Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: What a Riot!: A Reflection on Mount Pleasant, May 1991

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    What a Riot!: A Reflection on Mount Pleasant, May 1991

    22 years ago this month, riots broke out in a neighborhood in DC with a large hispanic population after a DC Police Officer shot a drunk Salvadoran man with a knife. Rocks were hurled; refuse was set alight and hurled out into the streets; police shot tear gas canisters down major streets; and civil order broke down.

    After a number of storefronts were looted, a shop owner sat down in a chair with a loaded pump twelve gauge in front of his store.

    Despite the complete inability of the DC Police to drive down Mt. Pleasant Ave, nobody bothered his shop.

    He shot nobody, and nobody bothered him.

    It seems to me that this sort of scenario is part of what the Second Amendment is about.

    Yet I wonder what would happen to our shopkeeper in Virginia?

    The Virginia Code provides:

    § 18.2-405. What constitutes a riot; punishment.

    Any unlawful use, by three or more persons acting together, of force or violence which seriously jeopardizes the public safety, peace or order is riot.
    Every person convicted of participating in any riot shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
    If such person carried, at the time of such riot, any firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

    § 18.2-406. What constitutes an unlawful assembly; punishment.

    Whenever three or more persons assembled share the common intent to advance some lawful or unlawful purpose by the commission of an act or acts of unlawful force or violence likely to jeopardize seriously public safety, peace or order, and the assembly actually tends to inspire persons of ordinary courage with well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order, then such assembly is an unlawful assembly. Every person who participates in any unlawful assembly shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. If any such person carried, at the time of his participation in an unlawful assembly, any firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

    § 18.2-411. Dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblies; duties of officers.

    When any number of persons, whether armed or not, are unlawfully or riotously assembled, the sheriff of the county and his deputies, the police officials of the county, city or town, and any assigned militia, or any of them, shall go among the persons assembled or as near to them as safety will permit and command them in the name of the Commonwealth immediately to disperse. If upon such command the persons unlawfully assembled do not disperse immediately, such sheriff, officer or militia may use such force as is reasonably necessary to disperse them and to arrest those who fail or refuse to disperse. To accomplish this end, the sheriff or other law-enforcement officer may request and use the assistance and services of private citizens. Every endeavor shall be used, both by such sheriff or other officers and by the officer commanding any other force, which can be made consistently with the preservation of life, to induce or force those unlawfully assembled to disperse before an attack is made upon those unlawfully assembled by which their lives may be endangered.

    § 18.2-412. Immunity of officers and others in quelling a riot or unlawful assembly.

    No liability, criminal or civil, shall be imposed upon any person authorized to disperse or assist in dispersing a riot or unlawful assembly for any action of such person which was taken after those rioting or unlawfully assembled had been commanded to disperse, and which action was reasonably necessary under all the circumstances to disperse such riot or unlawful assembly or to arrest those who failed or refused to disperse.
    As I read this, our rather heroic shopkeeper would not only face arrest and felony conviction, but a decent possibility of getting his head blown off by a Police Officer or a deputized private citizen.

    Do you agree that these statutes are in serious need of revision, clarification and updating in such fashion as to protect the right of our shopkeeper to protect his property?

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Oh, ********, Donkey. You're a lawyer. The riot statute is talking about participating in a riot, not sitting on the side defending your property.

    If anything, the shopkeeper would be in trouble for violating VA case law against using deadly force to defend property. See Virginia1774(dot)org.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 05-08-2013 at 10:46 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, goddamit, Donkey. You're a lawyer. The riot statute is talking about participating in a riot, not sitting on the side defending your property.

    If anything, the shopkeeper would be in trouble for violating VA case law against using deadly force to defend property. See Virginia1774(dot)org.
    Think about the elements of the offenses from the statutes, my friend:

    1. Intent to accomplish a lawful or unlawful purpose by unlawful means: does that include brandishing? Your "use of deadly force" statute? How does a policeman or private citizen dragooned into quelling the riot discern the intent of the guy with the shotgun? Is sitting there visibly armed during the riot "participating?" I'll bet a significant number of cops and prosecutors -- reflexively concerned about vigilantism -- would say yes.

    2. Command to disperse: that would include the shopkeeper -- and the greatest danger to life and property is likely when the crowd is gassed and baton charged after that command is issued. Must the shopkeeper retreat into his shop until the rioters disperse? That likely means smashed plate glass followed by charged up rioters through the front of the shop.

