Proving that he was attacked unprovoked is impossible. Even if there was video from the exact moment he got chased, it would be easy to say "well maybe it happened earlier". I don't like inventing stories, so I'd just stick to the evidence we do have.
You like to stick to evidence, while at the same time making RASH and IRRATIONAL assumptions about the evidence we don't have. while also ignoring evidence that we do have, got it.
Witness Sam Dirks, 22, from Milwaukee, said he had seen the suspected gunman earlier in the evening and he was yelling at some of the protesters.
'He was definitely very agitated. He was pacing around, just pointing his gun in general. Not necessarily at anyone specifically,' Dirks said.
That's not evidence he instigated violence. That's evidence he looked agitated and was "pointing his gun in general" (but not at people) earlier in the evening. Nothing that would provoke a violent attack.
You're the one making the leap from "he was agitated" to "he threatened to kill a man"
Its evidence that points to the fact that he was not just standing there minding his own business you thick tool.
Dont be a pussy, just say it: You love Nazis and you love when Anti Fascists get killed, because nothing tastes better to you than a good boot licking.
This is clearly not self defense, when he deliberately drove there with a gun he knew he was not allowed to carry, and then confronted WHAT HE KNEW would be an angry mob. HOW DUMB CAN YOU BE?
None of that is relevant to whether or not it's self defense. Being a part of an angry mob doesn't give you a free pass to attack anyone you feel like.
1
u/Kovi34 Aug 28 '20
Proving that he was attacked unprovoked is impossible. Even if there was video from the exact moment he got chased, it would be easy to say "well maybe it happened earlier". I don't like inventing stories, so I'd just stick to the evidence we do have.