Destiny DESTROYS Vaush! - 98 Clip
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 січ 2022
- BUY OUR COMIC:
Our Graphic Novel campaign is LIVE!!!! Want an amazing comic about Sitch & Adam in a world of supervillains? Check it out: adamfriended.com/supervillains
Want to use Streamlabs instead of a Superchat? streamlabs.com/sitchandfriend...
Support us on Subscribestar:
www.subscribestar.com/sitch-a...
Cool T-Shirts:
sitchandfriended.threadless.com/
🔴 Destiny DESTROYS Vaush, The Mask SHATTERS! Ft: Sargon , Veeh, and SFO : Show # 98
• 🔴 Destiny DESTROYS Vau...
Watch our other livestreams:
• SITCH & ADAM SHOW
UNOFFICIAL FAN RUN REDDIT!
/ sitchandadamshow
Fan Clip Channel:
/ sitchadamclips
Podcast format:
anchor.fm/psa-sitch-adam-frie...
Sitch's Channel:
PSA Sitch: / @psasitch
Adam's Channels:
ADAM FRIENDED: / friended
Think Club: / @thinkclub
Outro Song
No Copyright Music Retro 80's Funky Jazz Hop Instrumental Copyright Free Music Sundance Remix
• No Copyright Music Ret...
Sitch & Adam Animation by Identikit
Twitter: @lexthexn
identikit1713@gmail.com
Publish time: 6 AM Pacific CT
Vaush basically: "Just wait until you're 99.9% sure you're going to die. Theeeen MAYBE you can defend yourself."
Sane people: "Uh...no?"
@@eyesofascension8678 His logic is "Muh Systemic Oppression". Oppressed person has right of self defence, evil oppressor only has right to submit to mob and die
@@eyesofascension8678
I actually have had debates with colleges that are like Vaush. They are not interested on finding out the truth, they just want validation. When “cornered” they will turn the entire argument into subjectivism, because it’s better to fool themselves and their fragile ego than noticing that they missed something obvious.
@@eyesofascension8678the argument of vaush will actually look worse if kyle rittenhouse wasnt a right winger... oh wait a minute he isnt vaush 's argument is actually worse than looks lmao
@@eyesofascension8678 you can simply it. Say one or more persons is making a b-line at Vaush, does he think he should be worried if those people have malicious intent and he should be prepared to defend himself?
@@ReIigionlsForIdiots
Exactly
Vaush confirming he's never been in a fight in which he hasn't been able to apply his bread logic.
He grew up in Bel Air, of course he’s never been in a fight. The worst he’s probably suffered was verbal abuse and that was just simply kids bullying him for being a rich moron.
@@Kuricapitalist realistically, the way Vaush acts you can argue that he was the bully as a child.
@@kennyfnpowers707 I think either way you look at it he’s just very sheltered. Whether he was the bully or the bullied, it’s safe to say he doesn’t know much about how the world actually works outside of his own home and the college he went to.
"But you know in Marvel movies.."
--Most definitely VAUSH
Ah, a classic. Honestly, people defending Vaush after this are actual NPCs.
This and defending Vaush’s view on CP ownership and thinking monogamy is damaging to society. Watch, they’ll come flocking to this clip if they haven’t already.
wasn't that the case before this as well? vaush is the king npc.
@@libertariansasquatch are you refering to vaush or destiny?
@@Kuricapitalist the monogamy thing is the kind of lie that only someone who knows the truth would say. its exactly anti-true
Come on you don't think black people should sumbit to racist mobs :)
“If you have a visible weapon, you are provoking violence, and thus should submit to anyone who doesn’t have a visible weapon.” Vaush, literally.
My favorite part of this arc was when Vaush Tried to gaslight his audience that he always thought Kyle was acting in self defense as soon as Kyle was aquitted
I still to this day enjoy watching the fool's bicep get disintegrated. It's pure justice.
Kyle told Gauge, the fool who got his bicep shot, that he was heading to the police and he still tried to stop Kyle with his gun. Absurd.
I always wondered what kinda person actually watched Vaush, but then I saw that Reddit mod on Fox News and it suddenly made sense
I like how that sub got so butthurt that they started saying “this is why we will never appear on any right wing news networks, ever!” It’s like dude what did you expect? Out of all the main stream news networks you chose, you chose one of the few that would actually challenge you and make fun of you? You deserve all the humility you get.
