Who owns the public square?

LTE Don’t take your guns to town

Mr. Candler’s letter starts with the usual hoplophobic, pseudo-psychiatric claptrap assigning supposed motivations to those who bear arms in the public square. Seriously, when is the last time you read of a VCDL, NRA, or for that matter, Militia, member shooting anyone other than in legal self defense? There are millions of us, with tens of millions of AR and AK type arms, and trillions of rounds of ammunition. If we were a problem, you would know by now.

But what is really troubling is the last paragraph, in which he advises that “real men” cower in their homes and leave protecting their homes, businesses, and communities to the police.

First, in many, if not most, large cities, the police are going to stand aside and let the arson and looting take place rather than confront the mob.

Legitimate, if mistaken, protestors are used as cover for anarchists, revolutionaries, and thugs bent on destruction and looting. Sadly, many of the legitimate protestors seem perfectly willing to provide that cover and the police face political pressure to stand aside.

So, why is it that “real men” should cower in their homes while their neighbor’s homes, businesses and public infrastructure are destroyed?

Are the protestors allowing the violent radicals to act at their ‘shock troops’ to drive other opinion from the public square?

Why are the police creating the vacuum which armed citizens feel compelled to fill?

This is a very dangerous situation, that does not have to exist.

MLK’s march the Selma was a peaceful protest. ‘Mostly peaceful’ protests are riots. Protests are either peaceful or they aren’t. The VCDL Lobby Day in 2019, where thousands of armed men and women stated their case without a single incident of violence, vandalism or threat to anyone was a peaceful protest.

Going armed publicly is a deterrence to violence, not an incitement. Why is it the left needs to demonize the good guys and lionize the looters and thugs?

104 thoughts on “Who owns the public square?

  1. “Why is it the left needs to demonize the good guys and lionize the looters and thugs?”

    As usual, silly nonsense.

    The left does not “lionize looters and thugs” and “good guys” do not take their guns into the streets to do the work of the police. Guns make every situation more dangerous. The deaths in Kenosha would not have occurred if the European Civilization Chauvinists and stayed away. Period. If the police fail, the solution is at the ballot box, not the bullet box.

    The truth about the psychological problems, inadequacies and immaturity of MANY people who cherish their guns the way you do may not be pleasant for you to hear, but it is the truth. The fact that you portray sensible people who do not do the work of the police as cowards says a lot more about your psychology than it does about theirs. I am not afraid to go to the Olive Garden without a gun. You apparently are. Which of us, then, is the “coward.” Your past imagery of me cowering on my knees begging for my life if you were not there to protect me with your gun comes from the kind of mind the LTE describes. Sorry, but that is the truth.

    Finally, if you were really interested in putting an end to arson and looting, you would not be fantasizing about militia violence. No. You would stop trying to block every effort to achieve some measure of social, legal and economic justice in this country. IMHO.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. “You do, or should”

        Uh, no, it is a stupid question and the answer is self-evident.

        It is the “public” square. Everybody owns it.
        And we want it to be as safe as possible for everybody.

        That means leave your guns at home.
        And doubly so if there is a group of people in it “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” as is their Constitutional right.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. “Cosmic Guardian . . . ”

            You must really work very hard at being ridiculous? Or does it just come naturally with little effort?

            My stating that “And we want [the public square] to be as safe as possible for everybody” is NOT evidence of megalomania. That silly ad hominem attempt at a rebuttal does not make any sense. And, it was your second lame attempt at insulting me on this one thread. I suppose that is because deep down you know that Tabor’s original charge was, in fact, “silly nonsense.”

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Perhaps the megalomania charge is the result of trying to psychoanalyze millions of people you have never met and with whom you would not socialize?

            The only neurosis in evidence here is your irrational fear of legally armed citizens, such as CHP holders who have a record of gun safety and legality superior to policemen.

            Like

          3. “Perhaps the megalomania charge . . .”

            Uh, Mr, Roberts stated the basis for his insult. It was not what you are not speculating about.

            As for YOUR theory maybe we should take not of what “megalomania” means . . .

            “megalomania : . . . delusion about one’s own power or importance”

            YOU are the fellow who thinks his arsenal is all that stands between the people and “tyranny.”

