When there are 2 people armed and one gets shot, the question we should be asking first is, "Was the person killed the aggressor, or the victim?"
Almost without fail, the press automatically labels the person shot/killed "the victim" whether or not the shooting was justified, and in this case they have no idea which it is.
It's not a good look to defend yourself and leave the scene without calling 911 (at least to get medical help), but if he was not legal to have a gun, there was a drug deal happening, etc., maybe he wanted to avoid those problems on top of trying to prove it was self defense.
I think the police and politicians have created an attitude of "F**k calling the Cops ... they only gonna ruin my life even though it was a righteous shoot." They publicly threatened how it will be worse to be a victim of the system than having guns for protection, so part of the problem at least is on them for being pro-criminal and anti-victim -- the real victim.
"I think the police and politicians have created an attitude of "F**k calling the Cops ... they only gonna ruin my life even though it was a righteous shoot."
Y'all got that right.
The last thing in the world I'd do in Hawaii is to ask for police assistance, Talk to them, or depend on them.
They only protect and serve the government. Although you can say the government is here to serve the people,
is responsible to the people, elected by the people, I'd say you are full of it, as they only serve the Democrat party.
I've lived in Hawaii 23 years , The only government institution I trust is the fire department and many of them are volunteers.
All other government functions are so entwined with Democrat party dogma that they are to be avoided at all costs.
so what if this was a drug deal gone wrong, someone was either a killer or was defending themselves.
the guns were not the problem. the people were.