    Then think about the sweep of the immunity provided in the last paragraph: if it were me, I certainly would not want to be in that chair when the Police and the informal militia arrived. But what if you were the shopkeeper, whose insurance typically would not cover damages from civil unrest, and whose livelihood may depend on his/her investment in his shop?

    You want the right to go open carrying a gun when it is really not necessary: what are you going to do to make it clear that under Virginia law, you have the right to open carry in the PRECISE CIRCUMSTANCES when it really is?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    Think about the elements of the offenses from the statutes, my friend:

    1. Intent to accomplish a lawful or unlawful purpose by unlawful means: does that include brandishing? Your "use of deadly force" statute? How does a policeman or private citizen dragooned into quelling the riot discern the intent of the guy with the shotgun? Is sitting there visibly armed during the riot "participating?" I'll bet a significant number of cops and prosecutors -- reflexively concerned about vigilantism -- would say yes.

    2. Command to disperse: that would include the shopkeeper -- and the greatest danger to life and property is likely when the crowd is gassed and baton charged after that command is issued. Must the shopkeeper retreat into his shop until the rioters disperse? That likely means smashed plate glass followed by charged up rioters through the front of the shop.

    Then think about the sweep of the immunity provided in the last paragraph: if it were me, I certainly would not want to be in that chair when the Police and the informal militia arrived. But what if you were the shopkeeper, whose insurance typically would not cover damages from civil unrest, and whose livelihood may depend on his/her investment in his shop?

    You want the right to go open carrying a gun when it is really not necessary: what are you going to do to make it clear that under Virginia law, you have the right to open carry in the PRECISE CIRCUMSTANCES when it really is?
    Donkey,

    It is great to see you again.

    I am always for laws that limit the power and authority of authorities. They always seem to find a "loophole" to exercise their authority in an overbroad manner. That being said, I see no possible way to identify the shop keeper as a rioter. If the shopkeeper is not a rioter, why would he be commanded to disperse?

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Donkey,

    It is great to see you again.

    I am always for laws that limit the power and authority of authorities. They always seem to find a "loophole" to exercise their authority in an overbroad manner. That being said, I see no possible way to identify the shop keeper as a rioter. If the shopkeeper is not a rioter, why would he be commanded to disperse?

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar

    There is nothing to distinguish the shopkeeper from the crowd. The police would likely get on a bull horn and order the "unlawful assembly" to disperse. From the Police's perspective the shopkeeper may be part of the unlawful assembly, and particularly dangerous because he is armed.

    The untrained citizens who are recruited by the police to deal with this situation might also be somewhat more likely to screw up.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    There is nothing to distinguish the shopkeeper from the crowd. The police would likely get on a bull horn and order the "unlawful assembly" to disperse. From the Police's perspective the shopkeeper may be part of the unlawful assembly, and particularly dangerous because he is armed.

    The untrained citizens who are recruited by the police to deal with this situation might also be somewhat more likely to screw up.
    Puh-leeze, hippy lawyer! Give me a break, and stop smoking that whackky tobaccy - it's messing up your mind.

    What distinguishes the shopkeeper from the rioter is his behavior.

    From the perspective of someone who has represented the constituted civil authority during a riot, I can assure you that Mr. Shopkeeper will not be sitting out in front of his store with his pump-action at port arms while the rioters are rioting in front of his store. They will either bypass his store or they will overwhelm him, take away fis shotgun, and most likely trash his store. During the Mt. Pleasant riot the shopkeeper you so dotingly mention was not located in the middle of the riot. His presence did somewhat encourage the rioters to stay "on the other side of the street" when going past his place - and those were individuals, not a concentrated mass.

    What "untrained citizens" are you thinking might be "recruiterd by the police to deal with this situation"? This is not the Olde West where the High Sheriff forms a possee that goes riding off to capture the escaping bad guys, or who erect barricades to prevent Mauve Mike and his gang from riding into town to molest the horses and stampede the women. The Possee Comitatus has not been raised since roughly the Haymarket Riots near the end of the 19th century. Never during any of the riots of the middle of the 20th century to date has it been raised. Not even following Villa's raid on Columbus, AZ http://web.nmsu.edu/~publhist/colhist.htm .

