I'm wondering who shot first. The media is all reporting an armed white guy shot a bunch of BLM protestors giving the impression these peaceful protestors were ambushed.

The protesters threw a molotov cocktail at the armed white guy. That's what started it. He shot the thrower in the face right afterward. He shot first but only after being attacked with fire.

From what I read they did not apprehend him last night.

I agree. My son says he saw a vid posted on twitter that shows the parking lot guy that was shot daring the kid to shoot him. "shoot me mfkr" over and over. Son says that the kid had turned his back and was in a protected postion behind a vehicle and the video he saw shows the guy rush him from behind with the kid turning around and firing hitting the POS in the side of the head. I agree though, that is where the kid's liability sits. I think a good lawyer can easily get him off on the shootings we've seen the video of in the middle of the street

It isn't clear to me that the parking lot/car dealership shooter is the same one who was running down the street being chased by a gang of thugs who shot in self defense.

Edit: I just read that the police did an illegal arrest of a 17 year old who was the one running down the street
being attacked by the gang of thugs.

Trump sending in the guard and federal officers tonight

It's the same guy from what I've seen. Lot's of pictures all over the internet showing him at different places during the riot.

Deem anything physically thrown at the troops as a dealy projectile/missile and deal with it as such. Guard needs to have shoot to kill orders if they start receiving firework bombs, bricks and molotov cocktails from the rioters. That's how you end this. Just have the federal govt pay the families that sue and move on, but that will stop it cold. Be rest assured. Last night was the first night it got real for the protestors. Do that tonight and the problem is over on a nationwide basis.

It's all fun and games until you see your protesting buddy throw a brick and get shot in the face and you're standing there covered in brain matter. That promotes an immediate and realistic assessment of the situation. It is basic dog psychology. If you let the dog continue to behave badly without discipline, the dog gets braver and braver but if you sternly discipline the dog the first time he does wrong and every time after, the dog will learn that the bad behavior is not tolerated and will mind. In this case, these protestors have been allowed to run wild for the past 3 months with no repurcussions, not even arrest, and that is why things are now the way they are. They have gotten braver and more brazen because these liberal governors and mayors have essentially told them that it is okay to burn, riot and loot. It needs to be put down quickly and brutally and it will end permanently but it will just continue until that happens.

At one of the riots a couple of months ago.........DC maybe..........they had the Guard out there all lined up with riot shields and none of them were even armed. Not sure what good they were doing other than to be a human wall.

Not illegal. At 17, it is illegal for him to be carrying a long gun. He had no legal right to show up armed. So there goes any self defense argument.

Does this mean that they can NOT charge him as an adult?

No 17 there..go figure

BS charge him with minor in possession or whatever but you can defend yourself with deadly force at any age

So he can be charged as an adult, but not protect himself as an adult ... Yeah, that sounds about right

Well, if he was 17, then there is the argument that they were throwing Molotov cocktails and attacking a kid. Doesn’t exactly boost their moral high ground.

It’s illegal for him to purchase a long gun on a federal level. Doesn’t necessarily translate to possession limitations. Not sure what their state law on the matter is.

But there is no age limit on self defense. Whether he put himself in that situation or not, you don’t lose the right to self defense unless you are the aggressor. It appears he was still a legitimate victim in the situation.

The possession charge is completely separate from the defense issue - you have the right to defend yourself regardless of age.

I was worried some such nonsense would arise - the state is pretty badly democrat ridden.

can you say Kent State U? During the Vietnam a bunch of hippy turds were having a peaceful protest at Kent State. You know just being playful chunking fire bombs, bricks and bottles. The NG had been deployed, but no live ammo. Several guys brought some. thus the Crosby , Still Nash song about "4 dead in Ohio" its bullchit to deploy trooips with unloaded weapons. i say stack'em up.

So what was a 17 year old armed with an AR doing 20 miles from home at midnight on a Tuesday night?