He acted in self defense.
so now that the verdict is out, and I’ve listened to a few takes on everything, I think I know how I feel about it.
Did he act in self defense? Yes. Flat out.
Did he irresponsibly and recklessly put himself into a situation in which self defense would most likely be necessary? Yes. He knew he would likely need the gun if he went.
Did he have any good reason at all for being there? No. And I think this is the most criminal thing about what he did. It is flat out vigilantism. Even if the police weren’t going to defend the business, he still had no business being there.
Should he go completely free? Imo no. He shouldn’t be charged with murder, of course, it was self defense. But I can definitely get behind a reckless endangerment conviction with minimal sentencing.
To me, he acted in self defense, but he knew better than to be there in the first place, so what he did was vigilante shit and that should be punished. I’m not for symbolic justice, but this seems like a negative example that symbolically says, “its okay to show up ready to criminally take human life as long as you wait to be attacked first”.
And I know that he wasn’t necessarily being overtly provocative, but he was open carrying at a riot, let’s just be honest about what that says to the rioters.