So I subbed this guy's channel on Youtube and have watched a few videos. Long story short but I kinda clown on him a bit for multiple reasons. "Warrior Poet". He's your typical military type guy nothing interesting. No poet that I see. Loves Trump. Hates Biden. Panders. Anyway, he's not bad to watch if thats your sort of thing. I have watched probably a couple of his videos.

So what is with this AWFUL TAKE ??



So first off if you read the comments all these goofball gun lovers take the same position that would have had Kyle Rittenhouse convicted. It is clear that once the father advanced on the boyfriend who was aiming the gun down and then attempted to grapple it away, it was clearly a case for self defense. This is the same thing that was Kyle's argument AFAIK. (TBH this is but a guess.. didn't see testimony) In addition the father made threats what he would do with the gun once he disarmed the boyfriend.

There are tons of arguments about whether the gun was justified and such but it is quite clear it is legally "self-defense". Kyle didn't start the fight by bringing the gun. The guy did who advanced on Kyle did, however.

The boyfriend also breaks away and twirls to break the guy's hands off the gun. That's the sort of shit Mr Warrior Poet teaches from what I've seen. Yet in their analysis and pretty much every commenter's are the same.

I mean ethically maybe it is murder.

What fail analysis all over but more importantly these people really really can't think for themselves. Amazing how many comments you need to go through to find someone who says 'no, this is clearly legally self-defense'.

This Poet's commentary seems to think because the fight wasn't done ex-commando style therefore there is no real threat. Just endless comments that seem to go against gun rights.. because apparently taking a gun out to defend your property while holding it down, means someone can advance and try to grab it and you can't do anything because you "provoked" him. That is according to all these dumbasses.

Maybe the algo is burying all the sensible guys because they're not getting pile-ons from guys who relate to the angry father?

Am I wrong here?

Only argument that it isn't self-defense is that there was a distance between the father and bf when the shots happen. There isn't any reason to think father wouldn't charge the bf again in attempt to grab control of the gun, given his recent vocalized threats.