            The comments in the LTE that you object to and my seconding of them are not something made up out of whole cloth. They are derived from a well-studied reality.

            For example, this article summarizes various studies about the motivations of gun lovers . . .

            https://www.csgv.org/psychology-gun-ownership/

            Liked by 1 person

          4. What studies? All I see is a list of unsupported speculations by a bunch of hoplophobes,

            But that is the point. You think your unsupported speculations and those of others who share your hoplophobia, are fact. Meglamonia incarnate

            Like

    1. I could not find the word “cower” in the letter.

      Can you point it out please. Maybe my paper had a typo.

      Or you are exaggerating for cheap theatrical effects.

      But I have been wrong before.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The quotes are around Candler’s disparaging “real men” not about my accurate characterization of his advice to stay home for fear of the danger of expressing an opposing view in the public square.

        Like

    2. In reverse order

      So, the way to stop arson and looting is to give the arsonists and looters what they want. That’s been tried, they always just want more. Justice is the last thing they really want.

      Your psychoanalysis is no more valid than the last 2 dozen times. Fear is not why I buckle my seat belt, or carry a fire extinguisher in my boat, or carry a firearm in places where robberies and assaults happen. Those are reasonable precautions for unlikely events that have grave consequences for the unprepared.

      “The deaths in Kenosha would not have occurred if the European Civilization Chauvinists and stayed away. ” And there is the reason for the original question. Your idea of preventing violence is for only one side to speak while the other is cowed by the threat of violence if they show up to oppose that view.

      Like

      1. In your order . . .

        No one is advocating that arsonists and looters be given a free hand. Quite the opposite. They should be punished. The point – which in your devotion to gun fantasy – you are ignoring is that the punishment should be meted out by the authorities and not by vigilantes. In a few specific situations those authorities may have been less murderous than you would like. If so, vote the bums out.

        I would not expect you to admit to or even believe that your over-the-top devotion to your guns and the heroic fantasies you weave about yourself using them are anything but healthy. No one can know what is in the mind of another. All we can know is what they present to the world by their words and deeds. And often those words and deeds are pretty clear – they should get some help.

        These people being cowed into silence? Who are they? As cited elsewhere the only people actually harmed at a BLM rally have been BLM protesters. Your image of helpless European Civilization Chauvinists being constantly chased from the streets is a fantasy. In fact, over and over again these people have chosen – as KR did – to try to do that to them. Do you really want our country to descend to the control of armed thugs at war in the streets? It sure sounds like you do.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. The video suggests that ownership of the public square belongs, today, to oligarchs who exploit techniques of mind control to engineer society to their liking. Under such circumstances, 2nd Amendment rights are crucially important, because the enemies of liberty are not just the evil people but their allies the stupid people.

      Like

      1. This Fox News guy’s opinions and cherry-picked anecdotes do not negate actual evidence.

        There have been more than 9,000 BLM demonstrations involving many millions of people. Eleven people have been killed at these protests. The people killed were protesters killed mostly by the likes of Kyle Rittenhouse. There have not been any deaths of citizens who were not directly involved in the demonstrations. Not that you would know that from Fox news reports designed to stir up racial fear and hatred.

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-killed-protests-political-unrest-acled

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Deaths are the only form of violence?

          The billions in damage to private and public property were not violence?

          The people injured by stabbing or clubbing were not the victims of violence?

          And what of the effect of the threat of violence on discourse on the issues?

          Like

      2. The opinion piece is noted. The writer is a right wing FOX man. However, the link I gave did not say there was no violence, just that the vast majority were free of incidents and violence.

        You want to focus on the few that were, then we have propaganda as perpetrated by the right.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. Any study that doesn’t comport with his worldview is automatically deemed “an opinion piece deceptively disguised as a study”. Only studies he supports, or that support his preconceived notions, are legitimate. No one else can have an opposing study; it takes away from his absolutism.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “The ACLED article was an opinion piece deceptively disguised as a study.”

            This sort of thing is common. Notice that the “author” is a 501(c)3 non-profit, and the report itself is not peer reviewed. If ACLED were a surrogate for the oil industry, liberals would dismiss the report out of hand for these reasons alone.

            Like

          3. “The ACLED article was an opinion piece deceptively disguised as a study.”