😂
What about the people chasing kyle? Dont they have the same moral obligation to deescalate that kyle does? Vaush picks and chooses who the responsibility applies to. People who raised their hands and backed away deescalated, the people committing assault and lunging for the gun were escalating the situation
Ultimately he places responsibility on the government as he believes if the government was the socialist paradise he dreams about every night then none of this would happen. At least not in the way it actually happened.
This.
Vaush acts like the grown men attacking a child had no agency and were just mindless zombies. They could've chosen not to attack Kyle, if they had at least 2 of them would still be alive.
@@MirandaSinistra He HAS to act like they had no control over their actions. Vaush makes ALL of his arguments from BAD faith. If he didn’t make bad faith arguments he wouldn’t have any arguments at all!
Months later, it's still fascinating to listen to people who try to convince me that a guy running away from a mob of lunatics was the "aggressor".
Mental gymnastics should be an Olympic sport.
The argument is him going there with a gun that's very visible was just an act of baiting violence. While I believe he shouldn't have been there, those rioting shouldn't have been rioting. No one is in the true right just different shades.
@@onionfarmer3044 how is me carrying a gun to protect myself from violence morally wrong...
@@art-gx7qp I think he meant going to a riot openly carrying a rifle is not ideal, and that neither Kyle nor the protestors should have been there. I generally agree with that notion, but I don't think it was baiting violence in any way. Baiting usually means something along the lines of intentionally trying to provoke a certain reaction, and I don't think there is any evidence suggesting that Kyle meant to get a specific reaction from people by going there with a gun.
I'd love to do a Reeee-ality TV show where we introduce Vaush to situations outside of his basement.
It would be called, “My Socialist Life.”
Keeping up with the kasparians 😂😂😂
Human interest shows have finally gone too far.
I can’t imagine any university would tell students to actively charge/ fight an active shooter. That’s objectively stupid.
Run, hide, fight
@@JazzyUnderscoreTrumpeter There's reason it's the third one. It's really a last resort kind of thing because of how horribly stupid it is.
If you have literally no other choice, then it’s probably better then just sitting their and being butchered.
@@cmmagamers Then YOU should have had a gun as well, cause if they got a firearm and you don't? you got a 99% chance that YOU lose and they win...
This is reality, survival of the fittest still applies to humanity, and if you are too stupid or complacent to not arm yourself and be willing to defend yourself, then you only got one option left, to die.
Cause it's not anyone else's job (Police are a "Response Unit", they clean up after something has already happened, not prevent it from ever happening) or obligation to protect you every moment of every day, your life is entirely your responsibility and no one else's.
If a guy says he will kill you, runs after you while you are armed, and has a past that was extremely terrible, does that mean he might harm you?
Vaush: we don't know what he was going to do, you have to wait for him to produce a weapon and draw blood.
The Kyle shooting was a live stream of the Darwin Awards. Many people won awards that night.
Destiny wrecking and humiliating Vausch will never not be amusing haha. Keep up the good work!
Something that doesn't get brought up enough, there was a shot fired before Kyle fired. NY Times even proved that
I mean just pushing a guy down and stomping on his head a few times can easily be lethal. The guy chasing you doesnt even need any weapons for self defence to be justified here
Well statistically more people are killed by blunt force trauma inflicted by another(so not just a person taking a long fall of their own accord) than by rifles yearly in the US.
09:05 Open carrying can be understood as defense in the same way a porcupine is defended by its spikes. If you open carry you're the porcupine saying "hey, I have spikes, don't come near me". How is that so fucking hard to understand for Vaush?
I just really love how Destiny answers Vaush "Absolutely Yes", Total Chad in that moment!
Realistically, if you can bypass a liberal's cynicist fence riding than you can basically "join em" until they look irrational,
the problem is that you actually have to be honest when you do that 😂😂
Vaush: Submit to the mob!
No thanks.
It confused me that they called kyle a vigilante, so deserved to be beaten, when literally anyone who tried to stop him that was not a cop was also then a vigilante
Besides, vigilantes are good.
@@Lurch685 lol
I like the "being followed while unarmed" argument, it's great because it puts the idea of danger in perspective for most people. Then from there we can have additional factors. Plus never in history have I heard someone entertain the idea of stopping an active shooter, it's strange.
