Jamar Clark Protests: 5 Shot Near Black Lives Matter Encampment

[Nice Squirrel]

I am using the term in the actual post. I don't know the complete story. Neither do you.

Watch the video. They used force against them, then chased them. If that video is accurate the conditions for self defense were fulfilled, it's a justified shoot.

No it isn't, this isn't fucking Florida. Also, unless they had conceal and carry permits, they are in violation of our gun laws. Thirdly, if they were planning on disrupting the protests they are guilty of conspiracy to commit mayhem.

 

[Metaphor]

Watch the video. They used force against them, then chased them. If that video is accurate the conditions for self defense were fulfilled, it's a justified shoot.

No it isn't, this isn't fucking Florida. Also, unless they had conceal and carry permits, they are in violation of our gun laws. Thirdly, if they were planning on disrupting the protests they are guilty of conspiracy to commit mayhem.

So protesting is okay but counter-protesting isn't?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No it isn't, this isn't fucking Florida. Also, unless they had conceal and carry permits, they are in violation of our gun laws. Thirdly, if they were planning on disrupting the protests they are guilty of conspiracy to commit mayhem.

So protesting is okay but counter-protesting isn't?

Counter-protest should come in the form of speech, picketing, or other forms of communication, e.g. "PROTESTING."

Disrupting a protest through the use of violence or threatening physical harm against protestors in order to illicit an overreaction? Possible incitement to riot.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Escorting them away comes awfully close to kidnapping--and you're allowed to shoot a kidnapper.

Tell me more about how citizens are allowed to shoot security guards who attempt to force them to leave a place they are not supposed to be.

You don't "avoid trouble" by kidnapping people.

Of course you do. The police do it all the time. It's called "arrest," and is essentially kidnapping with the sanction of the state.

But then you're kind of right about that... state-sanctioned kidnappings DO cause an awful lot of trouble these days.

 

[Metaphor]

Counter-protest should come in the form of speech, picketing, or other forms of communication, e.g. "PROTESTING."

A counter-protest can come in any flavour you want. It's called free speech.

Disrupting a protest through the use of violence or threatening physical harm against protestors

Where in the video is that implied? The people filming said 'take off your masks' before they were set upon, not that they started 'threatening physical harm'.

n order to illicit an overreaction? Possible incitement to riot.

By this reasoning, if I held hands with a guy in front of homophobic protesters and they riot, I'm guilty of 'incitement to riot'. Fuck that.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Forcing relocation is kidnapping. Questioning people in masks so that they feel uncomfortable and leave, following them with questions, isn't kidnapping. It can be scary under certain circumstances, but it's not kidnapping.

Hitting them and then escorting them away is kidnapping--they're being moved under the implicit threat of force.

Please stop being an idiot.

609.25 KIDNAPPING.
§Subdivision 1.Acts constituting. Whoever, for any of the following purposes, confines or removes from one place to another, any person without the person's consent or, if the person is under the age of 16 years, without the consent of the person's parents or other legal custodian, is guilty of kidnapping and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2:
(1) to hold for ransom or reward for release, or as shield or hostage; or
(2) to facilitate commission of any felony or flight thereafter; or
(3) to commit great bodily harm or to terrorize the victim or another; or
(4) to hold in involuntary servitude.
Subd. 2.Sentence. Whoever violates subdivision 1 may be sentenced as follows:
(1) if the victim is released in a safe place without great bodily harm, to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $35,000, or both; or
(2) if the victim is not released in a safe place, or if the victim suffers great bodily harm during the course of the kidnapping, or if the person kidnapped is under the age of 16, to imprisonment for not more than 40 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $50,000, or both.

Emphasis mine.

The Protestors had no intention to hold these assholes for ransom. They had no intention to commit a felony or use them as hostages in their escape. They had no intention to commit bodily harm to them or terrorize them or anyone else. They had no intention to hold them in involuntary servitude.

So it's not a kidnapping. It's not even NEARLY a kidnapping. It may be a false arrest or a violation of your civil rights if someone forces you to move out of an area you have a right to be, but that doesn't justify shooting them. As it happens, kidnapping doesn't either.

And you are dangerously close to introducing a premise that just about anything done by black people is a reasonable justification for violence against them; you can't actually fall back on the "law enforcement must be obeyed" excuse because the shooters in this case weren't even cops.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A counter-protest can come in any flavour you want. It's called free speech.

