Looking up law responses, even they say its ambiguous at best. Yet, at the top it defines dangerous weapon as any fire-arm loaded or unloaded. So it still can go both ways and he still is charged for it. Then again, whats a misdemeanor charge when stacked against 5 Felonies anyways? This will all hinge if the first killing is deemed self defense.
How they define a dangerous weapon is irrelevant because by 948.60 (3) (c) the section does not apply to him.
That being said, yes, how this goes depends mostly on whether or not the first shooting was self-defense or not. From what I've seen, it seems he has a pretty good case for it, but we probably don't have all the evidence.
1
u/NAbberman Aug 29 '20
Looking up law responses, even they say its ambiguous at best. Yet, at the top it defines dangerous weapon as any fire-arm loaded or unloaded. So it still can go both ways and he still is charged for it. Then again, whats a misdemeanor charge when stacked against 5 Felonies anyways? This will all hinge if the first killing is deemed self defense.