• @TheFonz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    44 months ago

    Thank you. This is a reasonable take I can actually agree with to some extent and I think gives me a different perspective, albeit it goes beyond the legal framework. I’ve also heard this argument before and I’m torn on this.

    I’m curious: what is your stance on the Korean rooftop shooters during the LA riots?

    • @jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      54 months ago

      The Korean rooftop shooters during the riots were definitely self defense. They were protecting themselves and their places of business.

      I actually heard a good interview with someone who, as a child, was working for her moms gas station during the riots, let me see if I can turn it up…

      https://insideucr.ucr.edu/awards/2024/05/18/laist-includes-carol-park-new-podcast-inheriting

      Part 1 is about 45 minutes:

      https://www.npr.org/2024/05/22/1249394676/carol-the-los-angeles-uprising-part-1

      Part 2 is a little shorter, under 40 minutes:

      https://www.npr.org/2024/05/22/1249399705/inheriting-carol-park-losangelesuprising-parttwo

      • @TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        04 months ago

        So I’m curious --and honest to god on my grandmother’s grave-- what made Kyle’s position not self defense? Because the argument I hear from conservatives is that was the place where he (and I believe his father too) worked.

        1. He was chased down

        2. He fired warning shot

        3. Indv 1 reached to grab his gun.

        4. KR shoots individual 1

        Thanks for the links. I’m going through them now.

        • @jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          104 months ago

          Because he went there looking for a fight. You can’t do that then claim self defense.

          He drove 20 miles out of his way, across state lines, to put himself in danger. That’s not how self defense works.

          • @TheFonz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            04 months ago

            The rebuttal to this I’ve heard is that it was his workplace and he had a right to defend it (or at least from his point of view) esp after witnessing what happened with the riots in mpls a few weeks prior. If he didn’t work there, I’d say I’d agree with your assessment. Does it matter if he worked there and it was an area he considered somewhat part of his community?

            And just to be clear. I agree: in my opinion this kid had no business being there with an AR 15.

            • @jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              54 months ago

              First, he had no business with an AR-15 because he wasn’t old enough, but no, it wasn’t his business he was protecting, he was not and is not a business owner.

              • @TheFonz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                14 months ago

                I agree. The way they struck that gun charge on the WI law technicality was garbage and he shouldn’t have been near any guns.

                On the business thing: I agree. As an outsider looking in, seeing an employee going to defend a place of work is odd. But then again, I didn’t grow up in small town America so I’m not too familiar with the sense of community and kinship in those areas. I have no idea. All I can think of is where I live in small towns me have pretty close bonds and try to look out for each other.

                I do think your take is reasonable and there isn’t much for me to disagree with.

        • @YeetPics@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          Yea, all 4 of them forced him to travel 20 miles so they could surround him.

          Talk to a psychologist today. please.