This message was self-deleted by its author

[WarGamer]

66. Your mistake is calling shooting #1 unlawful conduct.

If it's found that shooting #1 was lawful (self defense)

Then the other 2 shootings don't meet your "definition"

In fact... KR, Huber and GG probably all 3 had the right to self defense and KR just shot first.



Example: Rob a bank and if people in the street try to stop you, there is NO self defense exception.

But if there's a bank robbery and you're minding your own business walking down the street and 2 guys THINK you're the bank robber, all 3 of you have the right to self defense. Sounds crazy but that's the law.

Example #2

If GG had shot KR, he would not be liable for killing KR because he was in fear of his life after seeing the armed dude and being in fear.

But if KR is found not guilty on shooting #1, he literally CAN NOT be convicted of the other 2.