Quote (Dominicano @ Aug 27 2020 04:07pm)
What you fail to even consider or realize in your point is the aggressor at the actual scene and moment, because it would make you have to be objective and not biased to your narrative. The man in burgundy was the aggressor prior to ANY event taken place, kept trying to start fights & continued to the point of chasing a fucking minor till he literally was face to face ready to beat his ass after throwing shit at him. The minor was NOT an aggressor & your not going to get me to say “oh he shouldn’t have been there,” because anyone can be anywhere the fuck they chose to be.
You quoted a Supreme Court case of an aggressor at the point of the event. There has been no evidence presented other than your assertion that “he shouldn’t have been 15 miles away from his home,” to point that at the scene he was the aggressor, all evidence and video points to the opposite.
You are accepting & receptive towards with huge masses of people destroying property that is not theirs because they agree with your political message but your not okay with random people defending property that is not theirs. You are definitely not reading from both sides, I can tell, you are getting your source from one narrative and it is unfortunate.
What I bolded btw is you in the same comment stating I don’t know what self defense is, & then admiting this is a case of self defense.
It can be both, the kid was being real cocky and following the narrative his family told him about these protests, bad situation to be in, and he also did indeed act in self defense... just like I’m not telling people “stop being out there protesting past curfew,” I could really care less about people going to a neighboring city & defending small business from being violated and burned down.
Gun charges. That’s the only thing that should stick. We can do a friendly wager on it if you’d like.
Edit: full disclaimer, I am in California but I do fully support the right to bear 🐻 arms. I myself own many weapons & handle them with care.
The bolded part was me trying to gather what you think is morally/ethically considered self defense. I wasn't trying to judge you for that, if that's what you were assuming. I think a lot of people have varying opinions on what is and is not considered self defense. I agree the guy who bum rushed him is the aggressor. He definitely was asking for it.
But I still think it's a far STRETCH to think he's actually going out there to protect a gas station. There were far worse places that he could've gone to that were looting. And some of the looters aren't even from the actual city, they come from outside of it.
Anyways, I apologize for being a dick earlier in my posts.
My argument still stands; why is he going to another city and defending small businesses that are being violated though? To what purpose is he trying to uphold? The people who are trying to protect their own businesses from looters in self-defense, I get that.
I personally think, “Would he have been in that situation if he wasn’t open carrying a rifle?” Open carrying rifles is a very strong political statement; picture any lefty walking into a Trump rally and openly burning a flag. Would you feel bad if they got the life beaten out of them? I would, but I'd probably also say, why would you even do that?
You are actively trying to instigate people at protests, you have to accept that you have a strong level of negligence.
But in the long run, as you mentioned that no one should be telling him not to protest past curfew, no one is also telling him to be placed in that hostile situation either.
He needs to be aware of the consequences of his actions.
If you're carrying a weapon, (which is why concealed carry is better, but requires more experience as you probably know,) you should always be minimizing the hostile environment you're in. Traveling to an area where you know there is conflict is not a good idea. It's not generally worth it to show up to defend corporate property with lethal force.
That being said, I do support the right to bear arms. I have owned a few guns in the past, but I like having the security that firearms bring. Protection should be your right, but just like Blake didn't have the greatest intentions, I most definitely don't think Kyle did either.
Whenever people carry weapons openly, chances are tiny signals can push someone into seeming like they are being a credible aggressor or inviting that aggression.
That's why police shoot people with weapons and people who they think have weapons all the time, because the slightest motion or a single aggressive sentence can mean a credible threat to your own life. (Still think police should be better trained at maintaining this, but that's a debate for another day.)
I think Kyle did indeed provoke his victims. It didn't happen directly or physically, nor did he throw the first punch. But he did go through the effort of attending a BLM protest at a governed mandated curfew, as someone who has mentioned that he is against the movement, (he uses a lot of Blue Lives Matter,) with a rifle and did entice some provocation. He obviously intended to piss off protesters and this is what he achieved. The result is that provocation doesn't warrant being given physical violence against him, but he most definitely expected to receive some.
If this was someone who was like older than 21, I could understand that he's trying to protect someone. But as a 17 year old, what are you really trying to accomplish going to another city though?
Anyways, good discussion/talk.
What friendly wager were you thinking of though?
This post was edited by ShampooMonK on Aug 27 2020 02:44pm