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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Mangione is so last week buddy. We’ve moved on. He’s old news
He was defending the entire country
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
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.
Pre-existing condition, I’m thinking.
The body has a way of shutting down illegitimate bullets.
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.
Tonight at 11: Is being rich bad for your health? 99% of the population seem to think so, and it’s not why you think!
No, he didn’t. We were having breakfast that morning, when it’s alleged he killed a mass murderer.
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.
Never forget: AC AB
You can put them next to each other. We’re not on Reddit
Can we use an animal where that’s actually true? Crabs are very much intersexual, which isn’t quite the same thing as bisexual.
Sure; which animal starts with a “c” that fits?
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.
I wouldn’t say premeditated as it was in the heat of the moment, but intentional as hell and not self defense at all
Premeditated has a specific legal definition. He went back to his truck and came back with a gun. I would find it a hard sell to say that wasn’t premeditated if I was on a jury.
I think premeditated in the legal sense means planned. So they would probably have to prove he intentionally went to the protest vs happened to be going that way. And they would probably have to prove he doesn’t drive around with that weapon all the time. But I am not a lawyer.
They just have to prove that he intentionally went back to his vehicle and then intentionally left it again to confront the people with the firearm.
If he’d run back to his vehicle and then tried to leave the area while waving his gun, that wouldn’t be premeditated.
But that’s not what he did. He intentionally escalated the situation while not being threatened.
While I was inclined to disagree, this legal thingy seems to support that. https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/Iefa67921e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?originationContext=document&transitionType=StatuteNavigator&needToInjectTerms=False&viewType=FullText&contextData=(sc.Default)
What matters is he should be held accountable. I think we agree on that
He drove there with an assault rifle.
While I get what you’re implying, if he can legally carry it, that means nothing. Going to get it and returning, that’s the real issue
If you can leave the situation safely - like being able to go back to your truck - it’s not self defense.
Exactly. It’s obvious who the cops were siding with here.
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.
Only if you’re white and conservative.
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.
yup. as soon as he grabbed the gun and went back to threaten people with it… he committed the felony.
Louder. For the people in the back.
Fat fuck wants to be another Rittenhouse
Vyle Shitsinhouse.
Remember when Rittenhouse got away with it 😆
This whole post is filled with people squeaking about what the rules are. Like what the fuck
Tell that to the police…
They are too busy
fabricating…planting… finding the evidence they need to arrest some protestors.
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.
But what about pre-emptive self defense? That’s a thing, right?
You don’t understand, your honor, I know I was gonna say something that would make them threaten my life! I had to start shooting.
It’ll get you on a talk show circuit
Why does it feel like he was a failed attempt at inciting violence in protests to make them look unreasonable?
An Agent Provocateur.
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.
He fucked around and found out most of them were exceedingly reasonable, except the one that busted his face 😊
Looks like he slipped
Well I mean it was a reasonable breakage of said face, since y’know… Nazi… but your point is valid
It shocks me every time again, seeing how casually people carry guns in the US
deleted by creator
Texas?
Texas still has license to carry, with distinctions for where/when you can open/concealed carry… but that was from 2016/2017. The gentry probably isn’t talking about texas.
deleted by creator
It’s for self defense. It says so right there in the article!
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.
Who fucking cares
What would you call it?
A rifle
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?
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.
What was the actual model of rifle that this article discusses?
Nobody knows. The police didn’t say. There are no photos close enough to identify it.
So how do you know it wasn’t literally an assault rifle?
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.
they do it to intentionally derail the conversation. Fuck them.
It was a rifle, used for an assault, ergo, an assault rifle.
“…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?
deleted by creator
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.
The shape of things to come.
Wonder if the boots taste different in Indiana…
Less like cow leather. More like cow shit.
the boot type is also accurate, this is well done
If the game is about driving around with a gun, provoking people into hitting you, and then going back and getting your gun to kill them, it would be very easy to go around deleting Trump supporters. You know, if not for the police / government being on their side.
That dude could’ve stayed in his truck and waited for people to walk by. Instead he ended up bloody and teary-eyed. And he’s the one with the fucking assault rifle.
Bullies aren’t used to people hitting back. They’re so scared of losing face they’d rather carry a gun and possibly kill someone to prove what a badass they are.
ACAB.
Inserts himself into a situation he wasn’t invited to, or welcome at, instigates people for the purpose of “justified” retaliation- whips out his loaded lib-killer , and is summarily released by law enforcement.
I’d say those folks dun’ got Rittenhoused!
I agree with you. That’s not how “self-defense works”. If the snowflake geot hit, walks away from the situation, gets armed, and returns to attack the person that attacked such a fragile sheep, this is not self-defense, it’s retaliation.
The sheep crybaby and whoever proclaimed this as self-defense are just a bunch of puppets.
That’s most likely why the police changed the order of events around:
“During the event, an adult male driver attempted to make a lawful turn at the intersection of Third Street andColumbia Street when his path was obstructed by protesters standing in the roadway. A verbal altercationensued between the driver and protesters,” the release said. "The situation escalated when the driver exited his vehicle and was subsequently pushed and battered by individuals in the crowd. The driver then retrieved a firearm from his vehicle in what he described as an act of self-defense.
“He did not discharge the weapon and promptly returned it to his truck. Shortly after, a male protester approachedthe driver and head-butted him, causing injury,” police said.
Even though multiple protesters described it otherwise. ACAB.
Edit: punctuationification
There’s also video of the events that clearly shows the police statement is fucked.
We know what side the cops are on.
If someone had done that to protesters at a Drag Queen Story Hour or something, the cops would have slaughtered them.
It’s not a lawful turn if there is a pedestrian in the path of the vehicle.
There was an altercation and then he retreated and came back with a firearm. That’s not self defense, that’s brandishing.
I can understand the police not making that determination at the time, their goal should be to de-escalate and separate the conflicting parties, but they should send someone round to pick this guy up and book him for the felony he committed afterwards.
He will shoot next time. Like a not so smart missile they just aimed him at decent human beings.
