Him illegally holding a gun, how he obtained it are not on trial here.

The felon child rapist had a gun and fired at Kyle. Obvious self defense, but the left will protect a child rapist before they say someone on the right was justified in their actions.

How he obtained it is relavent to his intentions.

JessiWan said maybe he just always carries a gun. I was showing that's not the case.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Nov 3 2021 10:18am

News media these days is epic fail. Most people have never heard the whole story even, just a manufactured agitprop fiction.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Nov 3 2021 10:18am

This is untrue, someone else fired the shots into the air, unless that dude that fired the hand gun was a child rapist I'm unsure of.
Rosenbaum is a convicted child predator.

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 3 2021 10:30am

Why do people pretend that facts, logic or law will have anything to do with the outcome?
Stop basing arguments in what is technically legal or what justified what

At Derek Chauvin's trial we saw proof the force Chauvin used was so little it didn't leave a single mark or obstruct breathing or bloodflow, and that George Floyd had every possible indicator of a drug overdose from absurd risk factors and history to lethal dose in his system to evidence he downed an entire bag of fentanyl while in the cop car. In legal terms, the dealer who sold him fentanyl laced percocets was liable for a textbook prosecution of 3rd degree murder under MN law. Didn't matter lol. Chauvin will die in prison when some nation of islamer gets rough with him in the yard

Damn dude, not often you just drop the mask and go full blatant liar mode.

Lunch break, no soggy sandwiches on this judges watch.
Based and sandwich pilled.

I do not know. None of us do, but what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be relevant.
I have a couple of things to add, just to be clear, I have no intentions of provoking anyone into a heated argument here or anything of that nature, just genuinely want yours and others opinions on this and to have an open minded discussion. Weird to have to put that disclaimer but I've noticed people tend to get very angry in this section too quickly.

I would first ask, in your opinion, would it be far off base to draw a comparison between what you're saying here to the "look at how she was dressed" or "why was she with those types of people" or any of those arguments that get tossed around (wrongly) in rape cases?

Then we would have to go to defining exactly what constitutes putting oneself in a situation so volatile or dangerous that you forfeit your right to self defense. As in where precisely is the line that when crossed eliminates any legal way to defend yourself, and who gets to define that in this case given there is no precedent for that. (Not looking to get arguments that Kyle didn't do this here, regardless of my beliefs on that, just looking for an exact point where you can no longer defend yourself whatsoever based on where you are or who you are around or however you want to define it)

Then, could we not use the exact same logic as an argument against the people on the other side of the case? They intentionally put themselves in a dangerous situation, and we're actively breaking laws leading up to the events. Surely that is on the same level if not worse?

Let me know what you think on these

And?

Maybe the gun was for self-defense purposes, not for initiating violence.