Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfighter
The kid... the seventeen year old kid should have been at home, not out openly carrying an AR-15. He wasn't necessarily a better shot, he was definitely better armed... Furthermore, he tripped and fell. He was not beaten before he fired. And what was he thinking? Clearly he was not acting as a member of an organized militia. He was out for adventure, IMO. (NOT mind reading here, Jim.) Hell, if I was out there, (big if, mind you) and I see a young gunman running down the street, not wearing a uniform that I know, hell yeah, I am more than likely ready to train my weapon on him as the immediate risk. As I said, he was lucky it was just fools out in the streets that night.
|
What has his age got to do with it? What were all those other people older than him there for? Did their age somehow give them more intellegence, qualification, or reason to be there?
He was being chased by several men. When he fell, they started to swarm on him, one appeared ready to stomp on him, then he opened fire. At that point, it looked like self defense to me. But, maybe the trial will bring out whatever the truth is, or bring out whatever the truth is supposed to be according to those who will make the final judgment.
As far as his age goes in determining whether he is a misguided fool or a supposed hero, we still have Greta Thunberg, same age, out there stumping for climate control. She is celebrated, honored, glorified, especially because of her age--almost an insult to all the adults who sit quietly at home and say nothing.
I guess it depends on which "side" your on if it's OK, or even really good, for a 17 year old to jump into the fray.