LogFAQs > #971739414

mario2000 posted...

You understand that it is possible to acknowledge that, to the letter of the law, he legally defended himself while also condemning his actions and presence there, right?

I only condemn his intent for being there, but that's irrelevant because it sounds like he was just being a pretty upstanding person while he was there. He was putting out fires and helping people and some people attacked him for it. Eyewitnesses can't find fault with his actions, the law can't find fault with his actions, and even one of the people he shot can't make a compelling case for why he should be harangued based on his actions that night. Sure, criticize the guy for his grifting after the fact, criticize him for his reasons for being there at all, but while he was there he did nothing wrong.