Summary

At a Lafayette, Indiana anti-Trump rally Saturday, a man pulled an assault-style rifle after clashing with protesters who blocked his truck at a Third Street intersection.

Video shows the man in a MAGA hat yelling at protesters, prompting another man—angered by the confrontation with women—to intervene.

The two exchanged shouts before the protester headbutted the man. He returned to his truck, retrieved a rifle, and reentered the crowd.

Police detained but released him, citing self-defense. The “Hands Off!” rally drew nearly 1,000 people and ended early amid safety concerns.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    019 days ago

    I mean lots of people open carry. Hopefully we don’t get to this point, but if someone threatens someone else with firearm, lots of localities justify lethal force at that point (one must always assume a firearm is loaded)

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    019 days ago

    This is what we’re up against.

    I’ll be damned if I let these people continue to run our country

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      019 days ago

      there’s video, no one was doing anything to him. he got out of his SUV, started yelling at people, returned to the vehicle, got back out with the weapon at his side. self defense would have been (a) for literally anyone to have threatened him and (b) for him to simply leave the scene.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    019 days ago

    Why does it feel like he was a failed attempt at inciting violence in protests to make them look unreasonable?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      019 days ago

      He fucked around and found out most of them were exceedingly reasonable, except the one that busted his face 😊

    • IninewCrow
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      Judging by the US rhetoric over the past few years … protestors of any side for any political movement, whether left or right, legitimate or not, moral or immoral … are figuring out that you need a gun to stand your ground.

      It would be easy to destabilize any protest by just drawing a gun … then someone else answers the challenge and pulls their own gun … then more people join in … next you have a Mexican stand off… and given enough occurrences you now have a fire fight.

      It’s so volatile because of the freedom to own guns.

      It’s like watching a group of people fighting with torches next to an open pool of gasoline.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    019 days ago

    If you can leave the situation safely - like being able to go back to your truck - it’s not self defense.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      019 days ago

      yup. as soon as he grabbed the gun and went back to threaten people with it… he committed the felony.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      0
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      Doesn’t matter. They even determined that planning to get yourself in an unsafe situation with the purpose of shooting protesters, travelling across states with a gun to again very intentionally get yourself in a situation where you’d need to use it, is still self defense. Even when you shoot someone without actually being in danger, it becomes self defense when other people are trying to stop you. All of this, as long as your victims are protesting against right-wing policies, has been determined in court to be self defense.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        019 days ago

        I wonder if I could legally defend myself in this manner at one of the neo nazi rallies in Springfield or Charlottesville? Somehow I doubt the police would characterize it the same way.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      Self-defense isn’t going back to your vehicle to get a weapon to come back and terrorize people. That’s assault.

      If he had returned with his weapon, and someone killed him, THAT would be self-defense.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    019 days ago

    How does going back to your vehicle and retrieving a n assault rifle count as self defense? That’s premeditated at that point if he were to use it.

    The difference between this, and any other mass shooting is just whether this guy decided to pull the trigger, which he obviously wanted too.

  • guldukat
    link
    fedilink
    019 days ago

    Of course. If he was black the story would be different

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    019 days ago

    What an actual POS, but do we really expect anything else from a Trump supporter. Clear as day he should not have been released citing any self-defence. Anyone who argues against this fact shows they should not even own a gun. US is going US though, not even dead kids can separate them from their guns.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    019 days ago

    So Indiana is a “stand your ground” state. That generally removes any duty to retreat. I’d be curious how they rule when he clearly retreated to his vehicle already, and only then retrieved a weapon, brandished it, and reentered a crowd. If they allow self defense, how far is someone allowed to retreat in order to retrieve a weapon and re-engage? Can I go all the way back to my house and get a gun to defend myself?

    Of course this will only be litigated if the public can pressure the prosecutor to press charges. If not it’ll be easy for the cops to disproportionately apply that defense to like minded miscreants.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      019 days ago

      It removes your duty to retreat if you are in a life-threatening situation, whether on private or public property. It essentially extends the castle doctrine to include your personal space at all times.

