NRA ad goes too far?

[Beowulf]

You talked about not painting both sides with a broad brush. The difference you're overlooking is that the left wing establishment HAS associated itself with the groups that caused violence. Yes, there are violent people on the radical right but they don't get endorsed by conservatives.

You talk about silence from conservatives regarding right wing violence, and it seems to me that you're just tuned in somewhere else and didn't get the memo. BTW regarding the shooting of Mr. Castille, DANA LOESCH was critical of the police officer (but you have to listen to her not NPR in order to hear that).

You talk about "blowing a few incidents out of proportion". Yes, most of the protesters are peaceful but antifa's violence and vandalism has become routine in places like portland and seattle. As for BLM, how many riots have there been and how many LEO's have been ambushed and murdered? More than "a few incidents". Again, the difference is that the left has excused if not embraced these groups whereas conservatives have no time for white supremacists.

As for inclusivity like taking non gun owners to the range as you suggested, the NRA has been pushing a grass roots mentor program to do exactly that.

Do you remember how 'W' Bush wouldn't respond to all the hyperbolic accusations against him? What's being said about Trump sounds very similar. My point is that neither issues or Trump spending time on twitter to talk back, has much to do with what's said about him...and his family. Given how polarized the country is/was, I think it's better use of the NRA's ad funds to reach out to those who voted "Trump"--or against clinton--than to run milquetoast outreach ads to people who aren't going to change how they vote--typically anti 2A.

Which left wing establishment are we talking about there? The DNC? BLM? Bernie Sanders? I'm not sure I recall Hillary Clinton advocating for violent riots during the campaign, but then again, I tended to tune out her BS, so I admit I could have missed it.

As to Dana Loesch and the NRA finally commenting on the Castille case, you'd have a lot more credibility on that statement if 1) they didn't issue an extremely mealy-mouthed "it was regrettable" non-statement and 2) they didn't wait until more than a calendar year after the shooting and after the trial was completed. I don't recall the NRA wanting to wait until all the facts were out before they castigated any left wing or Radical Islamic actions.

 

[Beowulf]

While we're on the subject of shrill nonsense, every definition of 'murder' I can find requires malice aforethought/premeditation. I was unaware that the officer in the Philando Castille case had decided to kill him prior to their encounter

mur·der
ˈmərdər/Submit
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
"the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"
synonyms: killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter, butchery, massacre; More
verb
verb: murder; 3rd person present: murders; past tense: murdered; past participle: murdered; gerund or present participle: murdering
1.
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
"somebody tried to murder Joe"
synonyms: kill, put to death, assassinate, execute, liquidate, eliminate, dispatch, butcher, slaughter, massacre, wipe out; More


This should by no stretch be interpreted as any sort of approval of the actions of said officer

Sorry, you can't go to the dictionary for the definition of murder. You have to go to the statute.

In Minnesota:

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

[FONT=&amp]Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
[/FONT]

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.

[FONT=&amp](a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.[/FONT]

By the definition (section 1 above), the officer, in my opinion, was certainly guilty of Murder in the Second Degree, though you could argue it should have been Murder in the Third Degree.

 

[Shoots4Fun]

Truth is considered the new Hate Speech...

 

[jamil]

Sorry, you can't go to the dictionary for the definition of murder. You have to go to the statute.

In Minnesota:

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

[FONT=&amp]Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
[/FONT]

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.

[FONT=&amp](a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.[/FONT]

By the definition (section 1 above), the officer, in my opinion, was certainly guilty of Murder in the Second Degree, though you could argue it should have been Murder in the Third Degree.

Well, opinions don't require following facts, so opine on. Depraved mind doesn't mean irrationally afraid. But all that was hashed out in that thread. But anyway, this doesn't really have anything to do with the topic.

 

[Beowulf]

Well, opinions don't require following facts, so opine on. Depraved mind doesn't mean irrationally afraid. But all that was hashed out in that thread. But anyway, this doesn't really have anything to do with the topic.

Nope, it really doesn't. I was just responding to the questioning of me using the word "murder".

But let's be honest, I doubt this whole discussion would have been a lovefest if I had just used the word "manslaughter".

 

[JettaKnight]

You know those fundraiser sweepstakes that the NRA sends out about once a quarter?

I sent in two and I didn't donate any money! That's my passive-aggressive response.

