If she truly felt threatened, she should have stayed in her house. She lost the right to claim that she felt threatened when she came back out of her house armed.
2 Likes
More than likely because she was angry that the man on the motorcycle that she had hit with her car had the audacity to follow her home. But that’s just speculation.
2 Likes
The better question is what is the same about it? Personally, I can’t think of one thing that is the same.
1 Like
It’s pretty simple. A felon with a gun who is participating in mayhem at a riot is a threat. A felon with a gun who is sleeping in his bed at his home is not a threat.
Be honest, do you think sending a man to prison for 30 years just because a Jury found him not guilty of killing cop during a botched raid that resulted in the death of his girlfriend is justice?
Hormones? Could be.
Read my post you responded to…
So this happened in the rittenhouse thread too…everyone telling people how they should respond to specific potentially threatening situations…
Do you think it’s provoking in any way?
Heck, in that case, BUY MORE GUNS!
What does that mean?
And thats the problem with people carrying around guns…It’s too easy to pull out the “I felt threatened” card.
Still could have legally shot him, if she stayed in the house and he came after her.
1 Like
Might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the law, less time in prison that way.
My comment has nothing to do with the law.
Of course it does, that is how you determine what you can legally do. That is only irrelevant to criminals. Like child rapists.
It only takes one.
Exactly what it says.
There’s no problem with “carrying around guns”.
What does it have to do with?
1 Like
Equal to what?
