Could it happen here? (In the USA)

Post Reply New Topic

I agree with you. Trump would be nowhere without the people who cheer on everything he says and does.

Serious Republicans are concerned about this. Link

All the way at the bottom of the story, they mention a Sheriff who tweeted a call for torches and pitchforks, so be aware of the political leanings of your local law enforcement. You don't have to look far to find lots of information on them breaking the law. Several Orange County guards have taken the fifth in a recent case, explicitly to avoid self-incrimination, and the department has kept them on the job without any internal investigation. The case itself involves official misconduct in the prosecutor's office involving jailhouse snitches which would have been impossible without help inside the jail.

Long digression, but people on both sides of the political divide see situations where they believe that LEOs have murdered people over politics. You'll have to evaluate your individual officials and departments on a case by case basis and figure out if you can expect them to protect or violate your civil rights. It's not a given.

I also want to explicitly discourage people on the left from doing anything to escalate violence if it does happen. We should protect the news broadcasters using citizen media, take a few knocks if necessary in the defense of democracy, and let our ideas win. If the Republican leadership continues to encourage the dangerous idea that the media have rigged the election, then local broadcasters will be a fairly obvious target for the Trump supporters quoted in the article.

Armed Trump supporter exercises his legal right to be awful.

If they keep this up, someone will make a mistake, even if no one does anything deliberately.

People have the right to bear arms, but not to intimidate others.

What did the person in question do that would constitute "intimidation"? Just being a dick while openly armed doesn't cut it, you need to put your hand on the gun or threaten to use it in order to meet the legal threshold. Slung rifles have their own etiquette, across the back is making a point, low ready is threatening.

If someone who I know hates me is standing outside where I either work, live, shop, or whatever, and is sporting a firearm, I certainly would consider that to be intimidation. Maybe you wouldn't, but that just shows people have a different take on what constitutes intimidation. Just the same, I'm pretty certain that grade A-hole with the gun was at the very least hoping to make the people in the Democratic office uncomfortable.

So, Dox, you wouldn't feel intimidated. Nor would I. The people there did feel intimidated.

I guess they would have persecuted anyone who didn't bring a gun to a peaceful protest?

The Trump rhetoric (and maybe his refusal to concede in future) may encourage the crazy fringe to make terrorist attacks on groups they don't like.

The above thought came very much to mind as I was reading this unpleasant news item:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/mo ... index.html

There has been a claim that the three terrorists were Trump supporters:

On October 2, Stein posted an appeal on his FaceBook group’s page, requesting volunteers for security details which he planned to run at the Trump presidential rallies taking place in late October in Ohio and Pennsylvania. (from KOS website).

I am not saying that "all Trump supporters are terrorists" so don't go there with strawmans please. I am referring to a crazy fringe, and the dangers they pose.

Take the gun out of the equation. Imagine a big burly dude with a bunch of swastika tattoos was lurking outside of a synagogue glaring at people; should that be illegal? I'm sure some people would be very intimidated in that situation, but I'd be very hesitant to make that illegal. Also, what you're describing may very well fall under stalking laws if someone is actually following you around specifically or hanging around your home or workplace, and is better handled through that legal avenue.



As do protestors picketing a business. For all we know, the gun was completely incidental, as open carry is legal, and sometimes it's more convenient than wearing extra layers on a hot day. I think a lot of non-gun people completely miss the practical aspect of open carry, as it's often less of a statement than a clothing choice.

I'm not sure I get your point. Carrying a gun at a protest is usually about identifying yourself as a gun owner and humanizing the demographic, as so many liberals view us as backwoods dwelling cretins, as opposed to people you live and work with.

This May article is sounding increasingly percipient to me:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinio ... story.html

That humanizing thing might have worked better if he wasn't the only one at the protest, until his friend came out to join him, and if he had been doing something other than staring into the office. It's not so much humanizing as creepy, but maybe that's just me.

I'm speaking generally, I don't know much about this guy and his motives.

The links are in color now. I chose a very balanced story.

I sincerely doubt the gun was just incidental.
As for a burly guy with Nazi tattoos outside a Jewish house of worship - with Antisemitic violence having been on record, I'd have no doubt that the police would have asked that man to move along.

How about a skinny, unmarked guy? Does the first guy's muscle mass and choice in tattoos mean he should be discriminated against by the police?