 

[Beowulf]

Here is a great editorial by Radley Balko talking about this most recent statement by the NRA:

How the NRA’s allegiance to cops undermines its credibility on gun rights

 

[GIJEW]

Which left wing establishment are we talking about there? The DNC? BLM? Bernie Sanders? I'm not sure I recall Hillary Clinton advocating for violent riots during the campaign, but then again, I tended to tune out her BS, so I admit I could have missed it.

As to Dana Loesch and the NRA finally commenting on the Castille case, you'd have a lot more credibility on that statement if 1) they didn't issue an extremely mealy-mouthed "it was regrettable" non-statement and 2) they didn't wait until more than a calendar year after the shooting and after the trial was completed. I don't recall the NRA wanting to wait until all the facts were out before they castigated any left wing or Radical Islamic actions.

Which left wing establishment? Which left-wing radicals don't get support from hollywood illiberals? They're one and the same. The 'MSM' and many in academia? If they're not out right supporters, they're at least sympathetic. Politicians/DNC? Maybe it's mostly pandering, but they show sympathy for their constituents--job security you know. This speaks to why you didn't hear clinton or sanders call for riots, but they were just as shrill as that NRA ad in mobilizing their supporters. When one of sander's former campaign volunteers tried to assassinate republican congressmen, playing baseball, he quickly condemned it but was back to talking about fighting and resisting in a couple days. Let's not forget the previous administration expressing sympathy and support for the mobs in Ferguson MO, if not the actual rioting.

About the Castille case, Loesch did not wait a calendar year to issue a "it's regrettable" non-statement but gave her opinion immediately--presented as that, not having all the facts (I can't imagine her not speaking her mind). Why are you comparing the NRA waiting for the grand jury results from the Castille case with quickly condemning rioters and terrorists? Do you think there's some equivalence between a LEO who might make a mistake when he thinks he's in danger, and a terrorist who deliberately sets out to murder people? Maybe the NRA needs to run Sheriff Clarke's ad some more.

 

[JettaKnight]

Which right-wing radicals don't get the support of Rand Paul? Or from Nashville conservatives?

 

[GIJEW]

Nope, it really doesn't. I was just responding to the questioning of me using the word "murder".

But let's be honest, I doubt this whole discussion would have been a lovefest if I had just used the word "manslaughter".

If you'd said "manslaughter" instead of "murder", it might have led to a substantive rational discussion.

 

[GIJEW]

Which right-wing radicals don't get the support of Rand Paul? Or from Nashville conservatives?

Rand Paul supports neo-nazis and the KKK? Lawyer up in case he sues you. Who are the "nashville conservatives", a couple of cranks making youtube videos?
BTW do you REALLY see LEO who over reacts in fear as being the same a terrorist? I assume I'm wrong, but you seemed to make some equivalence up thread

 

[JAL]

Which left wing establishment are we talking about there? The DNC? BLM? Bernie Sanders? I'm not sure I recall Hillary Clinton advocating for violent riots during the campaign, but then again, I tended to tune out her BS, so I admit I could have missed it.

As to Dana Loesch and the NRA finally commenting on the Castille case, you'd have a lot more credibility on that statement if 1) they didn't issue an extremely mealy-mouthed "it was regrettable" non-statement and 2) they didn't wait until more than a calendar year after the shooting and after the trial was completed. I don't recall the NRA wanting to wait until all the facts were out before they castigated any left wing or Radical Islamic actions.

QFT

It helps to know who’s actually behind a significant portion of the protest and demonstration violence and rioting . . . and why.

Regarding BLM:
IMHO they're badly misguided and going about some of what they do the wrong way. There have been injustices in the lengths of some sentences handed down that are disproportionate for the crimes committed, and that's one of their core gripes. They have engaged in civil disobedience, which is an American tradition, such as blocking traffic in Minneapolis and elsewhere in Minnesota. In general, they're relatively benign doing things such as a "sit in" -- one of them called a "die in" by laying down on the street pavement -- forcing local law enforcement to remove them without resisting being taken into custody. OTOH, a white racist shows up at a BLM demonstration there and shoots five of the demonstrators, claiming self-defense. He was sentenced to 15-20 years in prison last April.

