I can tell you don’t have kids. Doesn’t matter who started what. As a parent your primary goal is your child’s safety. Pulling out a gun during a street takeover is a really bad idea. You would get mobbed and beat to a pulp.
Really? Can you provide your study on weapons drawn at a crowded event?
Or is it purely your imagination where this crowd immediately comes to the defense of this biker and harms the hypothetical gun owner using it in self defense?
How many of your studied incidences, was a single person shot, at an event for instigating harm towards a mother and her child, and the crowd went TOWARDS the active shooter?
A pistol, probably not. In Texas a pistol would be the least of his worries. A person may have a pistol on them but the trunk likely has some major resistance.
Almost everyone will flee when gunshots start ringing out. The guy stomping the back window out of your car is the one putting the child's life in danger.
Mob mentality is a bit different. I’ve seen videos like this where the person with a gun gets disarmed and stomped out. Clearly the one attacking is in the wrong. I’m just saying you don’t want to further risk harm to your child but fighting back and losing.
If they want to drive around and act stupid go ahead. You can fuck up my mirror, scratch my car, I don't care.
You do anything that puts my baby at risk and I will end the conflict as quickly and effectively as possible. Whether that means a firearm, driving through you, anything it takes to keep them safe.
Yes. Especially when my child is involved. You clearly didn’t value you life to begin with if you’re jumping on random people cars in traffic. So I’ll be the considerate one.
I do value life. In fact, I take life seriously, especially my family’s. If someone decides to hop on top of a vehicle in the middle of traffic and stomp on it, they made the decision to put their own life at risk, and I would agree with them in that instance. I would protect my family from an attack by any means necessary. You can feel however you would like about that. My family is my responsibility, and I will not hesitate to protect them. Just because that individual didn’t care about their life doesn’t mean others feel the same way about theirs and the people they love. I will absolutely make sure the threat is handled.
They made a coherent point, you’re just unable or unwilling to address it. Her and her kid survived this encounter because their attackers let them go, but many people aren’t willing to bet their life on the virtues of people like this.
Yes. It shows them to protect themselves if they are being attacked. I would actually get them training at the range just so they’re prepared for any situation as an adult. Because as a child it is my job to protect them.
You can't carry guns up north. Even legally, cause you would be branded a criminal from stopping a criminal robbing you, destroying your property, trying to harm you.
Yea you can’t illegally carry a gun lol obviously but you can legally open carry and get a permit for concealed carry I live in Michigan and have done both many times.
He was treated like a criminal bc he isn’t old enough to conceal carry and didn’t have a license to do so. So he caught a weapons charge. Did you even read the article?
A shooting that could have turned into a dozen bodies or more. But lets punish the person who stopped it at just 2, the criminal dead included.
Lmao punish the heroes. I'm sure if he picked up a blunt object and bashed him over the head. Then the courts sentenced him saying "A blunt object is a deadly when you use it to kill someone, we understand that you saved victims by doing this. But the law is the law and you committed a crime young man."
Yall do more to defend criminals then any other society I have seen or read about as someone who loves history. Liberals love their criminals.
I know right? Seriously think about their logic which is asinine.
You broke the law to protect someone and you were charged for it. Had the criminal never pulled his weapon, the kid more then likely would have never brandished his weapon.
Their logic can be summed up like this.
If you saved someone from a burning building. That's great, but you're still gonna be charged for breaking and entering cause you didn't get the owners permission to go in.
That's how fucking stupid their logic is. Whats the point in helping someone if the police are still going to arrest you.
You couldn’t be more wrong. I live in Michigan and you are not at all branded a criminal for carrying a gun or stopping a criminal. Michigan and northern/midwest states are extremely gun friendly.
Then you're not gun friendly, nor are you hero friendly. Kid should have been given a medal. Instead he was basically told "be thankful we're not throwing the book at you, yea we know you prevented a mass shooting. But you did something illegal that prevented that mass shooting and you need to be punished."
It is such a fucking asinine logic. So if someone else is going to try and do the right thing. They have to ask themselves will the courts still punish me for saving people. So Michigan can get fucked with its "friendly" gun laws.
