This talk of open carry reminds me. I nearly had a panic attack back in June when I went grocery shopping and as I'm leaving see a dude directly in front of me with an unsecured revolver tucked into the back of his jeans. And this is pretty standard for these walking skid marks who feel the need to open carry. Responsible gun ownership my entire ass.
Armed civilian, 17, shoots 2 dead during Kenosha happening
- Thread starter Iron
- Start date
- Status
Again, teacher chasing down a school shooter, is the school shooter acting in self defense?
Is the school shooter withdrawing, or a threat?
I don't understand why we're going back to this. Like I said, your logic is circular.
By definition a school shooter is a threat. Are you suggesting that you can kill people, then so long as you run away, nobody can legally do anything to stop you?
It also doesn’t matter if anyone else was committing a crime to stop him. What matters is if his shooting was a crime.
Isn't that more or less what the NRA has been lobbying for for the last 40 years?
For as long as they're school shooters, sure. You seem to think that this is some sort of life-long brand instead of a temporary designation.
You seem to think that people can't ever stop doing an action.
You also seem to have an over-reliance on labels.
A kid who brings a gun to school to kill the one bully that tormented them, are they a school shooter?
Does it mean that they're going to go on a spree and kill as many people as they can before finally turning the gun on themself?
Are all school shooters spree killers?
Must all school shooters never stop being school shooters until they are dead or captured?
Is it possible for a school shooter to flee, and have no intention on killing any more victims?
You're the one making all these assumptions about what a school shooter is, based on a label, just like in this scenario.
Ah yes, then go live on a farm, having set right what was once wrong. After all, he started running. He can't possibly shoot again.
It's not like Kyle ran from the first guy, then proceeded to shoot two more people, despite running. Because he was still a threat.
I'm somewhat disquieted not by the fact that someone is actually arguing in defense of school shooters in order to justify vigilantism, but that I'm totally unsurprised.
I'm suggesting that you can kill people and then make a good faith withdrawal. If people pursue you and present a threat to your life (vigilantism is bad, remember? It's not your job to maintain law and order, right??), you may legally use lethal force to stop the threat.
In a court of law, there'd be one investigation about the people you initially killed, and a separate investigation regarding whether or not the people you killed later should be considered self-defense or not.
Is your sarcasm a way of saving face because you know your argument is crumbling?
I'm able to answer your questions, but you aren't able to answer mine.
I think it's clear who the victor is. The defense rests.
Last edited:
LuL in chat
Is that why you didn't respond to the fact that your "case" relies on him not being a threat on the move, and on two separate occasions when on the move he killed people?
You argued that he wasn't a threat because he was running, when he clearly was a threat, even after he ran. He stopped running and was a threat.
I've never lost so much respect for a forum poster so quickly as I have now.
One billion demerits, Revy, and no gay internet foursomes.
Now, do you really mean that or are you just embarrassed your boo did that in public?
- Status