Lotusbullshit will never dare debate this topic with me as she is full aware my sound legal mind and ability to think things through to their logical conclusion will completely eviscerate her and her shallow arguments. And when I say argument I am being most generous here as fallacy would be a much more appropriate term.
But since she's chickenshit and this would be a one sided affair from an intellectual standpoint I will erect her strawman argument on her behalf and proceed to scythe in down like a hot soldering iron cutting through butter.
Unless of course she finds the figurative stones to come along and erect one herself which I strongly doubt because like every other lefttarded fuckwit in existence she lacks both the intellectual and (figuratively speaking) testicular fortitude to do anything but parrot the media narrative most popular at any given time.
As lotus has indicated so many times in the past on this very subject, her argument centers primarily around provocation & the fact that Kyle deliberately placed himself in harms way being in that area of the city that night. The second half of her argument will be dismissed entirely from the onset as one would have to be subhuman with IQ of a dirty pair of socks to buy such obvious rhetoric. Imagine the legal defenses which would suddenly open up opportunistically if victims were some how cupable for the crimes committed against them based on things like their choice of whereabouts, attire, etc etc. The result would be both overwhelming and alarming and any sane individual knows this.
That leaves us with provocation and whether or not Kyle did provoke his attackers that night and whether it bears any consequence on the outcome we witnessed via very detailed video footage and eyewitness testimony. Provocation as defined in legal doctrine must be an action of physical action of aggression towards another which violates their personal anatomy & safety in some way. ie punch, kick, swing etc. Words, offensive clothing, intimating accessories, inciting gestures etc etc do not rise to the threshold.
ALL united states statues, both federal and state; mandate clearly that if self defense is to be leveraged as an defense intended to absolve the accused of guilt in any homicide resultant from an altercation the absence of provocation must be true. If, in any aggresive capacity, the accused initiated physical contact he is immediately deprived of his ability to erect such a defense. Period.
So the question now becomes did Kyle provoke his attackers that night? Do we see ANY evidence whatsoever of him initiating physical contact with any of his aggressors? No we don't. And I challenge any of you to demonstrate a single instance to the contrary. What we see is Kyle holding a weapon, which libs will claim intimidated his attackers and doing things that enraged these aggressors who were themselves attempting to initiate physical confrontations at various intervals throughout the night. All while in the midst of committing various crimes. All we see is Kyle engaging in noble activities like putting out dumpster fires which were being used as battering rams and even torpedoes!
These facts are indisputable as they are on video and articulated by various witnesses, some of whom were favored by the prosecution even! So if Kyle did not initiate physical contact that night and the doctrines of self defense were developed for the very purpose of allowing people to do exactly what Kyle ended up doing why are libs attempting to deprive him of his rights under the law?
Because he carried a weapon? Well, in what circumstance would defending ones self with a weapon NOT happen unless that individual were carrying a weapon to begin with?
Because his weapon intimated and angered people? Since when does angering someone with a thought, article of clothing or an accessory give that individual the right to attack you? And if this is what you believe what would you be saying if Joeseph Rosenbuam had caught up to Kyle that night and assaulted and even possibly killed him? Would you say Kyle deserved it because Joe didn't like guns or kids putting out dumpster fires he just started? Would you let him go or would you say he'd have to atone for his crime? And if you happen to agree such an act would have been a crime how do you reconcile this with the fact that you are now attempting to say Kyle Murdered him in cold blood?
I know I wont get a response out of any of you intellectually dishonest shitbags on the left but I figured I'd drop this nuke on you anyway to demonstrate to our readers what vile and disingenuous pieces of cowardly shit each and every one of you are.
