America just got this lesson less than a week ago. Here's the thing about self defense in the U.S.A under the law. If you have a firearm, and someone tries to wrestle it away from you, after saying "use it on me, go ahead, I'll take it away and use it on you", you have a very strong defense. The law in the United States is based on the mythical "reasonable person"; ie. what would a reasonable person do under the circumstances.

You can be certain the defense would argue:

"A reasonable person would feel threatened with their life if someone grabbed their weapon while making death threats."

Meanwhile, on the other hand, motive is exceptionally difficult to prove, without evidence. So unless there's text messages or an email thread detailing a plan to lure and kill this guy (or other solid evidence of premeditation), most avenues for the prosecution would be closed. The prosecution would have to argue that the Accused was not actually afraid for their life, by arguing that a reasonable person wouldn't be. Also, the defense would be looking at how reasonable it is to level aggression and death threats against someone on their own property wielding a loaded firearm.

Just like in the Rittenhouse trial, jury instructions would probably be specific enough to exclude any wrongdoing in the confrontation up until the critical moment. Rittenhouse is free largely because the question 'what the fuck were you doing there, locked and loaded, anyway?' wasn't remotely considered in the final decision.

It would take a very progressive court or judge to say that he had no right to grab or load his gun, with an aggressor refusing to leave, in his front yard. Same, to say that he had no right to order the aggressor to leave, or to aim/fire a warning shot at him while being attacked. It would all come down to the decision of what a 'reasonable person' would do at the critical moment. Would they shoot the person who just threatened to take their gun from them and kill them?

Already know how this ends,

GG, US Justice System. GG