Diner pulls gun on armed BLM protestors

disciple Clint · May 6, 2021

Handmaid for Jesus said:
His "concern" translated into his pulling his gun.I did not see him pull the gun out. But, the video clearly showed the gun in his hand. I wonder if he was one of those arrested . If not, why not?

It should be obvious, he was outnumbered by armed people who were not there to eat food. He had a right to defend himself from an obvious threat.

disciple Clint · May 6, 2021

SummerMadness said:
Okay, then I can shoot him if I see him then. He might pull a gun on me as he did here.

That kind of thinking would result in getting killed or imprisoned. Reacting emotionally rather than rationally results in consequences.

disciple Clint · May 6, 2021

SummerMadness said:
Why would it not be justified? He is threatening people with a gun here and you said it was justifiable for him to pull a gun because what protesters are capable of, why are you now hedging on my justification? He is clearly capable of shooting me when he pulls a gun out and points it at me.

He would have not reason to shoot anyone who was not acting in a way that threatened to cause him grievous bodily injury of death.

disciple Clint · May 6, 2021

Fantine said:
The Second Amendment is not just for white Americans.

Good guys with guns would not look at gun owners who were people of color and expect the worst. Good guys with guns would realize that gun-owning people of color might have far more need of a gun to protect themselves. They might live in neighborhoods with gang violence, for example.

Good guys with guns would feel a sense of brotherhood and camaraderie with gun-owning people of color (just as I feel a sense of sisterhood and camaraderie with people of all colors who don't own guns.)

The white man who initiated the confrontation was not a good guy with a gun. He would have scared me to death, his having initiated the aggression, and I probably would have walked out without finishing my dinner.

But yeah. Being a good guy with a gun means respecting the rights of others who own guns, no matter what their ethnicity.

Fantine said:
The white man who initiated the confrontation was not a good guy with a gun. He would have scared me to death, his having initiated the aggression, and I probably would have walked out without finishing my dinner.

How ever the white man did not initiate the aggression, he was trying to eat when armed people initiated the confrontation.

disciple Clint · May 6, 2021

Handmaid for Jesus said:
We do not have evidence that the protesters were screaming at HIM. or anyone else.

We can see they were speaking at each other, maybe they were discussing the weather but I doubt it, past encounters where innocent people were harassed by BLM protestors would suggest a pattern of behavior.

disciple Clint · May 6, 2021

Handmaid for Jesus said:
No I wrote what I meant. But for some reason white men get spooked when they see more than one or two black men enter an establishment.

Oh so now all white men act exactly the same, what do they call that kind of thinking?

Confused-by-christianity · May 6, 2021

is it possible that both sides are within their rights to pull a gun and shoot?

Where neither side can be said to be in the wrong and a shooting of this type is more considered an unfortunate price you pay for defending your rights?

Can there be situations in US law where protesters have a right to protest, it makes someone genuinely feel threatened so they pull a gun to defend themselves and the protesters pull a gun in return. Is the idea of "threat" subjective or not?

Note: I didn't watch the video or read the article. I just mean hypothetically.
Also, I don't want to see anyone get "shot" over anything.

Confused-by-christianity · May 6, 2021

disciple Clint said:
That kind of thinking would result in getting killed or imprisoned. Reacting emotionally rather than rationally results in consequences.

Do you think it might be possible that the diner had a right (under US law / thinking) to pull his weapon and any protester not doing anything wrong had a right to pull their weapons also?

disciple Clint · May 6, 2021

Confused-by-christianity said:
Do you think it might be possible that the diner had a right (under US law / thinking) to pull his weapon and any protester not doing anything wrong had a right to pull their weapons also?

No

Confused-by-christianity · May 6, 2021

disciple Clint said:
No

Why?

disciple Clint · May 6, 2021

Confused-by-christianity said:
Why?

Pulling out a gun is a response to a threat of grievous harm or death.

Skreeper · May 6, 2021

renniks said:
Can't say I blame him. A bunch of screaming thugs walk up to me while I'm eating dinner, I'm going to feel threatened too.

If people saying words loudly in your vicinity cause you to draw your gun then you should not be allowed to own a gun.

Confused-by-christianity · May 6, 2021

disciple Clint said:
Pulling out a gun is a response to a threat of grievous harm or death.

You think a diner in this situation had no right then, but the protesters did have a right? Since the diner had a weapon trained on the protesters generally.

Trogdor the Burninator · May 6, 2021

So wait....

So often I’m told that people being able to carry guns in the US is a good thing. So why are we now describing the BLM people as “armed protestors” as if that’s a bad thing?

Gregorikos · May 6, 2021

Confused-by-christianity said:
Do you think it might be possible that the diner had a right (under US law / thinking) to pull his weapon and any protester not doing anything wrong had a right to pull their weapons also?

Clarification to all: In Kentucky both diner and protestors were well within their rights to have their guns out. No permit needed.

disciple Clint · May 6, 2021

Trogdor the Burninator said:
So wait....

So often I’m told that people being able to carry guns in the US is a good thing. So why are we now describing the BLM people as “armed protestors” as if that’s a bad thing?

Clue: it is not the gun that cause the problem, it is the person holding the gun. BLM has a well deserved reputation for violence.

Confused-by-christianity · May 6, 2021

Gregorikos said:
Clarification to all: In Kentucky both diner and protestors were well within their rights to have their guns out. No permit needed.

I was wondering about that.

I was assuming that there could be a shootout whereby no one was necessarily breaking the law??

KCfromNC · May 6, 2021

disciple Clint said:
Yes I will support the right to defend oneself from a group of armed people who have a well established reputation for violence.

If I didn't know the context, I'd say this was surprisingly close to BLM's core message.

KCfromNC · May 6, 2021

disciple Clint said:
Yes I will support the right to defend oneself from a group of armed people who have a well established reputation for violence.

disciple Clint said:
Oh so now all white men act exactly the same, what do they call that kind of thinking?

I do appreciate how it is OK to lump all BLM protesters together, but not white men. Wonder what the difference is?

Gregorikos · May 6, 2021

Confused-by-christianity said:
I was wondering about that.

I was assuming that there could be a shootout whereby no one was necessarily breaking the law??

Discharging a weapon in city limits is another matter entirely.

Diner pulls gun on armed BLM protestors

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Ordinary Mystic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Ordinary Mystic

Similar threads