4 ms·
I don't think hackernews is an appropriate place to discuss the nuances of the case - it veers too close to politics. I will note though that you seem to select
by ALittleLight 5y ago
I don't think hackernews is an appropriate place to discuss the nuances of the case - it veers too close to politics. I will note though that you seem to select one or two details of the case that seem compelling to you and ignore the rest. It seems strange to base an opinion on what happened on what the defendant said before the event rather than the video and testimony of the event itself.
My understanding of the law is that self-defense is determined by the actions of the people involved and what they were thinking - not what they may have said on other occasions or the distance from the event they live. The fact that Kyle lives twenty minutes away from Kenosha or has previously said he wanted to shoot shop lifters seems irrelevant to me and would have twenty years ago too.
- ryantgtg 5y agoI hear you. Just to clarify, I wasn't forming an opinion on what happened, nor did I state an opinion on what happened. Those two selected details were basically all I absorbed. What's important to me is "why was this person there in the first place" (and I feel like I got the gist!). Not "what happened after this person showed up and how would I defend/prosecute this case if I pretended I was a lawyer." I only have so much bandwidth in my life. Sad event all around.
- ALittleLight 5y agoYou absolutely did form an opinion. You wrote "'guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.' Nuff said." I understand having limited bandwidth in your life. It's good to recognize when you don't aren't informed on a subject. However, when you aren't informed on a subject the thing to do is not share your strong opinions on that subject.