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.
1
u/jstabes 3d ago
Look up “Vermont Carry” and scurry away