Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Tough call. I’d need to know more. I think the guy with the pistol wasn’t killed, he was the one I’d say was clear cut self defense, because he had a gun too. That’s kind of a wash for me. Both of them had guns, so if one or both gets shot, welp... play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I just feel like we need to be very careful legally about not allowing guns to become a solution to not getting your ass kicked. Defending yourself against another gun, I get it. The situation I absolutely don’t want to see is people using any threat of violence short of having a gun pulled on you as an excuse to shoot somebody. “He was going to hit me with a skateboard!” I don’t see that as an even trade. The gun guys love to start with the “you could be killed by a skateboard”, and yes, you could, but... if I took ten guys and another ten guys, hit the first ten in the head with a skateboard, then shot the other group of guys in the head, I’m pretty sure there will be more fatalities with the guys who were shot. “I feared for my life” should never be confused with “I feared I was going to get my ass kicked.”, when you’re dealing with when you can resort to using lethal force. I saw a picture of the shooter... doesn’t strike me as much of a fighter, on outward appearance. That looks like a guy whose only chance in a scuffle comes with a weapon. Guns don’t make you tough, you’re still just a soft dude with a gun. So that’s not the kind of guy who should go across state lines to find trouble in a riot that has nothing to do with him, at least not if he plans to not have to use his gun. I’m fairly confident that we’d find that the guys who were shot aren’t necessarily high quality individuals, they may have been looking for trouble too. But as far as charges... he’s a minor; he had an assault rifle that I don’t know if it was hot or registered, but it sure wasn’t supposed to be his; what I really can’t get past is that he doesn’t even live in that state, he traveled to insert himself into a situation he knew was hostile; and bottom line, he killed two guys and shot a third, and only one I know of was brandishing an actual gun. No one came knocking on his door, he went looking for potential trouble. I’m not a big law & order guy, just in a nature sense because I believe natural order >>>>>>> any fucking thing any human wants, and law & order is an unnatural concept. In nature, there’s just cause and effect, action and reaction, that’s the only thing that’s ever truly valid. So my assessment of the whole situation is : Wild shit was going on, some people had guns or other weapons, a fight broke out, a gun was fired, some people got shot, a couple died, then the next morning the sun rose for the other 7-and-change billion humans and countless other organisms that managed to not die the day before. It is what it is. But in the context of the society everybody seems to want for themselves, I don’t see how you don’t charge the kid with SOMETHING. If the kid missed with his shot and the pistol guy wigged him, is the standard the same? “He fired a gun at me, so I shot him.” It’s gotta work both ways, can’t just apply to the ones you’re rooting against.
do you answer his initial question no he should not be charge for first-degree murder and he should get off Scott free with killing those guys that was pure self-defense.
on a legal issue he should be charged with a gun charge because it's illegal for a 17-year-old carry a gun like that which means you should get about two years in $1000 fine but he shouldn't be going to prison for life on first-degree murder honestly I probably give them about six months I'm just reading off of what it says The penalty is legally but still he probably should get about A year because he did cross state lines and wasn't illegal possession of a firearm because it's illegal for 17-year-old to carry firearms.
so basically I'm saying what he did in the heat of the moment was not first-degree murder but he shouldn't have been there in the first place. know if you can provide me evidence that his grandfather or a member of his family owned the car lot he was protecting then it might change my mind as far as sentencing is concerned
It obviously was not self defense, but he’s gonna get away with it because of white privilege, if that boy was black or any other color he would be dead right now. And the gun he has was also owned illegally.
Opinion
7Opinion
It was obvious self-defense.
I feel like if you choose to bring a gun to a place like this you're secretly hoping you'll get to use it... because after all, staying home and watching tv is an option for him here. So I won't pretend he's some sort of victim...
But the people who died deserved to. You have to be a special kind of stupid to attack someone who has a deadly weapon.
And this is one of those polls where it's like... "wow, giving women the right to vote really was a mistake."
No, doesn't matter how many attacks you, you have the right to now every last one of them down. Mop justice doesn't work, lynching should have taught people that.
Self defense but obviously get him on the 4 gun violation and for stealing a firearm and transporting stolen property and reckless discharge of a firearm
This is the fairest evaluation of the situation I’ve seen.
The good news is that he will be tried in a court of law instead of on social media. I how justice is served either way
this kid should not be in trouble. Too many racists are against him because of his skin color.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/NSU9ZvnudFEPlease tell, how was it self defense?
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
You can also add your opinion below!
