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

I'm for full support of guns and conceal carry (open carry is for fucking pussies). That being said, if the reason you're brandishing a fully-loaded weapon, whether or not you have trigger discipline, is because you got scared; You're just a fucking psychopath looking to be the next "hero" and itching to kill someone. There's no two-ways about it, don't even deny it. I live somewhat close to a ghetto, do you think I'd be justified in waving my gun around every time I see a bunch of minorities gathering about near me? (Being a minority myself?) No, I would think I'm an idiot. Mind your fucking business and stop trying to start shit because you got bullied in school. Do your job, and they'll hopefully do their's. This /pol/-tier conspiracy thinking of "I heard what they do from my bias media sources, are you going to blame me for wanting to defend myself?" Look bro, no one cares about you, so I somewhat understand why you're itching to be a "hero" cuz' you got your weapon. You need the attention.

[QUOTE=Nitro836;51821688]"It's fuckin' kids out here" Those terrorist looking weirdos with covered faces, or the kids of the irresponsible family men and women out protesting? I seriously want to know. If your cause is just, why are you covering your face? Should the world not know that you, an identifiable person, are fighting for something that is "right"? Or are you making sure that you can get away with being a hooligan amidst the chaos? What do you fear? What are you hiding?[/QUOTE] Maybe if you think the state or other parties has problems against you, you think you'll get in trouble if you get identified. Maybe they wish to remain anonymous for personal safety.

This is the most open and shut case I've seen posted in awhile so of course that means there needs to be a four page argument as if the guy brandishing is anything other than brazenly guilty.

[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;51819740]conversely, i feel like a lot of people wouldn't be defending this man's actions if it was a group of protesters other than BLM[/QUOTE] If it had been a BLM person pointing a gun at a group of Anti BLM people, this thread would only have a couple of pages and everyone would find him guilty.

[QUOTE=Dolton;51820760]Calling protesters thugs really conveys how you think about black people. If it was a bunch of "rowdy" white teenagers who had gun drawn on them by a black man would you have called them thugs, honestly?[/QUOTE] Yes? Ever heard of the black bloc? Although, that group is probably more associated with rioting than protesting.

Correct me if I'm wrong gun havers, but the only reason you take out and point the gun in any direction is if you intend to shoot that gun. That's my half remembered code of conduct that a policeman told me in middle school, anyway.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51822202]Correct me if I'm wrong gun havers, but the only reason you take out and point the gun in any direction is if you intend to shoot that gun. That's my half remembered code of conduct that a policeman told me in middle school, anyway.[/QUOTE] That's right, finger never on the trigger until you're ready to fire, never point it at something you don't intend to destroy, and never, ever, pull it out in due to conflict unless you have been threatened seriously, as in your life is actually in danger seriously.

Though that's the popular opinion and the best legally defensible position to take I do think there is a degree of power in just brandishing a firearm to descalate a situation. I've seen and experienced it first hand. People prey on those who they preceive to be weak and easy targets. As soon as their victim presents a firearm it will desecalate it some of the time especially when you outgun them. Case and point. This dude was allegedly being followed and threatened, as soon as he drew his firearm the crowd receeded and disengaged. Unfortunately he didn't immediately withdraw from the situation and lingered way longer than I would have. I would've gotten somewhere safe and called the PD myself and explained the situation. Case and Point: Friend of mine leaves work late at night and on his way to the car three youths approach him and brandish screwdrivers and demand money. He opens his jacket and shows the group he is armed. The group immediately retreats, friend gets in his car and drives away from the perceived danger. GOOD. BAD. The group retreats across the street and calls the PD saying this "crazy guy just threatened to shoot us he has a gun we didn't do anything we asked him for directions" and the police pull him over down the road as a felony stop, he goes to court and he loses his pistol permit. Guarantee you that's what happened here to some degree. Someone in the crowd probably called it in as him just threatening people with a gun for "no reason" and since they called 911 first their story is the one believed. Add to that the fact he never called 911 himself, didn't immediately retreat and may have (arguably) drawn his weapon too early put him in a bad legal position. Also something about him having too many magazines? I carry two 10rd magazines on me, a total of 31 if you include what's in the gun. If he -honestly- had over 100 rds. That's a little odd but I don't think they should've crucified him legally like they did over it. After all he was a freelance journalist who was reporting on a protest that [i]usually[/i] turn violent. So I can kinda see why he wanted the extra ammunition. When I go to really, really ghetto parts of town I carry a sub-compact in an ankle holster in addition to the one I usually carry.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;51822308]Also something about him having too many magazines? I carry two 10rd magazines on me, a total of 31 if you include what's in the gun. If he -honestly- had over 100 rds. That's a little odd but I don't think they should've crucified him legally like they did over it. After all he was a freelance journalist who was reporting on a protest that [i]usually[/i] turn violent. So I can kinda see why he wanted the extra ammunition. When I go to really, really ghetto parts of town I carry a sub-compact in an ankle holster in addition to the one I usually carry.[/QUOTE] There aren't any laws against it specifically, but the prosecution will pick over every little detail in your case to try and find something to make you look guilty.