    Again, from the perspective of someone who has represented the constituted civil authority during a riot (four of them, to be accurate) let me assure you that the scene is not one of swirling masses of humanity intermixed with the civil authority. In your beloved Mt Pleasant riot, at the hight when the cops were faced with between 600 and 800 rioters, there was lots of open space to observe who was doing what. There are numerous photo archives of the event that I suggest you search for and review.

    Going to the other side of the country, the Rodnery King riots which included Koreatown merchants defending their businesses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots did not involve close-range exchanges of gunfire between the merchants and a massed horde of rioters. It was more of a sniping/harassment affair by both sides.

    Looking at Virginia case law, your merchant would be seen as an instigator of any interchange, and thus would, unless he withdrew as far as possible and declared his intent to cease hostile actions, could not claim self defense if he later committed a homicide or other battery.

    Virginia case law also does not recognize the use of deadly force to protect property. Facing a complete loss, bankruptcy, and the like? Apply for a SBA loan.

    Please note that even the armchair lawyers here knew your hypothetical shopkeeper was breaking a bunch of laws. I am proud of them, for they have absorbed much of what has been discussed in the past.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Puh-leeze, hippy lawyer! Give me a break, and stop smoking that whackky tobaccy - it's messing up your mind.

    What distinguishes the shopkeeper from the rioter is his behavior.

    From the perspective of someone who has represented the constituted civil authority during a riot, I can assure you that Mr. Shopkeeper will not be sitting out in front of his store with his pump-action at port arms while the rioters are rioting in front of his store. They will either bypass his store or they will overwhelm him, take away fis shotgun, and most likely trash his store. During the Mt. Pleasant riot the shopkeeper you so dotingly mention was not located in the middle of the riot. His presence did somewhat encourage the rioters to stay "on the other side of the street" when going past his place - and those were individuals, not a concentrated mass.

    What "untrained citizens" are you thinking might be "recruiterd by the police to deal with this situation"? This is not the Olde West where the High Sheriff forms a possee that goes riding off to capture the escaping bad guys, or who erect barricades to prevent Mauve Mike and his gang from riding into town to molest the horses and stampede the women. The Possee Comitatus has not been raised since roughly the Haymarket Riots near the end of the 19th century. Never during any of the riots of the middle of the 20th century to date has it been raised. Not even following Villa's raid on Columbus, AZ http://web.nmsu.edu/~publhist/colhist.htm .

    Again, from the perspective of someone who has represented the constituted civil authority during a riot (four of them, to be accurate) let me assure you that the scene is not one of swirling masses of humanity intermixed with the civil authority. In your beloved Mt Pleasant riot, at the hight when the cops were faced with between 600 and 800 rioters, there was lots of open space to observe who was doing what. There are numerous photo archives of the event that I suggest you search for and review.

    Going to the other side of the country, the Rodnery King riots which included Koreatown merchants defending their businesses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots did not involve close-range exchanges of gunfire between the merchants and a massed horde of rioters. It was more of a sniping/harassment affair by both sides.

    Looking at Virginia case law, your merchant would be seen as an instigator of any interchange, and thus would, unless he withdrew as far as possible and declared his intent to cease hostile actions, could not claim self defense if he later committed a homicide or other battery.

    Virginia case law also does not recognize the use of deadly force to protect property. Facing a complete loss, bankruptcy, and the like? Apply for a SBA loan.

    Please note that even the armchair lawyers here knew your hypothetical shopkeeper was breaking a bunch of laws. I am proud of them, for they have absorbed much of what has been discussed in the past.

    stay safe.
    I know a bit about the Mount Pleasant riots because I was there.

    I got into two fights while they were occurring: first, to stop a guy from lighting a fire under a propane tank he had placed in front of the condominium where I and my family were living; Second, to stop a guy from smashing the window of a drug store with a milk crate. I will look at the video archive, but I still carry a pretty good one between my ears.

    I never walked down Mount Pleasant Avenue during the riots, so I did not see the guy with the shotgun: I read about him. It was scary enough on 16th Street. Taking the bus home after work on the evening on the day when they reached their peak was the worst. I have never seen anything like it, and I am very glad the bus driver had enough sense to avoid the barracades.

    Wacky tobacky seems like a pretty good suggestion to this hippy lawyer when he reads this kind of thing in the Virginia statutes:

    § 18.2-411. Dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblies; duties of officers.

