Posted on 06/21/2017 10:00:59 AM PDT by BenLurkin
There’s another term for it: “infringement of the right to bear arms”.
Watch the video. The immediate reaction to being informed that he had a firearm was to panic. But it’s beyond ridiculous to think that Castille would have informed the officer of that fact had he any intent to use it. The immediacy of the reaction to the statement makes it clear that it was the very presence of a firearm - the right to bear arms - that triggered the reaction, not anything he saw.
Watch the video. It’s immediate - no pause. The exercise of his right to bear arms was the proximate cause of Castille’s execution.
If a known drug dealer, in possession of a firearm, was reaching for it, would you hesitate? You’d be dead.
Yanez clearly stated “don’t reach for it” more than once, before taking the next step to mitigate.
The right to bear arms carries with it an implied assumption of good behavior, when you violate that, you lose that right.
Conservitive tree house has a write up on this including a picture taken by his girl friend showing the gun half out of his pocket under his left arm. It wasn’t holstered or secure which is why the cop freaked out.
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.