🔫Deadly force should only be used to protect oneself, not property.
💼Using deadly force to protect property is not justified under the law.
🗣️Verbal threats or expressions of intent to use deadly force may affect a person's credibility in a self-defense claim.
⚖️Proving self-defense requires demonstrating a reasonable belief of imminent danger to one's life or safety.
🚓Law enforcement is responsible for protecting property, while individuals are responsible for their personal safety.
Can deadly force be used to protect property?
—No, deadly force should only be used to protect oneself from imminent harm.
Are verbal threats considered self-defense?
—Verbal threats alone are not sufficient grounds for using deadly force in self-defense. It depends on the specific circumstances.
What is the legal standard for self-defense?
—The legal standard for self-defense requires demonstrating a reasonable belief of imminent danger to one's life or safety.
Who is responsible for protecting property?
—Law enforcement is primarily responsible for protecting property, while individuals should focus on their personal safety.
Can a person use force to prevent property damage?
—A person may use reasonable force to prevent property damage, but deadly force is generally not justified for this purpose.
00:02The defendant testifies that the AR-15 in question never left the state of Wisconsin, except for one night.
00:11The defendant wanted to have the gun with him in Illinois when he was in an argument with someone.
01:11The defendant justifies his use of deadly force against Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gaige Grosskreutz as self-defense.
01:23The prosecution questions the defendant about the difference between using deadly force to protect property and using it for self-defense.
03:11The defense argues that the defendant's statements and actions demonstrate his willingness to use deadly force to protect property.
