To me, it shouldn't matter whether kyle's intention was to initiate violence. The important thing is that he did not initiate violence.

He can show up at a protest with all kinds of motivations, none of which should matter, as long as he did not actually commit any crimes.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Nov 3 2021 11:32am

This judge is gonna trigger libruls with all the bible references

Literally what the fuck

I’m sure you call it riots. It was riots not protests. Sorry you can’t have it both ways

People are confusing being there with a gun vs what the trial is actually about.

He shouldn't have showed up - he did now what prosecute him?
He was scary with a gun - so what? Prosecute him for being scary?
He shouldn't have had a gun - YEP he's underage slap him with illegally having a gun
He had intentions I just made up and they don't have merit - are you ill? Did he commit violence? Did he act on your make believe intentions? < this is what you're carrying your arguments on btw

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 3 2021 11:37am

I didn't call it anything.

Btw, are you saying that when lefty "activists" get together, its not a protest anymore, it's a riot?

I feel like this part isn't true and to a certain degree is sort of oxymoronic, intention to commit violence would at least to some extent imply that you're the one who initiated the conflict while self defense implies the opposite, no?

I don't know what someone would have to do (other than initiate violence), let alone simply think for me to say that if someone, for instance, pulls a gun on you that you are not allowed to defend yourself at all because you've "lost your right to self defense" That concept seems very strange to me. Am I wrong in my path of logic there?

The only violence that happened the entire night was a stupid Hog White faggot kid Murdering 2 people, under the guise of 'protecting property'


It was a peaceful protect otherwise.

Scenario I say "You're intentions to post on this website are violent, and a possible threat to all of us."
Easy to make up shit and hope its true for our own purposes.
Comparative to - Just throw something at the wall and hope it sticks.

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 3 2021 11:46am

Imagine two people don't like each other. They agree to fight. When they both show up, Person A fires at Person B. Person B returns fire killing Person A.

Does Person B get to claim self defense? No. Obviously not. They agreed to show up and try to kill each other. If his real motivation was self-preservation Person B wouldn't have shown up in the first place.

That's the easy case at least.


Now imagine you know there's going to be a protest, and it's likely *somebody* will throw a brick. You bring guns, stand where you think a brick will be thrown, and when the brick is thrown you return fire. Do you get to claim self defense? No. You went out of your way to put yourself in danger. You knew there was a likelyhood of violence and went out of your way to put yourself in a position where you could claim self defense.



The reason we're having this trial is because there's several factors which work for both sides. On one hand, Kyle traveled with a group of people intending to commit violence, and with a firearm that was purchased by them. He *looks* like somebody who showed up as part of a group that intended to put themselves in danger so they would have a chance to return fire while claiming self defense. On the other hand, Kyle is a 17 year old kid who was putting out fires and only fired at the last minute. That *looks* like he didn't actually intend to commit violence and instead just got mixed up with a bad crowd.

Trials happen when the facts don't fully support one side or the other, and this is one of those cases.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Nov 3 2021 11:50am