And speech, again, takes the form of communications of some kind. Deliberately inciting people to riot -- or taking actions that cause distress or discomfort to protestors -- isn't protected speech.

Disrupting a protest through the use of violence or threatening physical harm against protestors in order to illicit an overreaction? Possible incitement to riot.

By this reasoning, if I held hands with a guy in front of homophobic protesters and they riot, I'm guilty of 'incitement to riot'.

Probably not. But if you showed up in a hot pink kimono with your boyfriend on a leash and tongue kissed him in front of a Westboro Baptist protest you would DEFINITELY be inciting to riot. Not that I wouldn't respect you for it, not that it wouldn't be fucking AWESOME, but it's generally assumed that you knew good and damn well what would happen at that point.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/ulGdqcez2JM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Nexus]

Of course you do. The police do it all the time. It's called "arrest," and is essentially kidnapping with the sanction of the state.

No its not essentially the same. A fundamental definition of government is monopoly on the proactive use of force. Citizens can only use force in self-defense. Or sometimes detainment on their private property until government law enforcement arrives. Bounty hunters are quasi-agents of the government and a legal left over from the wild west which is why they can take the fight to someone and detain them.

Private citizens threatening violence or detainment on public property against persons are committing assault or kidnapping unless those persons are violently attacking someone then we're back to self-defense.

 

[Nexus]

Deliberately inciting people to riot -- or taking actions that cause distress or discomfort to protestors -- isn't protected speech.

Causing discomfot to protesters isn't incitement to riot and it is proteced speech as Westboro has shown with their extreme discomfort tactics.

Probably not. But if you showed up in a hot pink kimono with your boyfriend on a leash and tongue kissed him in front of a Westboro Baptist protest you would DEFINITELY be inciting to riot.

This most definitely would not be inciting a riot. No one has a right to riot over public gay affection even Westboro loons. They would never riot anyway because their MO was to antagonize people to attack them then sue. They were basically real life trolls.

 

[Metaphor]

And speech, again, takes the form of communications of some kind. Deliberately inciting people to riot -- or taking actions that cause distress or discomfort to protestors -- isn't protected speech.

Actions are communications. In any case, the protesters claim the counter-protesters said 'take off your masks' -- is that not communication?

[
Probably not. But if you showed up in a hot pink kimono with your boyfriend on a leash and tongue kissed him in front of a Westboro Baptist protest you would DEFINITELY be inciting to riot. Not that I wouldn't respect you for it, not that it wouldn't be fucking AWESOME, but it's generally assumed that you knew good and damn well what would happen at that point.

Well, the fuck that. The fact that I could be charged for the violence that homophobes inflict is literally blaming the victim. And it's fucking homophobic, too. It means that heterosexual people have more rights than non-heterosexual people, because non-heterosexual people are never incited to violence by what heteros do.

Seriously. FUCK THAT. The whole 'incitement to violence' nonsense must end. If you fucking hit someone who was not physically threatening you, YOU AND YOU ALONE ARE TO BLAME.

"Incitement to violence". FUCK THAT.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Of course you do. The police do it all the time. It's called "arrest," and is essentially kidnapping with the sanction of the state.

No its not essentially the same. A fundamental definition of government is monopoly on the proactive use of force...

I know all of that. I'm saying the only difference between a kidnapping and an arrest is that one is performed with the government's blessing and the other, isn't. Thus it is sometimes a situational distinction, as police officers have, at times, kidnapped people in order to coerce confessions or cooperation in investigations. This is sometimes called "false arrest" if the pretense of a legal detainment is used in a situation where an officer clearly exceeds his authority.

And then there's whackjobs like John Burges...

Causing discomfot to protesters isn't incitement to riot and it is proteced speech as Westboro has shown with their extreme discomfort tactics.

And yet the Westboro Baptists have been slapped with various court orders and legal restrictions for precisely this reason. A number of judges feel their tactics cross the line beyond protected speech and wander into the territory of "agitation" which is not justifiable.

This for an organization that actually DOES act primarily through protests. Imagine if they showed up at a gay pride rally with a guy in a pink t-shirt chained up bleeding to the hood of a car, screaming for help.

