Social Armed Man arrested at Missouri Walmart

[lfd0311]

I have zero issue addressing it and have constantly. it your comprehension that is the issue.

Re-read my multiple posts on 'yelling fire in a theatre'.

Explain if you understand free speech laws? Explain how before the first time this went to court WHAT CRIME WAS COMMITTED? I want you to read that last sentence again and actually write out 'what crime was committed' before it first went to court, and then lastly 'explain how, if no crime was committed' how that is in fact illegal now?

if you won't do that and at least prove you comprehend the topic being discussed don't ask me to answer questions you have then proved you do not understand.

He didn't f**cking yell fire in a theater. So what law did he break? You have yet to actually address that. Pointing out how something else might be illegal doesn't make a legal act illegal. Jesus.

 

[lfd0311]

I can't help you bridge your ignorance.

Free Speech laws meant it was legal to yell fire in a crowded theatre UNTIL IT WASN'T..

Cool, dude, is it legal for him to carry a rifle openly into a store in Missouri? Does it even violate Walmart's store policy? Take a crack at answering either of those questions.

But...But... it wasn't illegal when he first did it, so how are they charging the first guy? Herp Derp, I am stuck on that and cannot understand how today we accept that what was once legal got someone charged'.

This has literally nothing to do with anything. You can't charge someone with something after the fact. Again, you're making shit points. It still, today, is not illegal. You're just losing your mind based off of this hurting your feelings.

It is fact that if you yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre you will almost certainly be charged. If you cannot make the leap to comprehend how that came bout and why you will never be able to comprehend this discussion we are having and you will keep framing your questions in the same ignorant way

Nobody yelled fire in a theater. That has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about, and it's a terrible point to make. As I've said, you don't have an actual point outside of this man did something vaguely similar to something that is against the law and you're mad about that.

 

[thehighking]

What the fuck is wrong with USA how can a culture get so fucked up. It's such a weird country, it's like an English speaking Japan with more racism and violence.
And I know it's the minority but you guys need to do something about these dumbasses. Does the education system need an overhaul? Is the media playing a role in making more people into social retards?
I don't mean this to be offensive to the normal American people here but the country just seems so fucked lately

 

[MikeMcMann]

He didn't f**cking yell fire in a theater. So what law did he break? You have yet to actually address that. Pointing out how something else might be illegal doesn't make a legal act illegal. Jesus.

haha. this is where we end as i cannot make you smarter.

No law was broken when the first guy yelled fire in a theatre either.

You simply do not understand how laws evolve based on circumstance and how simply saying 'but it was not illegal when i did it' is not always the blanket defense you think it is.

to you it is a great conundrum. if there is no law abridging free speech and its legal to yell 'fire' in a theatre... then how can that first person be charged?'

You are absolutely stuck on comprehending that as if it is the biggest logic trap for you. and yet now the law exists.

 

[WarDosAnjos]

Sure you are dude. Such an expert that you ignored the part where this is the internet and he didn't break any laws.

Well why don't you tell me. Was he or was he not charged with a crime? You know more about the law then the prosecutors charging him? Fascinating.

 

[Stoic1]

HI Hockey Brazilian Jui Jitsu,

I'm extremely well versed in the letter of the law. If the debate so whether this man was within his rights I can guarantee you he is at least guilty of reckless endangerment.

 

[lfd0311]

haha. this is where we end as i cannot make you smarter.

No law was broken when the first guy yelled fire in a theatre either.

You simply do not understand how laws evolve based on circumstance and how simply saying 'but it was not illegal when i did it' is not always the blanket defense you think it is.

to you it is a great conundrum. if there is no law abridging free speech and its legal to yell 'fire' in a theatre... then how can that first person be charged?'

You are absolutely stuck on comprehending that as if it is the biggest logic trap for you. and yet now the law exists.

So your argument has literally boiled down to "... well... well.... it will be a crime soon!!"

 

[LMP]

What the argument in court is going to be is that his intent was to cause panic. They will argue that he went to the store knowing that it would upset people. He has dug himself a hole by the web of lies he has been telling. I think the video he was taking will be the biggest indicator of his intent in this case.

 

[WarDosAnjos]

HI Stoic1,

Please refrain from quoting me unless you have something constructive to add to the conversation! Thanks!

