Firearms Talk banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,868 Posts
If blinded, it's interesting how five officers could positively claim the flashlight they were blinded with was mounted on a rifle. (To be so positive in the claim, they couldn't have been "blinded." If actually "blinded," thus couldn't have seen sufficiently well to know, then they must be making up the claim out of whole cloth.)

Thirty seconds later, the officers met with and spoke to the people in question. Hard to claim, then, that they were "resisted or impeded" at all. As for "assaulted," that rests on the claim of having a rifle aimed at them (which they couldn't see since they were blinded).

Not that I think much of this NFAC group, nor how they conducted themselves. (Let alone the negligent discharge that occurred when they mucked about that day.) It's just that this "flashlight at AR distances is a crime" sounds like a ball of crap to me, designed to dredge up something that could mess with the guy.

20yrs for getting lit by lights. Sounds about right. o_O
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,829 Posts
The story goes to prove that gun nuts are not limited to rednecks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dango

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
If blinded, it's interesting how five officers could positively claim the flashlight they were blinded with was mounted on a rifle. (To be so positive in the claim, they couldn't have been "blinded." If actually "blinded," thus couldn't have seen sufficiently well to know, then they must be making up the claim out of whole cloth.)

Thirty seconds later, the officers met with and spoke to the people in question. Hard to claim, then, that they were "resisted or impeded" at all. As for "assaulted," that rests on the claim of having a rifle aimed at them (which they couldn't see since they were blinded).

Not that I think much of this NFAC group, nor how they conducted themselves. (Let alone the negligent discharge that occurred when they mucked about that day.) It's just that this "flashlight at AR distances is a crime" sounds like a ball of crap to me, designed to dredge up something that could mess with the guy.

20yrs for getting lit by lights. Sounds about right. o_O

Agree. While i dont like NFAC, they of all the protest groups are the only one that has not enfaged in rioting.

The same cant be said for antifa or BLM But few to no arrests there.

That said.
Jay has a very large following.
Its obvious the arrest and charge this late was leveled to shut him up or scare him enough to shut him up. The charges will never stick because they are ludicrous charges.

He has met with the ky atty general , multiple LE in Louisville since .

There was every oppurtunity to arrest him long ago.
I dont agree with him or NFAC. But a this arrest is obviously a move to shut him up.

I hope it doesnt backfire in Louisville.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,868 Posts
Um, I don't see much of crime there. He did not shoot anybody.
Nor did anyone at the time, either, apparently.

Hard to claim "resisting" or "impeding" a thing by simply putting light on people approaching in the dark to see who they are. That's a stretch for anyone to claim, I'd say. That they waited months shows, at least to me, that this is the best they've got and it took them all that time to craft something with sufficient wording that'd muck with the guy's life a bit.

I'd be willing to bet a judge tosses out the accusations once brought before the court the first time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Nor did anyone at the time, either, apparently.

Hard to claim "resisting" or "impeding" a thing by simply putting light on people approaching in the dark to see who they are. That's a stretch for anyone to claim, I'd say. That they waited months show, at least to me, that this is the best they've got and it took them all that time to craft something with sufficient wording that'd muck with the guy's life a bit.

I'd be willing to bet a judge tosses out the accusations once brought before the court the first time.
If a judge doesn't toss it, it seems like a jury would.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I absoluteiy dont agree with the guy, but this was simply a trumped up charge to silence him. And possibly bring about the end of the NFAC as well.

He is out but is not allowed to posssss guns or be on social media and on house arrest.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,701 Posts
If blinded, it's interesting how five officers could positively claim the flashlight they were blinded with was mounted on a rifle. (To be so positive in the claim, they couldn't have been "blinded." If actually "blinded," thus couldn't have seen sufficiently well to know, then they must be making up the claim out of whole cloth.)

Thirty seconds later, the officers met with and spoke to the people in question. Hard to claim, then, that they were "resisted or impeded" at all. As for "assaulted," that rests on the claim of having a rifle aimed at them (which they couldn't see since they were blinded).

Not that I think much of this NFAC group, nor how they conducted themselves. (Let alone the negligent discharge that occurred when they mucked about that day.) It's just that this "flashlight at AR distances is a crime" sounds like a ball of crap to me, designed to dredge up something that could mess with the guy.

20yrs for getting lit by lights. Sounds about right. o_O
That would mess with their night vision ! 20 years and 20 lashes ........!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,868 Posts
That would mess with their night vision ! 20 years and 20 lashes ........!
Hm. Someone's in the distance, approaching an area in the dark where you are. Assuming they've not yet identified themselves and they've not yet been identified as uniformed folks, ... Still 20yrs?

I appreciate the comment might have been rhetorical, but then this guy's being accused of crimes. In a dark spot, putting light on unknowns approaching.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,701 Posts
Hm. Someone's in the distance, approaching an area in the dark where you are. Assuming they've not yet identified themselves and they've not yet been identified as uniformed folks, ... Still 20yrs?

I appreciate the comment might have been rhetorical, but then this guy's being accused of crimes. In a dark spot, putting light on unknowns approaching.
I've been following some of this guy's posts and there were some outright threats made by him more than once . It was only a matter of time before they jumped on him . Correct me if I'm wrong but did he not threaten the whole Chicago PD ?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I've been following some of this guy's posts and there were some outright threats made by him more than once . It was only a matter of time before they jumped on him . Correct me if I'm wrong but did he not threaten the whole Chicago PD ?
He did in a sideways way threaten a a PD and NG on one occasion.
Dont think it was Chicago because NFAC only goes where open carry is legal.
They also get permits to go whereever they are marching , or moozying , or whatever.

The charges will never stick here but they will do what the intent was. House Arrest, no social media podcasts , no guns, any NFAC members will now have to come to him, for a very long time.
Goal, Shut him up, kill NFAC, and in a wierd way criminalize a staunch 2A supporter who has a large following , to ease the gun grabbers path a bit.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top