This most definitely would not be inciting a riot. No one has a right to riot over public gay affection even Westboro loons. They would never riot anyway because their MO was to antagonize people to attack them then sue. They were basically real life trolls.

Granted, they probably wouldn't take the bait. Point is, incitement doesn't imply the rioters have a "right" to do anything. The person who incites the right is guilty of triggering the disturbance and the riots are guilty of participating in it.

 

[Metaphor]

Granted, they probably wouldn't take the bait. Point is, incitement doesn't imply the rioters have a "right" to do anything. The person who incites the right is guilty of triggering the disturbance and the riots are guilty of participating in it.

It's not about anyone's right to riot; it's that such a ridiculous law gives power to the most unreasonable, the most easily offended, the most violent, and it leaves the most vulnerable open to criminal charges because other sections of society hate them.

In your scenario, doing something 'over the top' gay in front of known homophobes is incitement to riot, but doing something 'over the top' hetero at a gay pride parade isn't -- because gays aren't incited to violence by heterosexual displays.

So, do you support that the most easily triggered over nothing extremists should have the censorship power? And it's a real power: imagine the fact that the State could fucking arrest you because a hateful mob turned on you.

The ONLY people responsible for violence are the people dishing out the violence.

Or do you think that a man who murders his wife because she failed to cook dinner and she knew it would enrage him is guilty of incitement to violence?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Granted, they probably wouldn't take the bait. Point is, incitement doesn't imply the rioters have a "right" to do anything. The person who incites the right is guilty of triggering the disturbance and the riots are guilty of participating in it.

It's not about anyone's right to riot; it's that such a ridiculous law gives power to the most unreasonable, the most easily offended, the most violent, and it leaves the most vulnerable open to criminal charges because other sections of society hate them.

I don't see how, since it's a question of intent: did you knowingly take an action that most people would reasonably assume would trigger a violent reprisal? If you did, you're probably inciting a riot.

It's basically a "flamebait" restriction for real life. Forums have rules like that where the worst that can happen is a nuisance discussion that distracts everyone from the topic. Why would it be any different in a situation where actual violence could be the result?

In your scenario, doing something 'over the top' gay in front of known homophobes is incitement to riot, but doing something 'over the top' hetero at a gay pride parade isn't

Why not? A riot's a riot, no matter who does the rioting.

Also, I believe the EXISTENCE of a riot -- or conditions very close to and/or favorable to one -- are neccesary for that charge to be even attempted. Running into a predominately black church and yelling "Fuck all you niggers!" wouldn't really qualify; doing it at a protest rally probably wouldn't either, neither would painting it on a giant neon sign in front of said rally. "Incitement to riot" comes into play when you take the next step from taunting into actually encouraging violence, namely, by arranging the billboard to be posted and then later goading people from the protest rally to storm the billboard and tear it down and set fire to it.

So, do you support that the most easily triggered over nothing extremists should have the censorship power? And it's a real power: imagine the fact that the State could fucking arrest you because a hateful mob turned on you.

The difference being INVITING a hateful mob to turn on you for the sole purpose of using their violence as a publicity stunt is -- and rightly should be -- against the law. This is not just because deliberately trolling people into committing violence is a shitty and disruptive thing to do, it's also a fact that people have been known to incite riots from INSIDE the mob, by encouraging members of the mob to take it to the next level. This can be done by misinformation, e.g. yelling out to a group of protestors "There he is! That's the cop that shot my brother! Look out, he's got a gun! Don't let him shoot anyone else!"

The ONLY people responsible for violence are the people dishing out the violence.

And they, in turn, will be charged for their violence.

Inciting a riot is a lesser charge, AFAIK. It didn't used to be (in the old days that was considered a form of "sedition"). But intent is the key, and because it's not always easy to prove it's not common for people to be charged with it unless their actions were so blatantly provocative that no reasonable person wouldn't have expected a violent confrontation to result.

Or do you think that a man who murders his wife because she failed to cook dinner and she knew it would enrage him is guilty of incitement to violence?

Have you stopped murdering your wife?

 

[Metaphor]

I don't see how, since it's a question of intent: did you knowingly take an action that most people would reasonably assume would trigger a violent reprisal? If you did, you're probably inciting a riot.

Characterising it as a thoughtcrime is not helping your case.

