In this context your comment means the violent from protestors/revolutionaries has already happened. That’s why everyone’s confused and asking for clarification
Yes?
My comment should not be read as "the violence has already begun and ended, and no more will occur" but rather more like "we are past the point at which violence has begun". I was implying that violence is not inevitable, it's already here.
No offense, but then “happening” would have been more appropriate. The other commenter is correct about “happened” being past tense as in… it’s over. Or you could have used “has happened” which leaves a bit of room for future violence. But this is pedantry at it’s best - you’re intent having been acknowledged. :)
Worse: From a random citizen that was tried in a court of law and found guilty. The governor used his powers to claim absolution (or worser still: justification).
Yeah the problem is that the other side says the exact thing, with the difference that they aren’t oppressed, they simply lost the “right” to oppress others
Or, scary!, depending on who’s holding it. Guns are either a god given right or the devil’s playing depending on the presumed political leaning of those holding them.
People need to protest using all rights afforded to them by the Constitution. The right to free speech, which they use, the right to protest, which they do, and the right to carry arms, which they need to do.
People need to address the state in the only language it knows.
and the right to carry arms, which they need to do.
The victim was doing exactly that (he was open-carrying an AK-47), which is the pretext the murderer used to falsely claim “stand your ground.”
In retrospect, the tactically correct thing to do would’ve been for Foster to have preemptively shot Perry through the car window, citing the same “stand your ground” defense (with infinitely more legitimacy, since Perry had just been trying to run over protestors).
Add comment