I said "this guy is just a groyper Johnny Somali", making this entire conversation chain about this specific guy's actions.

And then I said it doesn't matter what he is, because we'd support him for the legal precedent, not because you personally don't like him. I'm glad I was able to explain to you what we literally just spoke about earlier /s.

By the way, assuming you're white for a second. This is why whites lose and jews control all their countries. Your behavior... This type of behavior.

Every single race in the west will rally behind their own and use that unity to gain influence and power in White countries. Yet we have people over here who won't even show a tiny bit of support for a guy, simply because they don't fully like his actions.

If some white guy stabbed a random black child to death, would you donate to his legal fund too?

Whataboutism. But this also indicates you're not well-equipped to think about these topics in the grander scheme of things. I'd suggest you focus on smaller, simpler topics from now on.

But since you asked, it depends entirely on the context. A white guy stabs an innocent black child to death, I'm going to assume you mean the guy was crazy and it was unjustified.

But what if they try to use the case to strengthen "hate crime" laws that'll be used against Whites in the future? I wouldn't support that. What if they try to pass some laws limiting your ability to carry a weapon, to "Save the children". I'd also oppose that. The crime itself isn't the issue, it's the outcome of it that will be used and applied to others in the future. That is the concern here, that is what you are completely missing.

The enemy is openly saying things like "never let a serious crisis to go to waste.” in the context of passing draconian laws immediately after tragedy occurs, and you're here wondering if you should support Chud because you personally don't like the guy. And thats why I called you a woman, because you're thinking and acting like one.