Putting on an over the top display of heterosexuality at a gay pride parade does not incite violence so the people putting on the display, no matter what their intention, would never be charged with incitement to riot.

Putting on an over the top display of homosexuality in front of homophobic protesters might incite the homophobic protesters to violence, they could attack you for doing it, and you'd be charged with a fucking crime by the State.

The fact that this absurd scenario has not caused you to abandon your belief in the crime of 'incitement to violence' seems to me to show you're not interested in the grossly unequal playing field such a law creates and perpetuates.

I'm at a gay club, and upon leaving I see some crazy homophobe protesters outside. I then put on an over the top display of homosexuality to protest their bullshit, this incites the protesters to turn violent, and they beat me up and hospitalize me.

Then you send the cops to my hospital bed to charge me with incitement to violence. After all, I knew there was a reasonable chance hateful bigots would turn violent, didn't I?

It's basically a "flamebait" restriction for real life. Forums have rules like that where the worst that can happen is a nuisance discussion that distracts everyone from the topic. Why would it be any different in a situation where actual violence could be the result?

Because the State arresting me for being a hated minority is fucking evil and insane, that's why.

Why not? A riot's a riot, no matter who does the rioting.

Because homosexuals are never incited to violence when confronted with heterosexuality. No reasonable person would agree that an over-the-top display of heterosexuality would incite someone to violence.

But homophobes are sometimes driven to violence when confronted with homosexuality. So a reasonable person might conclude that an over the top display of homosexuality is incitement to violence.

You are literally using the State to inflict violence on homosexuals because homophobes are violent cunts. Do you realise how sick that is?

The difference being INVITING a hateful mob to turn on you for the sole purpose of using their violence as a publicity stunt is -- and rightly should be -- against the law.

Why? And why do you believe that would be somebody's sole -- or even main -- or even any -- purpose, even if they happened to incite a riot? The main purpose would probably be to ridicule, shock and offend the cunts, not incite them to violence.

And they, in turn, will be charged for their violence.

And the people who 'incited' the deranged violent fuckers will also be subjected to violence by the State for exercising their nonviolent free speech.

Inciting a riot is a lesser charge, AFAIK.

It doesn't matter if it's a $10 fine. It's an absurd, ridiculous inversion of morality.

Have you stopped murdering your wife?

Do you want to answer the question?

A woman has failed to cook an adequate dinner for her arsehole violent husband for three nights. Before he goes to work that morning, he tells her dinner better be perfect tonight or he 'won't be responsible' for what happens.

The woman decides to call his bluff and sticks a spear of asparagus on a plate to deliberately mock him when he gets home. He smashes the plate and hospitalises her.

Did she incite him to violence? Will you be there at her hospital bedside waiting for her to wake so that you can hear the cops read the charges against her?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Characterising it as a thoughtcrime is not helping your case.

Thoughts do not start riots. Actions do.

This is one of those cases where the intent of an action is relevant to the nature of that action and its legality. This is similar to the difference between, say, murder and manslaughter.

Putting on an over the top display of heterosexuality at a gay pride parade does not incite violence so the people putting on the display

Unless
1) Your intent is to incite violence and
2) Violence actually ensues

Then you're liable for deliberately instigating a violent situation.

Intent is difficult to prove though; the provocation would have to be VERY over the top and, frankly, pretty specifically concocted in order to trigger a violent reprisal. Alternately, if you're been bragging to your friends on Facebook about how you're going to get all those fucking homophobes to start rioting so everyone can see what scumbags they are, that's probably not going to be overlooked at your trial.

Putting on an over the top display of homosexuality in front of homophobic protesters might incite the homophobic protesters to violence, they could attack you for doing it, and you'd be charged with a fucking crime by the State.

Yep. So in most states I could get fined $500 and/or spend a month or two in jail. Meanwhile, the protestors who attack me get charged with aggravated assault, destruction of property, disorderly conduct, possible hate crimes, etc. They're looking at 3 to 5 years, minimum.

The thing is, assault and disorderly conduct are WAY easier to prove in court. If they want to convict me for inciting a riot, they have to prove that I intended to start a riot.

The question is, can I commit a totally ridiculous over-the-top provocation and then convincingly claim I didn't intend to start a riot?

It's basically a "flamebait" restriction for real life. Forums have rules like that where the worst that can happen is a nuisance discussion that distracts everyone from the topic. Why would it be any different in a situation where actual violence could be the result?

Because the State arresting me for being a hated minority is fucking evil and insane, that's why.

They don't arrest you for being a hated minority. They arrest you for starting a riot.

Are you really naive enough to assume that hated minorities can't be goaded into violent acts themselves? A white guy who provokes a BLM protest into trashing his car so he can film it for propaganda purposes would be guilty of the same. I don't think that is socially acceptable behavior, and I also think it's a really dangerous thing to do. More importantly, I think that triggering a volatile and hateful majority into an act of violence is not a safe thing to do for minorities, and is not something people should be doing even if they think they have a good reason.

The key, again, is intent.

Because homosexuals are never incited to violence when confronted with heterosexuality.

It wouldn't make a difference if they were. If your intent is to contribute to a public disturbance, it doesn't matter if the target of your trolling is an otherwise peaceful minority or a group of lunatics who are one youtube comment away from burning down city hall. An act intended to instigate violence is NOT protected speech.

You are literally using the State to inflict violence on homosexuals because homophobes are violent cunts.

"Literally?":laughing-smiley-014

The difference being INVITING a hateful mob to turn on you for the sole purpose of using their violence as a publicity stunt is -- and rightly should be -- against the law.

Why?

Because an act intended to instigate violence is not protected speech. The fact that you intend to be the TARGET of that violence doesn't change this.

Have you stopped murdering your wife?

Do you want to answer the question?

Do you want to stop murdering your wife?

 

[Metaphor]

This is one of those cases where the intent of an action is relevant to the nature of that action and its legality. This is similar to the difference between, say, murder and manslaughter.

Why do you never respond to my scenarios?

If I put on an over the top display of heterosexuality at a gay pride parade with an intention to incite violence, nothing will ever happen to me because nobody is incited to violence by heterosexuality. My malicious intention did not result in me getting punished. But even if I did happen to incite a riot, I still wouldn't be charged, because no reasonable person would think displays of heterosexuality would incite violence.

If I put on an over the top display of homosexuality at a homophobic protest with an intention to incite violence, my entire future hangs on how insane and violent the people I'm protesting are. If they are trigger-happy cunts, I'm likely to go to jail for 'inciting violence'. Homophobes have a history of being trigger-happy cunts. They need counter-protest. A reasonable person might say I should have foreseen the consequence. I'm going to jail because violent homophobes are violent.

1) Your intent is to incite violence and
2) Violence actually ensues

Do you see the problem with the second qualification? Do you not see the problem? If you protest insane violent pricks who hate you, you're more likely to incite violence and therefore be 'guilty' of a crime. If you protest people who are powerless minorities who are completely non-violent, your intent is irrelevant because they're never going to be incited to violence.

Intent is difficult to prove though; the provocation would have to be VERY over the top and, frankly, pretty specifically concocted in order to trigger a violent reprisal. Alternately, if you're been bragging to your friends on Facebook about how you're going to get all those fucking homophobes to start rioting so everyone can see what scumbags they are, that's probably not going to be overlooked at your trial.

It's fucking irrelevant how easy intent is to prove or disprove. The fact that it's hard to enforce the law doesn't make it a less stupid law.

Yep. So in most states I could get fined $500 and/or spend a month or two in jail. Meanwhile, the protestors who attack me get charged with aggravated assault, destruction of property, disorderly conduct, possible hate crimes, etc. They're looking at 3 to 5 years, minimum.

Why do you keep comparing the rioters to people who 'incited' a riot? The fact that the sentence is 'a month or two' in jail is fucking irrelevant because it is using the State to further victimise victims.

The thing is, assault and disorderly conduct are WAY easier to prove in court. If they want to convict me for inciting a riot, they have to prove that I intended to start a riot.

And a riot has to have been incited. So, people who protest trigger-happy violent cunts are more likely to be re-victimised by the State because protesting peaceful people, no matter what your intentions, is less likely to result in violence.

The question is, can I commit a totally ridiculous over-the-top provocation and then convincingly claim I didn't intend to start a riot?

Do women who wear short skirts provoke men into raping them?

They don't arrest you for being a hated minority. They arrest you for starting a riot.

The fucking RIOTERS started the riot. All I did was a nonviolent protest.