It's not groups like BLM you need to worry about regarding your personal safety, even if you disagree with their message. Three groups in particular have been behind a good portion of the protest violence. It doesn't take many individuals to co-opt a demonstration, march or protest and turn it into a riot. That's what they've been doing. There are four main communist party factions in the U.S., all quite small. Two of them are relatively benign. They run for some political offices, publish manifestos. One of them, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) was covertly subsidized by the Soviet Union until the Soviet Union collapsed, pulling the financial rug out from under them. They took direction from the Soviet Union and, at most a charge of not registering as a foreign agent might have stuck. As a direct consequence, they haven't had a presidential candidate since 1984. All the McCarthy era convictions for violating the 1940 Smith Act were overturned in 1957 (Yates v. United States), stating that reactionary or radical speech is protected by the 1st Amendment unless it presents a "clear and present danger", the bar for which is rather high. The other of significance is the Workers World Party (WWP) which split from the Socialist Workers Party in 1959 over significant ideology differences. J. Edgar Hoover targeted them with his COINTEL operations but I've got to wonder why as they never have been a clear and present danger.

The other two significant Communist parties actively promote and instigate violence. They infiltrate demonstrations and protests to co-opt them and incite riot with deliberate acts of violence to provoke law enforcement. A third organization has emerged in the last couple of years to become a US version of the European Antifa groups. They employ similar tactics with different goals.

Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL; Marxism-Leninism):
The use of “Socialism” in this party’s name is a smoke screen for Marxist-Leninist Communism. Headquartered in San Francisco, the WWP's SF branch and a few others splintered away from them in 2004 claiming the WWP was no longer capable of fulfilling the mission of building socialism. (It's a major reason why I mentioned the WWP above.) What does that mean? It was the WWP's unwillingness to promote and advocate violent revolution to overthrow the current state and federal governments. PSL celebrates the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution as the single biggest event to shape global politics in the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] Century, and blame Gorbachev for the fall of the Soviet Union. They have run candidates for president in the last three election cycles. Gloria La Riva and Eugene Puryear were the 2016 candidates. The PSL was present in Albuquerque and instigated the riots there, and they were at the Burlingame Hyatt during the California GOP convention instigating tearing down barricades, rushing the hotel doors and the rioting there.

Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP, RCP USA, or RevCom):
The RCP is one of the few (if not the only) surviving splinter faction from the late 1960’s Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Headquartered in Chicago, it’s driven by the charismatic personality of Bob Avakian who has been its leader since its founding in 1975. Their dogma is mostly Maoism-Stalinism. Avakian claims the People’s Republic of China suffered a coup with Mao Tse-tung’s death in 1976 and has been on a Capitalist path ever since. This caused a split with the now defunct Revolutionary Workers Headquarters (RWH) taking a sizeable percentage of its membership in the late 1970’s. As with PSL, the RCP advocates and promotes violent revolution to overthrow the current state and federal governments. They had a significant presence at the Ferguson, MO protests and were the instigators of violence there.

By Any Means Necessary (BAMN):
This organization has a much, much longer name but it’s abbreviated to BAMN. It was founded in 1995 when the Regents of the University of California banned affirmative action. While it started out with political activism via petitions and lawsuits to block dropping affirmative action programs, and had achieved significant success during that time in California and Michigan (notably the UM Law School), it has turned to violent methods since 2010, and they have adopted Black Bloc tactics (dressing in black with black ski masks). They helped organize a BLM protest in Berkeley in December 2014, a bad move by BLM. The protest eventually shut down I-80 and a light commuter rail line. About 120 were arrested, cited and released. While BAMN attempted to instigate violence during the interstate and rail shutdown, it was not successful. They were directly responsible for the rioting in downtown Berkeley that same weekend, which vandalized, defaced and looted stores. BAMN was responsible for the 2016 Sacramento riot as counter-protestors to a Traditionalist Workers Party rally on the state capitol building steps (for which TWP had a permit). They attacked the TWP present with wooden clubs, bats and knives. Out of the estimated 400 in the riot, about 300 were BAMN and anarchists they had recruited. As much as I find TWP a repulsive neo-Nazi white supremacist group, BAMN lived up to its name to achieve its goal to shut down the rally. If you get onto the wrong side of BAMN, expect a mob with clubs, bats and knives to try to kill you in the name of Social Justice. BAMN has become the US version of the violent Antifa groups in Europe.

