Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
What people could do with anger about the Rittenhouse trial is advocate for a law that says that if you bring a weapon to a public place where you know violence is basically guaranteed, you lose any self defense grounds
It probably wouldn’t be, but a free for all where people show up armed and shoot each other in self defense doesn’t sound ideal. I don’t know the answer but what we have isn’t ithttps://twitter.com/ChipGibbons89/status/1458596628227674118 …
Define "weapon" and define "public place where you know violence is basically guaranteed"
a weapon is a tool designed to harm humans broader: a tool suited to harm humans
how can you prove that violence “is basically guaranteed”?
especially when scenarios that *everyone* knew were violent and out of control were called 'mostly peaceful protests' by members of the media
What on earth are you talking about today man
the counterargument is that if you're going somewhere where violence can be reasonably expected, it's reasonable that you would want to be able to defend yourself from violence
also, such a provision is almost certainly ripe for unequal application (like an inverse stand your ground)
My friend was involved with an incident in Texas (a decade ago) where he was arrested for carrying a protest sign. They said it was a weapon. It was tag and release... but still. My point is that what would prevent the law/police from going in that direction?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
