“Vernikov, a Ukrainian immigrant who has been a staunch opponent of Palestinian rallies, posted a video of herself at the rally on X, formerly known as Twitter, claiming, “If you are here, standing today with these people, you’re nothing short of a terrorist without the bombs.””
Sounds like she went looking for trouble, maybe even for an excuse to use that gun.
She wanted to be the next Kyle Rittenhouse. Murdering and blaming it on provocation while using the negative sentiments of the protest to dodge accountability.
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.
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."
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
“Vernikov, a Ukrainian immigrant who has been a staunch opponent of Palestinian rallies, posted a video of herself at the rally on X, formerly known as Twitter, claiming, “If you are here, standing today with these people, you’re nothing short of a terrorist without the bombs.””
Sounds like she went looking for trouble, maybe even for an excuse to use that gun.
She wanted to be the next Kyle Rittenhouse. Murdering and blaming it on provocation while using the negative sentiments of the protest to dodge accountability.
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?
You read that part, but ignored the part right before:
How fascinating. I’m guessing cops hated when BLM protestors were armed?
I specifically addressed that in my very first comment in this post, see https://lemmy.world/comment/4511632
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."
I specifically addressed that in my very first comment in this post, see https://lemmy.world/comment/4511632
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
Read the article.
Because breaking an explicit law isn’t “exercising your rights.” It’s specifically and literally not a right.