Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 12,137
- Reactions
- 21,472
This is not some issue of "attire". He said he could walk into Walmart with a loaded gun after saying he was mad at Walmart for not selling him ammo cuz he was underage.So you can read his mind? It's not like the government can legally publish a list of acceptable attire. Would the rifle alone have been OK? What if it was slung over his shoulder? What if he only wore the pouches but didn't have a weapon? Would a mask have made it worse? What if there were a dozen people doing it instead of one? How can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew in advance he would spark a panic rather than a gun rights debate?
"He should have known better" is not an acceptable legal standard. The guy was pushing a shopping cart and narrating a video; I could just as easily argue that everyone "should" have known that meant he wasn't a threat because those actions are inconsistent with any known mass shooter.
MO has a tough road to hoe to prove terrorism, especially if he pre-published a video stating his intent was to provoke "discussion" on gun rights and has the video from the store showing he didn't threaten anyone. A terrorism law that would allow a conviction probably fails the first amendment test and will be headed for federal review.
Free speech case law has long established that you can go right up to the line of threatening violence as long as you don't actually do it or directly advocate it. For example: it's legal to publish the home address, phone number, and all other private information you can find about any public official you like along with a statement like "this guy's address was so easy to find, I'm surprised no one has paid him a visit" or "I encourage you to call, write, or visit senator X in person at his home to let him know your opinion on his voting record." The implication is clear, but it's protected speech. Likewise, saying "I think all cops should die" is OK as long as you aren't clearly attempting to induce someone to actually kill them.
It was an exercise in free speech and open carry. We can agree that it may have been counterproductive, but it's no more a crime than the Black Panthers in CA in the 60's or people hanging out around polling stations open carrying in the last few elections, or a bunch of armed people sitting in the gallery of the WA legislature a year or two ago. Jesus, we let crowds of mask wearing, club wielding antifa take over entire city blocks and don't arrest them until they use their weapons (sometimes not even then).
Was it in poor taste, sure, but a country that bends the rules to find a way to imprison someone just because they didn't like what they did is not a country of laws. Public outrage is not an acceptable reason to jail someone in America. Honoring someone's right to express themselves, even when you find the form of expression detestable, is the mark of a freedom lover and patriot.
To say he would not know it would cause a panic would be quite ridiculous after what has happened recently.
Go ahead and defend this dimitry guy. That is exactly what he wants and it also tells the next idiot that he can do it to and he will get attention and support.
And such support for idiots like him from other gun owners makes it that much easier for anti-gun poeple to paint all gun owners with the same brush.