Unless it can be proven that they were actually pointing/aiming a firearm at an federal agent/official or local police officers there's no violation of the law.
The irony of all of this. Its likely multiple militia members will face charges. Pending trial they will lose the right to carry firearms. If they are convicted, they will be barred from every carrying again.
They didn't get what they wanted(a waco/ruby ridge incident) and now several are likely going to lose their privilege to have guns period. Double fail on their part.
Do they have the right to point the weapon and any person in a threatening manner.Unless it can be proven that they were actually pointing/aiming a firearm at an federal agent/official or local police officers there's no violation of the law.
Unless it can be proven that they were actually pointing/aiming a firearm at an federal agent/official or local police officers there's no violation of the law.
Unless it can be proven that they were actually pointing/aiming a firearm at an federal agent/official or local police officers there's no violation of the law.
Do they have the right to point the weapon and any person in a threatening manner.
There are pictures of people with weapons pointing out through protective shields on roadways.
I think they will have to prove that the people were actually pointing the gun directly (not in the general vicinity) at someone in a threatening manner.
I think they will have to prove that the people were actually pointing the gun directly (not in the general vicinity) at someone in a threatening manner.
Don't think you need crosshair image to prove.
Don't think you need crosshair image to prove.
Ok, who is he pointing the gun at? Or is he looking through his scope to see whats going on?
Also please note that all the photos of him show his finger is not where near the trigger, sorta hard to prove intent.
So would you be cool if instead of federal law enforcement officers he was doing the same thing but pointing at an elementary school? Would you think there no cause for alarm and no charges that should be filed then?
And how do you think the patriots will reach to that, if they amassed a small army in 24 hours over a land-use issue, enough to force the feds to stand down?
They're untouchable. You modern progressives hate it, but get used to it.
You clearly misunderstand what a patriot is. Patriots do not use terroristic threats or use women as human shields. These people were cowards, terrorists, and pieces of shit.And how do you think the patriots will reach to that, if they amassed a small army in 24 hours over a land-use issue, enough to force the feds to stand down?
They're untouchable. You modern progressives hate it, but get used to it.
Here we go with the strawman arguments.
Ok, who is he pointing the gun at? Or is he looking through his scope (change that, looking down the barrel) to see whats going on?
Also please note that all the photos of him show his finger is not where near the trigger, sorta hard to prove intent.
Ok, who is he pointing the gun at? Or is he looking through his scope (change that, looking down the barrel) to see whats going on?
Also please note that all the photos of him show his finger is not where near the trigger, sorta hard to prove intent.
Ok, who is he pointing the gun at? Or is he looking through his scope (change that, looking down the barrel) to see whats going on?
Also please note that all the photos of him show his finger is not where near the trigger, sorta hard to prove intent.
US Taxpayer money at work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XPQs9hE0OQ“Our military sources report that Syrian tank armor is not thick enough to withstand the BGM-71 TOW rockets. To save his tanks, Assad has shifted the brunt of his anti-rebel operation to heavy air force bombardments, which claim a heavy toll among civilians,” Debkafile continued. “Washington is therefore confronted with its next decision about whether to give the rebels sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons as well.”
Everyones pounding on this image is totally expected, sheeples don't understand that humans don't have jaws teeth and claws, they use a more sophisticated tool than a piece of stick to protect them selfs.
And it's always context. Context is everything. This image is a perfect media weapon to take some issue out of context and present it in a totally different sense.
If those BLM Contractors (who were not law enforcement, who were not soldiers, who were CONTRACTORS for a Agency without LAW-ENFORCEMENT powers) would have fired their weapons, he would have backed up the activists, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and the man on the bridge was a reaction, he would have never fired the first shot, if these people were really terrorists they would run around cutting heads and drinking blood, that's what Al-Kaida does, and Al-kaida receives US and NATO ammunition on a weekly basis, some of it is saudi, israeli and the rest of the globalist gang.
I have to say that if I were on the other end of someone doing that I would feel pretty threatened.
This is yet another huge problem with these clowns. They can't even use all the guns they have amassed in a responsible manner.
Assault is not a specific-intent crime - all that is required is that he creates a justified fear in his victim that the victim might be shot.
Nevada Revised Statutes said:(a) Assault means:
(1) Unlawfully attempting to use physical force against another person; or
(2) Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.
It is in Nevada.
This photo qualifies as assault only if he intended for the feds below to be aware that he was pointing a gun in their direction. The next question is whether this whacko had a reasonable belief that the Feds might take unlawful violent action and that he needed to be ready to use the gun for defense of others.
This guy is probably crazy, definitely stupid, and should not be pointing a gun at the officers below, but not all stupid actions are crimes.
It is in Nevada.
This photo qualifies as assault only if he intended for the feds below to be aware that he was pointing a gun in their direction. The next question is whether this whacko had a reasonable belief that the Feds might take unlawful violent action and that he needed to be ready to use the gun for defense of others.
This guy is probably crazy, definitely stupid, and should not be pointing a gun at the officers below, but not all stupid actions are crimes.
Except that since the BLM is a federal agency this would be based on federal definition, not state. And I think in general it is illegal to aim a firearm at a federal officer enacting a legal warrant. Maybe I'm wrong on that though.
(a) In General.— Whoever—
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or
(2) forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service,
shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(b) Enhanced Penalty.— Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
His rifle has no scope, thus eliminating the possibility that he was using the weapon as a visual aid - he was looking down iron sights, presumably at a target. How could iron sights assist him in seeing anything below him for any purpose other than targeting? I would also dispute whether it's fair to say "his finger was nowhere near the trigger," since his right hand was on the rifle's grip, and essentially in a ready-to-fire position. The gun was loaded, though there is no way to be certain whether a round was chambered and, while I am no AK expert, I don't think it's possible to tell from the left side whether the safety was on.
Are you saying you wouldn't find this threatening if you were in his crosshairs? Assault is not a specific-intent crime - all that is required is that he creates a justified fear in his victim that the victim might be shot. If I had been standing in the area below him and saw an AK barrel peeking through the Jersey barriers, I know I would feel threatened.
I agree with your other point, however - it is unclear whether he is pointing the gun at any individual, based on that photo alone. There may well be other evidence related to this but I am not aware of any.