Originally posted by Lestov16
[B]You really think you can twist the context here....or are you legit incapable of comprehending that this dude HAD NO REASON TO GO THERE OTHER THAN TO INCITE A SHOOTING.
Well in Kyle's case, he didn't even shoot first, instead he was chased by a mob trying to kill him. Given how well he took out his assailants, I'm sure if he wanted to "incite" a shooting, there would have been fifty bodies maimed by his AR, not 2.
Either you're a sociopath trying to be deceptive
No. That would be the one staning the child molester and two other criminals who attempted to execute a kid in the streets, not the kid defending himself.
Yes, a person should defend themselves from a TERRORIST ATTACK......
Concession accepted. Why is there any need to go further than this?
But if an IDIOT CALL OF DUTY LARPER GOES INTO WARZONE
I see it's turned from protest to Warzone now. Very interesting. In which case, what on earth are rioters doing where they're not permitted?
IN WHICH THEY HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN GOVERNMENTAL LICENSE TO KILL (WHICH HE DID NOT, AS HE WAS UNDERAGE AND DID NOT EVEN HAVE LICENSE TO WIELD A PHUCKING WEAPON)
Which is a misnomer in wisconsin.
COMMITS MURDER, GETS CHARGED
And will get off, considering the overwhelming ammount of evidence showing he acted in defence. This is true whether or not Kyle was allowed to carry a weapon.
AND MAKES HIS ENTIRE CAUSE LOOK DEMONIC TO THE POINT THAT STATE OFFICIALS THINK TRUMP WILL INCITE MORE DEATHS, THEN I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY IT IS HIS FAULT.
Yawn.
So are you a sociopath, or are you stupid?
Probably neither. You on the other hand, are both.