The general strategy of these organizations is to co-opt demonstrations and protests to convert them into full scale rioting. The two Communist organizations have the delusional dream they can ignite full scale and widespread insurrection and revolution across the U.S. by doing so, in the same manner as it occurred in October 1917 in the Russian Empire. Obviously they haven’t found any traction for widespread revolution yet, but if at first you don’t succeed, keep trying. The third, BAMN, uses violence to shut down those they consider enemies of their social and political agenda. For them, there is no dialog, no debate, just clubs, bats and knives. The goal of all three is to provoke violent law enforcement responses that result in considerable casualties among demonstrators and protesters. Even better if there are deaths. They want the confrontation. They want the violence. They want the martyrs. They want civil war. It confounds me that none of the news media, left, right or center, even discuss these groups, and their tactics of infiltrating and co-opting demonstrations and protests to precipitate violence and incite riot. It doesn’t take many to do this. A dozen or so dedicated people can take a peaceful, if boisterous protest and turn it violent quickly.

These aren’t the DNC, Clintonistas or Sanders’ Bernie-Bro progressives. Two of them are Communist parties who desire a violent civil “class” war and armed revolution as they believe armed overthrow of existing government is the only path to their political goals. The third has a social and political agenda they will achieve by armed force if necessary to intimidate, terrorize, maim and kill to suppress all opposition. Do you want to oblige them by playing into their hands by responding to the violence they incite with reactionary violence in a game of “tit for tat”? That would only result in the very civil war they desire. The better method takes them down without violent, public confrontation, and quietly neuters them out of existence. Unfortunately, it's all too convenient for the far right talking heads to blame Obama, the Clinton's, the DNC and Sanders' Bernie-Bro's for political gain. It's all too convenient for the Clintonistas, DNC and Bernie-Bro progressives to blame the RNC and Trumpers for inciting the general public to riot in protest for their political gain. In the meantime, PSL, RCP and BAMN wring their hands in glee at their ability to create mayhem and political instability while continuing to fly under the RADAR with their perceived enemies all blaming each other.

John

 

[Beowulf]

Which left wing establishment? Which left-wing radicals don't get support from hollywood illiberals? They're one and the same. The 'MSM' and many in academia? If they're not out right supporters, they're at least sympathetic. Politicians/DNC? Maybe it's mostly pandering, but they show sympathy for their constituents--job security you know. This speaks to why you didn't hear clinton or sanders call for riots, but they were just as shrill as that NRA ad in mobilizing their supporters. When one of sander's former campaign volunteers tried to assassinate republican congressmen, playing baseball, he quickly condemned it but was back to talking about fighting and resisting in a couple days. Let's not forget the previous administration expressing sympathy and support for the mobs in Ferguson MO, if not the actual rioting.

About the Castille case, Loesch did not wait a calendar year to issue a "it's regrettable" non-statement but gave her opinion immediately--presented as that, not having all the facts (I can't imagine her not speaking her mind). Why are you comparing the NRA waiting for the grand jury results from the Castille case with quickly condemning rioters and terrorists? Do you think there's some equivalence between a LEO who might make a mistake when he thinks he's in danger, and a terrorist who deliberately sets out to murder people? Maybe the NRA needs to run Sheriff Clarke's ad some more.

Just out of curiousity, can you provide a link to Loesch's statement that she gave about the Castile shooting right after it happened? I've been trying to find it (as I fully admit, she was not on my radar whatsoever until I saw this ad). I've only seen the initial NRA non-statement, but I saw that on Facebook from their page, with no connection to Loesch.

As to whether I draw an equivalency between an LEO who makes a mistake and a terrorist, I don't. However, I don't agree that all these police shootings can simply be attributed to an "LEO making a mistake when he thinks he's in danger". There have been way too many shootings and excessive beatings of unarmed people (including children) for me to not suspect a pattern of behavior. I also don't think it is as simple as just saying "racism". Personally, I think it has a lot more to do with a militarization of our police force over the last 30 to 40 years, combined with training that emphasizes aggressive action and escalation, rather than de-escalation, plus a lot of excuse making in the conservative echo chamber, and yes, there is an element of racism involved as well, particularly in profiling (as Castile clearly was, since the officer claims to have identified him as looking like a robbery suspect, as Castile's car whizzed by, because of his "wide nose").

If you'd said "manslaughter" instead of "murder", it might have led to a substantive rational discussion.

With all due respect, I highly doubt it.

