Protests at a LEO's home.

[JRB]

I'm speaking generally in opposition to what I perceive as selective outrage against armed (liberal) protestors and to the belief that (lawful) protests in front of (officers') homes should be illegal.

I don't see any selective outrage. We'd be pissed about armed conservative assholes starting shit with liberal officers or politicians outside of their home too. We have, here on P-F, decried and lamented it when some open carry knuckleheads did exactly that outside of a liberal Texas politician's residence, if memory serves.

Secured slung long guns =/= Long gun with mag in at the low ready.

Public square for protest =/= residential streets.

Not sure how you can still be confused about this.

[blues]

I don't see any selective outrage. We'd be pissed about armed conservative assholes starting shit with liberal officers or politicians outside of their home too. We have, here on P-F, decried and lamented it when some open carry knuckleheads did exactly that outside of a liberal Texas politician's residence, if memory serves.

Secured slung long guns =/= Long gun with mag in at the low ready.

Public square for protest =/= residential streets.

Not sure how you can still be confused about this.

Deliberate ignorance.

[paherne]

I will say this and not comment further: When the mob comes with pitch forks and torches to get Frankenstein's monster, the mob should not be surprised when the monster eventually reacts like a monster and starts stacking bodies. There is a cautionary tale in there, somewhere, and I fear we are about to see it play out in real life.

[0ddl0t]

Can you provide an example of this sort of lawful protest occurring? if you're speaking in general, you should be able to provide and discuss specific examples of the behavior.

Because I am speaking in general, I do not have specific examples. But I was objecting to the following general sentiment:

They’ve stepped over the line in the sand. Taking the ‘protest’ to an officers home shouldn’t be tolerated in any form. They need to be arrested and the paperwork needs to get misplaced.

Protesting at private homes is a provocative and inherently threatening act. It is unacceptable behavior and should be dealt with hardly.

Back to modern day, where Blyes and his ideals lost and we no longer have a monarchy to rule us for our own good but instead have a say in how our society runs without resort to violence:

Some of us do. Some of us don't. Refer back to our discussion on qualified immunity - we live in a society that tolerates police violently arresting black men for loitering on their own porch or causing extensive damage to their new luxury cars presuming black men in Mercedes must be running drugs. Is it any wonder then that this segment of society sees as murder a black man shot in the back when running away while trying to hold up his sagging shorts? Is it any wonder then that members of the oppressing class feel threatened when the underclass displays its power?

(before anyone objects, I don't think an armed robbery suspect fleeing & reaching for his waistband is a bad shoot - I'm just pointing out how those facts might be perceived to a class of people with legitimate complaints against policing).

If making someone feel threatened is the hallmark of a mob, and if "the masses" can be tyrannical, why are you so supportive of mob rule and the notion that people should be threatened (counter ot the Blyes quote you made)? Why do should we tolerate, or make lawful and protect, the right of a group to intimidate and harass an individual for a prior lawful act or different opinion? Protesting ideas and decisions =/= threats to an individual.

These mobs do not happen in a vacuum. Over 100 people were protesting in that video, 90% of which were behaving lawfully. This was not an ongoing demonstration repeatedly harassing the officer, it was one daytime demonstration on the anniversary of his shooting.

Those breaking the law by detaining traffic or explicitly threatening neighbors should have been arrested to protect those being threatened/detained AND those protestors wishing to lawfully exercise their rights. If the number of unlawful actors is something law enforcement can legitimately no longer handle, only then should the entire gathering be deemed unlawful assembly.

[olstyn]

AFAIK, it is NOT legal to open carry loaded long gun at a political protest so they may well be breaking that law as well. AFAIK it is not legal to to go about threatening people with guns so they are not protestors but criminals. In this instance.

I would be willing to bet that the legality of walking around in public and/or at a political event with a loaded long gun varies with different states/localities, but I fully agree that the threat implied by carrying rifles at the low ready vs slung takes them into criminal territory. I do have to wonder if the people engaging in that sort of behavior truly understand and intend the threat of violence that they're projecting by carrying their rifles in that specific manner. It's possible that Hanlon's razor may be in play here.

