Quote Originally Posted by Killuminati View Post
It seems more likely that this guy was just starting trouble again and I don't see why we should give him the benefit of the doubt instead of someone who has no history of this kind of stuff(that we are aware of at least).
In the video in question, you can see him decide to escalate a verbal argument to physical violence AFTER the other party to the argument walked away, so I'm not entirely sure it's fair to say that he's the one deserving the benefit of the doubt. Also, didn't he turn out to be a convicted murderer who was violating his parole by carrying a knife? And didn't he threaten the other guy with it? I don't know what exactly you mean by "this kind of stuff", but if that's true, it's also probably not fair to say that he had no history of instigating altercations.