When I said bad people, I meant people who are in commission of a violent crime, such as robbery, rape, or homicide.

And we all know you don't have a gun, lol.

you seem rather argumentative. Kyle can escalate force by walking into a PRESUMED unarmed group of people while someone who draws a weapon and fires it is also escalating force far more.

ive stated Kyle will not be prosecuted for murder and his self defense argument will and should be successful.

i can think that while at the same time thinking it was a bad move for him as a gun owner to be there, because im capable of non-simplified talking points.

try and take a breathe lol. u asked me what i thought, i explained it, and u strawman me with a cocky tone.

" no one else had a gun"
I'm not reading that till you acknowledge what you said.

lmk

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 3 2021 12:12pm

at this point im just wondering if in a post-Chauvin world he can get prosecuted. prob not right? RIGHT?



gun ownership is based on presumptions, Kyle's presumption that night was NOT that he'd face gun toating madmen, but rather violent rioters.

he brought the gun to what he assumed would be mostly or entirely unarmed rioters.

one, maybe even more, did have guns.

but when you're speaking of intent legally you use foresight and premediated thoughts, not simply what happened. Kyle's intent is a part of the case the prosecution is trying to make. they're asking the jury to consider what Kyle bringing a gun that day meant for his intent. i dont think it will work, but its a pivotal part of their case.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 3 2021 12:16pm

In the post-chauvin world? After Rittenhouse is given life in prison, the judge conducting this case could be arrested on charges of misconduct for being too vigorous in tearing down the prosecution

Let me know when you're done moving goal posts?
I'm not sure what you're doing but; acknowledge your own words.

I'll grab them for you so you can see them again



This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 3 2021 12:18pm

i hear that judge doesnt bleep himself on n words when he sings Jay Z in his car, and he has 8 rap cds plus a garth brooks 2 cd greatest hit set in his 10 disc changer.



you're prefer i said "i was wrong and oversimplified" rather than give u multiple paragraphs explaining exactly what i meant, in which i admitted i wasn't accurate?

u can just not talk to me anymore and i wont care lol. people who prefer 1 sentence gotcha posts to actual conversation arent worth my time.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 3 2021 12:20pm

I suppose I assumed you were speaking legally not in terms of peoples feelings around you. Seems like a very subjective thing to define though based on quite a few factors like location as you stated. Certainly it doesn't forfeit your right to defend yourself and certainly doesn't justify someone commiting any violent act against you so it still seems irrelevant to my main point.

I do agree people should have the wherewithal and foresight to know how open carrying is different than concealed carry as it pertains to how people may feel and that over emotional people may sometimes make irrational choices, I'll give you that, but that's about where it ends. Me open carrying is not an inherently violent act regardless of how it makes someone feel or react.

There is a time and place to open carry, one could make a pretty good case for the middle of riots while the city burns as being one of those times. That then loops us back to the "should he have been there" side of things which I addressed earlier in the thread.

To answer your first question, both have an equal chance, 0, without factoring in humans? Unless I'm missing your point there

As to your second point, I fully agree. It would appear Kyle would also agree with that sentiment.

How do you know this?

Also, the word you used, "rioter". This implies that the mob was violent. And it's reasonable to pack a gun when there was indication that the mob might get violent, regardless of how armed (or not) the mobster actually were.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Nov 3 2021 12:23pm

i dont strongly or even mediumly disagree with any of this.

property damage preventing militias just give us gun owners a bad look imo. i want the first thought when someone hears gun owner to be someone in a duck blind or a skeet shooter, not a hillbilly in fatigues that never served wearing an AR knockoff with too many addons that couldnt hit 6" off bulleye from prone at 50 yards.



kyle and his brother said they were there to stop property damage, not gun carrying gang members. their words.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 3 2021 12:25pm