There have been cases where it happened, but the active shooter was surprised by another armed person, not chased down. Which makes sense, because if you chase a dude down in an active shooter situation, guess what, that makes YOU look like an active shooter to the cops.
@@robertstan9733
That's exactly right. Even if you're armed in the middle of a shooting, it can be dangerous for you when the cops show up
@@robertstan9733
Not just the cops, what if some other crazy person is ALSO trying to stop the active shooter? Chances are you're going to shoot each other while he continues his rampage. Guns are for self defense, not to play John McLane with thinking you're gonna be the hero of the day, but when i tell people this they think im the asshole.
@@crimsonking440 As I said, it works in places with the right circumstances, a smaller crowd, familiar people etc.
Like that church shooting that was stopped by an old man open carrying. I think that was in Texas but I could be wrong.
But chasing down the suspect is often only going to make the situation more complicated for police and bystanders to figure out what's going on.
Destiny and others have got this wrong, and it bothers me; one does not "have the right" in the right circumstance, in this case the right of self-defense, one _always_ has their right to self-defense, one is simply _legitimately justified_ in the use of their right to self-defense. You _never_ lose your rights; they are possessed simply by the nature of the fact that you are a person.
Not true. The Constitution spells it out when people forfeit their rights. In the justice system sections of the bill of rights. The words risk life and limb. Are used.
Felons lose their rights, because they have demonstrated that they no longer are functioning in society. And must be removed.
If you are an aggressor in a violent situation. The other guy can defend himself. And he is still breaking the law when defending himself until justification is determined. Not by the person but by the judicial system.
@@AKABattousai you’re not breaking the law until it’s justification is determined. You’re innocent until proven guilty. Quite the opposite
@@giovalladares1022 you are still detained and not allowed to be back into society. You can't beat someone to death or shoot them in self defense and just expect to go home without being put in custody. Because you broke the peace and did violence that's only authorized to law enforcement.
Your guilt hasn't been determined. That's true. But you still have your rights infringed. They still disarm you. And your rights for defense are then reiterated.
@@AKABattousai it depends on the situation
Completely. If the police are never able to bring any sort of evidence forward, and they truly believe you did nothing wrong, they won’t even charge you.
@@giovalladares1022 right, so it is situational. I grew up with this stuff my father was a deputy. Cops don't respect your rights all the time. You can always say you have rights. And our legal system if it's doing the job is to make right the wrongs that are committed.
We have a right to life and liberty. But we also live in a country that has capital punishment. And has prosecutors that act politically.
You are better off assuming they are gonna charge you.
The Person doesn't even need to be armed, if they want you dead, they'd make it happen. That was the first thing that popped into my head, before Sitch mentioned it.
Exactly. People can kill one another with their bare hands. Pure example of why restrictive gun laws are some of the most useless and unconstitutional things to exist.
Yep, everything can be a weapon if a person intends to hurt you with it with enough force.
Hard to have a debate with someone about this when their frame of reference seems to be playing freeze tag in elementary school. "Why didn't Rittenhouse call a timeout and look for an adult?"
My favorite part was when Vaush took a five minute break to reapply his clown make-up and refill his seltzer bottle.
Why can't they just say "I am ideologically opposed to this person and therefore I will abandon reason, even in its most basic and simple form, to portray them as objectively evil"
Ive been in alot of fights in my life. Most people have one serious fight in their life. Ive had a few more. You do what you have to do to get out of that fight.
If you initiate force against someone, you don't get to dictate the amount of force with which they respond.
This clean cut version of Destiny is an absolute Chad
You know the whole time Vaush is talking to Destiny he’s constantly thinking of 🤔💭🐎🍆
How funny is it that Little Binger's prosecution was basically Vaush's view of the whole thing?
Vaush just thinks reality is like marvel movies and he can just grab a gun subdue the gun holder and he will just let them because he's the "good guy". This Main character syndrome is fucking cringe.
Vaush probably thinks Detroit Urban Survival is real life lol
Even though it's been almost 2 years since this happened, it still blows my mind how close the trial seemed.
Maybe I am misremembering but the trial itself wasn’t close at all. The crazy thing was how he was charged in the first place
If a had a dollar for every bad vaush take I'd probably be able to scrooge mc duck my ass down a mountain of gold. The federal reserve would be taking loans from me at this point.