[QUOTE=Dolton;51820760]Calling protesters thugs really conveys how you think about black people. If it was a bunch of "rowdy" white teenagers who had gun drawn on them by a black man would you have called them thugs, honestly?[/QUOTE] Yeah, I would. A bit off topic, but when the fuck did "thug" become a racist term? I've used the word all my life to describe an aggressive person with intent to be violent, like an enforcer in the mafia, a group of violent looking men in an alley of any race), or some asshole who thinks he's tough shit. Race isn't even part of the equation there. Like, the guy in the article I'd call a thug. He came there to start shit and according to ElectricSquid hes done that before. When did this change into a racist word? Now I gotta use the word punk instead, unless thats somehow a bad word.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;51820105]Should have pulled the trigger, the guy doesn't even have the balls to do it. It's funny since he probably would have had a stronger case for self defence if he just shot one person instead of waving a gun at a bunch of people.[/QUOTE] is anyone else gonna address how fucked up this is i'm pretty surprised how much defense this weird-ass george zimmerman wannabe is getting tbh, i don't think it's possible for his intentions to be more obvious like do you think he just [I]happened[/I] to mosey on into the protest with over a hundred rounds, started a few arguments, then immediately pulled a gun? please.

[QUOTE=Mining Bill;51830037]is anyone else gonna address how fucked up this is i'm pretty surprised how much defense this weird-ass george zimmerman wannabe is getting tbh, i don't think it's possible for his intentions to be more obvious like do you think he just [I]happened[/I] to mosey on into the protest with over a hundred rounds, started a few arguments, then immediately pulled a gun? please.[/QUOTE] Well we can break it down into the nitty gritty. In most states if you feel that you are in immanent danger of death or great bodily harm you can use deadly force to protect yourself. In this circumstance one could argue that he did feel that way with the number of people that were around. However, since he did not shoot that actually shows that he did not feel he was in immanent danger of death or bodily harm, there for did not need to bring a deadly force option to the table. In all honesty had he shot he may have got off, since how YOU feel about a particular situation is fairly subjective. Under those circumstances one could have argued that he fired because of the large amount of people coming towards him and he feared for his life. With that being said this is where "stand your ground" laws come into play. In some states you have whats called a duty to retreat, which means that if you are able to you are required to flee before exhausting your options and using deadly force. In this scenario he had plenty of room to flee, and could have got out of that situation without bringing deadly force to the table. The "stand your ground" law would have essentially made this situation legal. He brought deadly force to the table, the "threat" dissipated, and he didn't have to take a shot. That is what stand your ground laws actually do, they essentially make situations like this legal. It's two different outlooks on how people can handle situations like this, that in this case ultimately would have ended the same. Had he taken a shot, whether the state had a duty to flee or a stand your ground law, he would have been judged under the exact same contexts.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;51822308]Also something about him having too many magazines? I carry two 10rd magazines on me, a total of 31 if you include what's in the gun. If he -honestly- had over 100 rds. That's a little odd but I don't think they should've crucified him legally like they did over it. After all he was a freelance journalist who was reporting on a protest that [i]usually[/i] turn violent. So I can kinda see why he wanted the extra ammunition. When I go to really, really ghetto parts of town I carry a sub-compact in an ankle holster in addition to the one I usually carry.[/QUOTE] To be honest, if you ever have to use more than 2 magazines, you're practically in a war zone. Protesters are not going to zerg rush you and ignore casualties - they are going to panic and run. This is true to any situation where you are expecting to engage civilians.