Not trying to drag this out, but just when you think this whole sorted mess couldn’t get more bizzare, more bizzare stuff pops up.

The special prosecutor and the county attorney held dueling press conferences today.

At the end of the special prosecutor’s press conference a reporter asked the SC to summarize the evidence against Gardner. My short paraphase is the SC said a) because Gardner brought guns to the bar before the riot to protect the bar and b) because Gardner was a strong Trump supporter and Trump had tweeted the day before “when they start looting, we start shooting” - those two things showed there was probable cause that Gardner went to the bar with the intent to kill a rioter.

The county attorney that turfed the case to the grand jury in the first place held his own press conference and disagreed with SC. The CA said Scurlock wasn’t a protester. He was a criminal rioter that attacked Gardner as Gardner was walking away. Gardner had a right to defend himself. The CA poked the SC that the SC didn’t understand NE self defense law.

When I started this thread, my point was what seems like clear cut self defense may not be. This shows how wierd it can get and how tragic it can turn out for the self defender.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.