            Deceptively? How? Their methods are clearly laid out. Just like any such study.

            Stating conclusions derived from facts is not stating an “opinion.” It is NOT an opinion that the vast majority of BLM demonstrations were non-violent. That is a quaint little thing known as a FACT. Embedded in that FACT is that, yes, some of those demonstrations were marred by violence. Cherry-picking a few of those does not negate the FACT.

            This typical “argument” from you people. You do not want to accept the overwhelming evidence that weighs against what you really, really want to believe so out comes the “corruption” charge yet again. Classic example of the error in logic known as the ad hominem fallacy.

            In this case, what do you really, really want to believe? That is pretty clear. You really, really want to believe that black people are running amok everywhere and that armed militias are the only way to stop them since, you know, “urban people” and their elected governments are “arrogant and corrupt.”

            Liked by 2 people

      1. The response to violence is not more violence. The only productive response is law enforcement carried out by lawful authorities. Vigilantes need not apply. In the case of that particular night in Kenosha there were many “good guys” with guns prancing around. Their presence did not help. They made things worse.

        The only permanent solution to civil unrest is not organizing armed gangs to take the law into their own hands. It is supporting reforms that address the conditions that foster civil unrest.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. The conditions that foster unrest are politicians telling people they are entitled to what they have not earned.

          But please do tell us about all those times where violence has been defeated other than by violence.

          You assume with9out evidence that armed citizens did not deter further arson and looting in Kenosha. Can you point to the businesses that burned with armed men standing in front of them?

          Like

          1. “The conditions that foster unrest are politicians telling people they are entitled to what they have not earned.”

            People ARE entitled to food, shelter and clothing whether they have earned them or not. What leads to violence is when they do not have those things AND they have no realistic way of earning them.

            “But please do tell us about all those times where violence has been defeated other than by violence.”

            The very wide-spread civil unrest in this country in the 1960’s was ended by society and the government taking action to address the social and economic injustice that caused it in the first place.

            You assume without evidence that armed citizens DID deter further arson and looting in Kenosha. At best, they may have moved it somewhere else, they did not deter it.

            It is pretty clear that the police authorities took no action to stop these White Supremacists from roaming the streets with their guns. Now they are going to have to answer in court for that negligence.

            https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-10-15/lawsuit-over-kenosha-shootings-police-enabled-armed-militia

            Liked by 1 person

          2. You presume, without evidence, that the armed citizens were White Supremacists.

            They were not an organized group, they responded to social media calls for help. No doubt there were SOME White Supremacists among them, but there is no evidence that was the primary motivation.

            Note that if you are correct that the presence of armed citizens protected some locations but moved the violence ot others, that is evidence that more armed citizens were needed to cover the other locations.

            There is no such thing as economic injustice in a capitalist, free market economy, people just don’t like justice.

            Old soviet joke

            In capitalist USA, you work or you starve, in Socialist USSR, you works and you starve.

            Like

          3. “ But please do tell us about all those times where violence has been defeated other than by violence.”

            Civil Rights movement.

            Women’s suffrage movement.

            Vietnam

            Afghanistan

            Iraq

            India

            All those were resolved when the violent opposition stopped by non-violent movements or eventual diplomacy.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. “Arson and looting are violence”.

        Why, yes they are. Omigosh, how did I miss that? Geez.

        So are shooting and killing demonstrators.

        Did Rittenhouse witness arson and looting by his victims? If vigilante justice is what you want, then at least make sure that those you kill are actually the perpetrators. Witnesses, forensic evidence, arrests, Miranda rights, attorney, trial and adjudication in accordance with our laws. Those are generally how a civilized nation handles crime.

        Yahoos with beer bellies, guns and attitudes, along with zero experience in handling public disturbances and no arrest powers or legal training. If that is your idea of what you want our nation to devolve towards, then you dreams are probably coming true.

        I imagine we can look forward to more arms by demonstrators and more killings. And the much desired civil war by your friend on the right will happen.

        Feeling giddy are you?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Rittenhouse did not engage in vigilante justice, he only defended himself when attacked. He did not shoot or even threaten anybody who did not attack him.

          The police can’t be everywhere.

          If you witnessed someone setting fire to your neighbor’s house, would you meekly watch or tell them to stop?

