Man who pulled gun on crowd of BLM protestors found guilty - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51819101]If you enter a hostile situation that you can just not go to with the expectation that it'll escalate to lethal force then you are by definition not using self defense.[/QUOTE] People have the right to go wherever they want. They don't need to justify themselves.

[QUOTE=Bertie;51818873]Yeah, I'm not agreeing with this. I've seen video footage of this incident and he was getting followed by thugs being very purposefully intimidating and antagonistic.[/QUOTE] "Anybody that doesn't agree with me and exercises their right to protest is a thug!!" They started to follow him after he pulled out his gun. This dude looks like your typical autistic conspiracy theorist trump supporter. Why the fuck was he at a BLM protest with his retarded ass milk jug camera case and 120 rounds if he didn't want to stir shit up? Also, you only pull out a gun if it's a life or death situation. Some people yelling at you is not a life or death situation.

[QUOTE=Bertie;51819096] We must've been seeing a different video. They're all focused on him in the OP.[/QUOTE] They were focusing on the camera man. He walked away and managed to put a good distance between himself and the protestors before pulling the gun out and attracting their attention. He could've very easily slipped away.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51819105]People have the right to go wherever they want. They don't need to justify themselves.[/QUOTE] Stop deflecting. Why would you go to a dangerous situation, armed to the teeth, proceed to produce your weapon inappropriately, and then start to complain that you're in a dangerous situation.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51819105]People have the right to go wherever they want. They don't need to justify themselves.[/QUOTE] that is in no way related to anything I've said. Why don't you reply to the content of my posts instead of trying to deflect the conversation?

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51819058]What possible reason would you have to carry 100 rounds on your person? I can understand a loaded gun and a spare magazine for concealed carry, but over 100 rounds is asking for trouble.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying, it doesn't [I]necessarily[/I] mean he was looking for trouble. All it means is that he had an impractical amount of ammo. Personally, I think that if his intent were to shoot up a crowd, he would have done so.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51819115]I'm just saying, it doesn't [I]necessarily[/I] mean he was looking for trouble. All it means is that he had an impractical amount of ammo. Personally, I think that if his intent were to shoot up a crowd, he would have done so.[/QUOTE] I think he was waiting for someone to take a swing at him before he started.

[QUOTE=Bertie;51819096]Yeah, guns are dangerous, but I have the tiniest bit of empathy to understand that it was a shitty situation and that despite the panic and chaos, he still did not shoot anyone, only had his gun out of the holster for 2 seconds, and never even touched the trigger. This doesn't sound like a man who should go to prison. Revoke his carry license, take away his weapons, make him do some sort of community service. Maybe bar him from going to any further protests. Prison is fucking extreme.[/QUOTE] Nah, prison time really isn't extreme when you've decided to endanger the lives of everyone in a crowd because you can't handle the environment of a protest. It also doesn't seem like he had any good motives when he came into the protest with over a hundred rounds on him. Again, this is more than just a little mistake, every decision he made up until the point he drew his gun and brandished it at the crowd was grounded in stupidity.

[QUOTE=Bertie;51819045]I will concede that he wasn't entirely in the right here. However, brandishing your concealed weapon is literally meant for when you feel that your life is threatened, is it not? Is that not what was going on in there, at least clearly in his head? Is it not what you see in the video? Again, it was only a ~2 seconds long event. He practiced trigger discipline throughout, no accidental discharges were going to happen here. This is a dude who in a tense situation panicked and did something dumb but understandable, who didn't hurt anybody or even attempt to hurt anybody at the end of the day, in what way does this guy deserve to go to prison?[/QUOTE] No, brandishing your concealed weapon in a situation like that is absolutely not what it's meant for, let alone sweeping it across a crowd. A concealed weapon is not a threat, it's a response.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51819109]Stop deflecting. Why would you go to a dangerous situation, armed to the teeth, proceed to produce your weapon inappropriately, and then start to complain that you're in a dangerous situation.[/QUOTE] I'm not deflecting anything. People have the full right to arbitrarily go to any public place they want. They don't need to justify their going. With that said, the guy is carrying a camera. So he was almost certainly there to take pictures. Now, if he started any violence (which he didn't) or drew his gun without any possible risk to himself (I'm not sure how anyone could argue that), then he's responsible for those actions.

