I'm not looking to raise a firestorm here but I'm beside myself at what I'm hearing about the occupation that just ended. Some typically intellectual voices in media are really downplaying this. I keep hearing that this is a peaceful protest by men legally carrying firearms. I fail to see how any seizure of a piece of property while armed can in any way be referred to as a peaceful protest. The first law broken that I think of , if I understand it correctly, is possessing a weapon in a Federal building. How is this legally looked upon when practicing civil disobedience while taking up arms?
How many laws were broken in this? Would it not be considered aggravated assault, or assault with a deadly weapon regardless of rather the weapon is just merely in possession or used provokingly by the aggressor?
How many laws were broken in this? Would it not be considered aggravated assault, or assault with a deadly weapon regardless of rather the weapon is just merely in possession or used provokingly by the aggressor?
