Awful take but whats with the weirdness of gun nuts.

[accountinquestion]

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.

[accountinquestion]

<crickets>

I was hoping some of you fellas would want to defend all the view of all these anti-gun rights right-wingers.

Kinda a long take on my part, but it is fascinating how many "conservatives" took a weird view that is clearly against gun-rights. I'm still confused. I'm the one who'll get called a libtard or whatever amongst those types of losers. <chuckle>

[mickeycrimm]

The shooter could have backed up even further and tried to wait for police. He shot to quick. The victim was not advancing on him.

[accountinquestion]

The shooter could have backed up even further and tried to wait for police. He shot to quick. The victim was not advancing on him.

I don't disagree, but the father had already threatened to take away the gun and use it, advanced on the guy, grabbed his gun and the guy with the gun broke free... The father had not quite had a chance to advance a 2nd time but there was nothing to indicate he wouldn't.

Laws have to be relatively vague in some ways but it makes things like this a head-scratcher.

This is the essence of "stand your ground". It really seems to be immaterial to most folks though.

[DGenBen]

I know its not your question, and I know its not in regards to the legal, moral, political issues etc & the differences between this case and the Rittenhouse case. All those issues can be debated ad infinitum.

The biggest & I think most important lesson that can be drawn from both cases is dont f&@k with people that are holding loaded guns. Just leave.

The second lesson, not quite as important, but still very important is if you are private citizen and you shoot someone, then regardless of whether your action was technically legal or not, you are still in for a big legal ordeal through either an investigation, & / or a trial, & possibly prison.

These I think are the 2 most important things that shooters and shoo-tees (is that the right term?) should consider when these situations are happening.

Everything else is political theater.

[accountinquestion]

So I watched most of that video then went to the comments and was literally blown away but how many takes I had to wade through before someone started to partially fault the guy who initially charged the guy with the gun. Is it because of the like system? Could it be that??

This coming a week or 2 after the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict which had 1/2 the country cheering for that little booger who more or less legally did the same thing.

I don't disagree with what you say btw. Guy shouldn't have went in and got gun. Other guy should have never charged him and tried to grab the gun.

It really is a weird rabbit hole you go down about who is right who is wrong and who instigated it. It is pretty much same thing as this Kyle Rittenhouse situation. A lot of wrong decisions have to be made in support of gun rights. A lot of these 'conservative' guys don't really seem to accept that. What is right and wrong is not necessarily what the law says is legal or illegal.

I disagree with the political theater aspect. One really needs to understand how the law works if they're going to carry a gun around. Really can't overstate that.

[DGenBen]

I completely agree that someone really needs to understand the law before they carry a gun.

My point was that with the way the legal system works you can have a good understanding of the law, and believe you are following it, yet still find yourself on trial, or in prison. This is because laws can be interpreted different ways, prosecutors can decide to bring charges or not based on political pressure, and having served on a jury before I can say that a jurors will often decide on emotion rather than law.

Political theater I meant that during the Rittenhouse trial it seemed like both liberals and conservatives (in the news media) decided what the outcome should be before the trial based on their views of gun rights.

I thought this is somewhat dangerous as a trial should be decided based on law, the facts of the case, & not on politics.

So right or wrong regardless of anyones political beliefs, if you use a gun politics may factor into what happens to you more so than the law, which is a pity as law should supersede politics.

[accountinquestion]

Another case I am surprised I heard little about is this white guy who followed along in the Aubrey case. He basically sees a black guy being chased by truck so he hops in his truck and follows them. Winds up getting life in prison because it comes out that he was sympathetic to the murderer's actions. Because those other 2 guys were committing a felony by chasing him down and he was party of that "party" then he also got basically life in prison.

In a vacuum if a person was to take a lesson from this case it would be if you see a black man being chased down by a pick-up truck in George or wherever - you best just stay put because if something bad happens <shrug>.... I can't really bring myself to defend the guy though. There haven't been many injustices for white guys BUT it is worth discussion.

[mcap]

I thought that dude (Roddy) hit Arbery a little bit with his truck. Definitely worked with the McMichaels to try to trap the guy. I thought they might have given him life for his haircut.

