Posted on 02/14/2019 10:29:30 PM PST by BenLurkin
Harassing Jewish children at school probably seemed like a safe and easy way to torment someone and get away with it. Low-risk targets.
In the video it looks like a negligent discharge. The is using proper muzzle control (muzzle pointed down), however it looks like his finger is on the trigger.
When the shot goes off, the muzzle is still pointed down.
I did not see the guard raise the muzzle at all from its position almost vertical to the ground.
I think this was a ricochet from a negligent discharge.
With quickly rising anti-antisemitism from the Left, unapologetic attacks on Jews by Congressmen, increased worries of schools shootings, and probably an ‘in your face’ attitude by the cameraman, I’m leaning towards the guards side.
It probably should be thankful it wasn’t shot dead.
What about the two hijabi Muslimahs who walked into a synagogue and started asking questions about services & when the building would be most full of worshipers, i.e. Jews?
They were told to leave and did so while muttering “Islamophobes”, “Zionist pigs”, etc.
They were real bombs. Cops shot one and found another one hiding in a boat in someone’s backyard.
I’m with you. Jews in the USA are clearly under attack in every way possible...upto and including physical attacks. Jewish institutions should be guarding themselves. The YouTuber was clearly trying to provoke a reaction from the guard.
He-she got a reaction...and lucky it wasn’t a deadly one.
Whether this one was being an ad’s or not, I suppose is a matter of opinion. A little bit of decency can stop you getting shot at :)
I watched a few minutes, then FF to the good part.
AND...I agree with your sentiments...especially the lunatic part. But I still think the he/she was trying to instigate something. And no, the guard had no right or need to shoot the he/she.
“This thing is a transgender YouTube star looking to supposedly support first amendment rights by filming wherever and whenever they please.”
You have the protected right to take pictures or video of anything you can see from a publicly accessible space. That can be a roadway, your front yard, the sidewalk in front of a police station, or the sidewalk in front of a synagogue.
In most states you also have the unfettered right to take pictures or video of any government employee who is on duty, in a publicly accessible space on public property, and that includes cops who stop you for traffic violations and etc.
In California the law is very clear that the mere act of taking pictures or video does not constitute probable cause for police to stop and question the photographer or videographer.
Synagogue, mosque, or church the rules are the same: People have a protected right to take pictures or video of these places from public property and that includes the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the private property.
And even weird people enjoy the same rights as everyone else.
To suggest otherwise is patently offensive to our Constitution.
Megan
Some days that does seem like the best choice. :(
Educators. Who can understand ‘em?
To suggest that weird people might have alternative motives should hardly be offensive. There was a suggestion that children inside might have been photographed.
And tell me the law that was broken?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.