587
If you can leave the situation safely - like being able to go back to your truck - it’s not self defense.
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.
Tell that to the police...
They are too busy ~~fabricating~~... ~~planting~~... finding the evidence they need to arrest some protestors.
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.
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.
Exactly. It's obvious who the cops were siding with here.
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
Self-defense requires there to be an ongoing threat to your or someone else's immediate safety. If he was able to leave the altercation, head to his truck to retrieve his rifle, and then return to the situation that's not self-defense, its premeditation.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Why does it feel like he was a failed attempt at inciting violence in protests to make them look unreasonable?
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
An Agent Provocateur.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I bet if someone drew a concealed pistol on him after he pulled out his rifle the cops would NOT consider it self defense.
ACAB.
Mr. Mangione was defending himself. Case Dismissed.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
ACAB.
Self defense would be a headbutt back or fists, not the AmRepublican-14.
there's video, no one was doing anything to him. he got out of his SUV, started yelling at people, returned to the vehicle, got back out with the weapon at his side. self defense would have been (a) for literally anyone to have threatened him and (b) for him to simply leave the scene.
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This is what we're up against.
I'll be damned if I let these people continue to run our country
It shocks me every time again, seeing how casually people carry guns in the US
It's for self defense. It says so right there in the article!
The shape of things to come.
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.
He will shoot next time. Like a not so smart missile they just aimed him at decent human beings.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Of course. If he was black the story would be different
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.
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.
Youre trying to change the subject. 🤡
Who fucking cares
“…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?
load more comments
(9 replies)
I mean lots of people open carry. Hopefully we don’t get to this point, but if someone threatens someone else with firearm, lots of localities justify lethal force at that point (one must always assume a firearm is loaded)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
587 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23010 readers
3178 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS