(01-25-2026, 01:19 PM)DBCowboy Wrote: A school shooter is legally carrying a firearm, until he starts breaking the law.
A school shooter implies they shot their gun at a school.
This guy had his hands up. So how is someone comparable to a school shooter if they never even draw their weapon?
Usually people are innocent until proven guilty. Yet Bovino said in a presser the guy “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” If that is the case, why didn't he do it? Why would someone wait until they're face down with several people holding them down to try and do maximum damage? That would be minimum damage at best before your assisted suicide.
So why is it that people can decide his guilt within hours, with no evidence he had intent to use a weapon he never drew... Yet people talking about any other aspects about the federal agents in the matter are said to be jumping to conclusions, acting like they have law degrees. I don't have a law degree, but I know part of the law is a court never said he's guilty of anything. I know no one even tried to charge him with any crimes. And the charges they would have brought on him would be a far ways away from capital punishment.
People are acting like his crime was carrying a gun he had a permit for. How many protests have those on the right shown up to with firearms to? Let's be honest. There were people showing up to the state capital in Virginia with guns just a week ago in protest to the new laws the democrat governor is trying to get passed. In a lot of places, that's legal as long as you don't point it at people.
We could debate whether it's smart or not, but that has nothing to do with law.