It’s not evidence of anything. Actions speak louder than words. The actions he took that day directly contradict any stated intention to shoot anyone. He used his weapon as a literal last resort all 3 times, when not doing so would have meant forfeiting his own life.
Textbook self-defense.
Even I could put on a suit and walk in off the street and convince the jury of his liability in those killings.
‘yes your honor, he’s liable because he dared to put out that fire, and then ran away when the guy who said it screamed “I’m going to kill you” and charged at him, and then tried to wrestle the rifle out of his hand.’
Buffoon.
It would have made zero difference. Actions speak louder than words, and what he did that day directly contradicts this ‘message’.
Fact checking time~
the kid who took a gun he didn’t own to
The gun was not in his possession until the day after he arrived.
to a state he didn’t live in
But that he previously worked in, and his father lived in. Not exactly a strange neighborhood.
to shoot protestors he didn’t know
It’s obvious he didn’t go there “to shoot protesters”, for several factual, verifiable reasons:
ostensibly to protect businesses he’s unaffiliated with
There are text records of the business requesting his help, and one of the co-owners of that business, after denying it, was seen taking a posed ‘thank you’ picture with him after they had spent some time at the dealership that day. The evidence is clear they were there because they were directly requested to be there.
Honestly of course he wanted to murder people, anyone who disputes that is and has always been deliberately lying.
Nope, but I can understand how you’d reach that conclusion, considering you have basically every relevant fact of the case wrong. That’s what happens when you get narratives from social media, instead of drawing conclusions based on facts and evidence. There’s a ton of hard video evidence, you know.
It’s funny that on the day the verdict was delivered, the megathreads on Reddit announcing it were full of people admitting coming to terms with the fact that it was ironclad self-defense, and that social media and sensationalized news sources had created a narrative that directly contradicted the facts. And now years later, the only people still really talking about that case are the ideologues on both wings still clinging so desperately to those bullshit narratives, still repeating the same easily-debunked talking points they were fed by their echo chamber of choice, that were debunked before the trial even began. Hell, you can still find people claiming all the people he shot were black, lol.
This case has become such a perfect litmus test for identifying ideologues over people who both care about what’s actually true, and are actually willing to inform themselves instead of just swallowing whatever talking points they’re fed. Especially considering how EASY it is to debunk the bullshit, in this particular case.
It almost makes me not want to correct the lies, to make sure I can keep easier tabs on the liars, lol.
If they were actually good products/services, they wouldn’t need to advertise
How do they get their first customers without advertising?
That’s still almost 3 dozen short of Gaston, they’ll never get large at this rate.
Would be very surprised if that wasn’t at least a factor, there is definitely at least correlation there, if not causation.
He was tried and found guilty of raping a woman.
That’s not true. He’s never been convicted of a sex crime. “Found liable” in a civil court and “found guilty” in a criminal court are VASTLY different, and require VASTLY different standards of evidence.
It’s important to be accurate.
The vast majority of consumers of the vast majority of companies’ products are completely in the dark about the demographic makeup of its workforce, so even the possibility of this being a factor is minuscule.
Companies supporting LGBT matters is a good litheness test
Then they’re often obese as fuck, lol
This kind of discrimination is literally anti-capitalist. If maximizing profit is the goal, refusing someone for any reason unrelated to how good a worker they’d be (a category everything in the HRC falls under) is counter-productive.
Fact: Bigotry is hate. Fact: Assuming someone is a liar based on their job is textbook bigotry.
Therefore, yes, it’s based on hate.
ACABers are so obsessed with their prejudicial hate that they actually happily swallowed the complete fabrication in the OP’s title, and ACTUALLY convinced themselves that cops saw someone jump a turnstile and their initial immediate reaction was to open fire on them, lmao.
My man I don’t think I give a shit where you think I belong.
Looks at the number of people that got shot.
Obviously that’s not true.
Not as a result of two people walking, but as a result of someone brandishing a knife and attempting murder in a public place. Cringe goalpost move.
And all of that stuff with the weapon is based only on the police claims.
And all of what you’re saying is based on literally nothing but your hate boner for police, lmao.
The image released shows a knife clutched in the criminal’s hand. I’m sure he was strolling around like that very innocently and cops just opened fire on him for a laugh, right?
The straw-grasping is incredible.
The same police that won’t release the body camera footage.
Like it’d matter to your type. We have extensive hard video evidence of what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, all put online publicly mere days after the event, and there are still innumerable imbeciles claiming shit it directly contradicts happened, lol.
$1000 says there is no amount of examples of trustworthiness you could be shown that would change your mind, just admit what you are, don’t be prejudiced and too much of a wimp to admit it.
Don’t see how that’s relevant to anything. A police officer walking after another person, on foot, doesn’t have the potential for collateral damage that a car chase does.
It is completely ridiculous to frame this as “police shot a man over $2.90”, when the shooting only happened after a verbal death threat, brandishing a lethal weapon, followed by an overt attempt to make good on that threat with that weapon.
Only the most ACAB-addled mind would think it appropriate to frame the events that way.
show me some billionaires that never took advantage of anyone to get their billions
You can’t prove a negative, screwball. It’s literally impossible to prove “never took advantage of anyone” about anyone, billionaire or not.
Not that you aren’t almost certainly using an overbroad definition of ‘take advantage’, on top of it.
I’m down to change my view.
No, you aren’t. People who are don’t play these kinds of semantic games.
I just don’t see getting to a billion without someone being taken advantage of on the way though.
Played it with my SO, reached a certain scene that completely warped the tone of the game (I’m guessing you know which one I mean), and neither of us really have had the urge to play since.
Also, both parents are kinda unlikable as characters imo, lol.