Simply because it's reasonable to think he was in danger for his life.

I think he'll end up being guilty of some weapons charge or something equally lame. That and a lesson learned.

That is semi-likely, if they don't just drop the charges entirely.

Oh, he'll be guilty of something. Lol.

I don't trust his representation enough to think they have a chance to get all charges dropped.

He may keep reckless endangerment, but that's debatable.

Something like that with a sharp slap on the wrist.

If he gets reckless endangerment and it's not downgraded he would be a convicted felon.

So I certainly would avoid taking that plea deal in his case assuming they try to offer it.

I don't even know the charges at this moment, much less what they will end up being and even less the outcome...but it seems like no one is going to say 'Later dude. Sorry for the inconvenience.' It's too hot.

It's one of those kinds of cases in my honest opinion that you have to let play out in court for the good of public trust and trust in the justice system. Just waving Kyle off would have been likely in poor taste.

Two people are dead, and if no one had any form of closure, it'd not look good for the system.

Especially because it's contentious.

Yes. That.

And I think that goes both ways, for the police and citizens.

Too many people have zero closure over OISs.

And it's led to a lack of trust in the justice system and police officers for good reason.

As if I recall, mostly DAs handle OISs, and not a grand jury. @RobertGrulerEsq would know more about that.

Some secondary weapons or related charges could be just as bad or worse for him. could end up doing more time then what he is facing now

Im thinking he will work out a plea deal, one where he admits to some issues (covers the state for law suit) probably time served and lifetime probation. Or he could roll the dice and go to trial and walk free or good bye to his freedom. Personally with a very good defense team and the right jury pick i will would roll the dice. that's just me

i agree.

I don't believe he has to cover anything for a prosecution. lol

Generally people only pay legal fees in civil cases if I'm not mistaken, and even then it's rare as you have to usually prove bad faith litigation.

Usually it's defendants that sue for costs.

And it's semi-rare to actually go through.

Hughes v Benjamin is a good example of suing for costs and proving bad faith litigation.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.479687/gov.uscourts.nysd.479687.52.0.pdf You can find the final opinion and order here.

```Benjamin argues that Hughes brought this suit to silence her political opponents and critics and to generate publicity for herself. Motivation, like all the Fogerty factors, is not dispositive, but “the presence of improper motivation in bringing a lawsuit or other bad faith conduct weighs heavily in favor of an award of costs and fees.” Baker v. Urb. Outfitters, Inc., 431 F. Supp. 2d 351, 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2006),aff’d, 249 F. App’x 845 (2d Cir. 2007).```
```Here, the Court has little difficulty concluding that Hughes’s dual goals in bringing her baseless suit were to inflict financial harm on Benjamin and to raise her own profile in the process. Improper or bad faith motivations are generally difficult to discern, as litigants often have a variety of objectives and may obscure their baser ones behind a veil of legitimate-sounding claims. In this case, however, Hughes openly discussed her improper motivations on both Twitter and her website. Indeed, Hughes admitted to potentially hundreds of thousands of followers that she intended to (i) “bankrupt” Benjamin (Doc. No. 43 at 2), (ii) stymy his attempts to crowdfund his legal costs (id. at 2–3), and (iii) use copyright laws to silence her political opponents and critics (id. at 4). Other posts, including her public boasting about the legal dispute on her social media accounts (even describing her complaint as a “[C]hristmas present” for Benjamin) and her public belittlement and celebrity-style feuding with Benjamin (id. at 5–7), strongly suggest that Hughes intended to sensationalize the litigation to elevate her own public profile and achieve a secondary financial gain. Together, then, Hughes’s public comments reveal an intent to abuse the legal system in order to further a personal agenda that had little to do with the Copyright Act```

Obviously this is particularly in the case of copyright, but I believe the idea remains the same across the spectrum.

Bad faith litigation in effort to cause monetary harm to someone is usually something that the court may solve if they're able to prove the claim.

I might be from Wisconsin and Ever's supports a assault weapons buy back I might have a 14 year old with an ar-15 hunting this weekend. Well maybe it could happen. The .243 that he killed his last deer with has not been reliable. So maybe.... suck it Evers.

The taxpayer covers prosecution though.

(Though not defense all the time)

totally agree ...only reason i brought up is it does happen i see it more with person being released after wrongful confinement

no refund on defense lawyer

Don't believe so, no.

And it seems mildly risky to take the free attorney provided imho.

Well, taxpayer-funded defense attorney.

what no faith with public defenders

If I were looking at potentially sitting in prison for the rest of my life? No.

lol