Princessclab
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2007
You totally missed the point.....Law enforcement don't make that decision. They might investigate. It would be up to a prosecutor or grand jury to make a charging decision. If it gets that far the defendants might settle, although the final sentencing would be up to a judge. If it goes to trial a judge could rule in a bench trial or a jury in a jury trial.
But yes the laws apply to everyone. However, the use (or threat) of lethal force has to be justifiable. It can't be speculation that a group is going to do something just because they're walking in front of a house - even if it's a private road. Again - I can't justifiably point a gun at someone walking in front of my house (or even on my walkway) because I think they might try to hurt me. They would have to do something that clearly shows intention of harm. And she was pointing that thing everywhere, including at her husband and people just randomly on the street walking by.
I'll bring up cases where shopowners had weapons to protect their property. They wouldn't point on the speculation that someone might rob them. They typically stand with the gun pointed down but could justifiably point it if someone charges them.
Laws were being broken yet LE chose not to protect the homeowners in that private property neighborhood. They chose to not apply the law to the crowd, so LE does not always enforce and apply laws all of the time. Why did that happen?
Law breakers are only put into the legal system when and if they are brought into it by LE, the prosecutors are not out on the streets. LE decides all of the time which laws they chose to enforce
It was a large protesting group not just a singular someone arbitrarily walking by the front of the home. Nothing random about the group, they were in that group for a purpose. Perception of threat was very real IMO. A person cannot really decide for another on how much they feel threatened. No guns were fired.
The law was being broken by the protestors and the homeowners were unable to rely on LE for protection and enforce the law. What?
Where is the line drawn for what is and what is not enforced? Who gets to decide and what about the victims of the crime not being enforced?