I've two views, one directly concerning the actions he and the victims took and one more holistic view of the whole situation.
Self Defense definition - In US law the general wording is this "[a] person is privileged to use such force as
reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of
unlawful and
immediate violence from another. When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's
infliction of great bodily harm or death" - taken from Wikipedia. There are many variations so this is a generic definition.
1. Actions - All these actions are seen in multiple videos, anything which is still speculation (other shooters involved etc) I have ignored - After having a Molotov cocktail or similar incendiary device thrown at him by the first person he shot (who was still chasing him for 4 seconds after throwing the Molotov and 2 seconds after the first shot was fired), I think he is entitled under US law to act in self defence as he thought his life was in danger (
Video of first victim throwing Molotov). After ringing the
police (edit - new report he rang his friend) post the first shooting he is then chased by a large group, 2 of which directly assault him (one with a kick to the head and one with a skateboard to the head). Again at that point I think that under US law he's entitled to act in self defence as he thought his life was in danger. After shooting the attacker who had a "weapon" (the skateboard) but not the "unarmed" man who kicked him, he then shoots the last victim who approached him with his own pistol draw and roughly pointing at him so, again, I think that he is entitled under US law to act in self defence as he thought his life was in danger (
video of the crowd chase, the skateboard attack and the final two shootings).
Note that the only people he shot were those he could say in a court were
directly threatening his life - Molotov thrower, skateboard to head guy and man armed with pistol - and that he didn't shoot any of the other people around him who were also carrying "weapons" such as wooden bats/poles etc as they were not attacking him and were therefore not a
direct threat. After trying to hand himself in
3 2 times (
phone call post first shooting edit - new report he rang his friend, approaching Police post second shooting and phoning police once home), his actions potentially being classed as some level of self defence due to being attacked by 2 of the 3 victims and the over charging by the DA, I think he'll have a very good chance of being found Not Guilty of the two 1st Degree murders but he'll probably still be found guilty on some far lesser charges as a gesture of mob placation (hoping to avoid a flair up - it won't work) and he'll probably be spending, at worst, a few years in jail.
Lastly, regarding the actions of those who were shot - In each case their actions directly led to them being shot. They were not random "innocent bystanders" stood around who were mercilessly gunned down by some mad-eyed lunatic. Each one did something which directly caused their shooting to occur, either by directly using violence against the shooter (Molotov and Skateboard victims) or being a direct threat (Pistol) which made the active shooter consider them to be a direct threat to his life. Again, the only people shot were those directly threatening him, there were lots of people stood just 10 yards away with wooden batons who he didn't shoot because they were not directly threatening him. In simple terms, if someone has a gun, don't attack them and you'll live or alternatively attack them and you'll get shot - the fact that such a "common sense" phrase even has to be said is amazing but 'Murica I suppose.
2. Overview - He should never have been there in the first place but I think I can understand why he thought he should be even if I absolutely 100% disagree with the decision he made. There is a far bigger discussion to be had regarding why it's mainly Democrat run cities that are allowing these uncontrolled riots to continue for days on end but in this specific example, the chain of failures starts with the failure of local Police to contain the rioting, the failure of the Mayor to back up the Police during the rioting, the failure of the Governor to force the Mayor to back up the Police etc all of which is just inexcusable. With their lack of action they created a perfect storm of failure after failure, something which the shooter had been repeated across Democrat run cities for the last 100 days, and which directly led to the shooter, someone untrained, inexperienced and unrequested by law enforcement, thinking that he was exactly what the situation needed when "law enforcement" seemed incapable doing the job, and now people are dead because of this chain of failures.
I don't think he specifically went out to shoot people, I genuinely think he went there because he thought he could help keep things "peaceful" by being there because, as a 17 year old, he just isn't experienced enough in life to realise that regardless of how he saw himself, others would see him as an antagonist and therefore a target. The legality of his actions on the night can be debated back and forth but in my opinion he should never have been there to start with, even if I can understand why he thought it was a good idea to go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I generally dislike threads like these. In my experience they usually just serve as a "meeting point" for two different ideologies to verbally spar, with neither side really caring about the actual event that much but being happy just to have a subject with which to fight each other, similar to the way hooligans use the pretence of a football match to organise fights and where "tribalism" (fighting for your side regardless) is seen as more important than remaining factual and being able to calmly and rationally discuss the event as I suspect will happen here.