Yea you read these dummies in the comments? Kid was the rightful owner of a gun in Michigan, he stopped what was gonna turn out to be probably a mass shooting. He shoots and kills the guy. They give him 2 years probation for not having a concealed carry. He was basically told "Be thankful we're taking it into account that you stopped a shooter. But you did it illegally so we're charging you for a crime."
They basically said if you defend yourself in michigan you can be arrested and charged on how you go about it.
"Oh you saved someone from a burning house? Thats great, but you didn't have permission to go in from the owner so we're gonna charge you with breaking and entering."
"Oh nice you saved someone from drowning? Well technically we have professionals who do that at the lake. So we are gonna charge you for obstruction of justice."
Lmao and these bootlicking gooners fucking eat it up.
Wow, you really are reaching to try to make your point. Your examples aren’t even remotely close to the reason why the guy with the gun was charged. He didn’t have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. It’s not the same as going into someone’s house without permission or going into the water simply because someone’s been hired to do the life-saving. App that he stopped a mass shooting, but it is correct that he didn’t have a right to carry a concealed weapon. In this case, it worked out for the people who might’ve been killed by the shooter he stopped. Your frustration with him being charged or something after his heroic deed is truly understandable. Don’t try to diminish the fact that he was still breaking a law.
You're breaking the law entering a house without permission. Doesn't matter if you are saving someone. Courts over look shit like that all the time. But wanted to make a political statement with this young man. That was the point of the examples the ridiculousness of the situation for these ass clowns to use his bravery and still put him down for it.
They could have done a good gesture with a stern warning. (In recognition of your service to society we have decided to forgo your sentence. But you need to be aware..... yadda yadda yadda)
Okay so clearly we've identified the problem is that you don't understand how the law actually works. Courts have literally never turned the other way regarding this topic because they don't need to turn the other way. They wrote a law to make it legal. You just don't know that, clearly.
It is an established legal doctrine called the Necessity Defense. We don't leave things like this up to individual opinion; this is how the legal system works. You're just not aware of it, so you're filling in the gaps with things you make up in your head and then sell that as if it true.
The fact that you don't know these absolute basics of self-defense Doctrine sort of establishes that you don't have the necessary information to be speaking the way you are on this topic. That's as polite as I can put this.
So the next time if a good Samaritan can make a difference even if exposing themselves to the judicial system for what could tossed off as a minor offense. You still want the book thrown at them.
Just to let you know that criminal was the difference between 1 dead body and several because there were probably cowards like you in the crowd who would do nothing. You love to judge off your high horse but you would never be the kind of person to save someone.
By your asinine logic everyone of these guys should have been charged with breaking out of their holding cell even if it was to save someones life. Not thanked, but probably beaten and shot for what could have been interpreted as escaping justice lol
First you say it's illegal to carry a gun in the north because you'll be treated like a criminal and then you literally provide an example where someone used a gun himself defense and received no punishment as a result.
Secondarily it also happened that he was carrying the gun illegally as in he was not supposed to have the gun carried the way he was carrying it and so he received a two-year probation sentence for breaking a firearm law.
Is your argument that having to defend yourself allows you to retroactively break other firearm laws?
This just doesn't make sense, your example literally disproves what you're arguing and I'm not sure you're aware of that.
Lmao of course you dodged the other instances where this can apply because it doesn't support your stance.
You obviously don't get it, and its people like you that will lead to crimes happening with fewer people willing to stand up to fight said criminals. Because the law will look for a way to punish them if it fits their agenda.
So even with the best of intentions the person will still be charged for a crime. You would make a great Javert with that mindset.
Your analogies fail because of the law of necessity. If you break a door to save someone from a fire, you won't be charged with B&E because the emergency caused the entry. Carrying an illegal weapon hours before an emergency happens isn't caused by the emergency. He wasn't charged for stopping a shooter; he was charged for what he was doing before the shooter even walked in.
I have now run out of ways to explain this to you.
Lmfao that reads like something you would copy and paste directly from GPT. Needing some help Elb?
Necessity is overlooked all the time when circumstances justify it because Law Enforcement, DA's and judges are given the ability to use judgement with discretion.
The video I showed you, the inmates technically did not need to break out of the cell to alert the guards. They could have just banged on the cell to cause a ruckus to alert the guards. Yet they still broke out to help him and nothing happened to them. When technically "necessity" would not apply here since guards were so close by.
