you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]AsInBeer 18 insightful - 7 fun18 insightful - 6 fun19 insightful - 7 fun -  (7 children)

Fully agreed. If the government refuses to protect its citizens then the citizens have a right to protect each other.

[–]NiceDickBro 13 insightful - 6 fun13 insightful - 5 fun14 insightful - 6 fun -  (6 children)

Honestly that’s how I see it too, a lot of people saying “why was a 17 year old out at night with a gun?” Or “He shouldn’t have been there in the first place and it wouldn’t have happened!”.

When you take away police then there is no one else, when people are setting your town on fire and no one is doing anything then why should you sit back and allow it to happen? Age is irrelevant, I can imagine a lot of people are sick of the bullshit. Good on him

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Also "should not" is contrary to FREEDOM. He's there because he chooses to, and that should be enough for anyone.

[–]AsInBeer 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Juries have a right to jury nullification.

refuseToConvict

[–]HegeMoney 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Jury nullification works both ways.

Careful what you wish for.

Although, I agree in this particular case.

[–]AsInBeer 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Only need one juror anyway.