Sign in to follow this  
Emmanuel Goldstein

Domestic Terrorism

Recommended Posts

Yep.  And I can't find anyone on the left willing to say anything about it other than "in context, a little inconvenience on your commute is nothing compared to a cop kneeling on your neck until you die."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moment they raise a gun is the moment a life is threatened. Anyone who thinks this is OK is no better than Satan who thought his rebellion was OK.

It is also ironic to hear people say, "Don't be stupid," while protesting in the middle of the street pointing a firearm at people. The chances are more likely to that these people talk trash about the NRA. These people are why the NRA exists (in light of the 2nd amendment also).

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, dude put thought (and obviously put some legal advice) in his stance there.  He did not have his gun "raised".  He had it pointed at the ground, with his finger off the trigger.   It's a stance commonly trained into people who want defend themselves.

Consider the argument made in front of a jury: "That truck had me by several thousand pounds.  I was afraid I was about to get run over like (insert 2-3 examples where protesters have been run over).  I wasn't threatening him - I just had my gun out because I was in fear for my life!"

The jury weighs that testimony against the obvious point that blocking a roadway is illegal.  It's harder to convince the jury that the guy was using his weapon illegally.

(I'm totally down with your point about Satan's rebellion though.  This is very much not OK.)

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a valid point, if protestors haven't been shown to be aggressors, which they have in many cases: breaking into cars, setting cars on fire, breaking car windows with whatever is in their hands, burning buildings with children inside, etc...

Consider the following argument in front of a jury: "I was walking down the street when a man (who blocked my way on the sidewalk) raised a gun (at me) mid high. When I proceeded to move around the individual he stepped in front of me and once again pointed his gun in my direction mid high. At that moment, I feared for my life and pulled my concealed carry and shot him to stop the threat on my life."

Consider the following argument without a gun in front of a jury: "I was walking down the street when a man stepped in front of me with fists clenched at his side leaning toward me. WhenI proceeded to move around him he stepped in front of me and then moved his clenched fists in front of him a little below the waist. As I needed to get to my destination I hit him as he threatened me twice."

We can consider the following argument also, "I was driving down the road -- legally -- when I was obstructed from progressing from protestors who were brandishing a gun. The position of the gun was pointed in my direction. The gun out and the protestors posturing were evident he was going to use the gun. I tried to move around the protestor when he ran back in front of me taking the same position with gun pointed in my direction ready to use. Insert examples of protestors firing at cars "legally" driving on their way to work, family, etc..." Video evidence will prove the truck driver tried to move around the protestors to get where he was going. It will also prove the guys with guns (not just one, but from the video there are at least two) moved once again assuming the same posturing, which means they have now once again threatened the life of the truck driver. They don't have the gun out to protect their life. They have a gun out as a threat to the vehicles, if you move in my direction I will shoot you. That is obvious. It isn't self-defense when you are the agitator.

Let's take another story as we are arguing the height of a gun is important. If a person walked into a store and started brandishing a gun, mid-height, pointing in the direction of the store clerk. What would your thoughts be? Who is legally in the right? Who is legally in the wrong? What options does the store owner have?

The height of the gun is irrelevant when posturing is obviously in a state that it will be used, when obviously the person holding the gun is the aggressor. You have my vote if the car wasn't going about his business on a legal street. He did nothing to threaten a life. The protestors the moment the gun is out in the open, and in a easily firing position, they have now threatened a life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2020 at 8:37 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Yep.  And I can't find anyone on the left willing to say anything about it other than "in context, a little inconvenience on your commute is nothing compared to a cop kneeling on your neck until you die."

 

The plot has somewhat become more thick - Your reference to a cop on someone's kick - that someone was complaining that they could not breath while two policemen could not get the man into a protocol car while he was resisting long before he was on the ground.  Obviously under the influence of a rather powerful drug.  There are many assumptions but do we know for sure that his drug dosage had nothing to do with his cause of death?  We are told that the full video was withheld by authorities because it would make prosecution of the officer more difficult.

It is not my call to determine what is just in each circumstance.   I am far more concerned that there is ever an effort to convict anyone by withholding evidence.  There are so many things be reported so many different ways and such a wide spectrum of responses - I am concerned that outside of any specific event that there is becoming less and less reason to rely on our government for justice or protection.  And so we are in a downward spiral of revenge begetting more and more hate and violence begetting more revenge. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Yes, a valid point, if protestors haven't been shown to be aggressors, which they have in many cases: breaking into cars, setting cars on fire, breaking car windows with whatever is in their hands, burning buildings with children inside, etc...

Consider the following argument in front of a jury: 

Consider the following argument without a gun in front of a jury: 

We can consider the following argument also, ... Video evidence will prove ... That is obvious. It isn't self-defense when you are the agitator.

The height of the gun is irrelevant when posturing is obviously in a state that it will be used, when obviously the person holding the gun is the aggressor. You have my vote if the car wasn't going about his business on a legal street. He did nothing to threaten a life. The protestors the moment the gun is out in the open, and in a easily firing position, they have now threatened a life.

You're doing a great job of summarizing the prosecution's case.  You need to convince all twelve jurors.  Unfortunately, the defense is spinning a different, equally wordy story, and they only need to make one of them doubt you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

You're doing a great job of summarizing the prosecution's case.  You need to convince all twelve jurors.  Unfortunately, the defense is spinning a different, equally wordy story, and they only need to make one of them doubt you.

True, and if the jurors were based in fact, lawful and unlawful behavior, it wouldn't be hard to convince all twelve. That is the catch 22 of any time we are dealing with jurors who can be swayed from the facts, lawful and unlawful behavior. I would be surprised in the state they are in that they can legally open carry a pistol, while threatening lawful behavior. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Protests become irrelevant.

If I want to protest something I lawfully/legally do not have any right to walk in the middle of a street with a gun in my hands and then point the gun in the direction of a passenger because the car might be dangerous to my health. Well of course it is, that is why we have laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that people don't get punished for blocking roads and pointing guns at people.

The Bundy supporters blocked the entire I-15 Freeway, the main arterial between LA, Las Vegas, and Salt Lake City, and pointed rifles and guns at motorists, rather than just the ground:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/blm-releases-bundy-cattle-after-protesters-block-southbound-i-15/amp/

(Ironically the were protesting a different BLM)

They were made into political heroes and the ones that did get punished for extreme vandalism were pardoned; some of them even by the president.

Apparently domestic terrorism is OK as long as politicians on whatever side agree with the protestors.

As I said in a previous thread, I wouldn't want to be in law enforcement now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this