 

[JettaKnight]

Rand Paul supports neo-nazis and the KKK? Lawyer up in case he sues you.

[video=youtube;-rzRH11G3vc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rzRH11G3vc[/video]

Who are the "nashville conservatives", a couple of cranks making youtube videos?

They're the counter to the Hollywood Illiberals [sic]. Country Music stars and such; including Ted Nugent.

BTW do you REALLY see LEO who over reacts in fear as being the same a terrorist? I assume I'm wrong, but you seemed to make some equivalence up thread

You got me mixed up with someone else.

 

[BugI02]

Sorry, you can't go to the dictionary for the definition of murder. You have to go to the statute.

In Minnesota:

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

[FONT=&amp]Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) [/FONT]causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person[FONT=&amp] or another, but without premeditation; or [/FONT][Do you think officer Yanez had intended to kill Mr Castile?][FONT=&amp]
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
[/FONT]

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.

[FONT=&amp](a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by [/FONT]perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life[FONT=&amp], is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years. [/FONT][Do you think officer Yanez exhibited a depraved mind without regard for human life]
[FONT=&amp](b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.[/FONT]

By the definition (section 1 above), the officer, in my opinion, was certainly guilty of Murder in the Second Degree, though you could argue it should have been Murder in the Third Degree.

I noticed you left off Murder1, and included Murder2 and Murder3 - neither of which yanez was accused of

609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.

(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:
(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another; [There's that pesky premeditation requirement again, no other sections are applicable]
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence, either upon or affecting the person or another;
(3) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of the person or another, while committing or attempting to commit burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, arson in the first or second degree, a drive-by shooting, tampering with a witness in the first degree, escape from custody, or any felony violation of chapter 152 involving the unlawful sale of a controlled substance;
(4) causes the death of a peace officer, prosecuting attorney, judge, or a guard employed at a Minnesota state or local correctional facility, with intent to effect the death of that person or another, while the person is engaged in the performance of official duties;
(5) causes the death of a minor while committing child abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of child abuse upon a child and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life;
(6) causes the death of a human being while committing domestic abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse upon the victim or upon another family or household member and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life; or
(7) causes the death of a human being while committing, conspiring to commit, or attempting to commit a felony crime to further terrorism and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.


Yanez was AQUITTED of Manslaughter2 and endangering with a firearm spec. so lets see


609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or [This is the only applicable section]
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.


So officer Yanez was TRIED by a jury of his peers and found NOT GUILTY of even the lesser charge of Man2 and all other charges. You are of course free to hold the (unsubstantiated) OPINION that he is a murderer

But I will show you what a murderer looks like. Lon Horiuchi murdered Vicki Weaver while trying to murder Kevin Harris for no other reason than his rules of engagement allowed him sufficient leeway and BECAUSE HE WANTED TO. Harris was running for the door of the cabin. Along with Weaver's daughter Sara, Harris was helping Weaver who had just been shot in the back by the same sniper, Horiuchi

Constitutionality of the second shot

The RRTF report to the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) of June 1994 stated unequivocally in its conclusion (in its executive summary) that the rules that allowed the second shot to have taken place did not satisfy constitutional standards for legal use of deadly force. The 1996 report of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information, Arlen Specter [R-PA], Chair), concurred, with Senator Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] dissenting. The RRTF report also found the lack of a request to surrender "inexcusable," since Harris and the two Weavers were not an imminent threat (reported as running for cover without returning fire).


The task force also specifically blamed Horiuchi for firing through the door, not knowing whether someone was on the other side of it. While controversy exists as to who is responsible for approving the ROE that were being followed by the FBI sniper, the task force also condemned the rules of engagement that allowed shots to be fired without request for surrender.

Reckless? Premeditated? With malice aforethought?

Here's what a murderer looks like. All I can show you is his West Point photo. He doesn't appear to like his likeness to be circulated (imagine that)

View attachment 57223

Although charged in Idaho, he has neither been tried nor acquitted. He has merely been sheltered from prosecution by the feds. I await his day before the judge who cannot be avoided

 

[gregr]

"Nice" talking isn't what I would advocate for. But neither are clenched fists. They have fists too. Them clenching fists while making us the boogie man is as much a recruiting tool for them as it is for us. Rage sells to angry people no matter which side the angry people are on. How about just calmly, rationally, exposing ANTIFA and the regressive left and the complicit media for what they are?

