‘Gun-like gesture’ deemed crime by Pennsylvania court

[Danke]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/gun-like-gesture-deemed-crime-by-pennsylvania-court/ar-AAGvrd9


A Lancaster County man who made a “gun-like hand gesture” at his neighbor committed a crime, according to a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruling.

Stephen Kirchner, 64, of Manor Township, was charged last year with summary disorderly conduct for the gesture, according to the Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office. The gesture prompted the neighbor to call 911.

“Kirchner argued on appeal that the gesture did not cause a hazardous or physically offensive condition, that he did not intend to cause public alarm, and that there essentially was no harm done to the victim or society,” a statement from the DA’s Office said.
However, the high court found the gesture of imitating the firing and recoiling of a gun “risked an altercation” and supported the charge. The neighbor also reported feeling insecure, which is why the call to 911 was placed.

https://c-4tvylwolbz88x24ptn-z-tzu-jvtx2ehrhthpglkx2eula.g01.msn.com/g00/3_c-4ddd.tzu.jvt_/c-4TVYLWOLBZ88x24oaawzx3ax2fx2fptn-z-tzu-jvt.hrhthpglk.ulax2faluhuax2fhtwx2fluapafpkx2fHHNa 8QG.ptnx3fox3d579x26dx3d8193x26tx3d3x26x78x3d37x26 vx3dmx26sx3dmx26p87j.thyrx3dpthnl_$/$/$/$/$
© Provided by Hearst Television, Inc. gun-like hand gestureThe DA’s Office said there was an ongoing history of confrontations between Kirchner, the neighbor and a female acquaintance of Kirchner’s who witnessed the gesture. The woman has a “no contact” order against the neighbor.

The DA’s Office also said because of that contentious history, the neighbor had installed six video cameras and the gesture was recorded.

Kirchner was ordered to pay a $100 fine and court costs.

[brushfire]

Hmmm... Assault with a "hand gun"

[PursuePeace]

Hmmm... Assault with a "hand gun"
https://i.imgur.com/QEKA5TO.gif

[shakey1]

https://youtu.be/T1b6ko1I00A

[Dr.3D]

If he wasn't pointing it at them, it can't be considered brandishing a finger.

[GunnyFreedom]

I’m going to say up front that I haven’t looked deeper than to read this text, so I don’t know much about this specific event.

Just in general though, separate from whatever happened here, in the right context couldn’t that gesture constitute a legitimate threat?

I’m not about to go banning and policing gestures. I am sure 99.9% of the time people mimic a gun firing and there is no malice in it. But it also seems to me that in the right context it could easily be a non-verbal “I’m gonna kill you m-fer.”

As much of a free speech stalwart as I am, I have a problem with actionable threats to life and limb. Free speech is telling an actor to go break a leg. Free speech is not “give me your money voluntarily or I will break your leg.”

So I’m going to avoid judging this story without more context.

[GunnyFreedom]

Like, to fabricate an easy example, say a mobster was extorting a mom & pop for protection money, the old man was three days late and the enforcer does this to the pop. That would be an actionable threat. A threat to kill in furtherance of an actual crime.

The situation in this case is probably not that, and the last thing I would do is “criminalize a gesture” because of one or two ashholes. But threatening someone’s life to coerce them into something is and should be illegal, and under very specific contexts I could see an actionable threat in this.

[Swordsmyth]

What happened to "Freedom of Expression"?
Is the middle finger sexual assault?
Is burning the flag Treason?

[A Son of Liberty]

Like, to fabricate an easy example, say a mobster was extorting a mom & pop for protection money, the old man was three days late and the enforcer does this to the pop. That would be an actionable threat. A threat to kill in furtherance of an actual crime.

The situation in this case is probably not that, and the last thing I would do is “criminalize a gesture” because of one or two ashholes. But threatening someone’s life to coerce them into something is and should be illegal, and under very specific contexts I could see an actionable threat in this.

So, uh, I think the State may run into a little credibility problem if this is the angle of attack on this particular issue... if you comprende.

[jkr]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Stratovarious]

911; What is your emergency ?


Caller; We have a man with a finger.........send the swat team..

[Stratovarious]

Like, to fabricate an easy example, say a mobster was extorting a mom & pop for protection money, the old man was three days late and the enforcer does this to the pop. That would be an actionable threat. A threat to kill in furtherance of an actual crime.

The situation in this case is probably not that, and the last thing I would do is “criminalize a gesture” because of one or two ashholes. But threatening someone’s life to coerce them into something is and should be illegal, and under very specific contexts I could see an actionable threat in this.

I agree, that picture sure looks like an eminent threat, but no, we don't need a new law.

[Schifference]

Just a couple years ago a person wouldn't get in trouble if the gun wasn't loaded. Now a finger is a chargeable offense.

[Anti Globalist]

Could this be the beginning of criminalizing finger gestures?

[GunnyFreedom]

So, uh, I think the State may run into a little credibility problem if this is the angle of attack on this particular issue... if you comprende.
I’m not arguing that THIS event is anything like that. I’m just saying in the extreme case a “gesture” could be an actionable threat. It would require a great deal of context to demonstrate criminal extortion.

And no, no “new” laws are needed of any kind. Legitimate death threats are already illegal.

[GunnyFreedom]

So, uh, I think the State may run into a little credibility problem if this is the angle of attack on this particular issue... if you comprende.
Oh lol yeah. The State constantly threatens people’s lives. Well just because Satan likes to subjugate souls doesn’t mean I have to. :p

[Origanalist]

The neighbor also reported feeling insecure, which is why the call to 911 was placed.

See something, say something. Thank you police.

[euphemia]

Then they are going to have to go into every preschool and elementary school in the state and arrest all the boys. Every single boy does this at play, and they also bite their graham crackers into the shape of a gun and play that they are guns.

[phill4paul]

Sooo, a gesture such as this is actionable by the government, but not by a citizen?Only the government get's to discern a 'credible' threat. SMDH.

