The second and third shoots were clearly justifiable. How was the child molester still an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury after he threw the incendiary device?
Yeah. No harm no foul, right?
Measure the kid's actions against this element of WI law:
"The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."
The kid and his lawyer will have to address the threat that this specific person presented at the time he was shot. To the best of my knowledge WI law doesn't allow retaliation.
Paul, it would appear your legal expertise is wasted here and would be far better put to use over on DU.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
