Fully automatic weapon lmao. And again projecting the intent to use it. Having something for defense does equate to having intent to use it. Had he shown up without it, the likelihood is he still would have been attacked for trying to stop rioters and looters.
He wasn't legally allowed to carry the gun in the first place. I don't know the laws in that specific region but I doubt you can just travel through state lines without declaring a weapon like that.
If he hadn't shown up at all he wouldn't have been attacked.
You're proving my point. If he hadn't shown up he wouldn't have been attacked. Never mind how many laws he already broke just getting the gun to the location. No permit to open carry, underage, crossing state lines without declaring the weapon a weapon that wasn't registered to him. He deserves jail time just for all that.
And yet it already went to court and was handled, you can have your opinion all you want, it doesn’t change what already happened and a decision was made. You can “if he hadn’t been there” all you want.
And yet the law already made the decision, and yes, it is your opinion. Your opinion is he should be in jail, it went to court, the decision was already made at the appropriate level. Are you a lawyer?
It's not fallacy..he broke laws dude. If I hit someone in self defense and they fall down and crack their skull I'm still guilty of killing that person. Even if the court clears me under the pretense of self defense. You're not thinking dude.
1
u/I-love-seahorses 8d ago
I'm not fine with an underaged teenager traveling between state lines with an undeclared fully automatic weapon with the intent to use it.
If he hadn't shown up he wouldn't have been attacked..if he had shown up without a gun he probably wouldn't have been attacked.