          If you did decide to tell them to stop, exposing yourself as a witness, would you carry your handgun while you did it, or trust in the non-violent intent of the arsonist?

          Like

          1. Maybe we need to chase the alleged arsonist with a couple of pickup trucks and declare self defense when we gun him down.

            That almost worked in GA except for the idiot bragging about his exploits.

            So there are your heroes trying to make a citizens arrest and killing an innocent man.

            Oh,yeah this is good, no?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. As I pointed out yesterday, Aubrey’s killers were properly convicted.

            And I explained the requirements for a citizens arrest.

            And I have explained the elements of self defense.

            So why do you continue to try to distort the facts of these cases to try to pound them into your politcal narratve?

            Like

          3. The mindset of vigilantism does not do nuance. In three cases, Martin, Aubrey and Rittenhouse, guns were used by untrained civilians to enact “justice” and people died.

            And all deaths were the result of unarmed victims trying to defend themselves in a life threatening situation.

            Think about that.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. There is a huge difference.

            In the Aubery case, the killers initiated the violence.

            Zimmerman and Rittenhouse did not initiate violence.

            Martin, Rosenbaum and Huber were not defending themselves, they were attacking a person prepared to defend himself.

            Like

          5. Those murder victims were trying to disarm a deadly threat. From their point of view, as you argued for Rittenhouse.

            Not hard to grasp but seemingly very hard to admit.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. Yes they were in their minds. If that is good enough for you to kill, it is good enough for others to defend themselves.

            Martin was followed at night, in the rain, by a burly man. How do you know the gun was not visible when he was approached. If Martin had been armed, he could have shot his killer and said he stood his ground. Is that better?

            Rittenhouse was viewed as a threat to the crowd. Shots rang out, his gun was the only one visible. Brave men tried to disarm your erstwhile hero. A threat from the victims’ view, your very own excuse.

            Aubrey was the victim of gun happy racists.

            Take the guns out of each case and nothing happens. No pursuit, no trying to disarm an active shooter, no punks chasing a jogger.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. Nope.

            For self defense, mere suspicion of a threat is not sufficient, there must be an overt act.

            Being watched from a distance is not an overt act against Martin.

            Being openly armed, but not brandishing or pointing a firearm is not an overt act.

            A threat that exists only in the mind absent an overt act does not justify self defense.

            Knocking a man down and pummeling him to near unconsciousness is an overt act.

            Chasing an armed man who has not threatened you for a block, cornering him and throwing a heavy object at him before trying to take his firearm would be an overt act.

            Chasing a man running toward the police who has not threatened you and trying to beat his brains out with a skateboard is an over act.

            See the difference?

            Like

          8. An armed man getting out of his truck that pursued at night in bad weather you while you took a short cut through “the hood” is not a threat?

            Sure. He was probably hungry and asked you for your Skittles.

            That is the reverse situation.

            Bottom line is that absent guns and the bravado they provide, 4 people would be alive today.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. He stayed in his truck? Called the police?

            I did not know.

            By his own words, he thought Martin looked crazed. So why get out of the truck?

            Liked by 2 people

          10. But he did not approach Martin or threaten him in any way. Is there a law against getting out of his truck? He watched Martin from a distance but did not approach.

            And he did call the police.

            Like

          11. He followed him around the building. On foot. In the dark. In the rain.

            Suppose Martin had a gun. Would he have been able to shoot an armed stranger who pursued him in a back alley after getting out of the truck. No ID, badge, uniform, just a burly man.

            Perception of threat in a stand your ground state is pretty obvious.

            Liked by 2 people

          12. Nope

            Absent an overt act that constitutes a reasonable threat of serious harm you cannot invoke self defense.

            Had Martin been armed and shot Zimmerman for looking at him from a distance, it would be 1st degree murder.

            Like

          13. Getting out on foot, following you then getting close enough to reach, and armed with a gun.

            Sorry, that is definitely a threat.

            Try following someone on a dark night, getting out of your car and following them into an alley behind some apartments and see what you get.

            Liked by 2 people

          14. Since your denial is impenetrable for me, check with your friend the judge on what an overt act requires legally.

            It must reflect the imminent intent and ability to do harm.

