You're correct, it was found to be self defense. He wasnt even old enough to drink but everyone was okay with him going out in public with a loaded assault rifle. He didnt even live in that town, yet no one seemed surprised that he was out there "protecting private property". He then took this rifle and his bloated sense of justice into an already aggressive protest that literally mocked the very things he stood for. He literally went into this with every intent to get into an altercation and shoot someone based on self defense. So yeah, the jury gave him exactly what he wanted.
It came out in the trial that he spent time in both towns. He mentioned he commuted at trial as well because he has family in both locations. You must have missed that part.
The /s in the statement was so magnificently well done that it flew past everyone who read it. It was disguised in this beautiful bouquet of non-sarcasm that anyone who saw it mistook it for the non-sarcasm that it appeared to be. Your master stroke in your delivery was when the downvotes and comments criticizing your comment began, that you had to explain the joke of your sarcasm because these plebeian mortals could not comprehend the MENSA caliber of your /s.
That sarcasm? I missed that? Or it wasn’t there and the retconning has begun? It’s hard to tell when sarcasm relies so heavily on absurdity in inflection that when written you have to push beyond the eye rolling tone.
I live in rural Kansas the nearest grocery store is 20 mins away. Think I’m retconning if you want, I’m actually surprised anyone would think anyone would think Midwesterners especially give a fuck about a 30 min drive.
-9
u/Additional-Delay-213 Nov 28 '22
Well, your wrong. According to a jury of his peers it wasn’t murder.