An American has the right to defend them self. Are the rules when it comes to this self defend the same as in many other countries like Denmark and Sweden.

Here it says you are allowed to use so much force needed to pacify a person and not more.

Markus

Apparently the defense has filed a moron to dismiss (mistrial with prejudice) because the State knowingly and purposely gave them a different version of the video evidence, which is prejudicial to the defendant's rights. That gave them a smaller filesize video with lower resolution than what they played at trial and then when confronted by the defense, have them the a larger file size video with higher resolution - 2 days after the evidence was closed. The judge needs to throw the case out and have Lunch Box and Littlebinger frog-marched to a cell.

That's a new judicial action, is it?

Way over simplified but yeah. Free country and all that.

What self defense weapon would you pick instead? Personally I see the AR as a fine choice for several reasons.

We had whole companies of them marching around last summer. This Person of a Lighter Shade for one is fine with it.

Yeah yeah wishing ain't gonna make it so. The facts are that he was defending himself from people trying to kill him and in my country that is not wrong.

Well, my fat fingers aside, Lunchbox and Littlebinger *are* morons. The judge is now hearing how they purposely sent a different video to the defense than the one shown in court - the one piece of evidence that the whole prosecution is relying on. With indications of a "day of reckoning" for the State. The problem is the defense are decent people who just asked for a mistrial WITHOUT prejudice, rather than with prejudice. They need to recognize that the prosecutors aren't incompetent - they're evil and spiteful.

It varies from state to state. Some states have what is known as "castle doctrine" (a man's home is his castle and he has every right to defend it). However, in some cases the property owner is required to retreat to a place of safety and only use deadly force when no other option is available.

Some states have a "stand your ground" law. This essentially means that deadly force can be used without retreating - as long as there is a reasonable fear for one's life or the life of other innocent people.

Still other states have neither of these laws and a person could get into a lot of trouble for using deadly force for any reason.

In any case it is usually a requirement that there was no other option and that the person had good reason to believe that their life was in imminent danger.

I think the video and testimony more than established that he met the threshold for use of deadly force in a self-defense situation. For Lunchbox to even state that he should have let them beat him before he fired would have dragged the deal for me as a juror. They want people to think that they aren't allowed to resist an angry leftist mob.

Well it seems pretty clear cut to me too but if it's that way to the jury then why are they now going into day 3 of deliberations?

:sign_yeah::agree::()1:

You know at first I thought this might be deliberate. Everyone was so ready for a fight that first night of deliberations and maybe they were trying to defuse the situation by not giving them the spark but it's getting close to the weekend and if that was their strategy it's not going to work out if they don't come back with a verdict by this morning.

so it is about politics and strategy..
Does the judge have to accept what the jury says, does he have a veto right?

It probably varies from state to state. I have heard of such a thing though. I doubt that would happen here.

Judges can and do issue JNOVs where they can set aside the jury's verdict. The *big* thing is that, unlike some states, in Wisconsin, the jury is *not* involved in sentencing. They could find him guilty and the judge could set it aside out let it stand but sentence him to time served. Under the circumstances, there is no mandatory minimum sentence.