It was a fucking gesture. No more no less. Gestures don't kill. Get back with me when he points a gun.

[GunnyFreedom]

Sooo, a gesture such as this is actionable by the government, but not by a citizen?Only the government get's to discern a 'credible' threat. SMDH.

It was a fucking gesture. No more no less. Gestures don't kill. Get back with me when he points a gun.

What if some jackhole has a guy in his living room, and says to the guy, “we got your kid. Give me your computer password or...” and then he mimics a firing gun. I would consider that an actual threat.

I doubt anything like that is what happened here. We can’t get stuck on the actual gesture. There has to be legit criminal intent.

[phill4paul]

What if some jackhole has a guy in his living room, and says to the guy, “we got your kid. Give me your computer password or...” and then he mimics a firing gun. I would consider that an actual threat.

I doubt anything like that is what happened here. We can’t get stuck on the actual gesture. There has to be legit criminal intent.

Well, that would include kidnapping so..................

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, that would include kidnapping so..................
Right, I’m not talking about a gesture in isolation. The crime is not the gesture, it’s the coercive death threat. It’s just possible that in an extreme case a gesture COULD be a legitimate death threat. It’s improbable, but I can imagine scenarios easily enough.

[GunnyFreedom]

And no, I don’t believe any of the OP fits the “extreme case” I’m speculating on. If he was making legit death threats they would have charged him with a crime, not a $100 fee.

[ATruepatriot]

What if some jackhole has a guy in his living room, and says to the guy, “we got your kid. Give me your computer password or...” and then he mimics a firing gun. I would consider that an actual threat.

I doubt anything like that is what happened here. We can’t get stuck on the actual gesture. There has to be legit criminal intent.

He wouldn't even get the words out "we got your kid..." before I would be on him like stink on shit jerking his nuts off. "You have who? Want to repeat that or submit right now?". NAP will get you killed. Cowboy up... Jump and get it done... Take control of the situation even if it might cost you your life, because it just might either way, may as well get in a few licks of your own rather than just wimp out. But someone offended by "freedom of speech" like this deserves to get their little wimp ass beat. "think that's bad crybaby? check this out"... I know I am personally getting tired of all this "play nice" shit. This is why we are in the screwed up situation we are in now.

[Swordsmyth]

He wouldn't even get the words out "we got your kid..." before I would be on him like stink on $#@! jerking his nuts off. "You have who? Want to repeat that or submit right now?". NAP will get you killed. Cowboy up... Jump and get it done... Take control of the situation even if it might cost you your life, because it just might either way, may as well get in a few licks of your own rather than just wimp out. But someone offended by "freedom of speech" like this deserves to get their little wimp ass beat. "think that's bad crybaby? check this out"... I know I am personally getting tired of all this "play nice" $#@!. This is why we are in the screwed up situation we are in now.
If a society gives in to hostage takers it may save a few hostages but far more will be taken and lost, if it never gives in it may lose a few but far less will be taken and lost.

[GunnyFreedom]

He wouldn't even get the words out "we got your kid..." before I would be on him like stink on shit jerking his nuts off. "You have who? Want to repeat that or submit right now?". NAP will get you killed. Cowboy up... Jump and get it done... Take control of the situation even if it might cost you your life, because it just might either way, may as well get in a few licks of your own rather than just wimp out. But someone offended by "freedom of speech" like this deserves to get their little wimp ass beat. "think that's bad crybaby? check this out"... I know I am personally getting tired of all this "play nice" shit. This is why we are in the screwed up situation we are in now.
Yeah, I get it. Some dudes don’t have the gonads. I do, I’m an obstinate son of a biscuit. But I’m not the only soul in this republic.

[ATruepatriot]

If a society gives in to hostage takers it may save a few hostages but far more will be taken and lost, if it never gives in it may lose a few but far less will be taken and lost.

Give them an inch and they will take a mile. And it is everyone in every situation. It's the human nature factor everyone forgets about.

[ATruepatriot]

Yeah, I get it. Some dudes don’t have the gonads. I do, I’m an obstinate son of a biscuit. But I’m not the only soul in this republic.

"This Republic" was designed with protections for the individual in mind, not the masses, not the mob, not the whole. Screw em... :)

[GunnyFreedom]

"This Republic" was designed with protections for the individual in mind, not the masses, not the mob, not the whole. Screw em... :)
States write criminal law every day. There is nothing I’ve described that isn’t already law in 50 states.

[Schifference]

I have a constitutional right to carry my finger, open or not, with me at all times. I have a constitutional right to gesture or point that finger in any way I desire. Any person that thinks my finger has super powers at 200 feet needs psychiatric help.

[Swordsmyth]

I have a constitutional right to carry my finger, open or not, with me at all times. I have a constitutional right to gesture or point that finger in any way I desire. Any person that thinks my finger has super powers at 200 feet needs psychiatric help.
You have the right to keep and bear your arms, fingers are not mentioned.

[Schifference]

Right, I’m not talking about a gesture in isolation. The crime is not the gesture, it’s the coercive death threat. It’s just possible that in an extreme case a gesture COULD be a legitimate death threat. It’s improbable, but I can imagine scenarios easily enough.

That could be in the form of a wink, a stare or just about any gesture.

[GunnyFreedom]

That could be in the form of a wink, a stare or just about any gesture.
I do not believe this is true. If someone is going to transmit a sincere death threat, it’s far more likely to be in the form of a pantomime of a homicide than a pretense at sexual interest.

[ATruepatriot]

You have the right to keep and bear your arms, fingers are not mentioned.

Sign language is is speech, Freedom of speech is protected by the 1st. Sometimes too diligently like as with the protected MSM lies.

