pigskinned

Just now, visionary said:

At least some of this is misinformation at best.  

 What facts are you relying on in making that statement?  I am relying on the video that everybody can watch, and is not disputable.  And the witness statements of Riche McGinness, and I have not seen any contradicting statements from actual eyewitness to shooting of casualty 1.

Kyle is possibly guilty of carrying a firearm under age 18 (if he had a safety class this apparently doesn't apply).  He is also guilty of a curfew violation, along with everybody else there.

However, he also has a basic right to self defense, and the video and witness accounts clearly establish that each of the three people he shot posed a risk to him of death or serious bodily injury:

1. The first casualty can be seen on video attempting to start an altercation with other members of the armed group (shoot ME !@*!), then can be seen on video chasing Kyle after Kyle attempted to put out a he and his group started, with a fire extinguisher.  He is pursing Kyle and that makes him the aggressor, not Kyle. He throws something that appears to be on fire at Kyle.  He catches up to Kyle and attempts to grab his rifle (which is further illegal as he is a convicted felon and sex offender).  The witness account states that they seperated and as the casualty grabbed Kyle's weapon a second time, he was shot and killed.  Kyle himself can be seen on video trying to render aid and calling 911 to report the shooting and request medical.  Then the mob starts yelling "get him" and chasing him down the street.

2.  He runs away and is hit in the head by a pursuer (aggressor) and does nothing.  Not until he falls down does he take another shot.  He is kicked in the head by one guy.  The 2nd casualty attacks him with a skateboard, attempts to struggle for the rifle and is dispatched. 

3. The 3rd casualty was standing over him with a firearm when shot.

These facts will provide an open and shut case of self defense.  

Just now, PokerPacker said:

He is a victim.  He was shot in the back seven times.

He is not a victim if the shoot was lawful, and it has not yet been determined to be an unlawful shoot.  Regardless, he created the situation and put the officers in a very bad position.  That is his fault and he is to blame for it.  

2 hours ago, Koala said:

Why is it soo important for you to find some blame in the victim?  Its a rhetorical question for you, that most of us already suspect we know the answer to.  

 

It says a lot about someone to see the tape, know the consequences to Blake and all the fallout, and still come out and basically just be like, "But wait, wait, I just wanna make sure that we all agree on one thing -- justice must ensure that Mr.  Blake is at least charged for failure to comply with a lawful order.  Thats all I care about...". 

 

I know thats not exactly what you said, but do you have any idea how incredibly grotesque you look, when you focus on the victim's' imperfections?  Stop, just stop.  Seriously, I advise you, just stop.  it makes you look like the guy who says, "Im not saying she deserved to be raped nearly to death, but can we all at least agree her blouse was a bit revealing?  Hmmm?"  

 By pronouncing Blake a "victim" you piously absolve him from any consideration of blame.  In fact, Blake is a criminal, who is broke the law, refused to comply with police, and got himself shot.  The shooting has not been determined to be a bad shoot.  It may very well be a good shoot. Regardless, Blake is not a victim but a criminal and an instigator.  Just like the vast majority of individuals injured by police.  

This team would be better appreciated down in Hampton Roads.  Since it appears it will suffer a sea change, I hope it is geographical as well.