dChan
Anonymous ID: 08856b Aug. 26, 2020, 12:12 p.m. No.10428275   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8296 >>8315 >>8326 >>8357 >>8399 >>8437 >>8531 >>8919

Of all the videos I've seen of this so far there is nothing to indicate he was there to support Black Lives Matter.

 

He is a "Blue Lives Matter" supporter, there are pics of him with that. He was there to guard the business.

 

The first guy that got shot in the head was chasing the kid down in the parking lot, which is when the first shooting happened. That's the guy in red shirt that got shot in the head.

 

The kid immediately called someone (presumably police) saying he just killed someone.

 

As mob started gathering around the wounded man, kid walks away, mob chases him down, kid falls to ground, multiple people jump on him, one kicking him, one hitting with skateboard. Kid shoots skateboard guy in chest.

 

A third guy pulls a handgun (there are still pics clearly depicting this man pointing handgun right at the kid) - kid shoots him in the arm, that's the guy that got half his arm blown off. Kid then walks away, towards police.

 

Arms in air multiple times, walks right up to police vehicles with arms in air.

 

No idea where this "fleeing fugitive" crap comes from because he surrendered immediately.

Anonymous ID: 08856b Aug. 26, 2020, 12:16 p.m. No.10428326   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8390 >>8399

>>10428275

 

AND…………

 

The videos certainly seem to capture many elements of what would be deemed a “self-defense” use of deadly force. The fact that the shooter was in possession of a deadly weapon is not an issue under Wisconsin law.

 

The details of the initial confrontation between the shooter and the first “victim” will play a meaningful role in the evaluation of the incident. But if the shooter was placed in reasonable fear for his life, or that there was a threat of serious bodily injury to himself or others posed by the actions of the first “victim,” it is quite possible the first shooting was justified self-defense since he was being pursued.

 

If true, the individuals who mistakenly chased him down the street, under the wrong impression that he had done something illegal in the first shooting, are “on their own” legally. They have no “right of apprehension” for a crime that did not occur.

 

The loss of life with regard to the second “victim” is regrettable, but he placed himself in a position to be vulnerable to the shooter’s perceived need to protect himself a second time.

 

Life lesson – don’t chase someone who has a gun if they have just used it.