[Swordsmyth]

Sign language is is speech, Freedom of speech is protected by the 1st. Sometimes too diligently like as with the protected MSM lies.
You just had to spoil a great joke.:(:p

[GunnyFreedom]

Sign language is is speech, Freedom of speech is protected by the 1st. Sometimes too diligently like as with the protected MSM lies.
You are right about signing being an actual language, which is why my contrary ad ridiculum. Not all speech is protected just by virtue of it being speech. For example, you cannot defraud or extort, both are fundamentally “speech” crimes. Of course these would all be rightly state crimes not federal.

[ATruepatriot]

States write criminal law every day. There is nothing I’ve described that isn’t already law in 50 states.

And as I have seen you mention before. Those laws are unconstitutional laws if they violate the intent of the U.S. constitution. Here is a fact that is being hidden from everyone. Now when talking "states rights"... As each state joined the union they signed and agreed to a legal contract to respect a few simple rules and rights of the game designed to act as referee status to prevent mob rule and state and local tyranny, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. For them to say that they have a right to supersede these very few U.S. Constitutional "rules of the game" is unconstitutional because it is absolute breach of contract. They agreed to these rules in order to enter the union, so every local law that deviates and violates these rules they agreed to is a criminal act of breach. All of these contracts are still in full legal effect. but we are letting them get away with it because no one has the knowledge base anymore to understand it is wrong. they just eat what they are fed locally even though it tastes like shit when they have the legal right to not eat it it they do not want to.

And it's been happening for a hundred years.

[GunnyFreedom]

And as I have seen you mention before. Those laws are unconstitutional laws if they violate the intent of the U.S. constitution. Here is a fact that is being hidden from everyone. Now when talking "states rights"... As each state joined the union they signed and agreed to a legal contract to respect a few simple rules and rights of the game designed to act as referee status to prevent mob rule and state and local tyranny, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. For them to say that they have a right to supersede these very few U.S. Constitutional "rules of the game" is unconstitutional because it is absolute breach of contract. They agreed to these rules in order to enter the union, so every local law that deviates and violates these rules they agreed to is a criminal act of breach. All of these contracts are still in full legal effect. but we are letting them get away with it because no one has the knowledge base anymore to understand it is wrong. they just eat what they are fed locally even though it tastes like shit when they have the legal right to not eat it it they do not want to.

And it's been happening for a hundred years.
I do not believe the Constitution prohibits the states from enacting laws against actual crimes that are fundamentally speech based. The First Amendment restricts Congress, full stop. If Indiana decides that “taking property by fraud” is a crime, nothing in the US Constitution prohibits the state from doing that. Their justification or lack of it comes from their State Constitution.

Again reiterating that I am speaking in ad ridiculums to make a refined philosophical point; if a deaf person takes the property of another deaf person by fraud, we don’t ignore the fraud because the language is ASL instead of verbal.

[ATruepatriot]

You are right about signing being an actual language, which is why my contrary ad ridiculum. Not all speech is protected just by virtue of it being speech. For example, you cannot defraud or extort, both are fundamentally “speech” crimes. Of course these would all be rightly state crimes not federal.

Prove an injury... Any judge that would allow this is an absolute idiot and writing his own laws without authority to do so. These "terrorist threat" laws violate the first and should have never been allowed to fly in the first place. Prove a physical or financial injury. Getting your "feelings hurt" does not count, it can be defined and interpreted far too broadly and mean anything they want it to mean.

[GunnyFreedom]

Prove an injury... Any judge that would allow this is an absolute idiot and writing his own laws without authority to do so. These "terrorist threat" laws violate the first and should have never been allowed to fly in the first place. Prove a physical or financial injury. Getting your "feelings hurt" does not count, it can be defined and interpreted far too broadly and mean anything they want it to mean.
You do not believe fraud is injurious? 50 state laws back to the founding of America would seem to disagree with you.

None of you seem to get what I am saying. The Law doesn’t give a damn if it’s verbal or gesticulated. The law only cares what’s being communicated. Full stop.

I get it, funny funny ha ha; it’s stupid and ridiculous that a gesture could get someone in legal trouble. In the OP it’s almost certainly a case of stupid nanny state HOA effect writ large.

But a gesture cannot be ruled out as criminal speech just because the communication is signaled instead of spoken.

This, again is the point.

The Law doesn’t care about the form of a communication, only what is being communicated. SOME communications, like fraud and extortion, are illegal, and would still be illegal in ASL.

[ATruepatriot]

That could be in the form of a wink, a stare or just about any gesture.

Exactly. We had a Hot female computer tech who used to come around every month and work on the computers where I worked. I swear to god, I you even looked up from the floor at her period you WILL be hit with a sexual harassment charge and be fired. She had us all both male and female bowing to her as royalty who you are not even allowed to look at. There is a line with this crap.

[GunnyFreedom]

Exactly. We had a Hot female computer tech who used to come around every month and work on the computers where I worked. I swear to god, I you even looked up from the floor at her period you WILL be hit with a sexual harassment charge and be fired. She had us all both male and female bowing to her as royalty who you are not even allowed to look at. There is a line with this crap.
If she is leveraging fraudulent sexual harassment claims in order to extort certain behavior from her coworkers, then arguably SHE is committing a crime.

[phill4paul]

Well, we live in times of what is and what isn't. Once upon a time states enacted their own laws. The Federal government had no say. The Federal government only acted within it's limitations. And then the whole shenanigans were usurped by the Civil War.

And now we have selectivity.

Litmus: Could a state declare that no Democratic/Progressive perspectives be allowed through radio or T.V.?

Well, no, because it abridges the first amendment

Litmus: Can a state ban certain firearms, or magazine size or...

Well, sure. Because States rights.

Selective enforcement over perceived Federal power

When the truth of the matter is "do they" or "do they not?"

Selectivity.

[GunnyFreedom]

Libel. Slander. Filing false police reports. All fundamentally “speech crimes.” Perjury, the ultimate speech crime.

[ATruepatriot]

You do not believe fraud is injurious? 50 state laws back to the founding of America would seem to disagree with you.