The way to look at this is the gun was an inappropriate escalation of force. No one was brandishing weapons and no one had raised fists. You can't pull a gun on someone because they look intimidating, especially when those people aren't actually looking your way at the moment.

This man broke the most basic rules of concealed carry. It is not a toy, it is not a threat, it is a weapon. When you draw, you draw to kill, and destroy what threatens you. He put himself in a situation that was not only dangerous for himself, but others as well, and proceeded to continue pointing a firearm at those who clearly did not pose a threat to him or anyone else. He does not deserve his firearm, his ccw license, or "community service". He deserves prison time and punishment for putting people's lives at risk.

Both sides are dumb and both are equally guilty in the situation. Though that guy did break alot of basic rules of CCW. Some people don't need guns, he is clearly one.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51819117]I think he was waiting for someone to take a swing at him before he started.[/QUOTE] Could be, I don't know. I'm not him, I shouldn't pretend to know what was going through his head.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51819123]I'm not deflecting anything. People have the full right to arbitrarily go to any public place they want. They don't need to justify their going. With that said, the guy is carrying a camera. So he was almost certainly there to take pictures.[/QUOTE] Are you arguing with a completely different person or something? We never said anything about him not being able to be there. We said the contents on his person make his agenda in this situation suspect, and that it probably would not be justifiable to pull his gun out. ]

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51819135]Are you arguing with a completely different person or something? We never said anything about him not being able to be there. We said the contents on his person make his agenda in this situation suspect, and that it probably would not be justifiable to pull his gun out. ][/QUOTE] So what does this mean? [QUOTE]If you enter a hostile situation that you can just not go to with the expectation that it'll escalate to lethal force then you are by definition not using self defense.[/QUOTE] Kayle was attempting to argue that the guy was automatically not acting in self-defense just by having been there.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51819108]They were focusing on the camera man. He walked away and managed to put a good distance between himself and the protestors before pulling the gun out and attracting their attention. He could've very easily slipped away.[/QUOTE] I'll tell you what I'm seeing: They're all focusing on him, and initially you can't even see the cameraman since he's hidden behind the big dude with the keffiyeh who is looking directly at our gun man. At some point after the gun man makes a bit of a distance, the dude with the keffiyeh is looking over the camera-man, not at him, and that's when the gun is drawn. I never saw any attention being drawn to the camera man. [QUOTE=aydin690;51819106]"Anybody that doesn't agree with me and exercises their right to protest is a thug!!" [/QUOTE] "I like to make sweeping generalizations and simplifications of people's posts!!!" You're not worth engaging, dude. One more thing I want to add is that people are criticizing him for not acting perfectly sane and rational in this situation. I don't think you guys or most people in general would be able to handle themselves calmly and collectively when there's a mass of people converging on them. Hell, I think some people in the same situation would've actually shot someone out of fear. This dude was wrong in drawing the gun, but the way he handled this mistake wasn't nearly as severe as people are portraying it. I'm surprised he didn't draw it again later when they were pushing him around.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51819140]So what does this mean? Kayle was attempting to argue that the guy was automatically not acting in self-defense just by having been there.[/QUOTE] Are you just no reading what you quote or what? The key word is expectation. If you go into an avoidable situation expecting it to escalate and it does then it is not self defense. I pointed out that having 100 rounds on your person as well as a firearm makes your motivations suspect, you're reading far, far too much into my statement.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51819123]I'm not deflecting anything. People have the full right to arbitrarily go to any public place they want. They don't need to justify their going. With that said, the guy is carrying a camera. So he was almost certainly there to take pictures. Now, if he started any violence (which he didn't) or [B]drew his gun without any possible risk to himse[/B]lf (I'm not sure how anyone could argue that), then he's responsible for those actions.[/QUOTE] What risk? You can only draw a gun to neutralize a potentially lethal threat, not boss people around. When you pull out a gun you're signaling that you're ready to kill the person. Some people were just yelling at him before he pulled out his gun. What was the plan there? Gun down a dozen people??

