Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3
Sorry about feeding the troll, but ignore list him if you must. BoLevi, tell me which takes you disagree with.
I heard a lot of legal opinion from a lawyer, that largely supported this idea that his was a tough decision that reasonably could have gone either way by the letter of the law.
Ad libbing here so it's not word for word, but I heard what could be considered 3 takes from him;
1) If you agree this was self defense, then you should probably have come to the same conclusion should KR have been the one murdered.
2) KRs narrative should be taken with a grain of salt as it would have been carefully sculpted to put himself in the best possible light.
3) Vigilantism creates these fog of war situations where there is wrong doing without being able to prove legal culpability and that is a bad thing. And accepting that as a reality of the laws is bad too, even if that currently is the case.
Do you disagree with any of those takes?
What takes did you hear?
|
1. At best, the legal position of GG and Huber with respect to self defense if KR had been killed would have been much murkier than Kyle's was.
2. No part of KR's story was sculpted. He didn't need to. The facts were on his side, and almost entirely on video.
3. No part of what KR did would fit in any useful definition of the word vigilante. Legal Eagle going off on a tangent about KR and vigilante-ism was pure straw man.