    . . .If upon such command the persons unlawfully assembled do not disperse immediately, such sheriff, officer or militia may use such force as is reasonably necessary to disperse them and to arrest those who fail or refuse to disperse. To accomplish this end, the sheriff or other law-enforcement officer may request and use the assistance and services of private citizens. Every endeavor shall be used, both by such sheriff or other officers and by the officer commanding any other force, which can be made consistently with the preservation of life, to induce or force those unlawfully assembled to disperse before an attack is made upon those unlawfully assembled by which their lives may be endangered.

    Sure sounds like the old west round these parts, and that kind of bugs me.

    But as to the shopkeeper, like man, I say: "Legalize It, Don't Criticize it. . . "

    And what I mean by that is: change the statutes to make it absolutely clear under Virginia law that you can stand on the edge of your property to defend it during a riot or unlawful assembly that is occurring adjacent to it, and that you can hold an appropriate firearm in your holster or in your hands to defend yourself, as appropriate, while you do this.

    If that is illegal, then in most circumstances open carry does not have much point, IMHO.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Donkey brayed: Sure sounds like the old west round these parts, and that kind of bugs me.
    Oh, please.

    During the Civil War, riots broke out in St. Louis--hardly the Old West. Mark Twain was mustered up as militia, handed a rifle, drilled, and marched to quell the riots.* A cop calling on a few nearby is hardly in the same league.

    It sounds more like you're operating from the ridiculous premise that there should be so many police they can handle it themselves.



    *Some twenty years after being kicked off the Mississippi River by the Civil War, Twain decided to take a trip down the river again to what had changed. Twenty years earlier, literally while marching to the riots, he chickened out, handed his rifle to the fella marching beside him, and said (paraphrase), "I'm thirsty. Hold my rifle while I get a drink."
    Twenty years later, as he's taking in St. Louis at the beginning of his trip down the Mississippi, and older gent stops cold and stares at him a moment, then demands, "Here now. Did you get that drink yet?" It was the very guy to whom he had handed his rifle! Twain replied, "Not yet. But if you'll join me we can get it now." So, off they went for that 20-year late drink.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-08-2013 at 06:03 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, please.

    During the Civil War, riots broke out in St. Louis--hardly the Old West. Mark Twain was mustered up as militia, handed a rifle, drilled, and marched to quell the riots.* A cop calling on a few nearby is hardly in the same league.

    It sounds more like you're operating from the ridiculous premise that there should be so many police they can handle it themselves.



    *Some twenty years after being kicked off the Mississippi River by the Civil War, Twain decided to take a trip down the river again to what had changed. Twenty years earlier, literally while marching to the riots, he chickened out, handed his rifle to the fella marching beside him, and said (paraphrase), "I'm thirsty. Hold my rifle while I get a drink."
    Twenty years later, as he's taking in St. Louis at the beginning of his trip down the Mississippi, and older gent stops cold and stares at him a moment, then demands, "Here now. Did you get that drink yet?" It was the very guy to whom he had handed his rifle! Twain replied, "Not yet. But if you'll join me we can get it now." So, off they went for that 20-year late drink.
    I operate from the premise that if you are going to have a statute allowing you to dragoon citizens to put down unlawful gatherings, you should have programs and standards to help ensure they are reasonably qualified and well trained in advance, or you are asking for a bloody flippin' disaster. At the moment, I don't see much need.

    I also operate from the premise that citizens so dragooned should not have immunities any greater than the qualified immunity normally afforded to police officers.

    I assert the unqualified right to be continuously ridiculous: thus, if a cop ever asks me to put down a riot, I too will hold out for a drink.

  10. #10
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    You folks can't see the forest for the trees.

    Watch this:

    § 18.2-405. What constitutes a riot; punishment.

    Any unlawful use, by three or more persons acting together, of force or violence which seriously jeopardizes the public safety, peace or order is riot.
    Every person convicted of participating in any riot shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
    If such person carried, at the time of such riot, any firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

    § 18.2-406. What constitutes an unlawful assembly; punishment.

