 came down on him with a kick, #3 hit him with a skateboard, and #4 pulled out a handgun to use on him. Not sure how his self-defense case disappears on those ones.

And said Lawyer says: "Because they would argue they were using self-defense/assaulted him because they thought he was a mass shooter. And he had just shot someone. Their court case is easy because they thought they were taking on a mass shooter to protect the innocent people around them. Just need a good lawyer to paint you in a heroic light, which any lawyer worth his salt will.
In the case of two self-defense claims being pushed forward? who would win? Dunno. But I get a feeling that a jury of 12 would be easily convinced that the people who assaulted him afterwards were in the right because he was an active threat. They had not killed anyone. That's my knee-jerk guess on who would win.
Also - with my edit of the twitter post interview with him, he won't be able to claim self-defense in his case. You can't claim your going into harm's way intentionally and claim self-defense. He's fucked himself in that interview. He might as well have blown off his own kneecaps as far as his own defense is concerned."

Same person: "They can make the case that he was intending to go into harm's way with a medkit and carrying the rifle to protect himself, though I'm sure he's going to get several different books thrown at him.
Self-defense cases don't cancel each other out. They can find the shooter and the attackers to be acting in valid belief of self-defense or defense of others."

Same lawyer: "Hasn't worked out for anyone else who attempted similarly. And in a very similar case that went federally - the judge threw the book at him. Though no one died in that incident. The law is pretty clear on what constitutes self-defense and yeah, it's no good. It didn't work for the guy who just brandished a gun. He didn't fire or kill anyone.
it's not going to work for the kid who killed a guy and injured two others. The fact that the FBI is investigating means that if he said anything with his militia group chat that "they will fuck up protesters" or something similar - which they probably have... then well, his goose is further cooked.
No, they don't cancel each other out but a verdict in one, will heavily influence the other." and "If you are intentionally knowingly going into a harmful situation with a gun, then you can't claim self-defense according to the law. I didn't fucking write it. But that's what law states. It applies to everyone involved, protesters, rioters and militia's alike."

Someone else asks: "I'm not a lawyer but if he didn't protect himself while on the ground what would have happened to him? My guess is they weren't going to just hold him down and flag down the cops (which he was trying to get to).
First shooting is more murky and he definitely had no business being there but neither did anyone that was on the street.
However, on the part that he was on the ground, knowing he was trying to make it to the cops, and admitting to have shot the first guy. It seems like self defense to me. But this will be one hell of a story to follow."

Same lawyer:
"Most likely? Had his gun taken away, restrained until the cops arrived would be guess. Same with other people who got restrained when they attacked cops and the protesters intervened. Cops would have taken him, put in the back of the car, driven to the police station and a bunch of other cops would be interviewing people.
If he didn't have that twitter interview post, his case of self-defense would actually be pretty legit though the fact he was with a militia would still hurt him, it might not have destroyed his court-case. Would depend on what the lawyers would do.
So yeah, you can say self-defense in the moment, sure. But before the incident saying "you are intentionally going into harm's way." throws out his self-defense claim. Apart of the law with self-defense is that you were not looking for trouble and you didn't insert yourself intentionally into a dangerous situation. Which is why a claim of self-defense won't work in this case.
Apart of the reason why some self-defense cases fall apart is not due to what happened in the actual incident but what led up to the incident. What was said online/recorded/witnesses/etc. The FBI are now involved, so probably his entire internet history is being looked at + all the evidence. etc. So even "joking" about harming protesters will be taken that you were intentionally looking for trouble like in other court cases."

"I'm only going off what was gathered so far from social media so it's a guess, but any lawyer worth their salt would be able to bend him over the table and make him cry mommy with what's currently available. The FBI will dig up more and it's probably not going to be in his favor especially if there is any group chats with other militia members. Never said it was right/wrong. I stated what the law says about self-defense. You can't claim self-defense when you say you are intentionally going into a hostile situation with a gun. The law is phased that way to prevent a shooter from goading people into attacking them so they can shoot them and claim self-defense."

So yea. The self-defense defense is complete bullshit because he acknowledges he's putting himself in harms way in that interview. At least according to this lawyer...

[RainMaker]

They are going to comb through his phone and social media too. Get the feeling a guy like this has probably said something he shouldn't that will be used against him.

Still would be surprised to see federal charges for obvious reasons despite the rather easy gun charge.