None of you seem to get what I am saying. The Law doesn’t give a damn if it’s verbal or gesticulated. The law only cares what’s being communicated. Full stop.

I get it, funny funny ha ha; it’s stupid and ridiculous that a gesture could get someone in legal trouble. In the OP it’s almost certainly a case of stupid nanny state HOA effect writ large.

But a gesture cannot be ruled out as criminal speech just because the communication is signaled instead of spoken.

This, again is the point.

The Law doesn’t care about the form of a communication, only what is being communicated. SOME communications, like fraud and extortion, are illegal, and would still be illegal in ASL.

Of course fraud is injurious, but it still has to be proven as fraud with evidence. Not just hearsay or because someone claims they were offended. A real injury must be proven. There is no such thing as criminal speech. All speech is protected by the first everywhere except private property or businesses. And even then it is a civil matter between the parties outside of the authority and jurisdiction of government and the state.

[ATruepatriot]

Libel. Slander. Filing false police reports. All fundamentally “speech crimes.” Perjury, the ultimate speech crime.

First two are "civil" issues and the state cannot even get involved.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, we live in times of what is and what isn't. Once upon a time states enacted their own laws. The Federal government had no say. The Federal government only acted within it's limitations. And then the whole shenanigans were usurped by the Civil War.

And now we have selectivity.

Litmus: Could a state declare that no Democratic/Progressive perspectives be allowed through radio or T.V.?

Well, no, because it abridges the first amendment

Litmus: Can a state ban certain firearms, or magazine size or...

Well, sure. Because States rights.

Selective enforcement over perceived Federal power

When the truth of the matter is "do they" or "do they not?"

Selectivity.

I don’t actually believe that the States have the power to ban guns. Even if every other article in the BOR applied only the Congress, the 2ndA is blatantly written to protect “the people” at large.

[Swordsmyth]

Well, we live in times of what is and what isn't. Once upon a time states enacted their own laws. The Federal government had no say. The Federal government only acted within it's limitations. And then the whole shenanigans were usurped by the Civil War.

And now we have selectivity.

Litmus: Could a state declare that no Democratic/Progressive perspectives be allowed through radio or T.V.?

Well, no, because it abridges the first amendment

Litmus: Can a state ban certain firearms, or magazine size or...

Well, sure. Because States rights.

Selective enforcement over perceived Federal power

When the truth of the matter is "do they" or "do they not?"

Selectivity.

The states were always bound by the BoR, it's part of the Constitution and Article VI binds them to follow it.
There was bad case law saying otherwise but now we have an amendment to rectify that.

[GunnyFreedom]

At one point, at the zenith of my States Rights activism, I thought nationwide reciprocation was a bad idea because those powers belong to the States. Well. Then I read the Constitution and the BOR again, and the Second Amendment stood out in stark contrast as a specific guarantee to the people. If that was actually a state power, then the Constitution could make no such guarantee that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

“Shall not” in legal language is utterly prohibitive. The strongest case in an entire spectrum of legal permissiveness language. If a right “Shall Not” be infringed to the People, then that is a prohibition against the States.

States rights are a thing, but they are not absolute. They are subject to the powers delegated to fedgov in the US Constitution, and made Supreme by Article 6

[ATruepatriot]

If she is leveraging fraudulent sexual harassment claims in order to extort certain behavior from her coworkers, then arguably SHE is committing a crime.

Several tried, they were fired. She was the one who was "politically correct" and would never lie. She even had the company over the barrel with her extortion tactics, And here lies the problem. this one person was granted far too much power by BS laws and authorities. THIS is why the rules of the game were set and agreed to at the very beginning of this "union".

[phill4paul]

You do not believe fraud is injurious? 50 state laws back to the founding of America would seem to disagree with you.

None of you seem to get what I am saying. The Law doesn’t give a damn if it’s verbal or gesticulated. The law only cares what’s being communicated. Full stop.

I get it, funny funny ha ha; it’s stupid and ridiculous that a gesture could get someone in legal trouble. In the OP it’s almost certainly a case of stupid nanny state HOA effect writ large.

But a gesture cannot be ruled out as criminal speech just because the communication is signaled instead of spoken.

This, again is the point.

The Law doesn’t care about the form of a communication, only what is being communicated. SOME communications, like fraud and extortion, are illegal, and would still be illegal in ASL.

It is and it ain't.

Funny that the First is protected and the Second ain't.

A guy looks at me cross wise and draws his finger across his throat. Doesn't give me the right to shoot him. No matter the circumstance. The gesture in and of itself does not create a 'fear for my life' situation. UNLESS, other factors are involved.

Pull a knife and do the gesture. Sure. But, it's not the gesture that is important it is the pulling of the knife.

I guess what you are saying is that a gesture might be a 'mitigating' circumstance in law. But, in and of itself, which this guy was doing, doesn't fall under that.

I've shot the 'bird' to many. Didn't mean I was going to sexually assault them.

[GunnyFreedom]

If the Second Amendment were really supposed to only apply to Congress, they would have copied the verbiage from Article 1 instead of tying a strict prohibition against infringement directly to the people generally.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

IF the authors of the 2nd Amendment actually believed that the States had the right to infringe, then this could not have been written as a guarantee to the people, but a restriction against the federal government.

[ATruepatriot]

At one point, at the zenith of my States Rights activism, I thought nationwide reciprocation was a bad idea because those powers belong to the States. Well. Then I read the Constitution and the BOR again, and the Second Amendment stood out in stark contrast as a specific guarantee to the people. If that was actually a state power, then the Constitution could make no such guarantee that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

“Shall not” in legal language is utterly prohibitive. The strongest case in an entire spectrum of legal permissiveness language. If a right “Shall Not” be infringed to the People, then that is a prohibition against the States.

