All sorts of possibilities. If you've having an argument with a guy holding a running chainsaw, is he blipping the throttle to make a threat? Or is he doing it to keep the saw running because it's a pain to restart if it stops?Originally Posted by fixer
There's going to a whole lot of fingerpointing/he said before this is through.
Charges appear a good bit different from the OP:
https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/0...med-homeowner/The man, who has yet to be publicly identified, is now facing charges of endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon while under the influence of an intoxicant, disorderly conduct while armed and bail jumping.
It strikes me as pretty foolhardy to get a bunch of people together to have aprotestblock party at your neighbor who may or may not have threatened someone with a chainsaw. It seems especially foolhardy to bring women and kids to theprotestblock party.
There's a non-zero chance that the dude has guns. Why would you trust that the chainsaw guy is just going to sit there and take it? Especially after he's already racked / pointed a shotgun...
I'm tempted to sticky this thread as a prime example of narrative building and jumping to conclusions based on assumed tribal identity.
A few things:
1) What people "could" do is irrelevant in use of force decisions. I "could" have pulled my pistol and killed any number of people walking on a trail today. That doesn't justify pointing a firearm at me. Read your state statute and "could" will not be there. You'll probably find a reasonableness standard and/or probable cause standard against imminent threats.
2) Your state may or may not have a brandishing law. Even without brandishing, you'll probably have something that covers it under Assault, Intimidation, Provocation, Threats, or some other catch-all that prohibits you from threatening people with force for lawful acts.
We recently dealt with something fairly similar on my district. Block Party A is deemed to have been racist for some reason. Block Party B is the "counter-party" a week later about what a dick Block Party A guy was. It originally seemed like it was going to be a constant back and forth, but I guess the hot dog budget ran out because both teams lost interest after a few weeks. There was open carry, but nobody got to the point it was illegal and nobody went to jail.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
The OP was a request for more info.
Despite the lack of the word “brandishing” what he was changed with was essentially brandishing while drunk. Texas doesn’t use the word “brandishing“ either, here it would be labeled “deadly conduct.” Sane sane though.
Based on the bearing arms article and the additional info from Guerrero bit sounds like you have asshole protestors meeting drunk asshole homeowner and the cops took the path of least resistance to defuse the situation.
Protesting or otherwise targeting someone’s home is inherently provocative. The protestors may have been on public street but they were in a residential area at night. Their actions fit the WI statutes for disorderly conduct and harassment. It’s pretty clear the reasons they were not dispersed or cited are race, politics the current climate. One could also argue the only reason they were technically “peaceful” is the cops were standing by.
The homeowner appears to be an asshole too but that is no surprise, situations which involve no “good guy” are not exactly uncommon in police work.
We can play the “what if” game, but are you and the others harping on this particular point really going to ignore the context of the original situation in order to make your point?
I know what the threshold for the threat of deadly force or use of is, and I was certainly not advocating for such. I have repeatedly said if a mob outside your home doesn’t put you on edge you’re either naive or full of it. Once again, given how such protests have gone in recent history I can certainly understand someone arming up.
Are we getting to the point on this board I need to write an extensive reply covering every possible consideration of a topic so as to avoid such useless nitpickery or are we all smart enough to deduce what the person meant without jumping to exaggerated conclusions, twisting their words or putting words in their mouth?
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
Lol! Except liberals are only brave when in large groups or behind a keyboard. I’d be shocked if any single person in that crowd would have said anything to the resident if alone no matter how egregious the residents behavior.
But you compared today to events 60 years ago. Hardly relevant in my opinion.
I love you brother, but I'm going to disagree.
Those people taking to the street are not representative, imho, of the entire population of "liberals" in the U.S., many of whom have given their lives and populate our national cemeteries.
There's nothing civil about this war.
I re-read your post, and I do agree the CONUS thing was unwarranted. My point was you are on much firmer ground if you act on what people are doing versus what they could or might do.
Reply With Quote