So your amazing logic is just so amazing that you can’t be bothered to explain out.
You need to keep it under wraps because it’s so solid. Cool.
Oh. And it was a justified shoot.
Reeves acquitted.
Zimmerman acquitted.
Rittenhouse acquitted.
But you know better, right.
Oil & water are both liquids and reflect light off the surface. To say that they’re “exactly the same” is simpleton. Asinine. Analogies are just as over your head as the facts of your cited comparison.
Reeves: White armed provocateur, no authority.
Zimmerman: Hispanic armed victim, with authority.
Oulson: White unarmed victim.
Martin: Black unarmed provocateur.
Reeves: Claims defense, no wounds.
Zimmerman: Claims defense, multiple wounds.
Oulson: Deceased, no evidence of attack.
Martin: Deceased, evidence of attack.
Reeves: Provocateur/shooter, police privilege, no authority.
Zimmerman: Authority/shooter.
Oulson: Bystander/victim, at worst anti-social alpha male, no criminal history, witnesses supported the only aggression was thrown popcorn, evidence supported Oulson’s wife’s testimony, including video surveillance.
Martin: Provocateur/victim, black privilege, criminal history, no witnesses. Evidence supported justified shooting (despite media bias).