States rights are a thing, but they are not absolute. They are subject to the powers delegated to fedgov in the US Constitution, and made Supreme by Article 6

ABSOLUTELY. And when they joined the union they agreed to that contract and those few agreed upon checks and balances until such time they legally remove themselves from the union. And then almost all were stupid enough to not give themselves this legal future right in the contract. I think Texas was the only one (sort of). Nevada really screwed up and legally gave their whole damned state to the federal government.

Thank you for the discussion, really do enjoy this, looking forward to more man! But got to run again and catch up later. :)

[phill4paul]

I don’t actually believe that the States have the power to ban guns. Even if every other article in the BOR applied only the Congress, the 2ndA is blatantly written to protect “the people” at large.

But it is not. The Constitution is ONLY a limitation of Federal government. THAT was the original intent. A State could ban it and the FEDERAL government would have no say-so. Period. Stop. The only delegated power is that the Federal government shall insure a Republican form of government. If that Republican form of government chose to allow fully automatic weapons, or ban firearms entirely, then it is up to the state and IT'S Constitution.

[GunnyFreedom]

It is and it ain't.

Funny that the First is protected and the Second ain't.

fkn tragic.


A guy looks at me cross wise and draws his finger across his throat. Doesn't give me the right to shoot him. No matter the circumstance. The gesture in and of itself does not create a 'fear for my life' situation.

I couldn’t possibly agree more.


UNLESS, other factors are involved.

exactly


Pull a knife and do the gesture. Sure. But, it's not the gesture that is important it is the pulling of the knife.

In that case, the gesture is utterly unimportant in a tactical sense. It is, however important in a legal sense. It demonstrates intent and acts as an actionable threat. A guy could pull a knife for a million harmless reasons, but he pulls a pig sticker looks you in the eye and crosses his throat and heads your way you are green lit to ventilate him.


I guess what you are saying is that a gesture might be a 'mitigating' circumstance in law. But, in and of itself, which this guy was doing, doesn't fall under that.

No, I do not believe the case in the OP is anything whatever like the ad ridiculums I am using to try and clarify a specific legal point. All I’m saying it’s not ultimately relevant to the law of a communication is verbal or physical, what the law cares about is the content of that communication.


I've shot the 'bird' to many. Didn't mean I was going to sexually assault them.

exactly. Equivalent of a verbal “Fk you.” People aren’t really getting put in rape cages for that anymore (someone somewhere probably is). There was that one case with a cop but the federal courts tossed it.

[GunnyFreedom]

But it is not. The Constitution is ONLY a limitation of Federal government. THAT was the original intent. A State could ban it and the FEDERAL government would have no say-so. Period. Stop. The only delegated power is that the Federal government shall insure a Republican form of government. If that Republican form of government chose to allow fully automatic weapons, or ban firearms entirely, then it is up to the state and IT'S Constitution.
Negative. The Constitution is not only a limit on Fed power. The Constitution also delegates certain powers TO the feds. Like coining money. Building post roads. Or guaranteeing to the States a republican form of government. Some of the feds delegated powers are quite prescriptive.

[GunnyFreedom]

Several tried, they were fired. She was the one who was "politically correct" and would never lie. She even had the company over the barrel with her extortion tactics, And here lies the problem. this one person was granted far too much power by BS laws and authorities. THIS is why the rules of the game were set and agreed to at the very beginning of this "union".
She may have gotten away with it, but that doesn’t make her activity any less criminal.

[Swordsmyth]

But it is not. The Constitution is ONLY a limitation of Federal government. THAT was the original intent. A State could ban it and the FEDERAL government would have no say-so. Period. Stop. The only delegated power is that the Federal government shall insure a Republican form of government. If that Republican form of government chose to allow fully automatic weapons, or ban firearms entirely, then it is up to the state and IT'S Constitution.

Not according to Article VI:

A6:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The BoR is part of the Constitution.

[phill4paul]

fkn tragic.



I couldn’t possibly agree more.



exactly



In that case, the gesture is utterly unimportant in a tactical sense. It is, however important in a legal sense. It demonstrates intent and acts as an actionable threat. A guy could pull a knife for a million harmless reasons, but he pulls a pig sticker looks you in the eye and crosses his throat and heads your way you are green lit to ventilate him.



No, I do not believe the case in the OP is anything whatever like the ad ridiculums I am using to try and clarify a specific legal point. All I’m saying it’s not ultimately relevant to the law of a communication is verbal or physical, what the law cares about is the content of that communication.



exactly. Equivalent of a verbal “Fk you.” People aren’t really getting put in rape cages for that anymore (someone somewhere probably is). There was that one case with a cop but the federal courts tossed it.

Seems we are in agreement. We need to go do an "Apple Shoot" next summer and bring my wife's oldest grandkid, 14 along.

[GunnyFreedom]

Seems we are in agreement. We need to go do an "Apple Shoot" next summer and bring my wife's oldest grandkid, 14 along.
Every American soul with a long arm needs to do an Appleseed. I need to break the LMT308 in too. Will feel weird Appleseeding with an optic as big as my arm. :questionsmerk:

I guess if the New Corps is issuing optics in boot camp :facepalming: I can try to use an optic at an Appleseed. Lol

[phill4paul]

Negative. The Constitution is not only a limit on Fed power. The Constitution also delegates certain powers TO the feds. Like coining money. Building post roads. Or guaranteeing to the States a republican form of government. Some of the feds delegated powers are quite prescriptive.

Sure. But, if a State's Republican form of government outlawed fire arms then the Fed would have no purveyance. The entire point of the Constitution was that the FED did not have dictatorial powers on STATES. The FED was limited. NOT states.
This is the whole dichotomy. THIS is the crux. 10th Amendment vs. 13th.

[Swordsmyth]

Sure. But, if a State's Republican form of government outlawed fire arms then the Fed would have no purveyance. The entire point of the Constitution was that the FED did not have dictatorial powers on STATES. The FED was limited. NOT states.
This is the whole dichotomy. THIS is the crux. 10th Amendment vs. 13th.
The states were bound by Article VI.