[QUOTE=Bertie;51819141] One more thing I want to add is that people are criticizing him for not acting perfectly sane and rational in this situation. I don't think you guys or most people in general would be able to handle themselves calmly and collectively when there's a mass of people converging on them. [/QUOTE] You have a point there - I doubt I could be calm in an environment like an intense protest. It's why a) I don't go to protests and b) I don't go to protests carrying a fucking gun.

If you can't keep your shit together in a stressful situation then you have no business bringing a firearm to a situation like that.

[QUOTE=Bertie;51819141] "I like to make sweeping generalizations and simplifications of people's posts!!!" You're not worth engaging, dude. [/QUOTE] You called all the protestors thugs but i'm the one making sweeping generalizations. OK, bud.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51819149]Are you just no reading what you quote or what? The key word is expectation. If you go into an avoidable situation expecting it to escalate and it does then it is not self defense. I pointed out that having 100 rounds on your person as well as a firearm makes your motivations suspect.[/QUOTE] The person who initiates unjustified violence is the attacker. That guy had every right to be there and would have been acting in self-defense if attacked. I also don't buy the line about the guy going there looking for people to shoot. He put the gun away immediately after everyone backed off and did not pull it out again, even when people made physical contact with him further down the road. Violent protestors do not have the right to dominate a public place and attack anyone they don't like because that person should have "expected" violence.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51819166]The person who initiates unjustified violence is the attacker. That guy had every right to be there and would have been acting in self-defense if attacked. I also don't buy the line about the guy going there looking for people to shoot. He put the gun away immediately after everyone backed off and did not pull it out again, even when people made physical contact with him further down the road.[/quote] so if I was a CCW holder and I was at this protest and saw this dumbass sweeping his gun everywhere in the middle of a busy protest would I be in my rights to shoot him for it? [quote] Violent protestors do not have the right to dominate a public place and attack anyone they don't like because that person should have "expected" violence.[/QUOTE] this tangent is completely unrelated to the topic of our conversation.

Listen, I'm not saying this guy acted perfectly. It looks to me like he overreacted, but that's very different than saying he actually intended to gun down a bunch of protestors.

[QUOTE=aydin690;51819162]You called all the protestors thugs but i'm the one making sweeping generalizations. OK, bud.[/QUOTE] Aye, I'm beginning to believe that if this were at a Trump rally or some shit they wouldn't be arguing their side.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51819166]would have been acting in self-defense if attacked[/QUOTE] Which he was not. He was not in the right to draw his firearm. He was not in the right to brandish it. He was not in the right to muzzle-sweep dozens of unarmed civilians. He was not in the right to prepare to kill those that posed no threat. He overreacted, did something that could have seriously hurt or killed innocent people, and now he pays the price. Can't do the time, don't do the crime. [editline]13th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;51819166] Violent protestors do not have the right to dominate a public place and attack anyone they don't like because that person should have "expected" violence.[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Stop deflecting.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51819166]Violent protestors do not have the right to dominate a public place and attack anyone they don't like because that person should have "expected" violence.[/QUOTE] What makes you think these protestors are violent? They seem to be the ones who aren't actually initiating any violence in this scenario.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51819172]Listen, I'm not saying this guy acted perfectly. It looks to me like he overreacted, but that's very different than saying he actually intended to gun down a bunch of protestors.[/QUOTE] what possible purpose could having over 100 rounds on your person have unless you're going to the range or hunting? It sure as fuck aint self defense.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51819166]The person who initiates unjustified violence is the attacker. That guy had every right to be there and would have been acting in self-defense if attacked. I also don't buy the line about the guy going there looking for people to shoot. He put the gun away immediately after everyone backed off and did not pull it out again, even when people made physical contact with him further down the road. Violent protestors do not have the right to dominate a public place and attack anyone they don't like because that person should have "expected" violence.[/QUOTE] Violent protestors that never raised their fists at the man, violent protestors that nearly could have been killed by a man with over a hundred rounds at his disposal, yeah clearly the protestors are completely in the wrong, clearly the man waving his gun around is the victim here.