Why? He had just shot someone.
Who knows who else he was going to shoot.
Are we now to say that one cannot defend oneself against an active shooter?
Active shooters donât run away?..What about the second two guys he shot, how were they supposed to know?
Didnât shoot anybody who was not attacking or chasing him.
3 Likes
Like I said you better be 100% correct.
But you donât have to be.
You just have to be the one who lives.
And that is the point.
A kid acting in self defense running away from a mob, that is the reality, not your work of fiction.
4 Likes
General Rule-the one closing the gap is the aggressor. The one trying to widen the gap is the defender.
He wasnât shooting anybody who didnât try to close tge gap.
Itâs probably easier to tell whoâs who in the street than a video game. Just a guess on my part.
Running after someone is not acting defensively.
2 Likes
One who lived pointing a gun in his face. Testified to it and erthang.
1 Like
He was an active shooter.
Or that is what people would have said about him if Huber had killed him.
1 Like
The Arbery case proves you wrong.
1 Like
Does one not have the right to subdue an active shooter?
Except he chased Rittenhouse with Rosenbaum in the fbi video.
Arbery was not an active shooter like Rittenhouse was.
He had already shot an unarmed man. Who knows who he was going to kill next.
Anyone starting to see the problem with how the law works yet?
Not indiscriminate.
Except he wasnât. I know you want that to be the narrative, but it just isnât. He was acting in self defense.
2 Likes
He was chasing an active shooter.
Does one not have the right to stop an active shooter?
No it isnât, because his initial shooting was clearly self defense.
Yes⌠he was.
Others were also.
But they lost⌠so they donât get to claim it.
A person who fired in self-defense? No, of course not. But letâs just say I wonât argue with you too much on this, if you want to go chase some armed people with a skateboard, have fun.