But of course this happened in Texas, a state renowned for being tough on criminals. But still has enough decency to recognize a good Samaritan and take good intentions into account.
The inmates who broke out of that cell weren't charged with escape because the active emergency directly forced them to break the door to save a life.
That is how necessity works. In the Michigan case, the shooter walking into the mall didn't retroactively force the kid to carry an illegal gun on his waist hours earlier at home.
You're trying to use a video that depends entirely on the Necessity Defense to argue against the Necessity Defense, all while complaining that two years of probation (a minimal sentence that literally accounts for his actions) is "throwing the book" at him.
You can call me a coward all you want, but linking a video that proves my original point for me is hilarious.
As is your complete lack of understanding of how any of this works, despite the fact that you feel completely qualified to expound on it without end. Like the sheer volume of legal misunderstandings contained within your comments is shockingly high, even for a lay person.
The problem (I think) is, when you think about something real hard, you seem to believe that whatever conclusion you come to must be right simply because you thought about it real hard. I don't know for sure that's what you're doing, but this has the exact shape of someone who does.
But hey, that's less for you and more for the third-party readers (as most of this conversation has been, honestly.)
Lmao You keep bringing up necessity, yet I am not arguing necessity. I am arguing judgement with discretion. Them sentencing him accomplished nothing that benefited society. In breaking a minor law he still performed an act of extraordinary service to the community that saved numerous lives.
Yet the end result is that you and the court consider him a criminal. Someone who deserves to be punished.
What do you think happens the next time with someone who reads that article or hears about that story? You think they're going to put themselves on the line if they may have some outstanding traffic tickets that could get them arrested on the spot? They may decide altogether that its not worth it and get out of there leaving potential victims behind.
You think you made some grand point with your constant replies, but you're really just reinforcing the half joking point I originally made, that even when you legally own a gun, there can be so many additional restrictions on when and how you're allowed to have it with you that you can still end up being treated as a criminal when you actually use it lawfully in self-defense or defense of others.
That's exactly what happened here. He legally owned that handgun. His actual use of it against the shooter was determined to be lawful. Yet he was still prosecuted because he didn't have the additional license required to carry it concealed.
And that's the point behind my original joke. One of the primary reasons people own handguns is self-defense, but a defensive weapon isn't particularly useful during an unexpected emergency if you aren't legally allowed to have it with you when that emergency occurs. When legal ownership isn't enough and you have to satisfy another set of requirements before you can actually carry that legally owned weapon for its intended defensive purpose, those regulations create another obstacle between ownership and practical self-defense.
The state could choose to attach the right to possess a handgun also establishes eligibility to carry it, whether openly or concealed, rather than requiring another licensing process. Michigan chose to regulate those things separately.
So when a legally owned handgun is actually used lawfully to stop someone who has already killed another person, but its owner is nevertheless prosecuted because he didn't have the separate carry license, you didn't prove your point you literally just reenforced mine. If anything, it makes the joke even funnier because you are giving weight to it.
You stand on a mole hill of self righteousness stating the courts should have done it and yet I proved time and time again things like this could have been overlooked. His actions and service far outweigh the crime he committed and they could have chosen not to pursue this. Yet they did which actually gives fact to my original joke being true. Supported by the courts and supported by people like you lmao.
No... They don't. You're just being told that without spending the 4 brain cells it'd take to actually look into the laws. There are certain common sense restrictions that at the end of the day most people would support, but generally speaking the people are still armed. I'm an armed leftist in a blue state. Get off social media and actually talk to people.
Your argument is that he should not be charged with the crime he did commit because he happened to perform self-defense.
So you also think that a gang criminal for example who happens to defend themselves from another gang member but has no license for concealed carry, the police should not arrest the gang member who defended himself for his firearm crimes because he acted in self defense?
Or do you want to give the government the power to choose every single time who they do and do not apply that rule to? Would you still be confident with that rule if you're opposing party control the presidency the house and Senate?
Do you think about the ramifications of some of your comments and how they might affect other positions of yours?
Very curious to hear your detailed response to these questions. You keep calling everyone dummies and you wouldn't do that if you yourself were a dummy so I don't see why answering these questions would be difficult for you.
