- Banned
- #501
You're entitled to your "opinion".It is all over the world everywhere a crime to threaten someone with a weapon. Maybe except in regions of the world, where criminals take care no one is able to make laws against such a crime.No,
No, I see that YOU believe it's a crime, and that's your problem, not mine.What is not your problem? You said "It wasn't a crime" - now you see it is a crime.Well tell the DA that then.
It's not my problem.It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally
law.lis.virginia.gov
§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.
They are not authorized to use deadly force against outdoor trespass, therefore there is no authorization to brandish a weapon they are prohibited from using.
I wouldn't care if they shot all of them; they ain't my people.
laws vary with the states in the USA------The woman with the gun was protecting her house from trespassers who in her view seemed threatening. In some states that is
legal
Maybe legal - I don't know - but in a criminal contradiction to the value "freedom of opinion". No one has any right to threaten demonstrants with a weapon. And I do not see any case of self defense in the absurde and criminal behavior of this two people. And how they hold their weapons is per se criminal and a reason not to allow them any longer to own any weapon.
I translate this as an: Your opinion not counts.
But here in the US the Laws decide issues.
1. The McClosky's have every right to hold guns and to let the protesters know that their property will be defended, legally as allowed by law.
2. The "demonstrators" were trespassing on private property, that is criminal behavior
3. The McClosky's are NOT criminal in any way, they are well within the law, especially the "2nd Amendment", "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" which you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend.
I do not think it makes a big sense to discuss about formal systems like a system of laws and to lose out of sight the same times the values of modern democracies. And human beings need justice - independent whether real justice exists or not exists in this world here. But for sure every man made system of justice has problems and has sometimes even not a lot to do with justice. Formal systems are somehow like ideologies - in best case they look for truth within the own structures. But even in such a case it is possible laws are far from reality. So laws need always to be renewed.
It's for me totally clear that no one has any right to threaten anyone with a weapon. Or to demonstrate with a weapon anything. And specially no one has any right to try to bring anyone with weapons - or with other forms of threats - into a situation that someone will not be able to say in public freely the own opinion - for example by demonstrating together with others, who share this opinion.
And let me say: Nearly no one's home is a "castle". If it would be a castle, then it would be open for anyone who needs to be protected. And if a mob for example would try to play Mr. Lynch then it could indeed be someone defends the holiness and peace of the own home with weapons.
This law here (§ 18.2-282.A) is by the way very clear and in harmony with important substantial values. I repeat it:
It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.
They were on their own private ground - but they threatened a public demonstration. That's the same as if they had used this weapons on public ground. While they did do so they showed the same time that they are totally unqualified to own a license for a weapon.
One of this weapons should be by the way never be in private hands for private use - it is a subject of a war weapon control law.
Okay, that's what you think.
Roger, got it, we understand.
You're wrong.
Are we done here now?