    Whenever three or more persons assembled share the common intent to advance some lawful or unlawful purpose by the commission of an act or acts of unlawful force or violence likely to jeopardize seriously public safety, peace or order, and the assembly actually tends to inspire persons of ordinary courage with well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order, then such assembly is an unlawful assembly. Every person who participates in any unlawful assembly shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. If any such person carried, at the time of his participation in an unlawful assembly, any firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

    § 18.2-411. Dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblies; duties of officers.

    When any number of persons, whether armed or not, are unlawfully or riotously assembled, the sheriff of the county and his deputies, the police officials of the county, city or town, and any assigned militia, or any of them, shall go among the persons assembled or as near to them as safety will permit and command them in the name of the Commonwealth immediately to disperse. If upon such command the persons unlawfully assembled do not disperse immediately, such sheriff, officer or militia may use such force as is reasonably necessary to disperse them and to arrest those who fail or refuse to disperse. To accomplish this end, the sheriff or other law-enforcement officer may request and use the assistance and services of private citizens. Every endeavor shall be used, both by such sheriff or other officers and by the officer commanding any other force, which can be made consistently with the preservation of life, to induce or force those unlawfully assembled to disperse before an attack is made upon those unlawfully assembled by which their lives may be endangered.

    § 18.2-412. Immunity of officers and others in quelling a riot or unlawful assembly.

    No liability, criminal or civil, shall be imposed upon any person authorized to disperse or assist in dispersing a riot or unlawful assembly for any action of such person which was taken after those rioting or unlawfully assembled had been commanded to disperse, and which action was reasonably necessary under all the circumstances to disperse such riot or unlawful assembly or to arrest those who failed or refused to disperse.
    Note the giant bolds in the code above. In each case, "such person" refers to those engaged in the riot or unlawful assembly. In none of these cases is the person sitting in front of their property, with a properly carried firearm even remotely likely to be confused with "such persons" who are engaged in the illegal behavior, and for whom the increased penalties are intended for using a firearm in the commission of those crimes. (Note: there is no "holstered" for a long gun, so it would seem that brandishing would require a higher threshold for long guns than for handguns - beyond simply holding the firearm in a non-threatening manner, but I will concede I have no cites for such an assertion... however if that is not true, then one might be charged with brandishing for carrying a long gun anywhere and under any circumstances, which we don't tend to see in real life.)

    TFred

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    If language with this level of ambiguity were proposed in a background check law, or a law involving the purchase of semi-automatic rifles, you would be all over it, demanding punctilliousness, or otherwise predicting the fall of western civilization, and the rise of an Obama led socialist dictatorship.

    THIS is what open carry is really about, and if you think that it is acceptable to leave the standards and interpretations of these old laws to the police -- who are immunized by these very statutes, then I am somewhat disappointed in you.

    The left and the right seem stuck in a 50 year old debate about gun control proposals that are mainly of symbolic value: Semi-automatic "assault weapons" and "high capacity" don't give rise to very much of a death toll, and the "gun show loophole" has never been that much of a problem. And you guys are out there marching into the Mason District Government Center with an arsenal on your hips when the greatest threat in there is from accidental discharge.

    So when civil disorder comes up -- which certainly was on the founders' minds when the Bill of Rights was drafted -- you guys are satisfied that the immunized police MIGHT interpret these laws as permitting actions that are the essence of self-defense?

    NO SOUP FOR YOU!

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    If language with this level of ambiguity were proposed in a background check law, or a law involving the purchase of semi-automatic rifles, you would be all over it, demanding punctilliousness, or otherwise predicting the fall of western civilization, and the rise of an Obama led socialist dictatorship.

    THIS is what open carry is really about, and if you think that it is acceptable to leave the standards and interpretations of these old laws to the police -- who are immunized by these very statutes, then I am somewhat disappointed in you.

    The left and the right seem stuck in a 50 year old debate about gun control proposals that are mainly of symbolic value: Semi-automatic "assault weapons" and "high capacity" don't give rise to very much of a death toll, and the "gun show loophole" has never been that much of a problem. And you guys are out there marching into the Mason District Government Center with an arsenal on your hips when the greatest threat in there is from accidental discharge.

    So when civil disorder comes up -- which certainly was on the founders' minds when the Bill of Rights was drafted -- you guys are satisfied that the immunized police MIGHT interpret these laws as permitting actions that are the essence of self-defense?

    NO SOUP FOR YOU!

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaa!!!

    No, you're not disappointed in us. You're just using a thinly-veiled accusation of inconsistency to make us feel wrong.