[DGenBen]

Yes, I didn’t follow the Aubrey case that closely, but the little that I did I thought not a good idea to chase someone down in a pickup truck when you are armed.

Defending your home is one thing, but let the police handle something like this. Again didn’t follow it much so may be things I’m missing.

[accountinquestion]

I thought that dude (Roddy) hit Arbery a little bit with his truck. Definitely worked with the McMichaels to try to trap the guy. I thought they might have given him life for his haircut.

Is that the case? That was suggested but I never saw the press cover this. The footage that I saw implies he is catching up with them when he turns the camera on and perhaps he even cocked his gun. I saw mention that the first police report said Roddy tried to box him in, but I saw no other verification or the police report itself.

I always felt like there was some aspect of the case I am missing but press coverage isn't necessarily there to present useful details.

[accountinquestion]

Yes, I didn’t follow the Aubrey case that closely, but the little that I did I thought not a good idea to chase someone down in a pickup truck when you are armed.

Defending your home is one thing, but let the police handle something like this. Again didn’t follow it much so may be things I’m missing.

First 2 guys who had the guns and chased him down 100% are to blame and life seems reasonable. The third guy was just sorta some dumbass with an awful haircut who decided to hop in his truck. It is hard for me to find him as culpable but I never saw the evidence laid out exactly and didn't care enough to follow the case that closely.

[mcap]

I thought that dude (Roddy) hit Arbery a little bit with his truck. Definitely worked with the McMichaels to try to trap the guy. I thought they might have given him life for his haircut.

Is that the case? That was suggested but I never saw the press cover this. The footage that I saw implies he is catching up with them when he turns the camera on and perhaps he even cocked his gun. I saw mention that the first police report said Roddy tried to box him in, but I saw no other verification or the police report itself.

I always felt like there was some aspect of the case I am missing but press coverage isn't necessarily there to present useful details.

There’s footage of police interviewing him on site, idk the exact terminology or if he says he hit him but he’s like “jabbed at him” like veered towards him with his truck when coming his way, seemed like he was coming from one side and McMichaels from other to trap him rather than him just following.

[accountinquestion]

I thought that dude (Roddy) hit Arbery a little bit with his truck. Definitely worked with the McMichaels to try to trap the guy. I thought they might have given him life for his haircut.

Is that the case? That was suggested but I never saw the press cover this. The footage that I saw implies he is catching up with them when he turns the camera on and perhaps he even cocked his gun. I saw mention that the first police report said Roddy tried to box him in, but I saw no other verification or the police report itself.

I always felt like there was some aspect of the case I am missing but press coverage isn't necessarily there to present useful details.

There’s footage of police interviewing him on site, idk the exact terminology or if he says he hit him but he’s like “jabbed at him” like veered towards him with his truck when coming his way, seemed like he was coming from one side and McMichaels from other to trap him rather than him just following.

Well that changes things. I caught the closing arguments and defense didn't touch upon this. I always thought there was SOMETHING I missed, but it is hard to figure that out when all you have are these abbreviated news articles.

If he admitted to trying to box the guy in on camera then sure give him life. It is hard to separate political motivations and such in these sorts of national polarizing trials.

[mcap]

Is that the case? That was suggested but I never saw the press cover this. The footage that I saw implies he is catching up with them when he turns the camera on and perhaps he even cocked his gun. I saw mention that the first police report said Roddy tried to box him in, but I saw no other verification or the police report itself.

I always felt like there was some aspect of the case I am missing but press coverage isn't necessarily there to present useful details.

There’s footage of police interviewing him on site, idk the exact terminology or if he says he hit him but he’s like “jabbed at him” like veered towards him with his truck when coming his way, seemed like he was coming from one side and McMichaels from other to trap him rather than him just following.

Well that changes things. I caught the closing arguments and defense didn't touch upon this. I always thought there was SOMETHING I missed, but it is hard to figure that out when all you have are these abbreviated news articles.

If he admitted to trying to box the guy in on camera then sure give him life. It is hard to separate political motivations and such in these sorts of national polarizing trials.

I still tend to think he was more guilty of aiding and abetting than of a murder charge, at least beyond a reasonable doubt.