Brandishing a weapon is not open carry. Brandishing is the act of waving or pointing a weapon at someone with the intent to provoke or intimidate someone. Kyle didn't brandish, he was open carrying.
The people who are saying that Rittenhouse had no right to defend himseld despite being followed and chased down by Rosenbaum are the same people who said that Trayvon Martin had every right to beat George Zimmerman to death for walking after him.
So when you're chased and attacked by someone while retreating you're not allowed to defend yourself.
BUT: when someone believes without evidence that you just randomly shot and killed some people then he is perfectly allowed to attack you.
So they are allowed to attack you but you are not allowed to defend yourself. This is Vaush's moral logic.
One word...... He'sadick
Ian (because nicknames are for friends) is fractally wrong in every possible way there is to be wrong. There is no legal duty to retreat in Wisconsin. The threshold of the use of deadly force employs the reasonable person standard, not a certainty or near-certainty of death or severe bodily harm. Just a reasonable belief that there will be.
Morally, he is even more wrong, if that is even possible. It is considered aggression to merely be armed (which is insane) but reasonable to attack someone who is fleeing because they "might go kill other people"? This is a person who does not live in reality. He is the epitome of a sophist, taking whatever position he thinks will achieve his goals, which do not include discovering the truth. He openly states he will lie in order to "win". He is terminally arguing in bad faith.
In short, he is a troll. Banter and argue with him for fun, but don't take anything he says seriously.
Vausch, it's "Run", Hide, Fight. It was the title of that movie for a reason.
So Vaush’s argument is, what? That you should let yourself get stabbed or shot before you defend yourself (if you’re not on his side) AND that (his side) would have the right to kill someone who simply threatened them because he might come back later? Yowza.
The way to not get shot is not forfeit your life by being a perpetrator. I don’t get how nowadays we try to shift the burden of responsibility on the person defending himself and not the person that actively decided to be a hostile force, even if they don’t have a gun, even if they don’t have a knife, *they* decides to make the hostile action.
I still love how Vaush is unintentionally defending the early days of American history. When mobs of people would go out hunting down Black people accused of a crime or not to lynch them.
Based vaush
Vaush's arguments didn't age well.
His arguments didn’t even hold up then. They would only age well if you completely ignore the reality of the situation like he does constantly.
Age? They we terrible to start. I don't think I've seen a clip of him talking reasonably.
I loved vaushs appeal to Marvel in this one. Soy is over the roof
I'd love for Vaush to do one of the courses where they walk through multiple real-life scenarios of police stops and watch how many times he gets shot, stabbed or beat to shit.
Vaush’s first sleight of hand is switching a practical argument into a moral one. Whenever someone (or you) switch between morality and practicality in order to avoid conceding a valid point, you lose
It's the key reason the words are added in use of force training "or grievous bodily harm" to justify use of lethal force. Looking at what happens to an individual getting beaten by an angry mob in a riot, it's obvious why.
7:43 "Use case" - it's actually a term from software development. Kind of gives away how they are thinking about these scenarios. I think real life is more messy than writing code (and that already can get very messy)
It just makes me what to see Vaush having the crap beat out of him. Taking his lumps. Then you can ask him how many lumps do you take before you can defend yourself?
At the end of every argument, vosh becomes the pigeon on the chessboard.
Vaush can't seem to find the most obvious difference between his "reality" and reality. Brandishing a weapon is at best a "passive" thread and but charging someone in the context of a protest that was violent has a really different equation as a case for self-defense.
If I walk on the street and someone seem threatening I will keep my distance and walk away, if someone charges me I'm A) going to retreat if possible B) defend myself C) deal with what happened (call the ambulance, cops etc.)
People who brandish a lethal weapon are “asking for it”.
This was the first Sitch and Adam video I've ever seen
There needs to escalation of force blah balh.
The first guy that got shot threathened to kill him. Other witnesses confirmed this. The guy ran after him. threw something at him. Other rioters were not far behind. They could easily have torn his limbs of with that big crowd. The guy that got shot first was suicidal and just kicked out of hospital where he was admited from a suicide attempt. The guy had a death wish and very likely wanted to go out fighting a Natsy with a gun. The mob was out for blood and if they did not try to kill him they would have least mauled him and made him a cripple with brain damage. 100% self defence.
That somebody holds a gun does not give a mob the right to attack.
