Quote:
Originally Posted by Ooloo
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Well, mainly because they *weren't* victims. Kyle was assaulted and acted completely lawfully in defending his own life per the US constitution.
"Rioters, looters or arsonists" are not pejorative terms, they are simply descriptive terms given the facts and evidence of that night. It is completely relevant to the details of the case, given that kyle was there to help the overburdened police deal with rioting, looting, and arson.
|
As always, you are boiling a complex issue with many shades of gray, into a black and white situation.
A trademark of those who cant really conceptualize complexity and critically think about the many dimensions of a situation or challenge ones own biases and assumptions.
And this isnt the first time you've done it.
If it were clear cut self defense there wouldnt have been charges brought up. An example is the officer who had to shoot Ashley Babbot. The investigation that followed determined that this was a clear cut case of self defense and thus, no charges were brought.
In this case, the investigation that followed determined that there were grounds for charges, and thus, we have a court case to determine whether this was in fact self defense or not.
This is how the judicial system works, maybe you need to do some brushing up?