Posted on 01/09/2020 11:35:34 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
WILKES-BARRE, Pa. — An altercation over a man’s refusal to remove a “Make America Great Again” hat triggered a recent active shooter scare at a Pennsylvania mall, police said.
The altercation started outside when a man confronted another man wearing the hat in support of President Donald Trump inside the Wyoming Valley Mall in Wilkes-Barre on Dec. 30, authorities said Tuesday. The man threatened to assault the Trump supporter if he did not remove his hat, and then tried to knock it off his head.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
The Pittsburgh Pest-Jizzette rewrote it to make him seem as though he might have done it inside the mall. The prick editor should be fired for cleverly mangling that AP text, so please disregard my previous remarks about him carrying inside the "gun-free zone."
He did not get charged because firearms are not allowed inside the mall. Since he was outside when the altercation took place, the police filed no charges.
Sounds like pulling his gun was just a cautious move toward self-defense.
Me too. I bought a red hat that has white lettering embroidered on the front that says, "Made You Look".
I have great fun watching the looks on the faces of snowflakes and the like when they see it. Got to have your head on a swivel though.
He was in his right to defend himself with deadly force if needed.
A person has a God given right be able to defend themselves from harm and with whatever tools necessary. Since the police weren't available to confront the perp threatening assault, then the man had the right to defend himself.
>>He did not get charged, in spite of his committing a technical trespass by carrying into the “gun-free zone” at the mall.
According to the article the “gun-free zone” is INSIDE the mall, not outside in the parking lot.
Hope he was wearing his brown pants.
In my state, for concealed carriers, it matters not what the mall or store policy is as long as the gun remains concealed. The only exception are federal buildings, properties, and other venues where everyone inside must pass through metal detectors and armed security are present.
If you get caught carrying in a store that has a sign or policy that doesnt permit it, then they can demand you leave, but its not a legal violation.
But every state has their own laws. I dont know PA’s laws.
He did no such thing. Firearms are not allowed inside the mall. He was outside. There was no "gun free zone" involved. Thus, no charges.
I want the red hat that says “Made you look!”
IF and when a MAGA hat wearer has to appear before a court...and has to prove a real threat to life existed..there is a video history showing serious violence against MAGA hat wearers.
In PA, “No guns” signs mean “jack squat” unless asked to leave and you don’t while carrying. However, unless they can prove you carried onto their property knowingly——However, that’s hard to prove.
Exercise of 1st Amendment resulting in exercise of 2nd Amendment - bump for later.....
Notice how the headline 'forgets' to mention that the man in the red hat was first assaulted (assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm) then subjected to battery (actual harmful contact by the perpetrator).
In such a case, I would say that the man in the red hat had every right to defend himself, including the 'brandishing' of his firearm - another term incorrectly used. According to the article, the man displayed his firearm by holding it at his side, not in a menacing or threatening manner.
He's lucky he didn't end up wearing his red shirt.
I read the CBS version, so I’m now aware of that. Some prick editor at the Pittsburgh Pest-Jizzette re-wrote the sentence to make it seem like he might have been inside.
I wouldn’t either, but those that do are asserting their right to do so. They deserve protection and support from us.
I think he had every right to show his piece, whether inside the mall (the “gun-free zone”) or outside, as was actually the case.
The Post Gazette misreported this line, or at best misled readers by making them think being near (ie in parking lot) a store that is inside the mall equates to being in the mall:
“... but the altercation happened near the Macy’s inside the mall”.
As reported by multiple other sources, it occurred “outside, near Macy’s”.
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.