[RJ]

I will say this and not comment further: When the mob comes with pitch forks and torches to get Frankenstein's monster, the mob should not be surprised when the monster eventually reacts like a monster and starts stacking bodies. There is a cautionary tale in there, somewhere, and I fear we are about to see it play out in real life.

Yes.

Things are brewing for a massive blow up at some point, soon. I feel bad for those unlucky enough to be at that particular cross-roads of history. It's going to be ugly.

[Oldherkpilot]

I will say this and not comment further: When the mob comes with pitch forks and torches to get Frankenstein's monster, the mob should not be surprised when the monster eventually reacts like a monster and starts stacking bodies. There is a cautionary tale in there, somewhere, and I fear we are about to see it play out in real life.

I saw a line in a William Manchester book (I'd have to check, but pretty it was Goodbye Darkness) that went:
Warning- This animal is dangerous. When attacked, it defends itself.
He was talking about the same sort of thing you are.

[DMF13]

Mods - I don't recall seeing this posted before but please delete or move as is fitting.

Backstory:
Cops stop a couple of urban youths to talk about an armed robbery. One bolts and is shot while trying to draw his pistol. Grand Jury acquits the cops.

One year anniversary and BLM crowd show up in one of the officer's neighborhood. Carrying long guns and blocking local traffic.

Attachment 58598

https://krdo.com/news/2020/08/03/pro...iley-shooting/

Personally, I'm still trying to unpack all of it and try to figure out what I would do if I were one of the neighbors or trying to get home.

This shit is getting out of hand and people are going to get hurt.

This kind of stuff is helping push me toward wanting to retire as soon as I'm eligible, and gomfind another job, rather than work any additional time until I hit mandatory retirement. I say that as a fed who has a lower risk of having to deal with this than a local.cop working patrol. I don't know how patrol officers are actually dealing with the stress of knowing doing your job right/well could easily ruin your life. I have to worry about it, bit not to the degree my friends who work patrol do.

[RJ]

I would be willing to bet that the legality of walking around in public and/or at a political event with a loaded long gun varies with different states/localities, but I fully agree that the threat implied by carrying rifles at the low ready vs slung takes them into criminal territory. I do have to wonder if the people engaging in that sort of behavior truly understand and intend the threat of violence that they're projecting by carrying their rifles in that specific manner. It's possible that Hanlon's razor may be in play here.

I had to go refresh myself on Florida law, as we don't seem to have any displays of ARs, slung or otherwise, in our "protests".

FL statute Chapter 790, Section 25, Para (3), Item (g) provides for conceal carry not being required (which I interpret as open carry allowed; IANAL and all that.)

(g) Regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive weapons from the United States or from this state, or regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for target, skeet, or trap shooting, while at or going to or from shooting practice; or regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for modern or antique firearms collecting, while such members are at or going to or from their collectors’ gun shows, conventions, or exhibits;
(h) A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition;

I do some of this activity, but honestly, I prefer the "concealed is concealed" approach.

Outside of this forum, and maybe specific family members who I can count on one hand, nobody has any clue I have a gun. Some long-standing RV friends were musing about "going to the range to try a gun, you know, for self-defense" a while ago. We eventually got to the range where I attempted to provide some input. They had absolutely no idea that every time they saw me, I had a gun on me, somewhere.

[BehindBlueI's]

Because I am speaking in general, I do not have specific examples.

Refer back to our discussion on qualified immunity - we live in a society that tolerates...

Refer to my distinction between 'in general' vs 'hypothetical' and note you didn't address any of the questions. Why?

And as far as QI, I haven't revisited the thread lately but didn't you fail to address that it only protects the officer as an individual from civil liability and doesn't protect from criminal prosecution or protect the government entity? Personal civil liability is far from the only way we hold someone accountable. Yes, the narrative can be ugly, especially when one doesn't look into the specifics. Which is why we're stuck at "in general" isn't it?

I think at this point it's reasonable to assume you aren't interested in a conversation.