• BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    From the article: “At no point in time was anyone menaced or injured as a result of her possessing the firearm”

    Given we know she did not threaten anyone. Why should she be arrested for exercising her rights?

    • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You read that part, but ignored the part right before:

      Although the councilwoman has a concealed carry permit, she violated the recently passed city law that prohibits civilians from bringing firearms to protests, the police said.

    • MrBobDobalina
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is such a beautiful example of cherry picking the bits you like. The answer to your question is literally the sentence right above the one you have surgically quoted:

      "Although the councilwoman has a concealed carry permit, she violated the recently passed city law that prohibits civilians from bringing firearms to protests, the police said.

      “At no point in time was anyone menaced or injured as a result of her possessing the firearm at the earlier protest,” the NYPD said in a statement."

        • MrBobDobalina
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right, but with different sorting, people don’t experience the same flow as you and might not see that first. So in this particular conversation thread, you’ve obfuscated a key part of the information and just ‘asked a question’ that is phrased in a way to spread misinformation

    • SatanicNotMessianic
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because breaking an explicit law isn’t “exercising your rights.” It’s specifically and literally not a right.