• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
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!

spin.gif
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

ron73440

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
474
Location
Suffolk VA
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."
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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

[video=youtube;Tgz5-8chSlk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgz5-8chSlk[/video]
 

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
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!

Donkey,

I want to address you concerns about the immunity clause. The key words from an interpretive viewpoint is “and which action was reasonably necessary”.

It is not an unlimited grant of power. Ultimately, it would have to be a court that would decide whether a given action was 'reasonably necessary' but I suspect the standard would resemble that used in 1983 action cases to overcome qualified immunity, namely ... did the officers actions “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” and “would a reasonably competent officer have thought the action necessary given the totality of the circumstances.”


John
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
Donkey,

I want to address you concerns about the immunity clause. The key words from an interpretive viewpoint is “and which action was reasonably necessary”.

It is not an unlimited grant of power. Ultimately, it would have to be a court that would decide whether a given action was 'reasonably necessary' but I suspect the standard would resemble that used in 1983 action cases to overcome qualified immunity, namely ... did the officers actions “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” and “would a reasonably competent officer have thought the action necessary given the totality of the circumstances.”


John

One problem in these qualified immunity cases is that the Plaintiff has the burden to establish that the right she is alleging was violated was "clearly established" at the time with reference to existing case law. In most excessive force cases, there will be no 4th Circuit law on point, and such law will not emerge because the Courts will not have any reason to establish law in this area if immunity bars the claims: Catch 22.

Another is that the "totality of the circumstances" includes the chaos of circumstances of civil unrest, wherein courts will defer massively to the expertise of officers about what was "reasonable."
.
A third is that the statute allows law enforcement officers to deputize private citizens: so it is not a "reasonably competent officer" but "a reasonably competent person."

In most cases, the after the fact explanation by defendant will be "I saw a guy with a gun" or "somebody said there was a guy with a gun" who was not one of us; "I thought I/he was in danger;" "I had to make a difficult, split second decision."

The only thing that would protect the legitimate gun carrier in these circumstances is statutorily imposing an affirmative duty on the LEOs and the "citizens" to identify persons defending their property and to avoid hurting them.
 
Top