Republicans in their current form are hard to vote for.  There are plenty of Republicans I despise like Trump, Graham, Cotton Munchin and a lot more.  Some people vote Republican simply for the reason you list abortion, some people are so against it that they could never vote for a Democrat.  Anyone that owns a company should vote Republican, the tax advantages in operating a small company can make or break a company in competitive industries where you are making pennies to the dollar.  A raise in business/corporate tax, can can kill a lot of competition in some industries that might not be making a lot of money, but are making enough to get by.  Another thing that could kill some of these small businesses are unions being forced to pay more benefits and pay.  Republicans are generally against Unions.  Unions do have their place, but they are killers to smaller companies, and again industries where the profit margins are narrow. Truckers vote republican because Democrats in trying to make trucking safe, are making it very expensive to operate forcing companies to buy expensive qualcomm, tracking devices, cameras, changing the amount of time that truckers can drive on the road. This will one day force trucking companies to use driverless trucks because of all the regulations being forced on them.  I myself lean libertarian, but I do agree with some Democrat programs such as Medicare for all, but a 3rd party will never win.  I vote for the candidate and try not to focus purely on what party they are running for.  There's not going to be a reckoning, people have warned of that for decades.  If push came to shove the army would crush anything serious., and while the Army handled it the rich would simply fly to their vacation homes in the UK, New Zealand, South of Spain, Australia etc.

Being chased and having things thrown at you can already legally be considered assault, so I wouldn’t consider it a massive assumption. pic.twitter.com/TKIH8tttfr

— Megan (@megdaw9) August 27, 2020

Can't see how you came to that conclusion.

Self defense can not be invoked in a situation of your causing. So, we would have to know why he is being chased, and if he instigated the situation.

There's also the fact that he is currently engaging in an illegal act, as he has a firearm which he, as a 17 year old, can not lawfully do (probably to avoid situations just like this one). That may or may not defeat a self defense claim. He also has been charged with two counts of reckless endangerment. That's a felony, and if you are in the progress of a felony, you generally cannot invoke self-defense.

Self defense also has to be proportionate to the threat facing you. Just because someone is going to "assault" you does not mean you can kill them. The first person shot was unarmed and threw a plastic bag. Going from there to "he's going to take my gun and kill me" is a pretty big leap. A jury can decide if that leap was warranted.

The second person was responding after he fired shots. The most reasonable interpretation of his actions is that he's trying to disarm the person who just shot someone. "They are going to take my gun and kill me" again doesn't seem like a reasonable interpretation to me, but that's for the jury to decide. 

Don't honestly see how anyone can conclude that this was, legally, self-defense based on what we see. At the very least we'd need to see what happened immediately before.

To say the protests are "in support of criminals" is an incredibly poor and misleading way to phrase it.

For example, I support a rapist's right to a fair trial. To say based on this that I support rapists would be incredibly misleading.

Similarly, if someone supports George Floyd's right not to have a knee on his neck for 8 minutes, it is misleading to say that they support criminals. Supporting the fair treatment of criminals and suspected criminals would be more accurate. 

The criminal's share of the blame ends where excessive force begins. That's simply by definition. If someone has legitimately committed a crime, it is their fault if they get arrested. If they were not posing a threat and are shot or killed, that part is 100% on the the police.

Edit. Here's all the footage from the shooting and the kid turning himself in. I warn you though, it's graphic content, nstw.

https://files.catbox.moe/t64m9x.mp4

What the actual fuck..

I posted the above link over 3 days ago buddy. Footage of both shootings.

Can't see how you came to that conclusion.

Self defense can not be invoked in a situation of your causing. So, we would have to know why he is being chased, and if he instigated the situation.

There's also the fact that he is currently engaging in an illegal act, as he has a firearm which he, as a 17 year old, can not lawfully do (probably to avoid situations just like this one). That may or may not defeat a self defense claim. He also has been charged with two counts of reckless endangerment. That's a felony, and if you are in the progress of a felony, you generally cannot invoke self-defense.

Self defense also has to be proportionate to the threat facing you. Just because someone is going to "assault" you does not mean you can kill them. The first person shot was unarmed and threw a plastic bag. Going from there to "he's going to take my gun and kill me" is a pretty big leap. A jury can decide if that leap was warranted.

The second person was responding after he fired shots. The most reasonable interpretation of his actions is that he's trying to disarm the person who just shot someone. "They are going to take my gun and kill me" again doesn't seem like a reasonable interpretation to me, but that's for the jury to decide. 

Don't honestly see how anyone can conclude that this was, legally, self-defense based on what we see. At the very least we'd need to see what happened immediately before.