I'm going to reply to you politely, because while I was initially suspicious that you were arguing in bad faith like some retards in this thread, I think that you are conflating different legal concepts with each other, assigning aspects of one to another incorrectly, which is understandable given that law is fucking complicated, but let me elaborate:
There's "provocative" in the sense of being edgy and there's the legal meaning in a self-defense situation which is threatening imminent bodily harm
No provocation is
not defined by threatening immediate bodily harm. A reasonable fear of immediate bodily harm is the
basis for a justified self-defense. If am minding my own business and someone comes along threatening me with harm, or assaulting me when I very clearly did not want it, then I am justified in self-defense. The key here is that it is
defense; meaning I am not actively seeking conflict. If are you trying to provoke a fight, you are not on the defensive, you are an aggressor.
If a nigger attacks me for no reason, then I am
justified in defending myself by any means. If I provoke a nigger into attacking me, who
would not otherwise be attacking me, then I am
not justified.
calling someone a nigger and asking them if they're going to chimp out doesn't meet the definition of provocation. Just reverse the races, what if a black guy called Chud a cracker and asked him if he was going to crack the whip, do you think that would meet the legal standard of provocation? Do those words meet the standard of making an imminent threat?
This is the problem. As I explained above on this post, you misunderstood the meaning of provocation. Yes, these words in most jurisdictions would meet the definition of provocation. I don't care if its Chud the Builder or Johnny Somali, a person who intentionally seeks conflict is likely going to meet the definition of provocation which in moist jurisdictions involves the forfeiture of your self-defense rights.
Check out this post.
Maybe I'm imagining it but I swear a saw a clip of the end of the stream leading up to the shooting but I can't find it. Do you have indication otherwise and if so do you mind sharing?
Chud was livestreaming but only posted an 11 second audio clip of the incident itself. I would imagine that if he wasn't provoking the niggers, then releasing the audio BEFORE the incident would help his case for justified self-defense. Curious why he didn't...
He didn't sound like he was lying to me
This means fuck all.
he knows that there are sure to be cameras and eye witnesses so if he lies his story will fall apart rather quickly.
My man, you already know he isn't.
If I have to choose between Chud or a PTSD nigger who threatened to kill his wife and burn his house down choosing to believe Chud is a pretty easy choice.
You DON'T have to choose. I didn't. Neither of them are my friends or family, nor would I want them to be.
Yes, PTSD nigger was unlawful in his assaulting of Chud, however, with the way self-defense laws work, Chud is almost certainly unlawful in his shooting of PTSD nigger because he is a
provocateur who has even stated on social media posts his expectation and the "inevitability" of him shooting someone. That conveys clear intention to place himself in dangerous situations and clear intention to harm, which is certainly going to work against his self-defense argument.