The mob itself is an act of violence. Just the number of people is threatening. In that same town, the very same people did the same thing to another homeowner and the house was torched. It's a terrorist threat of violence that is violent. You didn't answer the question about the KKK outside a black families' house. What about that? Do you think the KKK should be aloud to do that? If they did, and a black man was arrested for showing he had a gun to protect himself? Who would you be defending, the home owner or the KKK?
I didn’t say these people “should be allowed” to do what they did. I don’t defend it. But there was no violence. And he wasn’t arrested for showing a gun. He was arrested for pointing it. And skipping bail.
He wouldn't have been arrested at all if the violent mob hadn't shown up at his house. And they were a violent mob as I told you the very same people that did this torched a home just a few months ago. That's how the mob works. Just show up and escalate a little at a time. Throw a water bottle, then a brick.
Did they have a permit? Was it within permitted hours for a protest? All things you probably should have looked up before you trotted out the mess you have.. And now this guys is a "drunk fugitive"... how libelous of you.
So that says it all. You don't consider that violent, therefore, the KKK in full hooded costumes could dance their hearts out in front of a black families' home by your logic. That's not violence, no. That is just a KKK party.
Well, let's see. "Folks" do and can walk by your house. And anytime any of them create a disturbance, they can be arrested for assaulting the public tranquility. Protesting, a right described in the first amendment, isn't a blanket cure all for disruptive, or otherwise offensive behavior. So, while "folks" can walk past your house, that doesn't give them carte blanc trespassing rights does it? It doesn't given them the right to block said public street does it? In Milwaukee, you have to have a permit to protest or host a protest in this manner. So, there are actually many reasons that their behavior could be considered to be outside of the protected right to protest, all of which have been tested endlessly in the courts as being valid restrictions on how one protests. So even when this isn't "trump's america" groups like this still won't have the blanket permission to engage in this kind of BS regardless of who sits in the White house. If someone, in their own home is armed, it isn't incumbent on the police to arrest a guy who is, gasp, preparing to protect themselves from the mob who may at anytime, exhibit the destructive nature that we've seen demonstrated by other "peaceful" protests that might be a little "fiery" thanks CNN. I will just tell you that the law of WI is pretty clear here. You have a right to defend if you feel threatened. This isn't hard. That the Milwaukee PD arrested the only guy in the equation that didn't actually commit an actual crime is astounding, and if anything, shows that the police weren't interested in protecting his rights. And isn't that something folks like you normally care about? Or does the fact that this was a white homeowner give the mob French like power to attack the land owners and kill them where they stand? It seems you're advocating this. Why?
@bx4 Why you deleted your post I dunno but here is the proof that you asked for in this video showing that the people outside this house are known to be the same people that torched another house earlier.
Police Officers get their orders from higher up the chain, who get their orders from higher up the chain, and so on. So it's really hard to blame the officers who just want to keep their jobs.
I don't drink often, never with a mob, and I would only point with the intent to shoot. That's adorable, and a terrible plan.
Typos. Tried to repost but edit time ran out. I watched quite a bit if the video but could not find anything that identified who burned down the first house or evidence that the same person (or people) were at the second house.
The day drinking neighbor who was so upset that black people moved in next door that he shouted at them, called them the N Word, and threatened them with a chainsaw.
Well he identified the man early in the video who was doxxing people and organizing the mobs but nobody has been charged or identified for the arson as far as I know.
What "actual crimes" were the people outside committing? Keep in mind that we entered this drama in the middle, we have no idea of what led up to the confrontation we saw. In light of that, you seem to be of the opinion that someone inside a house should be able to threaten people outside with near impunity. Do you think the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to just kill passerby indiscriminately?
Where I live recording any calls without both parties prior consent is illegal. Also, might not that make someone reluctant to call 911.