    Why don't you want to change the law? Saying you think it should be changed is not the same as trying to persuade others to get on your bandwagon. We've seen you in action when advocating something, trying to create support for it. That's not what's going on here, not by a long shot.

    We caught you at your hidden agenda last time you came around.

    So, what game are you at with this thread?
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-09-2013 at 04:10 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    If language with this level of ambiguity ...
    I'm really scratching my head on this one. I don't see any level of ambiguity in that code whatsoever.

    It amazes me that anyone could.

    TFred

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaa!!!

    No, you're not disappointed in us. You're just using a thinly-veiled accusation of inconsistency to make us feel wrong.

    Why don't you want to change the law? Saying you think it should be changed is not the same as trying to persuade others to get on your bandwagon. We've seen you in action when advocating something, trying to create support for it. That's not what's going on here, not by a long shot.

    We caught you at your hidden agenda last time you came around.

    So, what game are you at with this thread?
    You always accuse me of a hidden agenda Citizen, when in fact I hide nothing.

    Actually, I think I DO want to change the law: I think the statutes should be much more specific that guarding your own and your family's lives and property while armed is not participation in an unlawful assembly. I also think that the immunity provision should be significantly narrowed, so that arresting and deliberately harming people who are doing that is not immunized. The whole statute is archaic, and it would be good if the Second Amendment Foundation, VCDL, Volokh, or someone with a similar level of expertise came up with some draft legislation to modernize this.

    I fear that if such a legislative proposal came from Your Humble Servant, somebody might think that it had a "hidden agenda" and it would be DOA. I am, some may suspect, one of those dang democrats that scuttle about under desks, spreading the anti-gun socialist infection.

    But if the Tea Party/libertarian/flippin' Three Percenter crowd really sees nothing wrong, well then perhaps I am mistaken, and we all should go back to more serious Second Amendment concerns, like how a background check proposal might effect the curio and relic business. . . .

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I'm really scratching my head on this one. I don't see any level of ambiguity in that code whatsoever.

    It amazes me that anyone could.

    TFred
    "Every person who participates in any unlawful assembly shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. If any such person carried, at the time of his participation in an unlawful assembly, any firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon, he shall be guilty ofA Class 5 felony."
    Does "such person" refer to people who "participate" in the unlawful assembly by just being there?

    By refusing to "disperse?"

    Or only to people who are doing something "illegal?"

    Is holding a shotgun in such circumstances "brandishing" -- i.e. "illegal" -- thereby making you part of the unlawful assembly?

    Does the existence of the unlawful assembly in the proximity of you guarding your property mean that you are properly subject to "an attack . . . made upon those unlawfully assembled by which their lives may be endangered?"

    If "action" is necessary to disperse those unlawfully assembled, does the immunity provision immunize the "attackers" from all liability for stupid stuff they do to innocent people guarding their property and/or mere bystanders?

    What is the matter with you TFred? You think this stuff only happens to hippies?



  16. #16
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    Does "such person" refer to people who "participate" in the unlawful assembly by just being there?

    By refusing to "disperse?"

    Or only to people who are doing something "illegal?"

    Is holding a shotgun in such circumstances "brandishing" -- i.e. "illegal" -- thereby making you part of the unlawful assembly?

    Does the existence of the unlawful assembly in the proximity of you guarding your property mean that you are properly subject to "an attack . . . made upon those unlawfully assembled by which their lives may be endangered?"

    If "action" is necessary to disperse those unlawfully assembled, does the immunity provision immunize the "attackers" from all liability for stupid stuff they do to innocent people guarding their property and/or mere bystanders?

    What is the matter with you TFred? You think this stuff only happens to hippies?


    I'm not even going to waste my time reading your post line by line. Did you skip English class or something? All of them?

    The first four words of the code: "Every person who participates"

    What is it with Democrats. Are you all still stuck on what the meaning of "is" is?

    Wow.

    TFred

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I'm not even going to waste my time reading your post line by line. Did you skip English class or something? All of them?

    The first four words of the code: "Every person who participates"

    What is it with Democrats. Are you all still stuck on what the meaning of "is" is?

    Wow.

    TFred
    You may be assured that I did not have sexual relations with that woman . . .

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I'm not even going to waste my time reading your post line by line. Did you skip English class or something? All of them?

