four texas gun-toting "activists" scare fast-food employees into hiding in freezer

[Lonestar_logic]

No one has suggested not honoring due process. In this story there was no violations of due process, so why even bring it up? This story is typical of left wing hysteria when it comes to anyone exercising their second amendment rights. They are the ones that over-reacted. In an open carry state such as where I live (Texas), it is not my fault that my right to openly carry a long gun upsets people. That is their problem to deal with.

The right way to solve this problem is for those on the left to respect the rights or everyone, not just those they agree with.

I'm glad we agree on due process.
If anyone "jumped the gun" and assumed someone was guilty, then it is bypassing due process to act in a punitive way and deprive someone of their rights.

So if this is how you see the situation, I agree it is wrongful to bypass due process and start depriving people of liberty based on assumption of guilt.

However, my point remains it is equally wrong to "jump the gun" and assume this or that about the people if we weren't there.

If we start doing that, start presuming guilt and saying things like "it is not necessary to be there" to know which people were guilty of violating rights of others"
that, Lonestar, is equally wrong as the people we accuse of making presumptions of guilt.

So that is why it is not just "their problem" but becomes "our problem," when we jump in doing the same thing, and start making assumptions about guilt as the people we criticize.

Lonestar, at this point, even if the gun owners in the situation were right,
the act of accusing others (as well as anyone else associated) is just as problematic.

Can you and I agree that is the SAME mistake the people make who assume the worst about gun owners and gun rights activists?

What if they said "I don't need to be there to know" and assumed you were in the wrong.
Wouldn't you stop them right there before they made assumptions about you?

I disagree with your "if we weren't there" comment.

Do you have to be present to look at the facts presented and draw a conclusion?

Were you there when the Berlin Wall came down or when man walked on the moon? Do you discount the events as told by the people that were there because you wasn't there?

The fact is, no laws were broken, no one went to jail or was given a citation. It was an overreaction by ignorant people concerning our gun laws. The men never even entered the restaurant according to the news article.

 

[Pogo]

No one has suggested not honoring due process. In this story there was no violations of due process, so why even bring it up? This story is typical of left wing hysteria when it comes to anyone exercising their second amendment rights. They are the ones that over-reacted. In an open carry state such as where I live (Texas), it is not my fault that my right to openly carry a long gun upsets people. That is their problem to deal with.

The right way to solve this problem is for those on the left to respect the rights or everyone, not just those they agree with.

I'm glad we agree on due process.
If anyone "jumped the gun" and assumed someone was guilty, then it is bypassing due process to act in a punitive way and deprive someone of their rights.

So if this is how you see the situation, I agree it is wrongful to bypass due process and start depriving people of liberty based on assumption of guilt.

However, my point remains it is equally wrong to "jump the gun" and assume this or that about the people if we weren't there.

If we start doing that, start presuming guilt and saying things like "it is not necessary to be there" to know which people were guilty of violating rights of others"
that, Lonestar, is equally wrong as the people we accuse of making presumptions of guilt.

So that is why it is not just "their problem" but becomes "our problem," when we jump in doing the same thing, and start making assumptions about guilt as the people we criticize.

Lonestar, at this point, even if the gun owners in the situation were right,
the act of accusing others (as well as anyone else associated) is just as problematic.

Can you and I agree that is the SAME mistake the people make who assume the worst about gun owners and gun rights activists?

What if they said "I don't need to be there to know" and assumed you were in the wrong.
Wouldn't you stop them right there before they made assumptions about you?

I disagree with your "if we weren't there" comment.

Do you have to be present to look at the facts presented and draw a conclusion?

Were you there when the Berlin Wall came down or when man walked on the moon? Do you discount the events as told by the people that were there because you wasn't there?

The fact is, no laws were broken, no one went to jail or was given a citation. It was an overreaction by ignorant people concerning our gun laws. The men never even entered the restaurant according to the news article.

Horribly dysfunctional analogy. Nobody protested that the Berlin Wall or the moon landing was a violation of due process. Or a threat to anyone.

Emily's right; we're in no position to judge motivations if we didn't witness it. Your assessment of "overreaction by ignorant people" is no more informed than "they all scrambled into the freezer". Because you don't know that. And the blanket statement that 'person X carrying a gun is by definition not a threat' is clearly inoperative. Because there are plenty of times when he absolutely is.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm glad we agree on due process.
If anyone "jumped the gun" and assumed someone was guilty, then it is bypassing due process to act in a punitive way and deprive someone of their rights.

So if this is how you see the situation, I agree it is wrongful to bypass due process and start depriving people of liberty based on assumption of guilt.

However, my point remains it is equally wrong to "jump the gun" and assume this or that about the people if we weren't there.

If we start doing that, start presuming guilt and saying things like "it is not necessary to be there" to know which people were guilty of violating rights of others"
that, Lonestar, is equally wrong as the people we accuse of making presumptions of guilt.

So that is why it is not just "their problem" but becomes "our problem," when we jump in doing the same thing, and start making assumptions about guilt as the people we criticize.

Lonestar, at this point, even if the gun owners in the situation were right,
the act of accusing others (as well as anyone else associated) is just as problematic.

Can you and I agree that is the SAME mistake the people make who assume the worst about gun owners and gun rights activists?

What if they said "I don't need to be there to know" and assumed you were in the wrong.
Wouldn't you stop them right there before they made assumptions about you?

I disagree with your "if we weren't there" comment.

Do you have to be present to look at the facts presented and draw a conclusion?

Were you there when the Berlin Wall came down or when man walked on the moon? Do you discount the events as told by the people that were there because you wasn't there?

The fact is, no laws were broken, no one went to jail or was given a citation. It was an overreaction by ignorant people concerning our gun laws. The men never even entered the restaurant according to the news article.

Horribly dysfunctional analogy. Nobody protested that the Berlin Wall or the moon landing was a violation of due process. Or a threat.

Emily's right; we're in no position to judge motivations if we didn't witness it. Your assessment of "overreaction by ignorant people" is no more informed than "they all scrambled into the freezer". Because you don't know that.

Did you even read the article?

No one but Emily that I'm aware of brought up "due process" which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

Saying you can't know motivations because you weren't there is stupid, what were the motivations of those that tore down the Berlin Wall? Well you can't know because you weren't there. What were the motivations of those that put man on the moon? You can't know because you weren't there. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Yes they are ignorant people, they see law abiding citizens with rifles and they freak out because they do not know the law, by definition that is ignorant.

 

[Pogo]

I disagree with your "if we weren't there" comment.

Do you have to be present to look at the facts presented and draw a conclusion?

Were you there when the Berlin Wall came down or when man walked on the moon? Do you discount the events as told by the people that were there because you wasn't there?

The fact is, no laws were broken, no one went to jail or was given a citation. It was an overreaction by ignorant people concerning our gun laws. The men never even entered the restaurant according to the news article.

Horribly dysfunctional analogy. Nobody protested that the Berlin Wall or the moon landing was a violation of due process. Or a threat.

Emily's right; we're in no position to judge motivations if we didn't witness it. Your assessment of "overreaction by ignorant people" is no more informed than "they all scrambled into the freezer". Because you don't know that.

Did you even read the article?

No one but Emily that I'm aware of brought up "due process" which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

Saying you can't know motivations because you weren't there is stupid, what were the motivations of those that tore down the Berlin Wall? Well you can't know because you weren't there. What were the motivations of those that put man on the moon? You can't know because you weren't there. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Yes they are ignorant people, they see law abiding citizens with rifles and they freak out because they do not know the law, by definition that is ignorant.

See? You just did it again.

Roll the tape back:

and they freak out because they do not know the law, by definition that is ignorant

So..... you weren't there, yet you somehow "know" why they "freaked out" huh?

The analogy still doesn't work. Nobody argues conflicting opinions about how or why the Berlin Wall came down. It didn't come down because people "freaked out" or "didn't know the law".

 

[Jarlaxle]

4) My preference would be to hit a place at about 3:00 am ...

Of course. The perfect time to employ your deadly 'sleepfu'

Actually, 3am is the perfect time for most clandestine activity...people are either already sleeping or totally exhausted. And he's 100% right about the police at that time: when I drove wreckers working overnights, the police would be everywhere for about half an hour after the bars closed...then there would be NO cops on the road for an hour!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Horribly dysfunctional analogy. Nobody protested that the Berlin Wall or the moon landing was a violation of due process. Or a threat.

Emily's right; we're in no position to judge motivations if we didn't witness it. Your assessment of "overreaction by ignorant people" is no more informed than "they all scrambled into the freezer". Because you don't know that.

Did you even read the article?

No one but Emily that I'm aware of brought up "due process" which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

Saying you can't know motivations because you weren't there is stupid, what were the motivations of those that tore down the Berlin Wall? Well you can't know because you weren't there. What were the motivations of those that put man on the moon? You can't know because you weren't there. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Yes they are ignorant people, they see law abiding citizens with rifles and they freak out because they do not know the law, by definition that is ignorant.

See? You just did it again.

Roll the tape back:

and they freak out because they do not know the law, by definition that is ignorant

So..... you weren't there, yet you somehow "know" why they "freaked out" huh?

The analogy still doesn't work. Nobody argues conflicting opinions about how or why the Berlin Wall came down. It didn't come down because people "freaked out" or "didn't know the law".

Your response was so full of bullshit, I don't even know where to begin.

Pogo just shut the fuck up.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I disagree with your "if we weren't there" comment.

Do you have to be present to look at the facts presented and draw a conclusion?

Were you there when the Berlin Wall came down or when man walked on the moon? Do you discount the events as told by the people that were there because you wasn't there?

The fact is, no laws were broken, no one went to jail or was given a citation. It was an overreaction by ignorant people concerning our gun laws. The men never even entered the restaurant according to the news article.

Horribly dysfunctional analogy. Nobody protested that the Berlin Wall or the moon landing was a violation of due process. Or a threat.

Emily's right; we're in no position to judge motivations if we didn't witness it. Your assessment of "overreaction by ignorant people" is no more informed than "they all scrambled into the freezer". Because you don't know that.

Did you even read the article?

No one but Emily that I'm aware of brought up "due process" which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

Saying you can't know motivations because you weren't there is stupid, what were the motivations of those that tore down the Berlin Wall? Well you can't know because you weren't there. What were the motivations of those that put man on the moon? You can't know because you weren't there. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Yes they are ignorant people, they see law abiding citizens with rifles and they freak out because they do not know the law, by definition that is ignorant.

Being stupid doesn't even slow Pogo down, much less stop him from sharing his stupidity with the world.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Horribly dysfunctional analogy. Nobody protested that the Berlin Wall or the moon landing was a violation of due process. Or a threat.

Emily's right; we're in no position to judge motivations if we didn't witness it. Your assessment of "overreaction by ignorant people" is no more informed than "they all scrambled into the freezer". Because you don't know that.

Did you even read the article?

No one but Emily that I'm aware of brought up "due process" which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

Saying you can't know motivations because you weren't there is stupid, what were the motivations of those that tore down the Berlin Wall? Well you can't know because you weren't there. What were the motivations of those that put man on the moon? You can't know because you weren't there. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Yes they are ignorant people, they see law abiding citizens with rifles and they freak out because they do not know the law, by definition that is ignorant.

See? You just did it again.

Roll the tape back:

and they freak out because they do not know the law, by definition that is ignorant

So..... you weren't there, yet you somehow "know" why they "freaked out" huh?

The analogy still doesn't work. Nobody argues conflicting opinions about how or why the Berlin Wall came down. It didn't come down because people "freaked out" or "didn't know the law".

Hiding in a cooler at the sight of a rifle is "freaking out".

How do you know there aren't conflicting opinions about how or why the Berlin wall came down? Have you heard every single opinion on the subject?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Theowl32]

I always love reading threads started by moronic liberals. They always, and I mean always get utterly destroyed.


In their own threads.

Fucking hilarious.

Let us laugh at the morons who are going to follow the latest change in terminology.

Global warming to man made global warming, to climate change and the new latest and greatest brainwashing technique in use of rhetoric to seduce the simple minded......


CLIMATE DISRUPTION

Yeah, I changed the topic. Cause this thread has been done since page 1.

 

[Unkotare]

4) My preference would be to hit a place at about 3:00 am ...

Of course. The perfect time to employ your deadly 'sleepfu'

Actually, 3am is the perfect time for most clandestine activity...people are either already sleeping or totally exhausted.

And that's when his only skills come into play. See, he is such a damn badass that he can threaten to beat people with a bat while they are asleep. Yes, he is that tough. He walked the earth for years studying at the feet of masters in order to learn this deadly art. Truly, a steely-eyed hard case.

 

[Pogo]

Did you even read the article?

No one but Emily that I'm aware of brought up "due process" which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

Saying you can't know motivations because you weren't there is stupid, what were the motivations of those that tore down the Berlin Wall? Well you can't know because you weren't there. What were the motivations of those that put man on the moon? You can't know because you weren't there. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Yes they are ignorant people, they see law abiding citizens with rifles and they freak out because they do not know the law, by definition that is ignorant.

See? You just did it again.

Roll the tape back:

and they freak out because they do not know the law, by definition that is ignorant

So..... you weren't there, yet you somehow "know" why they "freaked out" huh?

The analogy still doesn't work. Nobody argues conflicting opinions about how or why the Berlin Wall came down. It didn't come down because people "freaked out" or "didn't know the law".

Hiding in a cooler at the sight of a rifle is "freaking out".

And you "know" that's what went down and you somehow "know" that was their reasoning. Even though your own "side" has disputed it.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

See? You just did it again.

Roll the tape back:


So..... you weren't there, yet you somehow "know" why they "freaked out" huh?

The analogy still doesn't work. Nobody argues conflicting opinions about how or why the Berlin Wall came down. It didn't come down because people "freaked out" or "didn't know the law".

Hiding in a cooler at the sight of a rifle is "freaking out".

And you "know" that's what went down and you somehow "know" that was their reasoning. Even though your own "side" has disputed it.

Thanks for proving my point.

I'm going by the same information you have. That's what the reporter reported. Some people here disputed it was a freezer opting to call it a cooler, I believe I did as well.

To answer your question. Yes.

 

[Pogo]

Hiding in a cooler at the sight of a rifle is "freaking out".

And you "know" that's what went down and you somehow "know" that was their reasoning. Even though your own "side" has disputed it.

Thanks for proving my point.

I'm going by the same information you have. That's what the reporter reported. Some people here disputed it was a freezer opting to call it a cooler, I believe I did as well.

To answer your question. Yes.

And this reporter -- he reported on the reasoning in their heads too? I mean you must have got that from somewhere...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And you "know" that's what went down and you somehow "know" that was their reasoning. Even though your own "side" has disputed it.

Thanks for proving my point.

I'm going by the same information you have. That's what the reporter reported. Some people here disputed it was a freezer opting to call it a cooler, I believe I did as well.

To answer your question. Yes.

And this reporter -- he reported on the reasoning in their heads too? I mean you must have got that from somewhere...

When people hide in a freezer upon seeing a person(s) with a gun it's safe to say they were freaked out. Or do people normally hide in freezers for no reason?

 

[Pogo]

I'm going by the same information you have. That's what the reporter reported. Some people here disputed it was a freezer opting to call it a cooler, I believe I did as well.

To answer your question. Yes.

And this reporter -- he reported on the reasoning in their heads too? I mean you must have got that from somewhere...

When people hide in a freezer upon seeing a person(s) with a gun it's safe to say they were freaked out. Or do people normally hide in freezers for no reason?

See? You're assuming. That's what "it's safe to say" means.
And also ignoring the 911 call as a factor. Have you not created your own timeline with "upon seeing a person(s) wth a gun"? You don't know that alone was the catalyst, that's the point.

And even if it is, you don't know what they saw or interpreted in the way of, say, threatening body language. And the fact remains it's a restaurant -- not a shooting range. Which means there's no discernible reason for people to be approaching it with firearms ----- unless they intended to rob the place.

And voilà, we're back where we started.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And this reporter -- he reported on the reasoning in their heads too? I mean you must have got that from somewhere...

When people hide in a freezer upon seeing a person(s) with a gun it's safe to say they were freaked out. Or do people normally hide in freezers for no reason?

See? You're assuming. That's what "it's safe to say" means.
And also ignoring the 911 call as a factor. Have you not created your own timeline with "upon seeing a person(s) wth a gun"? You don't know that alone was the catalyst, that's the point.

And even if it is, you don't know what they saw or interpreted in the way of, say, threatening body language. And the fact remains it's a restaurant -- not a shooting range. Which means there's no discernible reason for people to be approaching it with firearms ----- unless they intended to rob the place.

And voilà, we're back where we started.

Are you really as stupid as you seem?

Why else would they hide in a freezer if not for seeing the men with rifles? Why else would they dial 911?

It was never reported the men with rifles approached the restaurant. I draw my conclusions based on what was reported, you are making shit up per the liberal standard of dishonesty and trying to read more into than what was reported.

Just stick to the facts as we know them.

The employees saw men with guns, thought they were being robbed and hid in the freezer. They freaked out! It was never reported the "armed" men ever entered the establishment.

If you would watch the video accompanying the article you would see how the anti-gun idiot overreacts.

 

[Pogo]

When people hide in a freezer upon seeing a person(s) with a gun it's safe to say they were freaked out. Or do people normally hide in freezers for no reason?

See? You're assuming. That's what "it's safe to say" means.
And also ignoring the 911 call as a factor. Have you not created your own timeline with "upon seeing a person(s) wth a gun"? You don't know that alone was the catalyst, that's the point.

And even if it is, you don't know what they saw or interpreted in the way of, say, threatening body language. And the fact remains it's a restaurant -- not a shooting range. Which means there's no discernible reason for people to be approaching it with firearms ----- unless they intended to rob the place.

And voilà, we're back where we started.

Are you really as stupid as you seem?

Why else would they hide in a freezer if not for seeing the men with rifles? Why else would they dial 911?

It was never reported the men with rifles approached the restaurant. I draw my conclusions based on what was reported, you are making shit up per the liberal standard of dishonesty and trying to read more into than what was reported.

Just stick to the facts as we know them.

The employees saw men with guns, thought they were being robbed and hid in the freezer. They freaked out! It was never reported the "armed" men ever entered the establishment.

If you would watch the video accompanying the article you would see how the anti-gun idiot overreacts.

The video doesn't play. I read the story. It says right there they hid because they thought they were about to be robbed.

What do you do when you're about to be robbed? Draw a bulls-eye on your chest?

Let the record show you've descended to ad hominem, which I guess is all you have left. As I said, we're back where we started. Why don't we just go back to post 2 and repost the whole thread, one at a time. Yeah there's a plan.

 

[emilynghiem]

I disagree with your "if we weren't there" comment.

Do you have to be present to look at the facts presented and draw a conclusion?

Were you there when the Berlin Wall came down or when man walked on the moon? Do you discount the events as told by the people that were there because you wasn't there?

The fact is, no laws were broken, no one went to jail or was given a citation. It was an overreaction by ignorant people concerning our gun laws. The men never even entered the restaurant according to the news article.

If we agree that men walked on the moon, or the Berlin Wall came down,
no we do not need to be there.

If we disagree whether Zimmerman, Martin or both were equally at fault,
yes we might need to have been there to resolve our differences in perception.

Lonestar, nobody got charged for abusing millions in taxpayer dollars to seize land in the historic district where I live
and destroy irreplaceable national historic landmarks, even committing perjury in court to win over residents.

Just because courts or police don't do anything, doesn't mean violations didn't occur.

Look at the ACA: just because Congress voted on it, and the Supreme Court ruled it was a tax doesn't make it Constitutional.
It is considered legal "by the letter" if you use ONLY the criteria of "passing by" the Congress and Courts and don't question the process.

But I know by conscience it is not lawful to impose such a contract. I know it violates the SPIRIT of the law even if it follows the letter and appears "legal on paper."

Just because all the people who agree with it say it is legal doesn't mean it was lawful.

Now, if people CONSENT and AGREE to recognize something as legal, then yes, we do have the right to form social contracts by consent of the parties.

But where we disagree, we would have to prove it using criteria that is common to both sides, or else we risk imposing beliefs or biases on people which isn't their free consent.

LL maybe this particular gun case isn't the best case scenario to use as an example.
If this gun case is too clearcut to you, it doesn't make any sense why people would debate it, I understand.

Can you think of other cases where just because there were no charges
doesn't mean a criminal violation didn't occur? Do you know what I mean, anyway?

Thanks LL!

 

[emilynghiem]

Did you even read the article?

No one but Emily that I'm aware of brought up "due process" which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

Saying you can't know motivations because you weren't there is stupid, what were the motivations of those that tore down the Berlin Wall? Well you can't know because you weren't there. What were the motivations of those that put man on the moon? You can't know because you weren't there. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Yes they are ignorant people, they see law abiding citizens with rifles and they freak out because they do not know the law, by definition that is ignorant.

Hi LL sorry this wasn't clear
the "due process" applies to "judging PEOPLE for wrongs or wrongful intent"
(not whether events happened or not)

as for what caused them to hide, what happened to the part of the story that
a false alarm or some other warning [false 911 call from customer?] caused them to go hide?

If the gun owners had zero criminal intent, I can see how no charges would be filed
(to prevent even more headache and media frenzy over the controversy and confusion).

But even if their actions "unintentionally" caused a breach of the peace, and scared employees, disrupting business operations at their workplace, that is still an imposition on those workers and that business, even if no crime occurred.

I'm glad they worked it out peaceably without further incident, and nobody got hurt.
If they saw the differences in intent and perception were mutual, perhaps it was equal.

Still I do not see how anyone can be blamed for how they react to guns when there was not an agreement in advance how to deal with this crowd and what to expect.

[Note: it says that after employees were assured by police that there was no threat, "some even took photos" with the protestors.
if they were "trying to be overreactive" or ugly to each other, would they have been on friendly terms afterwards? wasn't this an honest
mistake because of past gun confrontations that have happened before? weren't they just trying to be safe and call police instead?]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The management and the employees have all stated they did not hide in the cooler. This was already linked at least once. The claim was a lie.

Further in a State with open carry where people have been carrying for MONTHS in that area, why would they suddenly feel afraid?

Perhaps you can link for us when the last time armed robbers openly slung rifles on their shoulders brazenly walked about and THEN resorted to robbery?

Personally if I were the cop I would arrest the idiot that made the 911 call for false reporting.