[stevenwoo]

Two of those people were not involved in any of the planning and discussion of weapons via Signal and still got 30 year sentences, for the magazines bit. The shooter claimed he only shot because he saw the officer shooting at the back of fleeing unarmed protestors - this type of law enforcement is frowned upon in most other countries but regularly happens unopposed in the USA and officers will claim and most of the time get qualified immunity. The whole prosecution feels of a kind of the misuse of laddering and felony murder charges.

[prepend]

> The shooter claimed he only shot because he saw the officer shooting at the back of fleeing unarmed protestors

This is still not the right move. I think I remember people being convicted of shooting back at cops directly shooting at them. But shooting at cops because you think they are shooting at protestors is never going to end up properly.

[foobarchu]

Then what's the right to it doing in the constitution?

[pasta67]

The constitution is fine. The main issue is about definition of oppression that is shifted by Left. And can I point the dissonance here as you seem to not get it - you want to overthrow "oppression"... and AT THE SAME TIME complain that "opressive" government has unfair laws against you? If you do not succeed at overthrowing "oppression", expect to be punished like losers, as state has monopoly on violence and is free to punish harshly those that challenge that monopoly.

[DangitBobby]

There's no dissonance in saying that the oppression is oppressive and the oppressors violate their own laws.

[prepend]

I think the dissonance is in thinking the actions of these protestors is ethical and legal.

[prepend]

There’s a right to bear arms, not to brandish and shoot them.

Nowhere does the Constitution say you can fire on police if you think they are doing something wrong. Especially when you’re incorrect.

I think the rule for insurrections is that you better be right. Or at least more powerful than the government (see American Revolution).