            For example. waving a club at you from 5 feet away would suffice, waving one from 100 feet away would not.

            There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever displayed the gun he was carrying under his jacket. He did not approach Martin.

            There was no overt act that would justify Martin’s attack. Your wishing it were so will not change that.

            Like

          15. What evidence? There were no eyewitnesses until they were wrestling on the ground. Do you know for a fact that the gun was not visible or pulled out.

            Liked by 2 people

          16. Not on the ground like getting out of his vehicle. The handgun was still in the holster when he was on his back on the ground with Martin astride him beating him near unconscious..

            You are really committed to believing an impossibility.

            Like

          17. You know what happened because you were there. Obviously.

            In the face of such knowledge, I defer.

            Why weren’t you called as the only eyewitness I just don’t understand. 😇

            Liked by 2 people

          18. Zimmerman would not have left his truck without a gun.

            Rittenhouse would have been home doing homework without a gun.

            Aubrey’s murderers would not have had the guts to chase down a lone jogger without guns.

            Get the gist yet, or are you so gun happy that you are blinded by Winchester.

            Liked by 2 people

          19. “Since your denial is impenetrable for me”…

            It appears that most of your explanations are double talk that it is ok for MY people to do whatever, but yours are not.

            Len is not being “impenetrable”; he is being realistic. Something that appears to be missing from your two-faced, hypocritical condemnations of some people. If you FEEL threatened in any way shape of form, your are entitled to protect yourself however you deem necessary. Unless you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and of the wrong political leaning.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. Did you even read what I wrote?

            It was the opposite of using deadly force because you FEEL threatened. I pointed out that an OVERT ACT endangering you was necessary.

            Len was the one claiming Martin could act based on his feelings absent an overt act.

            Like

          21. Len felt that pursuing a person at night in bad weather, first in an SUV then on foot without identifying himself, is a overt act when the appearance of a gun is in the mix.

            Please don’t put words you prefer.

            If you were unarmed and a stranger who had been purposefully following you at night in bad weather got out of his car and was armed, there is a threat. If he didn’t bother to announce his authority or his intentions while in his car, there is an issue.

            That is the setup.

            Liked by 2 people

          22. First, there is absolutely no evidence Martin knew Zimmerman was armed. On the contrary, Martin would have been a fool, having evaded Zimmerman, to ambush him knowing he was armed. All he had to do was to let him pass.

            Zimmerman watched Martin from a distance, he did not approach him.

            Being watched from over 100 feet does not meet the definition of an overt act presenting an immediate threat of harm. Not even close.

            I don’t know why you are so desperate to defend Martin, but his anger at being followed was not justification for attacking Zimmerman.

            Like

          23. You are evading the question…again.

            He got out of his truck, no uniform, no identification no announcement, against the advice of the police, and ended up confronting Martin.

            Put yourself in Martin’s shoes.

            Of course there is no evidence he saw the gun. There were only two witnesses, and one is dead.

            You are so infused with the idea that guns are the be all and end all (literally) of social civility and interaction, you cannot, apparently, visualize a less violent society without them.

            Martin, Huber, Rosenbaum, Aubrey are all dead because guns were part of the equation. That is pretty undeniable.

            Liked by 2 people

          24. What overt act signaling a threat of immediate harm could Martin have seen in Zimmerman watching him from a distance that could have justified him attacking Zimmerman?

            If you are going to contend that Martin was acting in self-defense, you must have that overt act. Simply being fearful of being watched from a distance, or being pissed because he felt unjustly suspected of wrongdoing is not justification for ambushing Zimmerman and beating him long after it was clear he was defeated.

            Like

          25. I’m sorry, but if I am being followed while walking through a neighborhood, DOING NOTHING BUT WALKING, and some one I do not know starts following me, then I would also feel threatened. To the pursued, the following is an overt act.

            Zimmerman never should have gotten out of his vehicle. What was his reasoning to do so except to confront Martin. Period.

            Liked by 1 person

          26. Zimmerman got out of his SUV because Martine went between two of the blocks of townhouses to the ally behind them. The only way Zimmerman could keep him in sight while waiting for the police to arrive was to dismount and follow on foot.

            If a woman sees a man looking at her, can she assume he is going to rape her and shoot him? No, there must be some overt act of immrdiate danger.

