The law is not intuitive in this scenario.
WI 939.48
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person’s assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
So pointing his rifle at someone, his unwanted presence there, being armed in general, putting out fires, etc - all of this would cause him to lose the privilege of self defense under section (a)
The problem is section (b) says that that privilege is regained by withdrawing / fleeing, which it is pretty clear on video that he did.
Now section (c) says if the provoking actions were done with the intent to bait an attack and allow the provoker to cause bodily harm, they cannot claim self defense. I know we all are thinking 'yes, the little shit did!'. The problem is proving intent in court is really really difficult. Other than a few tidbits (like the stupid tiktok video about trying to be famous), there just isn't nearly enough evidence to prove intent to the degree required by the law. Compounding that issue are KR's documented examples of giving aid, putting our fires, and his connections to the town despite not living there - all of these together give a counter-narrative to explain his presence.
So that takes the provoking actions off the table and it comes down to the usual self defense questions.
Victim 1 was heard shouting threats according to witnesses, was chasing, and was within arms reach when shot.
Victim 2 had hit him with a skateboard and the pursuing group was shouting threats in general.
Victim 3 had a gun pointed at him and was advancing.
Going to he hard to successfully argue that there was not a threat for any of those.
I'll say it again - this case is demonstrating that what is right and what is legal can be very different things.
The best hope for a guilty verdict is that the jury ignores the law as written and judges KR on character.
= new reply since forum marked as read