[phill4paul]

Every American soul with a long arm needs to do an Appleseed. I need to break the LMT308 in too. Will feel weird Appleseeding with an optic as big as my arm. :questionsmerk:

I guess if the New Corps is issuing optics in boot camp :facepalming: I can try to use an optic at an Appleseed. Lol

I dunno. We can do a weekend in Ramsuer That's about halfway for both of us. Hayden will be 14 next year and I've committed myself to taking him to it. I've taken him shooting before. But, I want him to have a structured full weekend. I'd love if we could work it with you. Just so I could press hands. And shoot some shit. It's at least six months awa, but please consider it. Hayden would love to meet a Gunny. And fire a LMT308. As would I.

[GunnyFreedom]

You meet me in person and you’ll meet a Corporal. “Gunny” Freedom is a Marine Corps version of Captain America but for Ron Paul Forums 2008. I tried to change it in 2010 but everyone hated the idea lol

[timosman]

You meet me in person and you’ll meet a Corporal. “Gunny” Freedom is a Marine Corps version of Captain America but for Ron Paul Forums 2008. I tried to change it in 2010 but everyone hated the idea lol

A marionette?:confused:

[GunnyFreedom]

A marionette?:confused:

I came up in the bad old days of the Internet, with dialup modems and everyone had Internet codenames. On Usenet I was “the genx psalmsmith” and later just psalmsmith from about 1996-2006.

I’ve discussed my actual career at length here and never made it a secret to anyone.

[phill4paul]

You meet me in person and you’ll meet a Corporal. “Gunny” Freedom is a Marine Corps version of Captain America but for Ron Paul Forums 2008. I tried to change it in 2010 but everyone hated the idea lol

Ain't no big deal. I was an E-3, once, and young. ;)

But, then I was busted back to E-1 and still made it back to E-2 before discharge. All in a 2 yr. 9 month 'career.':D

[Schifference]

I do not believe this is true. If someone is going to transmit a sincere death threat, it’s far more likely to be in the form of a pantomime of a homicide than a pretense at sexual interest.

It is all in the interpretation or perception of the recipient. I find it hard to believe you think pointing a finger should be against the law. I think it matters not the perceived intent. I have seen people argue that drunk driving should be legal so long as no accident. If there is an accident, then it should be a civil matter.

Freedom.

[Schifference]

That gesture could have been accompanied with a wink and a tsk. For example you son of a gun, you keep doing me favors. I got my eye on you. Stop being so nice to me!

[GunnyFreedom]

It is all in the interpretation or perception of the recipient. I find it hard to believe you think pointing a finger should be against the law. I think it matters not the perceived intent. I have seen people argue that drunk driving should be legal so long as no accident. If there is an accident, then it should be a civil matter.

Freedom.


Can you... show me where I have ever, in my entire life, said that pointing a finger should be against the law?

what is it with people on here that wouldn’t actually read what they are trying to argue against to save their lives?

[GunnyFreedom]

Are most people really that dumb “yOu tHiNk poINtInG a FiNgER sHOuLd bE aGaInSt thE LaW!” or is this just one of the effects of constantly dividing yourselves into enemies and enemies and enemies, that you HAVE to say stupid shit to virtue signal to your fellow enemizers?

[Schifference]

Can you... show me where I have ever, in my entire life, said that pointing a finger should be against the law?

what is it with people on here that wouldn’t actually read what they are trying to argue against to save their lives?

"It’s just possible that in an extreme case a gesture COULD be a legitimate death threat. It’s improbable, but I can imagine scenarios easily enough."

[GunnyFreedom]

"It’s just possible that in an extreme case a gesture COULD be a legitimate death threat. It’s improbable, but I can imagine scenarios easily enough."
So, basically you are too stupid to actually read anything whatever I what I actually wrote, you come up with the “shifference” ideation of that you think “people like me” oughtta sound like, and when challenged on your disintegrity you desperately look for some text to superficially support your lies (which blatantly obvious means nothing of the sort) while ignoring the 90% that explicitly states the opposite of your bullshit.

Way to take shot out of context to formulate a disintegratous attack.

WTF is wrong with you? Is your reading comprehension REALLY “zero” or is this some kind of elaborate troll?

[Schifference]

I’m not arguing that THIS event is anything like that. I’m just saying in the extreme case a “gesture” could be an actionable threat. It would require a great deal of context to demonstrate criminal extortion.

And no, no “new” laws are needed of any kind. Legitimate death threats are already illegal.`

Obviously there are laws on the books. This guy was arrested and had to pay a fine.

[Schifference]

Right, I’m not talking about a gesture in isolation. The crime is not the gesture, it’s the coercive death threat. It’s just possible that in an extreme case a gesture COULD be a legitimate death threat. It’s improbable, but I can imagine scenarios easily enough.

Nothing taken out of context here.

[Schifference]

And no, I don’t believe any of the OP fits the “extreme case” I’m speculating on. If he was making legit death threats they would have charged him with a crime, not a $100 fee.

Okay to arrest him and charge him a fine.

[Schifference]

You do not believe fraud is injurious? 50 state laws back to the founding of America would seem to disagree with you.

None of you seem to get what I am saying. The Law doesn’t give a damn if it’s verbal or gesticulated. The law only cares what’s being communicated. Full stop.

I get it, funny funny ha ha; it’s stupid and ridiculous that a gesture could get someone in legal trouble. In the OP it’s almost certainly a case of stupid nanny state HOA effect writ large.

But a gesture cannot be ruled out as criminal speech just because the communication is signaled instead of spoken.

This, again is the point.

The Law doesn’t care about the form of a communication, only what is being communicated. SOME communications, like fraud and extortion, are illegal, and would still be illegal in ASL.

Nothing out of context.