            Like

          27. I know he called the police. And what did the police suggest that he do?

            In case you forgot, they suggested he stay in his car.

            That is, don’t be a vigilante.

            I am getting the impression that for you every problem is solved with guns.

            Whereas if guns were not involved in any of these tragedies, 4 people would be alive today.

            Liked by 2 people

          28. Why? Zimmerman would have stayed in his car and Rittenhouse would just have been another person in the chaos and not be considered an active shooter.

            Liked by 2 people

          29. How do we know? He killed them. And certainly after he murdered Rosenbaum, he was an active shooter and the only killer.

            You are just so into guns you cannot see the danger of self-professed, uninvited vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.

            And that is exactly what all three cases revolved around.

            One ignored the advice of police to stay in his car. One was an kid who carried a gun without a parent or guardian and had a child’s maturity. The last were vigilantes who were also racists and taking the law into their own hands.

            What good came of all this?

            Liked by 2 people

          30. Rittenhouse was never an ‘active shooter’

            He shot Rosenbaum only after he was pursued almost a block and then cornered between parked cars with Rosenbaum charging and reaching for the gun.

            After Rosenbaum was shot, Rittenhouse fled TOWARDS THE POLICE and did not shoot or point his gun at anyone until he was on the ground and being attacked while he was unable to retreat.

            Self defense expert

            Like

          31. Rittenhouse never should have been there with a gun he never should have had. There were a lot of people there, but only two are dead at the hands of Rittenhouse.

            Zimmerman should have followed the police advice to stay in his car. Then he never would have been close enough to have his brain beaten into heh sidewalk.

            A perceived threat may not be good enough for you and some states. But if I feel threatened, especially when I am doing nothing wrong, I am likely to defend myself with whatever means necessary to stop the threat. But death need not occur. Only when the gun is introduced is there truly a threat of death.

            Like

          32. “As I pointed out yesterday, Aubrey’s killers were properly convicted.”

            “Properly?”

            The case would never have been prosecuted if it had not been for political agitation by, you know, those “leftist” “looters and arsonists” of the Black Lives Matter movement.

            https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033809949/ahmaud-arbery-former-prosecutor-indicted-misconduct-georgia

            Here is an opinion piece that puts this case in perspective. . .

            https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Ahmaud-Arbery-s-murderers-would-be-free-if-it-16650403.php

            Liked by 2 people

          33. Second link is paywalled

            I thought the decision to prosecute was prompted by the surfacing of a video that contradicted the killers account of the confrontation.

            Have you considered that had the charges been advanced prematurely that video might never have come out?

            Like

          34. “Have you considered that had the charges been advanced prematurely that video might never have come out?”

            Have you considered that if the killers had been arrested and evidence collected – their phones – in the first instance the prosecution could have begun immediately. As it should have.

            Not paywalled for me – I do not know why. Maybe WAPO or NYT subscription keeps it open.

            Liked by 1 person

          35. “How would the police have known, or had probable cause to obtain . . .”

            A man laying on the ground dead and three men giving their version of how it happened might be enough to initiate an investigation. Doncha think?

            If the victim were white and the three men were black there would not have been any 10 week delay. And that, of course, is the point at the heart of BLM.

            Liked by 1 person

          36. Reason for an investigation? Sure, every violent death should be investigated.

            Probable cause for a search warrant not so much, at least not unless there were witnesses that saw the cell phone in use at the time.

            Like

          37. “Probable cause for a search warrant not so much”

            This is a typical conversation with you – white authorities completely fail a black victim and you twist logic and reason into pretzels to defend them. In this case your current theory is that the damning evidence only came to light because the authorities failed to prosecute the killers until 10 weeks after the crime. How prescient of them!

            Liked by 1 person

          38. It’s not about race.

            Everyone has 4th Amendment rights, and warrants require probable cause.

            You don’t violate those rights because the suspect is odious.

            Like

          39. Three men, one with a weapon, standing over or near a dead body isn’t “probable cause”? Wow. I guess those cops just thought the body fell from the sky and the gun was being carried because the owner was hunting pigeons.

            Liked by 1 person

          40. “Probable cause for questioning, but unless someone saw the cell phone in use, I doubt a warrant would have been issued.”