      If after being headbutted, he pulled a CCW, or even had the AR on his person, I think he could make a reasonable claim of self defense. If the protestor followed him back to his truck, he could make a claim of self defense, but if you have the time and security to go back to your truck, get your gun, and the return to confront someone, I think you’ve gone outside the realm of being in a life-threatening situation, and therefore self-defense no longer applies.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        019 days ago

        And I’d agree with that. But if it’s not settled in court, cops are allowed to pick and choose how they apply that.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    019 days ago

    The source loses my respect for calling it an “assault rifle” when it almost certainly was not. This summary (which I assume was written by MicroWave) calls it an “assault-style rifle”, which has no meaning at all.

    This is not an assault rifle, and not fully automatic. If it was, the gun’s existence would have been almost certainly illegal.

    Words have meaning. The meaning in this case is important. Use your words.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      019 days ago

      At this point it’s difficult to take this critique seriously when right wing gun nuts use arguing over minutiae like this to prevent any kind of constructive discussion whatsoever.

      Yes, there is a technical definition of an “assault rifle”. It’s also a shorthand that regular people not familiar with firearms use to mean “gun that looks like something the military carries” or something approaching that. It’s not even relevant here. We do not need to break up every single discussion involving firearms with arguments over meaningless definitions.

    • Em Adespoton
      link
      fedilink
      019 days ago

      “…which has no meaning at all.”

      OK. So I go to a donut shop, and ask for a Boston Creme. The clerk pulls out a donut and gives it to me, I pay him and say thank you and am on my way.

      Next, I go to a donut shop, and ask for a Boston Creme. The clerk pulls out an assault-style rifle, waves it around, I pay him and say thank you and am on my way.

      Yeah, words have meaning. What part of returning to his vehicle, pulling out a firearm and threatening the protesters with it did you fail to attach meaning to?

      He threatened assault with a rifle. The fact that we don’t know if the firearm was legally classified as an assault rifle, in any sane location on earth, would be immaterial.

      Or are you worried that he may be confused with someone who could have got a few more shots off into the crowd before being disarmed or killed, due to their faster firing firearm with rifled barrel?

        • Noxy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          018 days ago

          why not just say “a gun” then? why attempt any amount of specificity that folks who aren’t firearm nerds might still possibly understand to any extent?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            018 days ago

            The article says “gun” seven times. It’s accurate and gets the point across about his crime, unlike “assault rifle”, which falsely states that he had an illegal type if gun.

            “Rifle” is a word that everyone knows is a type of gun. Even if not everyone knows the specifics, news people should at least look up the word before using it if they don’t know. It’s wrong for news people to use falsely the phrase “assault rifle” because of their ignorance.

            • Noxy
              link
              fedilink
              English
              018 days ago

              What was the actual model of rifle that this article discusses?

                • Noxy
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  017 days ago

                  So how do you know it wasn’t literally an assault rifle?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        019 days ago

        He wasn’t. Because he didn’t kill that CEO. My man’s innocent.

        Whoever did happen to off that CEO certainly did everyone a favor tho

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          019 days ago

          as far as i am concerned Thompson’s body just did that weird bullet thing 3 times in a row. Seems to be a latent condition in most billionaires.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            018 days ago

            Pre-existing condition, I’m thinking.

            The body has a way of shutting down illegitimate bullets.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              018 days ago

              He died of acute lead poisoning. He was born in a leaded house with leaded gasoline on the farm. The bullets didn’t do anything.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      018 days ago

      No, he didn’t. We were having breakfast that morning, when it’s alleged he killed a mass murderer.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        018 days ago

        And right after that, he was with me playing video games and chilling. We played some classic games that he was too young to enjoy first game. He enjoyed it. I then made him a nice spaghetti lunch.