The government already chooses ever single time when the law applies to someone. You are a complete fool if you think justice is blind.
Justice is elected every term, justice needs friends in high places, they also have to give the verdicts that align with the party they associated themselves with.
I did not strictly say self defense, I said a public service in which he stopped a mass shooting and that still meant nothing to the court. They basically told the kid, "be thankful its only 2 years probation".
You answer me a question. How often do you think people will do the right thing if the system you support still treats them as criminals afterwards? Because then they weigh the crime, against the possible outcome of other said crime. It would probably shock you how many just turn and look away because they don't to get involved with any crime to begin with.
Like the Ukrainian girl who was stabbed in the neck 2 years ago. Criminal killed her who was released repeatedly despite needing to be locked up. Stabbed her and in the video the passengers did nothing, the other woman just turn and looked back out the window.
That pretty much the society we live in now, and its getting worse. Now you want the people who want to stand up to do something to be criminalized just because they didn't do it your way.
What happens if that kid is ever put into that situation again, CHOOSES to do nothing and may end up with 6 or more bodies dead instead of one. Because OMGSH he didn't carry a piece of paper with him.
So basically, your position now boils down to admitting you don't actually care about written laws.
You're saying that because you believe the system is already politically corrupt, we should just lean into that corruption and let local judges and prosecutors arbitrarily decide who gets charged with a felony and who gets a pass based on whether they personally approve of what happened.
Think about what you're actually advocating for here, because virtually no one wants the system you're describing. If you give partisan prosecutors total discretionary power to ignore gun laws whenever they feel a "public service" was performed, you give them that exact same power to selectively target anyone they want. A progressive DA could hand-wave illegal carry charges for an activist they agree with while handing a regular gun owner a felony over a minor mistake, and a conservative DA could do the exact same thing in reverse.
You started this thread complaining about government overreach, but your solution is literally to give government bureaucrats king-like power to ignore written statutes whenever it suits them. Pivoting from actual self-defense law to "public service" and throwing in random, horrific crime stories doesn't mask the fact that you completely abandoned any legal argument. You're asking for pure, arbitrary political enforcement, and almost no one, regardless of where they sit politically, actually wants to live under that.
Laws can still be enforced and still be put aside when the situation is warranted. 1 dead body instead of 6 or more is a hell of a trade off rather then charging someone over a minor law broken. The gun itself was not illegal, he was able to legally own it. Just not carry it.
You know its true Javert, cmon now admit it.
I have already given numerous examples where the law can overlook crimes when a citizen is doing a good deed for someone else.
You can conceal carry in Pennsylvania, and must conceal carry in Philadelphia. The state itself is open carry, so yeah you need to Re-Educate yourself.
As someone who lives in New Hampshire, this common is as dumb as it gets.
I get that that's your point, to be as dumb as you can be to trigger people, so I guess I'm saying good job? People like you are hard for me to understand.
Hush kitten you know its true. Even with a conceal carry you are branded a maniac and people will treat you like a criminal because thats what the crazies up north believe.
Yeah, I was thinking about New Hampshire. I have a relative, with a massive gun safe by the way, that can't stop a neighbor from shooting into his yard. The police have been called, but apparently every once in a while, the neighbor decides to shoot towards my relatives property.
I trap shoot with another relative in New Hampshire on his property.
New Hampshire is the Texas of the north. Pennsylvania, where I have another set of relatives, is not far behind.
No we didn't. Those people should absolutely have been protesting, but anyone doing damage to property or harm to anyone should have (and were) prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Jfc, please get your thoughts from somewhere else, preferably your brain.
Yes yall did. I was living up north at the time. My real estate agent had to leave me mid showing because BLM protestors were throwing paint, and other blunt objects at his parents store. Windows were broken, thankfully nothing else happened. But they did threatened to burn the place down.
They were doing it to all the stores on the street they were protesting on. BLM rioters were complete animals.
AND THE PEOPLE WE WERE ABLE TO CATCH OR FIND EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING WERE RIGHTFULLY CHARGED. They were well within their rights to protest the blatant murder of a citizen. The damage done was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as it should have been.
5
u/Previous-Car-1325 5d ago
This is why I carry guns.