• jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    Because he went there looking for a fight. You can’t do that then claim self defense.

    He drove 20 miles out of his way, across state lines, to put himself in danger. That’s not how self defense works.

    • TheFonz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      The rebuttal to this I’ve heard is that it was his workplace and he had a right to defend it (or at least from his point of view) esp after witnessing what happened with the riots in mpls a few weeks prior. If he didn’t work there, I’d say I’d agree with your assessment. Does it matter if he worked there and it was an area he considered somewhat part of his community?

      And just to be clear. I agree: in my opinion this kid had no business being there with an AR 15.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        First, he had no business with an AR-15 because he wasn’t old enough, but no, it wasn’t his business he was protecting, he was not and is not a business owner.

        • TheFonz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          I agree. The way they struck that gun charge on the WI law technicality was garbage and he shouldn’t have been near any guns.

          On the business thing: I agree. As an outsider looking in, seeing an employee going to defend a place of work is odd. But then again, I didn’t grow up in small town America so I’m not too familiar with the sense of community and kinship in those areas. I have no idea. All I can think of is where I live in small towns me have pretty close bonds and try to look out for each other.

          I do think your take is reasonable and there isn’t much for me to disagree with.