Can you threaten or apply deadly violence to protect your trees?
2 Likes
There is a clear anti-gun bias in the media in the US. This is not debatable.
I want to emphasize the fact the firearms are used to protect the innocent from violence very much more often than is reported in the media. As a matter of fact I cannot recall from recent memory a case like this being reported, much less in the national media.
1 Like
As you admit you are not from the US nor a gun owner so you would not be aware of this, but I can assure you that the inside the waistband holster is a very common product for those that carry a firearm. I should also clarify that while it varies from some degree from state to state, in most places having a firearm that is not actually in your hand whether it is in a pocket, in the waistband or whatever is considered âholsteredâ under the legal definition of the term whether an actual physical holster is used or not.
You need to look up âright of wayâ in the encyclopedia. You can talk about places youâve lived and how this would be a ânormal responseâ, and itâs still rubbish. If you canât understand the simple legal construct of right-of-way, then you shouldnât own property that touches public land (like streets) or has any right-of-way encumbrances. All youâve demonstrated is that many people are ignorant of the laws regarding property ownership.
4 Likes
Also, most likely scenario: They sent him mail or left a notice in his mailbox along the lines of âOn such and such day the Utility company will be trimming trees that are too close to the power/utility linesâŚâ. He ignored it, threw it away, didnât bother to read it, thought it didnât apply to him, whatever. Wakes up from what ever heâs sleeping off, and comes out yelling about shooting someone. Since, as you pointed out, many people think they have the right to shoot at anyone on their property if they THINK they are there illegally; they called the cops because they took the threat of being shot at seriously. They should do that even without what appeared to be a gun in his waistband.
Where? In Afghanistan or Iraq? Because if you fought in either or those conflicts you defended none of my rights whatsoever. You simply served what are purported to be the mercenary interests of this country, and risked your life doing it. At very most you assisted in the defense of this country from attacks by foreign paramilitary groups, which if you think about it, has nothing to do with our rights. Sadly, not all soldiers by virtue of service are responsible for defending the security and rights of Americans. Which is a pity, because that means a lot of soldiers died serving no noble purpose.
Iâm tired of this idea that the military necessarily protects our rights. It can, it has in the past, it should, and I have nothing against the people that serve, but recent military engagements havenât been protecting us from existential threats. I refuse to take it for granted that we donât have soldiers dying in vain. We should stop sending them in harmâs way for no good reason.
That being said, people react to a shirtless guy with a gun yelling with prudence, not tolerance. I donât wait to see a finger on the trigger. I assume that if you own a gun, youâre willing to use it. When and where? I canât possibly know. I donât even know if youâre a law-abiding gun owner by looking at you. Iâm not asking you not to own a gun, just donât ask me to trust you: I donât have to.
8 Likes
Eloquently put.
Having a gun is not a threat anymore than having a baseball bat, knifeâŚ"
Then why do you have one?
1 Like
He did nothing wrong?
His poor judgement in both tattoos and clothing choices (one should be more responsible with these types of easily misunderstood tattoos by always putting a shirt on outside just so you donât needlessly freak people out) resulted in a waste of police time and effort and money. I bet next time he puts on a shirt first.
So yeah, he did something wrong, itâs just not that big a deal in the big scheme of things.
Which last time I checked, neither of which are illegal and covered under the first amendment.
Now that part I can certainly agree with
Awesome job taking what I said out of context. You should get a job with MSNBC or Fox.
Thatâs were you (and quite many USians) and the civilized world differ. Unless you live in Mazar e Sharif or Mogadischu itâs unreasonable and kind of crazy.
What about talking to people and telling them to bugger off? If that doesnât work or when you think they look kind of shady you call the cops. Thatâs how we do it in civilized countries and thatâs the reason why we have considerably less homicides and police violence.
4 Likes
When you live in a society where there are more guns than people you canât just hope that âshadyâ people trespassing on your property arenât armed. Iâm not saying that you start with âget the fuck off my lawn or Iâll shoot you!â but it is wise to consider the odds that trespassers are armed before you tell them to âbugger off.â
I think saying âGet off my property.â while holding (but not pointing) a gun could be reasonable in some circumstances. Based on where I live and who I am, I would generally opt for starting with this stern approach, but unarmed and from a distance. If I didnât get immediate compliance, I would then retrieve a gun.
I 99% agree with @doumbek3603.