You could call them the Three Musketeers Adam.
In order for Vaush's "active shooter/ school shooter" hypothetical to work in the Rittenhouse case, his University "heros stopping an active shooter by rushing him", would have to had first set the University on fire, while brandishing their own blunt weapons and firearms, potentially on drugs, may not even actually attend that University to begin with, the cops would have to be on stand by for days, allowing for the situation to "play out", leaving students having to fend for themselves, up to and including completly destroying large portions of the building, setting police vehicles on fire, and fighting amongst themselves "wild west" style.
That is not a typical school shooting scenario I've ever seen.
CNN, August 2020, ran a news segment so spectacularly bad, I thought it had been manipulated or satire. A reporter, in some kind of protective head gear, stood in front of a car lot set ablaze in Kenosha, with a banner underneath that read, "Fiery, But Mostly Peaceful Protest".
I find it absolutely stunning what little concern leftists have for maintaining some semblance of law and order, basic human decency, and respect for neighbors and buisnesses, whenever it comes to some "morally justified" social and racial justice cause the violence is tied to.
Call me crazy, but when I see an individual setting property on fire, I consider them dangerous. So much so, that brandishing a firearm, as a deterrent, in order to protect property, seems reasonable. Likewise, if I see an individual brandishing a firearm in full view, I don't mess with them, let alone chase them down. I think the "stupid games, stupid prizes" type scenario/ logic more adequately fits in the Rittenhouse case.
It's ironic that Vaush has an issue with someone defending themselves (in this case, Rittenhouse) with a firearm, when he himself owns one and has shown it.
centrist usually means supporting the status quo, but yall sound pretty good, also if someone knows how to fight and is charging you, theres a good chance you are fked if they get their hands on you, and lord forbid they strike you in the back of the head
It has become a leftist meme to repeat that Marx quote about owning firearms, but if you want to know what leftists truly think about firearm ownership, all you have to do is ask them what they think of Rittenhouse defending himself from a violent mob.
Always hilarious to see the gears turn in vaush's head to try and justify every single one of his horrible takes.
Kyle Rittenhouse? You mean the medic?
They're conflating active shooters with people defending themselves.
Here to remind everyone that Cenk was absolutely adamant that a skateboard to the head is not lethal force. Hahaha
Vaush is simply arguing for his ideology and not for logic or truth. When Vaush know he's right he he attack visciously, but in this debate hes much more reserved than normal and is simply making circular arguments to try and veil the fact that he's absolutely wrong. It's a disservice to his younger viewers who are being influenced with this toxic form of self-ideological preservation.
Vaush style debate where you have a conclusion and you try to trip someone up without ever justifying your own process from the beginning to that conclusion.
Its insane how these people are on the side of violent criminals.
This is so exhausting. Destiny used to be everything Vaush is now and everyone knows it, but whatever. He's cool, amiright? He's saying things I agree with now! Woo hoo!
Thats why its not about personalities its about whether specific ideas enter into the conversation. They may not always have the best deliverypersons, and often peoples normalcy bias is hard as the berlin wall.
But if the reasonable viewpoint catches fire anyways its still points on the board.
I'm pretty sure Vaush would've screamed & unloaded his gun all around himself.
Lol screw vaush, kyle won, end of story
if vaush didnt hold that position, hed be cancelled by 80 percent of his fan base, he is smart enough to know that.... so he states what he needs to
RIOTERS. Don't mince words.
Well technically lethal force is not allowed to be used if the unarmed person starts to square up and wants to fist fight, as soon as he was reaching for the other persons gun does that turn into a lethal threat. We see this in the recent Edgecomb case.
Self-defense is always going to be fact-specific, it's really going to vary a lot depending on the circumstances
With every word Vaush speaks, he makes it more obvious that he's never been in a fight. He has no concept of physical danger. He's doesn't understand the stakes.
Oh baby its always satisfying to see destiny absolutely demolish Faush
If someone attacks a person having a weapon for having a weapon then is it not the obligation to do the same to the person that now has it? It’s a never ending story!!
This one was EPIC!!! Hail from Serbia!
Oh hi Kyles! Looks like I'm back in the news!
5:17 - Jump Kick Man.
Vaush has loose screws upstairs.
It seems to me that one can turn around the argument about having a duty to retreat when being chased and ask, "Do you have a duty to a retreat if someone is brandishing a firearm at you?"
moral of the story some brain cells > none at all
First 8 seconds earned an insta-like
The thoughts stop where death = bad.
Is...Vaush reading his chat? I think he's fishing his chat for takes.
Vaush isn't saying carrying a firearm provokes a violent response, but that it'll provoke a lethal response which is a bit different. Funny thing is though there does seem to be an implication or logic, that the person who carries is looking for violence, in his rhetoric. So he is kinda saying that but not outwardly.
But did you see what she was wearing? She was asking for it! Lol
i remember following this trail intensely , im sure all 3 had no connection had no connection.
Rose'burn' had an accomplice who fired the shot in the air.
the accomplice and his wife were planning on doing sumthin to kyle, most probably take his gun and kill him.
Roseburn was hiding behind a car and charged at him...
Sounded like a complete set up to ambush him!
what exactly does he mean by a demonstration of lethal force? Do we need blood or something? What a buffoon
Maybe the k k k guy is actually just larping as a spoopy racist gost
F the old guy protestor that approached a wall of police and tried to stop them. His fault.
Best part of this debate is vaush's point that marvel superheros wait until they're attacked and so should we.
The only reason people think Vaush is smart, is because he knows some big and fancy words.
deadly force triangle= capability, opportunity, and intent. if all three are met deadly force is authorized.
*Optional rant:*
Reasonably, "Intent" is replaced with "Fear", because expecting people to absolutely know someone's intent, is not reasonable.
It's reasonable if they have a real fear of death or bodily harm.
That fear must be reasonable itself, though. It must be grounded in immediately relevant behavior, circumstances, and/or interaction.
So, it's really that someone must make an action (physical or spoken) which another would reasonably fear as a real threat; in addition to the other person having the capability and opportunity to realize that threat.
A lot of people use "intent" as an opportunity to be a weasel in debates and legal situations surrounding self defense.
I just think "Reasonable Fear" is more accurate to the reality of these actual situations; and that language should be more utilized, especially in the sphere of debates. It tends to keep the debate on-point, rather than drifting off into vague psychological and moral arguments about the nature of intent and stuff like "thought crime".
-which I've seen happen too many times.
@@OpinionParade I see your point but the reason from a legal standpoint that reasonable fear can’t be used is because you can justify using deadly force on someone else because of MY fear rather than from THERE intent. I can establish intent by giving a verbal and visual warning and seeing how they respond. If I say do not come any closer or I will shoot, raise my gun, and point and they are still charging me I can reasonably assume intent which is how it’s done with military and police. Deadly force cannot be used until one of the 8 justifications are met as well as the three factors of deadly force. Intent is the hardest to prove but it goes based off there actions and not my feelings.
Vaush tends to eventually destroy his own arguments. Consistency, reasoning, and principles are not his strengths.
The dumpster was being pushed towards a gas station. Just that warrants a response.
Edit:also dude shouting "shoot me n****" was just released from a psych ward. Also Kyle was running towards the cops.
@22:10 noooooo, first it's RUN then hide then fight
Wait... Is it clip from 20.7.2020?
Vaush is a guy with a really high verbal IQ. He's able to quickly put together extremely long monologues and factoids to defend his position, but when you take a look at what he's really saying you realize on further investigation that it makes no sense. On top of that he's insanely over confident in his own beliefs. This is why he's able to look like he's winning debates when he's really not. He's really just a very smart person defending the dumbest beliefs for emotional reasons.
I always find it odd when once side says: 1+1=2
Then the other side who went completelly nutts says 1+1=5.000.000
Then comes the Enlightened Centrist claiming to be moderate, saying the truth in in between and no extreme can be right, so they say 1+1=2.500.000
Just had to comment this
Why not bring up that Rosenbaum had tried to commit suicide 24 hours earlier?
He was let out straight into this mayhem??? Nobody is questioning that “Hospitals” actions?
He's a rich kid from beverly hills with parents that didn't love him. What else is new?
this was one of the first times I ever seen vaush.... guess what I think of him.
You cannot shoot someone who squares up for a fist fight. That is not reasonable self defense. A punch is not lethal force. To use deadly force you need to have reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm and being punched doesn’t get there.
Kyle’s situation is different because of the death threat, chasing and reaching for the weapon. Had Jo-Jo squared up to fight Kyle, then Kyle could not have shot him.