I did, apparently you did not. In Wisconsin the appropriate statue is 939.48. I will post the relevant portions below:
" In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s.
895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub.
(1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par.
(ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time."
Being involved in a criminal activity is NOT relieving a person of the duty to retreat (and I would say that there is some question there the way the statue is worded), and losing the presumption of reasonableness and proportionality if you are in a "dwelling" or "place of business that the actor owns or operates"
These are the concepts of "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine." As I stated in my previous post, Kyle did not have an opportunity to retreat as I saw it on the video and he was facing a deadly force threat or severe bodily injury, so proportionality is met, and I think a reasonable person would perceive that he was facing a threat of deadly force or severe bodily injury.
Another point is did he provoke the first encounter. Part 2 of the above Wisconsin statue also states:
Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
Basically if you provoke the attack you are not relieved of the duty to retreat. The only point I think that would cause him trouble if he could be shown to have reasonably threatened the first person he shot with deadly force. I.e., I pull a gun and shoot you vs. I pull a gun and shoot you because you are coming at me with a baseball bat in a threatening manner.
The North Carolina laws are similar, you can look them up if you want the relavant statues are G.S. 14-51.2, G.S. 14-51.3, and G.S. 14-51.4.