Also, calling the police is a terrible idea in almost every situation in the USA. The only worse idea is actually talking to the police if they arrive (beyond asking âAm I free to go?â and if you arenât simply providing your name and requesting legal counsel.)
If this man had a tattoo of a holster, you might be rightâŚ
or if this was not an accepted definition of Brandish: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner.
1 Like
yeah, this guy did nothing illegal, he just accidentally simulated something illegal (assault with a deadly weapon) using a really stupid tattoo
They shoot you for that in Florida, even without the tattoo.
please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
Please read the whole discussion thread (which is both interesting and informative) before jumping in and posting three separate replies to just last few posts.
While I understand your position and perhaps would cave if in the same gun-riddled society, isnât the âmore guns to protect us from all these gunsâ rationale kind of a self-fulfilling cascade of one-up-manship that only serves to make everything more dangerous for everyone, and make weapons manufacturers even richer on the backs of public safety?
Iâd also point out that while the legal definition of âbrandishâ may differ between places IRT guns, what this guy did falls squarely inside the definition of brandish that RJMeelar provided.
1 Like
Are we talking about legalities here?
Are we lawyering up for a courtroom debate?
Then who gives a flying fcuk about first amendment arguments in this situation? His behaviour wasnât illegal but still worth a visit from the cops. Cops do still have to check for themselves to see if any laws have actually been broken - for now⌠in most jurisdictions.
Should he be hassled because of the tattoo? No.
Should he have been questioned by the police because he appeared to have a firearm? Yes.
ââŚa man standing on his own property with a holstered gun is not a reason for the cops to show up or to feel threatened.â
When I was reading through your posts I could not really figure out what your angle was. (who doesnât think a gun is a threat?) I read your [quote I posted above] and I think I understand a bit better now.
What you have to understand is that you have military training and the rest of the population does not. You may feel comfortable seeing a person carrying a gun around and be able to mentally justify it (Heâs on his own property. Itâs holstered. Heâs not brandishing it. etc.), and be able to react well if something does go sideways. You probably see a gun as a tool to get you out of a tight spot, but this is not the experience of most people. Nor, I think, do we want it to be. When I go about my rounds as an electrical line tree maintainer, Iâm not thinking about getting shot. Youâve been in situations - would you like daily life to be like what you experienced? I donât. I donât want to live in a world where I might get shot while doing my (non-soldier, totally peaceful) job.
But when people have the gun attitude that âheâs on his own propertyâ or whatever rational that makes it okay to have an exposed weapon, youâre setting up a situation for disaster. Youâre putting people in a situation where death is a sudden possible outcome. Youâre putting that shitty possibility right in their civilian face, forcing them to confront a concept thatâs pretty hard to come to terms with, especially while trying to make a living. So yeah, when people see a gun, they should react the way they did here. Call someone with authority and have them work it out. In this example they worked it out fine. No violence, no charges, no actual gun. But do not stand there and preach that the guy did nothing wrong only because he didnât cross some sort of legal line set by a lwayer or politician. Common sense tells us he did plenty wrong and was punished accordingly - which is to say not at all.
Look, a gun is only good for two things: to impose a great amount of violence onto a very small area in a very short amount of time - or to threaten to do so. (Is that the context you think I took it out of?) This is why police carry them; the implied threat that theyâll use it. Tattoo guy has decorated himself to appear as if he is a threat. Having a gun is threatening. Pretending to have a gun is threatening. The rest of this discussion is asinine.
4 Likes
The term âbrandishâ doesnât appear anywhere on that wiki page. I assume youâre referring to the section that says US laws generally âmayâ define assault as âthreatening another in a menacing manner.â
That being said, my strong understanding is that nowhere in the United States would carrying a handgun on your own property be either illegal, so long as you werenât pointing it at someone. This would apply to a handgun being carried in the patently reckless and foolish fashion of being tucked into oneâs pants and pointing at oneâs own genitals. Of course one must legally own the gun for this to be true (i.e. not a felon) and this wasnât always the case in some jurisdictions.
What this guy did does not fall squarely into the definition of brandish that RJMeelar did (actually didnât) provide, as this ass-hat didnât even possess a gun.
Additionally, when on your own property in the US, pointing the gun at a trespasser is generally legal. Furthermore, if the trespasser doesnât leave and instead continues to approach you (in what a reasonable person deems a life-threatening manner) you are generally legally allowed to use lethal force as you donât have âa duty to retreatâ while on your own property.