            In today’s world, there most certainly would have been a warrant issued for the cell phone. The issue is the cops seemed to just treat this as another young black man’s death with no need for investigation. And until the video came to light, there would have been no investigation.

            Liked by 1 person

          41. There you go again confirming my point.

            A dead body and a smoking gun are PLENTY of probable cause to examine any and all evidence. Unless the prosecutor is a racist covering up the racially motivated murder of a black man.

            Liked by 1 person

          42. One of the murderers was an ex-cop I believe.

            It was the third AG that finally brought the case to justice.

            You are correct. If the murderers had been Black and the jogger White, they would be on death row by now.

            Liked by 2 people

          43. “It is also very likely that if not for guns, Zimmerman and Rittenhouse would be dead.”

            That is just about the complete opposite of the truth. It is very UNLIKELY that if not for guns, Zimmerman and Rittenhouse would be dead.

            What you leave out of your “thinking” is the fact that people carrying guns behave far more aggressively and stupidly than people who are unarmed. This is a well-established fact of human psychology.

            An unarmed Zimmerman would have stayed in his car as instructed by the police. And without a gun, little Mr. Rittenhouse would not have travelled to another state to confront BLM protesters. But if he had been there with no gun, he would not have been the target of that deadly shopping bag or that murderous skateboard and thus have no need for self-defense.

            Liked by 1 person

          44. Oh. I see. Disarm the honest citizen so he’ll have no choice but to cower in his home and hope the arsonists. vandals and looters destroy someone else’s place of business and not his own.

            You have it backwards. honest citizens should be free to go where they please, criminals should be locked up, not the other way around.

            Like

          45. “Oh. I see. Disarm the honest citizen blah blah blah”

            Childish.

            You made a nonsense claim. I politely showed you why it was nonsense. Of course, you have no response because your claim was nonsense so we get this little hissy fit instead.

            And there is that word again – “cower.” You keep throwing it out. It hardly describes the vast number of honest citizens, a substantial portion of them gun owners, who had the common sense and decency to stay home rather than go out into the streets and make a bad situation worse.

            Yeah, nothing emotional about your defense of your little friends. Sure.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. “MLK’s march the Selma was a peaceful protest.”

    I guess, if you consider retaliatory murders and the police beating the brakes off marchers “peaceful.”

    “Going armed publicly is a deterrence to violence, not an incitement. Why is it the left needs to demonize the good guys and lionize the looters and thugs?”

    I agree (with the first part anyway), but how would you feel if those aligned with BLM or “Antifa” started appearing in public with rifles and plate carriers? Lest we forget, the gun control movement as we now know it was instigated by governor Ronald Reagan when the Black Panthers formed armed neighborhood patrols to protect their communities from police violence.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I have no problem with the Black Panthers arming themselves to protect their neighborhood. I met some at Lobby Day 2019 and they seemed like solid citizens.

      Antifa is another matter as they have a history of initiating violence

      MLK remained peaceful in the face of aggression by the police, I don’t know if I could have done so.

      Like

      1. I have asked many times but I’ll try again, do you have verifiable sources of “Antifa” starting violence or attending a protest with the sole intention of attacking people?Usually, they’re defending protestors against the police or the right, which is a distinction without a difference.

        Before you answer, please familiarize yourself with the concept of an agent provocateur.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Something else for general consideration: It is all but impossible for any group that is even vaguely anti-capitalist to plan significant demonstrations, let alone violence or property destruction. The FBI’s raison detre is to act as the nation’s political police and eliminate anything or anyone deemed subversive. And as we all now know, various 3-letter organizations are able to read all our electronic communications.

          Meanwhile, the Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, III Percenters, etc. all have the support and protection of local police, and frequently coordinate to do violence to protestors.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. So I guess a major sticking point here is that we’re not going to agree on what constitutes a reliable source—but Jason Miller and the cops themselves are not reliable sources.

            From the article:

            “No. 1, before the protests began,” Miller said, “organizers of certain anarchist groups set out to raise bail money and people who would be responsible to be raising bail money, they set out to recruit medics and medical teams with gear to deploy in anticipation of violent interactions with police.”

            So they’re anticipating being arrested and beaten by police. His own words.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s