10-27-2021, 09:00 PM
(10-27-2021, 07:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Irrelevant.
Started by others that he was not participating in.
Has that been established? Regardless, it's not relevant to the question of self defense.
Alternatively, defending himself from being killed. It's a little disconcerting that you appear to be completely discounting the possibility that an innocent person was attacked by a mob intent on doing him harm. But, like I said, for many this has become a political issue seperate from actual facts.
You'll get no argument from me that black people can get, and have gotten, a raw deal in parts of this country. However, this has no relevance to this issue other than you speculating and making race an issue. Maybe because you've got nothing else? I don't know.
No, it's not.
Because he was black? Was there potentially another reason or is that your default position because it's easy and supports your position on this case. Lazy social analysis is truly a bane on our society.
A minor roaming the streets at night during a riot in a totally different state than the one he lives. Relevant.
Irrelevant who started it. He made the decision to join.
Has what been established? That a minor walking around the streets at night during a riot with a loaded gun is bad? IMO the answer is an easy yes.
Absolutely he defended himself in the ones I saw. But I'm not a pro. I don't think vigilantes are allowed to go around killing people. Comic books say the law went after the good guys like Batman for that type of thing.
This was a race riot. Race was an issue from the get go.
That was a joke.
No idea. I didn't read it. I'm sure it was a facebookian like algorithm headline to get me mad. Doesn't change a lifetime of observation that tells me a black guy in a giant crowd of white guys getting the book thrown at him is SOP. But yea, it was lazy social analysis.