Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
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.
|
So basically you are going to bend over backwards to deny any little tiny piece of information that remotely threatens your opinion meaning you aren't actually having a conversation with anyone, you are just screaming at a wall about how you feel.
The Assertions you are making, wow, those are bold and clearly not anchored in any interest in objectivity.
1) An person without something commonly used as a deadly weapon gunned down in the streets has a murky right to the self dense argument when they fell threatened by someone brandishing a firearm in their direction, while somebody who shows up to a riot with s riffle clearly ended up defending when he went on a murdering spree.
2) As long as it's the person your team decided to agree with, we should not assume their narrative is coloured by their self interest, people would never colour their testimony in self interest unless they are out to get this good honest 'conservative' kid
3) Showing up to a property uninvited to defend it with a gun, without being deputized by the state is not vigilantism. That couldn't possibly be what that word means.
Society makes me so sad sometimes, but it's a breath of air we don't have to live in the terrifying reality you have in your head 100% of the time.