God bless,
WDA

 

[Stoic1]

HI Stoic1,

Please refrain from quoting me unless you have something constructive to add to the conversation! Thanks!

God bless,
WDA

Your new gimmick kinda sucks too.

 

[Mcountry]

It does seem like whites are the ones doing this shit

Depends if you remove your blinders or not...

https://www.wbaltv.com/amp/article/police-arrest-man-after-shooting-at-an-officer-baltimore-
county/28710775

Police: Baltimore County man arrested for shooting at police

You should ask him if he's a conservative. I mean I'm surprised he's still alive to ask, considering he is black, was armed...and attempted to kill police officers...

I found a picture of WarDosAnjos...

 

[My Spot]

What the argument in court is going to be is that his intent was to cause panic. They will argue that he went to the store knowing that it would upset people. He has dug himself a hole by the web of lies he has been telling. I think the video he was taking will be the biggest indicator of his intent in this case.

He was a fucking idiot, that's for sure. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea.

 

[MikeMcMann]

So your argument has literally boiled down to "... well... well.... it will be a crime soon!!"

ZNo. I am replying to your wrong headed position with factual history that shows why what you are saying is not accurate.

If you can hide behind "what law was broken" and that is a defense that cannot be penetrated then there is not 'shouting fire" law in existence by your logic.

What the argument in court is going to be is that his intent was to cause panic. They will argue that he went to the store knowing that it would upset people. He has dug himself a hole by the web of lies he has been telling. I think the video he was taking will be the biggest indicator of his intent in this case.

Yup.

This did not happen in a bubble. His mom and wife told him it was wrong to do. They recognized the risk. He sated he wanted to do it anyway as a Social Experiment. Experimenting to determine what?

 

[CauseImbetta]

Here is the argument.

1. Should every one carry or no one carry to be safer.

2. Mental healtheth checks or gun control.

 

[WarDosAnjos]

Your new gimmick kinda sucks too.

I'm a hardcore leftist. I'm an activist in real life and online. I'm fighting for a better world. If that's trolling or organic then okay. One of the things as an adult you will learn in life is that people disagree with you. I sincerely hope that you can learn to better deal with this. I appreciate your feedback and respect you as a human, even though you are incorrect on most issues. Sincerely wda

 

[Stoic1]

I'm a hardcore leftist. I'm an activist in real life and online. I'm fighting for a better world. If that's trolling or organic then okay. One of the things as an adult you will learn in life is that people disagree with you. I sincerely hope that you can learn to better deal with this. I appreciate your feedback and respect you as a human, even though you are incorrect on most issues. Sincerely wda

 

[lfd0311]

ZNo. I am replying to your wrong headed position with factual history that shows why what you are saying is not accurate.

If you can hide behind "what law was broken" and that is a defense that cannot be penetrated then there is not 'shouting fire" law in existence by your logic.

No, you're literally still blathering on about how this dude hurt your feelings and there should be a law against it.

 

[MikeMcMann]

No, you're literally still blathering on about how this dude hurt your feelings and there should be a law against it.

haha, you could have just admitted you were wrong and lost this debate as that reply makes zero sense to what either of us said.

When a person yells 'fire' in a crowded theatre, no harm is done at that moment. It is what happens after (the future) that is what is being dealt with by addressing this type of law. What you call "it might be a crime soon" type of law. And yes those laws DO exist and rightly so unless you will argue there should not be laws against things like yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Didn't know that the Second Amendment protected the right to incite panic, too <Lmaoo>

 

[HockeyBjj]

What the argument in court is going to be is that his intent was to cause panic. They will argue that he went to the store knowing that it would upset people. He has dug himself a hole by the web of lies he has been telling. I think the video he was taking will be the biggest indicator of his intent in this case.

Yup. Fawlty mentioned it first and I think the guy fucked himself with what he was telling family, the phone recording, and even talked to police about.

If he had simply slung an AR on, put on a bullet resistant vest, grabbed some spare mags, and went shopping I think what he did would actually be fully legal. Since his intent was beyond simply having a gun and other stuff to protect himself, he opened a can of worms of what else he could be charged with since it was now beyond simply open carrying.