    The first four words of the code: "Every person who participates"

    What is it with Democrats. Are you all still stuck on what the meaning of "is" is?

    Wow.

    TFred
    But you still don't get it: it does not matter that your interpretation is different from mine, or even if it is more reasonable: this statute is a license to kill, and the immunity provision means that there is no price to pay. Do you really think it matters to the guy splattered all over the pavement or his family if somebody says after the fact that the police or the "citizens" had got it wrong, when there is no legal remedy then?

    Look back at the open carry cases discussed on this site. How many of this community's lawsuits have been dismissed on the basis of some kind of immunity?

    So I suppose when the riots come to your neighborhood, you will be quickly "dispersing" with your AR and your magazines in your trunk?

    Chicken poop!

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    DONKEY wins the prize as the most pro-freedom on gun rights during civil unrest!


  20. #20
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    DONKEY wins the prize as the most pro-freedom on gun rights during civil unrest!
    I'm no expert on mind-altering drugs... but you guys (Democrats) must have come up with something new that works wonders...

    The most recent example of "Democrat 'freedom' during civil unrest" would have to be at the hands of the city of New Orleans, post-Katrina.

    I'm pretty sure we all remember how that "freedom on gun rights" went down. If that's "winning", what in the world do the "losers" do, murder in cold blood for owning a gun?

    Wow. I bet that stuff gives you one heck of a hangover when you finally come down.

    TFred

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I'm no expert on mind-altering drugs... but you guys (Democrats) must have come up with something new that works wonders...

    The most recent example of "Democrat 'freedom' during civil unrest" would have to be at the hands of the city of New Orleans, post-Katrina.

    I'm pretty sure we all remember how that "freedom on gun rights" went down. If that's "winning", what in the world do the "losers" do, murder in cold blood for owning a gun?

    Wow. I bet that stuff gives you one heck of a hangover when you finally come down.

    TFred
    Dude, Thundar and I are the only one of you 2A stalwarts that sees something wrong with the statutes about gun possession during civil unrest.

    And I sure am having fun pointing out your milk toast timidity at what should be a bread and butter issue for you guys.

    You don't seem anywhere close to jumping on the bandwagon, so it seems like it will be a long time before that hangover.

    But don't worry: I am not even close to calling you a pinko treehugger yet . . . today.

    Yay! It is a blast on the right wing!


  22. #22
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    So let me see if I've got this straight:

    Democrat claims to be "most pro-freedom on gun rights during civil unrest"

    A resident in the real-world provides rebuttal with what may be THE most egregious case of gun-rights suppression during a time of civil unrest, foisted upon a helpless population by the DEMOCRATIC administration of New Orleans.

    Democrat claims real-world resident is spinning.

    Consistent to the core. Right is wrong. Up is down. Day is night. Is is isn't. Et cetera, ad infinitum.

    TFred

  23. #23
    Regular Member ron73440's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Suffolk VA
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    So let me see if I've got this straight:

    Democrat claims to be "most pro-freedom on gun rights during civil unrest"

    A resident in the real-world provides rebuttal with what may be THE most egregious case of gun-rights suppression during a time of civil unrest, foisted upon a helpless population by the DEMOCRATIC administration of New Orleans.

    Democrat claims real-world resident is spinning.

    Consistent to the core. Right is wrong. Up is down. Day is night. Is is isn't. Et cetera, ad infinitum.

    TFred
    That's about what I got out of it as well, just remember though "it could never happen here."
    What I told my wife when she said my steel Baby Eagle .45 was heavy, "Heavy is good, heavy is reliable, if it doesn't work you could always hit him with it."-Boris the Blade

    MOLON LABE

  24. #24
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    So let me see if I've got this straight:

    Democrat claims to be "most pro-freedom on gun rights during civil unrest"

    A resident in the real-world provides rebuttal with what may be THE most egregious case of gun-rights suppression during a time of civil unrest, foisted upon a helpless population by the DEMOCRATIC administration of New Orleans.

    Democrat claims real-world resident is spinning.

    Consistent to the core. Right is wrong. Up is down. Day is night. Is is isn't. Et cetera, ad infinitum.

    TFred
    Forgot to add this for fun!



    TFred


  25. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Forgot to add this for fun!




    TFred




    Last edited by The Donkey; 05-12-2013 at 04:33 PM. Reason: Video embedding disabled

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •