Question regarding second amendment: Can the mere presence of a gun...

[dutch508]

redgreenandblue (2,059 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216062990

Question regarding second amendment: Can the mere presence of a gun be considered a provocation?

I wonder about this, because this seems to be a centerpiece of the Rittenhouse trial.

When the prosecutor asked Kyle Rittenhouse why he didn't speak about the shootings earlier than he did, he got severely chewed out by the judge, who stated that he was violating the defendants right remain silent, i.e. the fifth amendment.

If one applies an equally strict stance to the second amendment, then the mere presence of a gun could surely not be counted as a provocation. It wouldn't even be admissible to ask why someone brought a gun to one place or another. One simply has the right to carry it, end of story. That is leaving questions about the legality of the specific gun in question aside.

Does anyone know how this is normally handled?

 

Downtown Hound (12,558 posts)

1. It really depends on the situation, but as an open ended question, the answer is

most definitely.

In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, we know that he was itching to shoot someone and basically act out his vigilante fantasies. He walked up to a crowd that was already angry all by himself and began brandishing his weapon at them. That is most definitely a provocation, which is why all these Reich wing assholes saying he acted in self defense make me want to scream. If anything, those that attacked him in the crowd were acting in self defense, from someone they very correctly perceived as a threat.

We can only hope the jury can see through the defense's self defense lies.

But it's a big if because the racist judge in the case would not allow any evidence of Kyle's previous statements about how he wanted to shoot some rioters or "we don't do non-lethal" to be admitted into evidence, nor his association with the Proud Boys, or him flashing a white power symbol.

The prosecution is absolutely correct in stating that you can't claim self defense when you are the one who instigated the whole thing. You don't walk up to a hostile crowd and begin threatening them with a firearm and get to claim self defense when they react. Try and imagine if the reverse had happened. What if a liberal walked up to a crowd of Trump supporters or anti-abortion demonstrators and began brandishing an AR-15 at them. Do you think they'd think he acted in self defense if one of those demonstrators charged at him and was shot while doing so?

 

Star Member exboyfil (16,127 posts)

2. I personally think low ready is a provocation

And that is how Rittenhouse and others were carrying their rifles even before there was any evidence of a threat. Apparently the law doesn't see it that way.

This is the problem with using a rifle as a personal defense weapon. A handgun in a holster is less of a provocation (no provocation). A rifle doesn't have a holster, it has an awkward sling along the back to be the equivalent of a holstered pistol. Rifles limit your ability to perform other tasks with your hands. Makes sense if you are in a war zone or are approaching a known armed subject, but otherwise, save it for hunting.

There are far better 2A experts on this board though. I had a discussion with a conservative this week who has been a friend for over 30 years. He doesn't see it this way, but I wonder how he feels if someone was carrying a gun at low ready outside his kid's school or his church.

Tromping around a populated area with a rifle in your hand is stupid.

Star Member PTWB (2,768 posts)

4. No one thinks the mere presence of a gun is provocation.

The issue in this case is that the prosecution is alleging Rittenhouse pointed his gun toward the crowd immediately before the first shooting—provoking the violence and negating any self defense claim.

Star Member unweird (1,166 posts)

6. Uh, I do

First the presence of a gun is never a “mere presence”. And this one here thinks the presence of a gun is a provocation. An assault in fact in that it threatens violence by its very presence, mere or otherwise.

 

hack89 (38,856 posts)

11. Fortunately we rule by laws and not by irrational fear.

this "guns as an evil talisman" attitude is partly why gun control is a smoking wreck in America. It is hard to take people that believe that seriously.

 

Star Member unweird (1,166 posts)

17. Irrational Fear?

Irrational fear is the need for guns as a self-defense mechanism in an environment that is experiencing historically low levels of violent crime. But I digress.

 

hack89 (38,856 posts)

19. Irrational in that you are scared of the wrong thing

illegal concealed carry is a much bigger threat. The people you should really fear are walking around with guns you can't see.

Star Member unweird (1,166 posts)

27. Let's leave the scared description out

I never said I was scared. I am of the opinion though that there is a threat posed by those who declare their need to open carry in public settings. I think we all understand and most agree with prohibitions on open carry in many public venues because of the unnecessary threat they pose. For those who insist on open carry elsewhere I am at a loss to understand why.

Star Member Hoyt (51,206 posts)

7. Some ignorant gun-toter walking around with a pistol on his hip is definitely a provocation.

Hope this trial helps in that respect.

 

The Magistrate (91,829 posts)

26. My First Thought On Seeing An Armed Man, Sir

Is whether it will be necessary to take steps to disarm him.

I consider anyone bearing a firearm in public to be a bit off in the head, and a potential danger. I do make an exception for uniformed officers.

I do not regard this as unreasonable.

 

 

spin (17,487 posts)

37. If I am legally open carrying a handgun in a holster on my side ...

you best not try to physically disarm me. What do you think would happen if your tried to physically disarm a cop?

The Magistrate (91,829 posts)

39. What A Fun Little Bit To Wake Up To In The Morning, Dear

You just go on swaggering about with that big iron you gotta have on your hip to face this big bad world....

