Anonymous
(ID: Elh9CZXL)
10/10/2025, 8:10:20 PM
No.518560042
>>518560329
>>518560691
>>518561302
>>518561353
>>518561467
>>518562356
>>518562414
>>518563230
>>518563403
>>518563410
>>518563519
>>518563737
>>518564211
>>518564299
>>518564452
>>518565109
>>518565244
>>518565381
>>518565407
>>518565485
>>518565740
>>518566131
>>518566554
>>518566782
>>518566919
>>518567279
>>518569972
>>518572510
>>518573033
>>518573104
>>518575216
Change my mind
xcom/decwowblah/status/1976698688841171371 sauce
The kids were wrong for walking up to him and assaulting him.
He was wrong for shooting them while they were retreating.
Charges should be set to manslaughter, and they should analyze whether or not he should be safe to carry a firearm.
Quick to draw is important, but trigger discipline is even moreso.
Just having a gun typically in show of force is enough, without necessitation of use of force.
Fundamentally from the camera footage, it's clear that one or both of the kids had a weapon in hand, or feigned to.
Allegedly there had been previous interaction between the kids and the man where a threat was made.
It's my belief that until all details are out we cannot know for sure - but inferring from what is currently known he's in the wrong for shooting them specifically because when he did they were in retreat.
Key note: One of the boys instantly saw him reaching for the gun and turned to run, the one who survived.
If they did actually have weapons on them, his defense has a chance of getting him off the charges entirely but given the circumstance it's unlikely. He'd need a REALLY good lawyer.
Wanted to share this and give my 2cents since no one else here's talking about it.
The kids were wrong for walking up to him and assaulting him.
He was wrong for shooting them while they were retreating.
Charges should be set to manslaughter, and they should analyze whether or not he should be safe to carry a firearm.
Quick to draw is important, but trigger discipline is even moreso.
Just having a gun typically in show of force is enough, without necessitation of use of force.
Fundamentally from the camera footage, it's clear that one or both of the kids had a weapon in hand, or feigned to.
Allegedly there had been previous interaction between the kids and the man where a threat was made.
It's my belief that until all details are out we cannot know for sure - but inferring from what is currently known he's in the wrong for shooting them specifically because when he did they were in retreat.
Key note: One of the boys instantly saw him reaching for the gun and turned to run, the one who survived.
If they did actually have weapons on them, his defense has a chance of getting him off the charges entirely but given the circumstance it's unlikely. He'd need a REALLY good lawyer.
Wanted to share this and give my 2cents since no one else here's talking about it.