[Schifference]

And no, I don’t believe any of the OP fits the “extreme case” I’m speculating on. If he was making legit death threats they would have charged him with a crime, not a $100 fee.
No Crime just pay the fee and don't do that again.

[Schifference]

So, basically you are too stupid to actually read anything whatever I what I actually wrote, you come up with the “shifference” ideation of that you think “people like me” oughtta sound like, and when challenged on your disintegrity you desperately look for some text to superficially support your lies (which blatantly obvious means nothing of the sort) while ignoring the 90% that explicitly states the opposite of your bull$#@!.

Way to take shot out of context to formulate a disintegratous attack.

WTF is wrong with you? Is your reading comprehension REALLY “zero” or is this some kind of elaborate troll?

Your tone and words here seem defamatory and aggressive. I feel threatened.
I have clearly stated that my grammar sucks. You on the other hand have mentioned your great attention to detail with words. The interpretation I get from your comments is that there are cases where a gesture could be a crime. I comment and am called Stupid, a possible great troll, and told I have zero reading comprehension.

You are a true diplomat.

[GunnyFreedom]

Your tone and words here seem defamatory and aggressive. I feel threatened.

If pushback against a blatant and obviously untrue smear makes you feel threatened, then you should probably reconsider making such smears in the first place. I will not apologize for being good at making lies obvious.


I have clearly stated that my grammar sucks. You on the other hand have mentioned your great attention to detail with words. The interpretation I get from your comments is that there are cases where a gesture could be a crime.

negative. I have a dozen posts in this thread on this topic and in like half of them I laid out with excruciating pedantry the fact that IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WITH THE GESTURE. It, as it has been since the founding of law in this country, the CONTENT of the communication that matters in determining intent in a court of law.


I comment and am called Stupid, a possible great troll, and told I have zero reading comprehension.

You are a true diplomat.

I could not possibly have laid out my position more clearly. All you had to do is read it. The one aspect I labored over and over and over again to demonstrate was irrelevant, is not the point of my argument. It could not possibly require an advanced understanding of English to discern that from what I have written.

I am not here to spread diplomacy with you or anyone. I am here to spread awareness of Constitutional government and what that actually looks like, so that the people affected will fight for a more accurately articulated Constitutional republic.

I don’t need your vote, and I don’t really care if you or anybody likes me. I care that rabid distortions of the Constitution are derogated and strong descriptions of actual delegation and original intent are elevated.

I don’t rightly care if you think I’m Hitler. If, a year from now you are in some debate with a political influencer, and you more correctly articulate Constitutional powers, and that happens to influence them to actually change the law, then I win, even if you’d rather see me anywhere but where you are.

[Schifference]

If pushback against a blatant and obviously untrue smear makes you feel threatened, then you should probably reconsider making such smears in the first place. I will not apologize for being good at making lies obvious.



negative. I have a dozen posts in this thread on this topic and in like half of them I laid out with excruciating pedantry the fact that IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WITH THE GESTURE. It, as it has been since the founding of law in this country, the CONTENT of the communication that matters in determining intent in a court of law.



I could not possibly have laid out my position more clearly. All you had to do is read it. The one aspect I labored over and over and over again to demonstrate was irrelevant, is not the point of my argument. It could not possibly require an advanced understanding of English to discern that from what I have written.

I am not here to spread diplomacy with you or anyone. I am here to spread awareness of Constitutional government and what that actually looks like, so that the people affected will fight for a more accurately articulated Constitutional republic.

I don’t need your vote, and I don’t really care if you or anybody likes me. I care that rabid distortions of the Constitution are derogated and strong descriptions of actual delegation and original intent are elevated.

I don’t rightly care if you think I’m Hitler. If, a year from now you are in some debate with a political influencer, and you more correctly articulate Constitutional powers, and that happens to influence them to actually change the law, then I win, even if you’d rather see me anywhere but where you are.

What I read from what you wrote is that you think is that a gesture could be a crime. I say then that it is up to interpretation and perception. You seemed to act as if $100 fine is alright or insignificant rather than argue that the guy should have never been arrested for pointing his finger.

[timosman]

Is GF threatening people and using Caps Lock again? :tears:

[Schifference]

So, basically you are too stupid to actually read anything whatever I what I actually wrote, you come up with the “shifference” ideation of that you think “people like me” oughtta sound like, and when challenged on your disintegrity you desperately look for some text to superficially support your lies (which blatantly obvious means nothing of the sort) while ignoring the 90% that explicitly states the opposite of your bull$#@!.

Way to take shot out of context to formulate a disintegratous attack.

WTF is wrong with you? Is your reading comprehension REALLY “zero” or is this some kind of elaborate troll?

Suppose for a moment I am not very bright. Does that justify you to go full assault with demeaning name calling and insults?

[GunnyFreedom]

What I read from what you wrote is that you think is that a gesture could be a crime.

then you haven’t read what I actually wrote.


I say then that it is up to interpretation and perception.

Negative. I wrote in plain and simple English. I wrote it out clearly enough that any distortion would have to be intentional.


You seemed to act as if $100 fine is alright or insignificant rather than argue that the guy should have never been arrested for pointing his finger.

which, as an example, is the dead opposite of what I actually said.

I said the fact that it’s a $100 proves it’s bullshit. Had it been an ACTUAL threat being communicated, he would have been charged with a CRIME. Not a $100 fine.

[Schifference]

Are most people really that dumb “yOu tHiNk poINtInG a FiNgER sHOuLd bE aGaInSt thE LaW!” or is this just one of the effects of constantly dividing yourselves into enemies and enemies and enemies, that you HAVE to say stupid $#@! to virtue signal to your fellow enemizers?
Why so much hostility?
I didn't call you any names or insult you.

[GunnyFreedom]

Suppose for a moment I am not very bright. Does that justify you to go full assault with demeaning name calling and insults?

I do not for a minute believe you are that dim.

[Schifference]

then you haven’t read what I actually wrote.



