[quote=“MikeBKY, post:358, topic:36395”]
(Class A misdemeanor with up to $10,000 fine and 9 months in jail.
As the facts are coming out, trying to give him 1st degree murder looks to be a far over reach. Hopefully the Class A misdemeanor is his worst case scenario… MikeBKY do you think there going to go after the owner of the AR 15?
The intent of the USCCA membership is to assist our members with their legal self-defense when they’ve used any legal weapon in their physical self-defense. We are only able to provide protection for a lawful self-defense incident, with something you can legally posses at the time of your incident.
Due to this being a very public situation that is continuing to unfold, the best answer I can give you is it depends on the totality of the circumstances of the incident.
@Dawn. I know this is very high visibility incident with evolving information at every turn. It’s probably hard to answer a hypothetical. However, It seems it would be very easy to deny any claim based on the standard set above. How do I prove it was a “lawful defense incident” when charging documents charge me with murder. If I have to prove innocence before USCCA can refer me to an attorney, why would I need an attorney? Wouldn’t it be his / her job to argue for me that it was lawful? And if he failed, or only got charges reduced, would my coverage be retroactively denied because the court pronounced it unlawful? I want to meet, not only the burden of law, but the standard for coverage from the USCCA. It seems every case would have some gray area until a final verdict is in. Can it be articulated how I can be assured I’ll get the benefit I’m counting on? Curious.
If you act within the law, for the location you are in at that time, with a weapon you legally are able to be in possession of, you should be covered. Basically if you don’t break the law in the act of defending yourself, you should have no reason to worry, regardless. That’s my take on the terms, anyways…
I’m not trying to be difficult, but isn’t that what the court is supposed to determine? Else, why was I charged? If that could be established before I can get a referral, why would I need a referral? Certainly we make every effort to dot the I’s and cross the T’s. We must do everything right. Using the metaphor, what if I drop a comma? Not throwing out a challenge here. We can’t ever stop training, learning, and playing what if. There’s too much at stake. (And I’m sure my question is going to cause topic drift. Sorry @Dawn)
I wasn’t trying to be rude or anything, so I hope it didn’t come across that way. Let’s use the Rittenhouse scenario… from the videos, it seems he acted in self defense, however, he used a weapon he may not legally be allowed to possess, and legally he may have violated a curfew. Therefore, it is possible he could not be covered. It is important we know all the laws pertaining to self defense in our area for this reason.
I think a lot of “will I be covered” can be answered by preliminary information.
I don’t represent USCCA, so don’t take my word on that.
Not at all. I like direct. I like blunt. I like real. This community provides it all. I love it! That didn’t even cross my mind. Thanks.
Last posts were very interesting.
Actually I was always curious where is the line between lawful and unlawful self-defense… when most of self-defense acts make you “perpetrator” and your attacker a “victim”, especially when the attacker has been fatally shot.
I would just like to congratulate everyone on the thread for being respectful and staying on topic and not getting the thread locked up…good on ya mates! Cheers! 
Indeed, and all the while the felon who had the handgun has not been charged that I can find, and it seems to be a scarcity of charges against the rioters.
I have reviewed the law, online, so am only assuming it is accurate. One of those representing Rittenhouse has stated that he was legally able to carry the rifle.
He did not elaborate on that, so am not sure on what their defense will be on the carrying of the rifle, but it seems the other charges should be dismissed, or at least beaten in court.
Good question.
And if, in good faith you believe you were within the law, and you still end up convicted in court, does the coverage to assist with legal fees evaporate?
I thought I would post this here also since the poor horse is still being beaten. 
From what I see in the videos, all I see is this young kid running with the AR15 and being chased by what it appears to be like an angry mob of protesters. I noticed as he was being chased one of the protesters/rioters launched a fire bottle at him. If I were him at that point I would be fearful of losing my life. I noticed that one of the rioters he shot had a gun in his hand and pointed it at the young kid. It seems like a clear cut case of self defense in my opinion. But prosecutors will always bring out circumstances regarding him bringing the gun across state lines and they may want to make his mom responsible for dropping him off at the location. We shall see.
All I saw was a kid trying to run from trouble but an angry mob chasing him. Ditto’s to what everyone said above…looks like self defense. Of course, one has to wonder why any law-abiding person is going into these areas in the first place: now CNN can run a story 24/7 on how a “Trump-loving white supremicist shot peaceful protesters”. Same goes for the people in Portland, Seattle, etc. Just stay away and let the attention stay 100% on the Biden rioters.
I’m wondering how they want to defend his right to bare AR15.
It sounds like his attorneys are making state/federal constitutional claims that the state law violates one or both constitutions. Those claims will likely be tied up in courts for YEARS.
I saw that. I wonder how it will go…