It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You will say "I think" Not stating my thoughts as facts like most here do. If I remember right, He was a minor that crossed state lines with an illegal weapon and shot somebody. Does that sum it up?
originally posted by: Ohanka
I like how they don’t mention the deceased were a convicted pedophile responsible for multiple abuses of children under 14, and a lowlife wife-beater with multiple convictions and restraining orders for smacking women around. Both of whom intended to murder the kid as well.
I hope he beats the stupid charges for what was essentially a combination of self-defence and trash removal.
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Just watch the videos if you think he should be charged with anything. If you do, tell ya what; I'll be right over with 2 friends; I'll hit you with a skateboard and others with either have a pistol or try stomping on your head. Putting yourself in the actual victims perspective is what any real juror should do.
originally posted by: vonclod
He tried stopping an arson, got chased down, he defended himself, end of it. He was not the aggressor, should he have been there? maybe, maybe not..too bad the local govt wasn't protecting peoples property/businesses. Anyway irrelevant to him defending himself at that point.
Thats my opinion
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: vonclod
He tried stopping an arson, got chased down, he defended himself, end of it. He was not the aggressor, should he have been there? maybe, maybe not..too bad the local govt wasn't protecting peoples property/businesses. Anyway irrelevant to him defending himself at that point.
Thats my opinion
He also had a med kit and was helping people on both side, so clearly wasn't going there just to fight.
originally posted by: vonclod
Yes he was, I think though, had he not had the rifle, this probably never happens. But, from what I read on the law there, even if you are technically in the wrong, you are allowed to defend yourself from attack, and that is clearly what I watched.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: vonclod
Yes he was, I think though, had he not had the rifle, this probably never happens. But, from what I read on the law there, even if you are technically in the wrong, you are allowed to defend yourself from attack, and that is clearly what I watched.
I agree with you 100%. Two of the guys were definitely hunting him most likely in pursuit to take his gun and hurt him. We need to remember he fled the group after him for like two blocks until he fell down from one guy coming at him, so he was trying to get away the whole time up until he was on the ground.
originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
Total self defense in my eyes..
That said, he shouldn't have been there in the first place and should face some form of consequence for his part in this.