Anonymous #1 2w

second part is unproven first part is completely irrelevant

0

Anonymous OP 2w

first part is inherently relevant for explaining the second part. hence why you need to disregard it.

3

Anonymous #1 2w

having a gun is not intent to hurt anyone, everyone knows this

3

Anonymous OP 2w

illegally bringing it across state lines is not the same as merely having a gun.

3

Anonymous #1 2w

it wasnt illegal, those charges were dropped. and once again, possessing a gun, even illegally (which it wasnt), is not intent to hurt anyone. again everyone knows this dawg

1

Anonymous OP 2w

charges being dropped does not dismiss them entirely, it solely means prosecution is not seeking indictment for them; and the person who purchased said weapon for him was indeed indicted. he got lucky he got a jury that was sympathetic for him, the dumbass was directly guilty of a felony otherwise (over here trying to claim it wasn’t illegal like the fuck? did he have the legal ability to carry in both states?

1

Anonymous #1 2w

and bringing a gun to a protest specifically that ain’t even in your own state, should be considered intent to cause harm. he even admitted to directly joining a vigilante group intent on bringing weapons to the protest for their own goals of perceived citizen-based “law enforcement” via “protecting businesses against rioting” vigilantism is illegal as well. he did not engage in any citizens arrests (the slightest form of legal vigilantism), instead ended up killing someone out of negligence.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

it literally does not matter for if self defense is justified. you can carry illegally and be fully within your legal right to defend yourself with the gun

0

Anonymous #1 2w

this wasnt vigilantism bud, it was people open carrying outside a business in an open carry state. literally none of this proves anything. not to mention the people he shot were chasing him, trying to hit him with a skateboard, and pulled a gun on him lmfao gtfo

0

Anonymous OP 2w

except he wasnt there to defend himself, he was there as a vigilante and, per his own admission, brought firearms across state lines for that goal. self defense was what they used in court to achieve the dismissal of charges. there are plenty of guilty people who are wrongfully found innocent by the US “justice” system, just as there are plenty of innocent people found guilty.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

like I said, that dumb fuck got lucky he had a sympathetic (and majority white) jury

1

Anonymous OP 2w

he, along with his little buddies, directly escalated the situation and caused that outcome via bringing loaded firearms to a protest, and following people around with them.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

he didnt make someone charge at him, hit him with a skateboard, and pull a gun on him. if someones open carrying and you attack them, youll be shot and killed and no jury on earth is going to convict them lol. idk if this is just a lack of life experience or what

0

Anonymous OP 2w

the issue with your argument is he wasn’t just open carrying, and he wasn’t even old enough to legally open carry in the state

1

Anonymous #1 2w

completely and utterly irrelevant to if hes legally and morally justified in defending himself when aggressed upon, which he was by skateboard and gun wielding pedophiles so

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

you might not want to start talking about pedophiles assuming you’re still supporting those right-wing fucks. him fundamentally breaking the law in the first place has everything to do with whether it should’ve been classified as self defense or not. that imbecilic white child is guilty of homicide, and he got off free.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

you cant respond to a single point lmao. if you have a gun, LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY, and someone is trying to kill you, it is your legal and moral right to protect yourself

0

Anonymous OP 2w

unless you planned for that scenario to occur in the first place. projection isn’t a cute look boo

1

Anonymous #1 2w

and heres the loop because you cant respond. i dont get the argument. if you “plan” or “dont plan” thats irrelevant to the fact that if youre standing there minding your own business and someone attacks you you can defend yourself. and if a mob of people is chasing you with guns and skateboards youre also able to defend yourself. he was not the aggressor

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

except he wasn’t just “standing there”, was he? you don’t understand how planning is relevant to this topic? if you didn’t notice, my argument is based on the premise of what he should have been charged with.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

and yes, he was entirely the aggressor; they inherently escalated the situation by bringing loaded firearms to a protest (across state lines, with the intention of vigilantism)

1

Anonymous #1 2w

wroooooooong simply false. i see people open carrying in walmart every week doesnt mean theyre aggressing on me and i need to attack them. he was chased by a deranged mentally ill pedo and defended himself. then was chased and hit in the head with a skateboard and had a gun pulled on him. obvious self defense. but if youre just gonna loop back and say the same shit over and over then u got nothing to add dawg

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

again, you’re still minimizing the topic to just “open carrying” he willingly brought a firearm to a protest, disregarding him not being allowed to open carry in that state (so your open carry argument is bullshit, he was illegally armed); the ONLY reason he got off is because of a sympathetic WHITE jury.

3

Anonymous #1 2w

again, do you *really* want to go to the topic of pedophilia? I’m damn near positive you won’t like the outcome of that topic considering how most of you rittenhouse stans are still simping for the pedophile in the White House.

2

Anonymous #1 2w

read this very slowly and dont respond until youre able to actually address it: IT DOES NOT MATTER IF HAVING THE GUN IS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL, WHAT MATTERS IS IF YOUR LIFE IS THREATENED. and no, existing in public (even a protest) with a gun (even ILLEGALLY) is not aggressing on others. much like the guy he shot was not aggressing on others until he decided to pull his gun and point it at dudes head

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

except context still matters in those scenarios, otherwise any petty thief could claim self defense when they’re being stopped for a crime. he broke several laws by going to that protest in the way he did, especially considering his intentions.

2

Anonymous OP 2w

If I show up to a police station with the intent of threatening officers with a gun for some purpose, then the police aim their guns at me and my life is in danger, am I legally allowed to shoot them? I’m not allowed to be inside there with a gun. I’m not allowed to use the gun to threaten people. I showed up to this situation knowing something might happen. And, to that point: if I showed up explicitly to shoot an officer in self defense, is it still self defense?

4

Anonymous #2 2w

a police station is an explicitly no gun zone, so carrying a gun into a police station is going to immediately be taken as a threat. open carrying a gun in public in an open carry state is not taken as an immediate threat, so there needs to be some other act of aggression from the person with the gun for them to be an aggressor. and the intent is irrelevant, all that matters is WHO STARTED IT and no existing in a public space open carrying a gun is not aggressing on people

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

*illegally open carrying a gun while intentionally putting other people in danger by bringing it to a protest with the intention of acting as a vigilante* they should have hit his dumb fuck ass with homicide at the bare minimum

6

Anonymous #1 2w

quiet piggy you have nothing more to say

0

Anonymous OP 2w

how’d I know you were one of those magats? You really tried shamelessly weaponizing pedophilia too. have the dogshit day you deserve ;)

1