 

Star Member Devil Child (2,569 posts)

20. Are you describing grosskreutz?

Grosskreutz had the illegally concealed handgun and Rittenhouse had the legally carried rifle. Mutual provocation then?

Asking because you mentioned trial, which I'm assuming is Rittenhouse's trial.

Star Member Hoyt (51,206 posts)

22. Grosskreutz was wrong to carry a gun and makes me question whether he was there as a

volunteer "medic" or something else. Doesn't mean he should have been shot, but he too sounded like someone looking for trouble.

Girard442 (5,296 posts)

15. Thanks to right-wing court decisions and legislation, it is now LEGAL, in many states, to show up at a crowded playground armed to the teeth with what were once considered weapons of war, ready to dispense mass death in an instant with a twitch of a finger.

Legal yes. Batshit crazy? That too.

 

[67 Rover]

The Magistrate (91,829 posts)

26. My First Thought On Seeing An Armed Man, Sir

Is whether it will be necessary to take steps to disarm him.

I consider anyone bearing a firearm in public to be a bit off in the head, and a potential danger. I do make an exception for uniformed officers.

I do not regard this as unreasonable.

OFFS! What a dumb motherfu#er 

[ADsOutburst]

Evidence that Rittenhouse pointed the gun at anyone prior to being chased is at best, I s y again, at lbest sketchy. At worst, it's just false. And if they believed it so strongly, the state could have charged him with brandishing.

[dandi]

The courts have already ruled that the mere possession of a firearm, when legally carried and absent other suspicious activity, does not provide cause for detention and questioning by police.

If that restriction is good enough for LEOs, it should also preclude some dimwit paranoid Lefty from being able to accost and threaten someone exercising their 2A rights.

[SVPete]

redgreenandblue (2,059 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216062990

Question regarding second amendment: Can the mere presence of a gun be considered a provocation?

The 2nd Amendment trumps Federal & state law and county & city ordinances. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

[jukin]

The Magistrate (91,829 posts)

26. My First Thought On Seeing An Armed Man, Sir

Is whether it will be necessary to take steps to disarm him.

I consider anyone bearing a firearm in public to be a bit off in the head, and a potential danger. I do make an exception for uniformed officers.

I do not regard this as unreasonable.

We have a true leftist internet keyboard kommando bad ass here.

[SVPete]

The Magistrate (91,829 posts)

26. My First Thought On Seeing An Armed Man, Sir

Is whether it will be necessary to take steps to disarm him.

I consider anyone bearing a firearm in public to be a bit off in the head, and a potential danger. I do make an exception for uniformed officers.

I do not regard this as unreasonable.

Rosenbaum tried to disarm Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse knew what he intended to do, if successful.

[thundley4]

The Magistrate (91,829 posts)

26. My First Thought On Seeing An Armed Man, Sir

Is whether it will be necessary to take steps to disarm him.

I consider anyone bearing a firearm in public to be a bit off in the head, and a potential danger. I do make an exception for uniformed officers.

I do not regard this as unreasonable.

If I saw you attacking and trying to disarm a person who was lawfully carrying a weapon, I would assume you had unlawful intentions and were an imminent threat to public safety and my own. I would try my best using whatever available to stop you in any way possible.

[Ralph Wiggum]

If I saw you attacking and trying to disarm a person who was lawfully carrying a weapon, I would assume you had unlawful intentions and were an imminent threat to public safety and my own. I would try my best using whatever available to stop you in any way possible.

What a warped and perturbed view of society by the Magistrate, Sir:

The Magistrate (91,829 posts)

26. My First Thought On Seeing An Armed Man, Sir

Is whether it will be necessary to take steps to disarm him.

I consider anyone bearing a firearm in public to be a bit off in the head, and a potential danger. I do make an exception for uniformed officers.

I do not regard this as unreasonable

When I happen to notice someone carrying, I feel safer.  It goes without saying, but liberals are bat guano crazy.

[SVPete]

My response to seeing someone carrying would vary considerably, depending on circumstances. Sometimes I'd ask if (s)he got anything. Sometimes I'd be curious what brand/model/type they're carrying. Sometimes I'd merely be glad they're there. On the odd instance the "open carrier" came charging into a bank, I'd be hoping for a well practiced armed guard or concealed carrier.

[Mr Mannn]

Question regarding second amendment: Can the mere presence of a gun be considered a provocation?

This is a DUmmy looking to justify preemptive violence.
The best way to prevent getting shot is not to riot.
go ahead and protest. March, chant slogans, carry signs.

But if you burn things, assault people, loot, attack cops, your chances of getting shot move substantially higher.
IOW, Don't start sh-t.

[FlaGator]

I feel the presence of a gun is more likely a deterrent than a provocation. At least for the sane.

[ADsOutburst]

I feel the presence of a gun is more likely a deterrent than a provocation. At least for the sane.

I feel like the property destruction and beatings are more of a provocation than the gun.

[Muddling 2]

I feel like the property destruction and beatings are more of a provocation than the gun.

Let's not forget the child rape committed by Rosenbaum and the sexual assault committed by Jacob Blake.

[landofconfusion80]

Let's not forget the child rape committed by Rosenbaum and the sexual assault committed by Jacob Blake.

But those are totally cool if you're a leftie. See the rape coverups at OWS for other examples