Protesting by burning down businesses? I don't think that's what a redress of grievances means.

We already have that law - doesn't work.

Think about it. He did shoot the imbecile that attacked him. He likely thought he was fired on first (for the jury to decide so I'll give you that one if you insist).

After that, as the defense pointed out in closing, he tried to get to the police line and shot only when he was in immediate danger. He was struck in the back of the head , hit with a skate board and kicked while on the ground. He also had a gun pointed at his head. Those were the times he shot.

Compare that with the clowns he got themselves shot. Once guy was crazy, the rest wanted to use deadly force up to and including a pistol.

And, again, KR is a ****ing moron. But morons can defend themselves against other morons. At least that's my understanding of the law at this point.

than charge the actual offenders with vandalism, a misdemeanor. you don't get to murder them because you dont like that they believe african americans shouldn't get beaten up and killed by the police and that they are expressing that frustration.

LOL

Of course we don't have that law.

also as evidenced by some of the investigations into the previous protests, a lot of time the venn diagram between the people causing the most property damage and the "counter protestors" is a circle..

This is a good point now. Vigilantism seems like it should be illegal. I assume what KR and his buddies did was within the law though since no charges were brought. I do wonder where the lines are there.

Option 3? Those bullets shot in the air have to land somewhere. I'd rather they hit a mentally ill kid (36-years-old) than hit random innocents.

that's a hearts and minds thing here. our culture absolutely WORSHIPS vigilantes. just take a look at any police/law procedural, military, or superhero media. the "hero" is almost always the (white)guy that decides to take the law into his own hands and hunt down and kill the criminal suspects while murdering anyone that is even remotely related.

Yep: that's likely a case by case inquiry but it seems reasonable to construe that as a "brandish." Of course, ambiguity in criminal statutes is interpreted in favor of the defense, which seems generally correct to me.

I never said I think anyone should murder anyone. I don't think Kyle and the rest of the loons should have been there with their AR15's in the first place. I also don't think that burning down buildings and looting are acceptable forms of expressing frustration.

It's illegal for a felon to posses a firearm. It's illegal for a mentally adjudicated person to posses a firearm. What am I missing?

It's a rather complicated situation I agree. The pistol pointed at him by the medic was his life insurance imo.

He wouldn't have pointed at him if he hadn't had that gun. It was to keep the kid in check imo.

Grosskreutz is suing the state for $10M and it is highly likely that's on a contingency.

This is a good point. Maybe we should have more of this sort of thing going on, would help clean up the gene pool a bit.

Ah yes, almost forgot about notable people's revolutionist Grosskreutz. Victor never did explain to us how suing for $10m is compatible with his presumably deeply held communist principles.

True. Maybe she didn't see the video of him pointing the gun, heh.

Can someone explain to me how doing intramural kick boxing and seeing someone beaten until he lies in a pool of blood are related?

He pointed his gun at him to keep the kid in check? Is this the end of Reservoir Dogs?

Dude, have you not played Mortal Kombat?

Ok scratch that. Any warning shots possible? Shootem in the legs or shoulder, thats good enough isn't it? It should stop him from charging.

What would a real marine do? Definetly not rolling around in dark parking lots and letting kids hit him with a skateboard. Warning shots are used by people with proper training and no, they don't need to kill.

A dumb kid with a weapon like this a recipe for disaster. Thats why I say sue all of people responsible for this brat.

This kid had obviously no military training or any basic weapon training. Thus he had no right to be there in.thr first place. He was falling and tripping all over the place ffs.

In kickboxing, your opponent doesn't smash your head into a metal door frame until your head is caved in. In a street fight, anything is possible.

You're still not getting the point. Just because someone might smash your head into a metal doorframe, doesn't mean you get to pre-emptively shoot them. You need to have grounds for that belief, at least more grounds than "I peed my pants when the big fella came at me".

Idk if it's the end of that movie.
Thats the only rational explanation there is. I've seen the medic testify. He is not a dumb kid. He brought a gun because he knew it's america.

Wtf are you doing if you see a kid rolling around the ground with a MR15 pointing at everyone?

He had weapon training. That's obvious to anyone that has firearm training. You thinking that a guy can shoot a dude in the kneecap while they're both running is hilarious. You thinking he can shoot him in the shoulder and not realize the grave danger that poses after seeing the paramedic's arm is even more hilarious.

As for a real marine, a real marine doesn't have the body language of a scared shiitless teenager. That guy wouldn't have run after gravy seal, for example.

I strongly suspect your entire sample size on this is that one cop that broke a plate glass window.