You are giving power to rioters. The more trigger happy and deranged they are, the more power this law gives them.

Are you really naive enough to assume that hated minorities can't be goaded into violent acts themselves? A white guy who provokes a BLM protest into trashing his car so he can film it for propaganda purposes would be guilty of the same.

He's guilty of nothing, and the violent cunts who can't control themselves and who trashed his car are guilty of rioting.

It wouldn't make a difference if they were. If your intent is to contribute to a public disturbance, it doesn't matter if the target of your trolling is an otherwise peaceful minority or a group of lunatics who are one youtube comment away from burning down city hall. An act intended to instigate violence is NOT protected speech.]

Have you listened to nothing I've said? Whether you are charged with incitement to violence or not depends on how violent and trigger-happy and unreasonable the people you are protesting are.

You are literally giving violent and trigger-happy and unreasonable people the power of the State to suppress views the mob doesn't like.

Do you want to stop murdering your wife?

So you won't answer the scenario then. I thought as much.

EDIT: I'm really angry and upset over the insanity of 'incitement to violence' laws and their defenders and so I apologise for my inflammatory language but not my views. Incitement to violence laws are a disgusting inversion of morality that encourage moral hazard. The more unreasonable, unpredictable, and violent you are as a group, the more the State will enable you to be sheltered from counter-protests, because the State will prosecute anyone who incites you to violence.

It's such an amazingly sick law.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The police said that they had arrested a 23-year-old white man, and that two other white men, ages 21 and 26, turned themselves in on Tuesday afternoon. A 32-year-old Hispanic had been detained and questioned but was released when the police determined that he was not involved in the Monday night shooting, they said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/us/minneapolis-shooting-protest-police-jamar-clark.html?_r=0

 

[ksen]

Granted, they probably wouldn't take the bait. Point is, incitement doesn't imply the rioters have a "right" to do anything. The person who incites the right is guilty of triggering the disturbance and the riots are guilty of participating in it.

It's not about anyone's right to riot; it's that such a ridiculous law gives power to the most unreasonable, the most easily offended, the most violent, and it leaves the most vulnerable open to criminal charges because other sections of society hate them.

In your scenario, doing something 'over the top' gay in front of known homophobes is incitement to riot, but doing something 'over the top' hetero at a gay pride parade isn't -- because gays aren't incited to violence by heterosexual displays.

So, do you support that the most easily triggered over nothing extremists should have the censorship power? And it's a real power: imagine the fact that the State could fucking arrest you because a hateful mob turned on you.

The ONLY people responsible for violence are the people dishing out the violence.

Or do you think that a man who murders his wife because she failed to cook dinner and she knew it would enrage him is guilty of incitement to violence?

oh, then you agree the only ones responsible for the shootings are the shooters. welcome aboard!

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Minneapolis police said Tuesday that they have arrested three men in connection with the shooting. Allen Lawrence “Lance” Scarsella III, 23, was arrested in Bloomington. Sources said Nathan Gustavsson, 21, of Hermantown, and Daniel Macey, 26, of Pine City, were taken into custody after they turned themselves in. All three suspects are white. Earlier Tuesday, police arrested a 32-year-old Hispanic man in south Minneapolis, but he was later released because, police said, he was not at the scene of the shooting.

http://www.startribune.com/police-s...t-blm-protest-outside-4th-precinct/353154811/

 

[Metaphor]

It's not about anyone's right to riot; it's that such a ridiculous law gives power to the most unreasonable, the most easily offended, the most violent, and it leaves the most vulnerable open to criminal charges because other sections of society hate them.

In your scenario, doing something 'over the top' gay in front of known homophobes is incitement to riot, but doing something 'over the top' hetero at a gay pride parade isn't -- because gays aren't incited to violence by heterosexual displays.

So, do you support that the most easily triggered over nothing extremists should have the censorship power? And it's a real power: imagine the fact that the State could fucking arrest you because a hateful mob turned on you.

The ONLY people responsible for violence are the people dishing out the violence.

Or do you think that a man who murders his wife because she failed to cook dinner and she knew it would enrage him is guilty of incitement to violence?

oh, then you agree the only ones responsible for the shootings are the shooters. welcome aboard!

I don't believe shooting is a proportionate response to being intimidated out of a public area by threats of force, but defending yourself with force is an acceptable response.