and shoot everyone there."

They don't have a license to carry a weapon but they go get a gun anyway.

They travel to another state (also illegal) and walk into a gun range with their gun.

When they enter the range, they yell "guns are bad" but they do not point their weapon.

Upon hearing the person say this, the range owner reaches for their gun, assuming they're a threat. *POP-POP*, owner down. Two other range attendees turn to shoot at this person after hearing the shots and seeing the owner fall. *POP-POP-POP-POP*. Both of them drop.

The shooter claims self defense.

-Do they get off on this?

-Would intent not be part of the prosecution (stated feelings online, acted on said feelings...premeditated)?

-Would the fact that they garnered a weapon illegally not play into the case (disobedience of the law with the intent to commit an act of violence as stated in said premeditated 'wishing')

-Is simply reaching for the gun because they said 'guns are bad'...at a gun range, while carrying a gun, an act of life threatening intent? So much so that they needed to kill the person to protect themselves?

-Would there be nuiance in considering these facts together or would they be isolated and evaluated on each of their own merits?

-Would saying they wanted to do something online/in public be considered an empty jesture, facetiousness.

-Would obtaining a gun illegally (not licensed to carry one) and taking it to another state (transporting a weapon across state lines) be thrown out of the case as separate issues?

-Would going to a gun range be considered circumstantial (just because they are there, doesn't mean they wanted to shoot anyone, they 'could' have walked in and just started shooting).

-Would provocation not have any consideration in this case? (This is like when a cop goes into a situation to purposefully escalate it instead of de-escalating so they have justifiable cause to use deadly force...to me, it's the same principle as walking into a theater and yelling "fire" where there is no fire...if you provoke the situation, you are liable...ESPECIALLY where intent is provable).

I dunno, I just don't see how the chain of events doesn't lead to him netting SOME type of conviction. Maybe the prosecution swung for the fences with murder but I can see how that's on the table given the public expression of desire to shoot people at this particular event. There was nothing reasonable about any of the actions he took (breaking the law by obtaining a weapon, traveling across state lines, putting himself in a hostile environment while armed, walking solo, shooting the first person to approach him, who's sans weapon {police officers were at the end of the block if he needed assistance and he could SEE them, it's on video}.

Maybe a lesser charge should have been levied but this outcome...missed the target IMO.