Lol. The clinched fists are completely metaphoric, and is much less than the left has been about for quite some time. It`s past time to get serious, and even a little bit ornery with defending our Second Amendment rights.

 

[IndyDave1776]

But I will show you what a murderer looks like. Lon Horiuchi murdered Vicki Weaver while trying to murder Kevin Harris for no other reason than his rules of engagement allowed him sufficient leeway and BECAUSE HE WANTED TO. Harris was running for the door of the cabin. Along with Weaver's daughter Sara, Harris was helping Weaver who had just been shot in the back by the same sniper, Horiuchi

[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]


Reckless? Premeditated? With malice aforethought?

Here's what a murderer looks like. All I can show you is his West Point photo. He doesn't appear to like his likeness to be circulated (imagine that)

View attachment 57223

Although charged in Idaho, he has neither been tried nor acquitted. He has merely been sheltered from prosecution by the feds. I await his day before the judge who cannot be avoided

I will limit myself to saying that there is a special place in Hell for that worthless GDMFSB and the sooner he arrives, the better.

 

[gregr]

Truth is considered the new Hate Speech...

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

Orwell

 

[gregr]

To hear some talk about "bile", and "unclinched fists" would be amusing if not so weak and pathetic. Law-abiding gun owners have for years been apologetic in exercising their Second Amendment rights. Openly afraid of offending those who scream at us for embracing our freedoms. It`s ridiculous, period. If you cower in the face of those attacking freedom, shame on you. I`m a "bitter clinger". And you`re damned straight I DID build that. I have a deep distrust and repulsion for those like the snake who made those comments. Law-abiding gun owners have the Constitution on our side. What we do is legally, and morally right and proper. My way of living as a law-abiding gun owner have been mocked and attacked for decades by the sheep who grovel at the feet of government, and moreso today by a liberal driven media, that doesn`t report truth, but only spins their progressive, anti-America agenda.

Just my opinion, but my very, very strong opinion. If you take issue with the direct approach of NRA in this instance, you`re no friend to freedom. Kind of reminds me of my favorite Founders quote:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House on
August 1, 1776.

 

[gregr]

I noticed you left off Murder1, and included Murder2 and Murder3 - neither of which yanez was accused of

609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.

(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:
(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another; [There's that pesky premeditation requirement again, no other sections are applicable]
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence, either upon or affecting the person or another;
(3) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of the person or another, while committing or attempting to commit burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, arson in the first or second degree, a drive-by shooting, tampering with a witness in the first degree, escape from custody, or any felony violation of chapter 152 involving the unlawful sale of a controlled substance;
(4) causes the death of a peace officer, prosecuting attorney, judge, or a guard employed at a Minnesota state or local correctional facility, with intent to effect the death of that person or another, while the person is engaged in the performance of official duties;
(5) causes the death of a minor while committing child abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of child abuse upon a child and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life;
(6) causes the death of a human being while committing domestic abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse upon the victim or upon another family or household member and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life; or
(7) causes the death of a human being while committing, conspiring to commit, or attempting to commit a felony crime to further terrorism and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.


Yanez was AQUITTED of Manslaughter2 and endangering with a firearm spec. so lets see


609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or [This is the only applicable section]
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.


So officer Yanez was TRIED by a jury of his peers and found NOT GUILTY of even the lesser charge of Man2 and all other charges. You are of course free to hold the (unsubstantiated) OPINION that he is a murderer

But I will show you what a murderer looks like. Lon Horiuchi murdered Vicki Weaver while trying to murder Kevin Harris for no other reason than his rules of engagement allowed him sufficient leeway and BECAUSE HE WANTED TO. Harris was running for the door of the cabin. Along with Weaver's daughter Sara, Harris was helping Weaver who had just been shot in the back by the same sniper, Horiuchi




Reckless? Premeditated? With malice aforethought?

Here's what a murderer looks like. All I can show you is his West Point photo. He doesn't appear to like his likeness to be circulated (imagine that)

View attachment 57223

Although charged in Idaho, he has neither been tried nor acquitted. He has merely been sheltered from prosecution by the feds. I await his day before the judge who cannot be avoided

Ruby Ridge was nothing, but jack-booted thugs, literally getting away with murder, because they could. That the American people allowed it to happen, with impunity for the thugs guilty is disgusting and sickening.