Negative. I wrote in plain and simple English. I wrote it out clearly enough that any distortion would have to be intentional.



which, as an example, is the dead opposite of what I actually said.

I said the fact that it’s a $100 proves it’s bull$#@!. Had it been an ACTUAL threat being communicated, he would have been charged with a CRIME. Not a $100 fine.

Why should he have a $100 fine? Why not argue that he should have been found innocent and compensated for punitive damages? Why is he getting arrested for pointing his finger? You argued that it could be a crime under certain circumstances thus justifying the arrest.

[GunnyFreedom]

Why so much hostility?
I didn't call you any names or insult you.

Because I only describe in pedantic excruciating detail like 8 times in the prior discussion that IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GESTURE. I laid that out in simple terms and explicit logic. The most complex thing I said was to call it an “ad ridiculum” argument to suss our the higher philosophical points.

Your level of “misunderstanding” here is impossible had you actually read anything that I wrote.

and the entire idea is “making a gesture illegal” is in and of itself an insult.

[GunnyFreedom]

Why should he have a $100 fine? Why not argue that he should have been found innocent and compensated for punitive damages? Why is he getting arrested for pointing his finger? You argued that it could be a crime under certain circumstances thus justifying the arrest.

What in the actual fk makes you think I support this guy getting fined? Arrested? Do you not understand what I meant what I said “it’s bullshit?” The guy in the op was the victim of nanny state HOA wannabe bullshit. You are asking me to defend what I have repeatedly called “bullshit.” If you want someone to defend bullshit you are going to have to ask someone else. I am not the bullshit defender.

[Schifference]

Because I only describe in pedantic excruciating detail like 8 times in the prior discussion that IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GESTURE. I laid that out in simple terms and explicit logic. The most complex thing I said was to call it an “ad ridiculum” argument to suss our the higher philosophical points.

Your level of “misunderstanding” here is impossible had you actually read anything that I wrote.

and the entire idea is “making a gesture illegal” is in and of itself an insult.

I read everything your wrote. The posts I quoted are what formed my interpretation of what you were saying. You made those statements. If I misinterpreted them, then you didn't do a good enough job explaining what you intended to say.

[GunnyFreedom]

I read everything your wrote. The posts I quoted are what formed my interpretation of what you were saying. You made those statements. If I misinterpreted them, then you didn't do a good enough job explaining what you intended to say.

Negative. I laid it out clear enough for a third grader. If you are actually functional in society than any disinterpretation is either intentional or colored by a perception bias.

[Schifference]

The way I interpret this, "I said the fact that it’s a $100 proves it’s bull$#@!. Had it been an ACTUAL threat being communicated, he would have been charged with a CRIME. Not a $100 fine."
Is a $100 fine is meaningless and okay. Had he done something wrong he would be in jail. Show me which post you say he should not have been fined $100. Show me where you say he should have never been arrested. Show me where you say no person should be arrested for pointing their finger.

[Schifference]

Negative. I laid it out clear enough for a third grader. If you are actually functional in society than any disinterpretation is either intentional or colored by a perception bias.

So when you write something, in this case many things, they can only be interpreted one way. If they are interpreted differently than you intended, there is something wrong with the readers interpretation. No person can read what you write and digest it differently than you intended. If a person does have a different understanding of your intent you resort to name calling and insults.

[GunnyFreedom]

The way I interpret this, "I said the fact that it’s a $100 proves it’s bull$#@!. Had it been an ACTUAL threat being communicated, he would have been charged with a CRIME. Not a $100 fine."
Is a $100 fine is meaningless and okay. Had he done something wrong he would be in jail. Show me which post you say he should not have been fined $100. Show me where you say he should have never been arrested. Show me where you say no person should be arrested for pointing their finger.

I don’t believe it is possible to function in society and sincerely believe this misinterpretation. This feels like a deliberate twisting of my words and a demand to prove that I never said what I never said.

If you want to understand my position, then re-read what I actually wrote. Not what you want me to have said.

If I believed you were sincere here I would have had had no problem addressing all of your questions kindly and gently, but I do not believe you are being sincere.

I believe anyone with even a basic grasp of English can clearly understand what I wrote, and your continued attempts to paint me as someone who would “outlaw gestures” is a deliberate attempt to denigrate someone whom you have classified as “opponent.”

I will not be drawn into your games.

[Schifference]

I seriously think you have aggression issues.

I was and am sincere. I have expressed my views based on my interpretation of what I read from your posts.

I was not aggressive. I did not call you names. I simply quoted your words that formulated my interpretation.

Now I am being told that I have no ability to function in society and a reading comprehension less than a third grader.

[Schifference]

Think what you want Gunny, but many threads you have been involved in since your return, have been filled with misinterpretation. So there must be a problem. You called me this, I never said that, you said this no I didn't ....... on and on.... The issue with me is not new for you. Maybe your words can be misconstrued.

[Anti Federalist]

Seems we are in agreement. We need to go do an "Apple Shoot" next summer and bring my wife's oldest grandkid, 14 along.

I am happy to see they are still a "thing" and have not fizzled out.

I went to one years ago, learned a lot.

https://appleseedinfo.org/schedule/?qstate=NC&state=North%20Carolina

[GunnyFreedom]

Think what you want Gunny, but many threads you have been involved in since your return, have been filled with misinterpretation. So there must be a problem. You called me this, I never said that, you said this no I didn't ....... on and on.... The issue with me is not new for you. Maybe your words can be misconstrued.
And on the modern Internet, most misconstruction is deliberate. For effect.

[GunnyFreedom]

I am happy to see they are still a "thing" and have not fizzled out.

I went to one years ago, learned a lot.

https://appleseedinfo.org/schedule/?qstate=NC&state=North%20Carolina

I was a Marine Corps rifle expert, and I learned a lot. Great thing about Appleseed is you can go from zero to four, or from six to eight. A solid groking of MOA changed my shooting universe.