Why Did Cops Point a Gun at a Burning Gaza Protester?
The Secret Service’s strange reaction to the U.S. airman who lit himself on fire outside the Israeli embassy.

Active-duty U.S. Airman Aaron Bushnell set himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., on Sunday. While Bushnell lay dying on the ground, engulfed by flames, officers from the U.S. Secret Service aggressively tried to give him orders and pointed a weapon at him.
"I don't need guns," another agent shouted in frustration. "I need fire extinguishers."
Bushnell's act, which eventually killed him, was meant to protest U.S. support for Israel's war effort in Gaza. (The Air Force is currently transporting weapons and providing satellite intelligence for the Israeli military.) Bushnell, a military I.T. engineer, declared that he would "no longer be complicit in genocide" and shouted "Free Palestine."
But video of the event also showcased the disorderly, confused, and aggressive law enforcement response. Bushnell livestreamed his self-immolation on Twitch. The livestreaming platform quickly removed the video, but independent journalist Talia Jane obtained and shared a censored copy of the video online a few hours later.
Even the sanitized clip, which includes disturbing audio of Bushnell's screams, demonstrates how painful the act was. And it also shows the chaotic response by first responders, who treated Bushnell as both a victim in need of saving and a deadly threat.
As Bushnell burst into flames and began screaming in pain, a voice off-screen aggressively ordered Bushnell to get "on the ground" over and over again. Then two Secret Service agents ran into the frame, one of them spraying Bushnell with a fire extinguisher, another pointing his gun at the burning man.
The agent with the fire extinguisher began to argue with his colleagues off-screen. He wanted more fire extinguishers for Bushnell, who was still on fire.
"The armed officer was ensuring the safety of the two Secret Service officers who were working to extinguish the fire and render aid to the individual," the Secret Service said in a statement to Reason.
Several more agents showed up with fire extinguishers, finally putting out the blaze nearly two agonizing minutes after it started. Bushnell was brought to a local hospital and pronounced dead several hours later, according to a police report obtained by Newsweek.
The video sparked an online debate about the Secret Service's response.
"Whatever your view on self-immolation, nothing betrays the monstrousness of our political culture like that moment: from the local to the federal level, the state meets every challenge with an opportunity to kill," wrote New York local historian Asad Dandia, who successfully sued the NYPD for illegally surveilling him a decade ago, in a social media post.
There is a long tradition of self-immolation in antiwar protests around the world, dating back to the U.S. war in Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in the 1960s. Several months ago, an unnamed woman also lit herself on fire outside the Israeli consulate in Atlanta while carrying a Palestinian flag, an act that police described as "an act of extreme political protest."
U.S. Secret Service Communications Chief Anthony Guglielmi insisted in a statement to Reason that "this situation was unpredictable and occurred rapidly. In that instant, the level of threat to the public and the embassy was unknown, and our officers acted swiftly and professionally." The video shows that the situation did unfold rapidly, but viewers can judge for themselves just how necessary the guns were.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Obviously, they thought he had an acorn.
>>There is a long tradition of self-immolation in antiwar protests around the world
war against the self, in protest of war, conveys a ridiculous message. mho.
also the link no workie, was no person in range to tackle the idiot while he preached?
Really? A long tradition? I know of one protest by monks over the Vietnam war, you know, 60 years ago - that ticks the 'long' box, but two examples don't really qualify as a 'tradition'...
Quite a bit more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_self-immolations
was no person in range to tackle the idiot while he preached?
They were all too busy using their cellphones to record what came next!
It does send a strong message. "I believe in this message enough to die in service of it". You know that they aren't just preaching what is popular or to get money. They actually, fervently believe in what they are saying.
I don't know if it's worth it, but I can at least understand the sentiment.
understood. mho, any sentiment extending beyond the natural instinct to stay alive is a mental disorder.
Obviously, it's not a long tradition for individual practitioners.
🙂
😉
On a more serious note, immolation is not peaceful protest if it risks arson to buildings or flora and fauna on real property, or if it risks burns and biohazards for police, fire, EMT, or civilians who comecin contact with the body.
And, of course, for all of us who espouse the just cause of Libertaranism and not the Islamofascism of Hamas, there is much to be said for living to fight another day, perhaps an eternity if you can get away with it.
Why Did Cops Point a Gun at a Burning Gaza Protester?
A. Air pollution and littering are crimes.
B. If aimed just right, bullets can put out fires.
C. He was AWOL.
D. That's the cop's conditioned response.
E. Meant to point Taser, but was confused.
the Dallas Defense.
edit: no, wait the Dallas Defense is I thought I was in my own apartment.
Yeah, you want the BART cop defense.
thumb emoji
With the Dallas Defense he would’ve wound up getting put out by Kansas City in OT at the Super Bowl.
It could be construed as a mercy killing, if the flames were too far along. Except they didn't do that.
The cop thought he was a dog.
🙂
😉
That’s cute. You think cops distinguish between a human and a dog when they pull their guns.
I'm guessing it's because he didn't have a burn permit. I understand DCFD is pretty strict and doesn't hand one out to just anybody.
I’m guessing it’s because he didn’t have a burn permit.
Without a self-immolation passport he posed a clear and present danger to grandma until he died of fire with people owning guns as a co-morbidity.
100% safe and effective at ending the 'genocide' in Gaza.
the burn permit line was good.
Suicide is illegal.
They give cops guns to deal with criminals.
Crazy people may be wearing an explosive vest.
He might get up and hug a rescuer.
Lots of reasons.
Suicide is completely legal throughout the US. Which makes sense since if successful what can they do? Talking about it or trying and failing on the other hand could get you involuntarily committed to the funny farm or 5250'd as the Calibans say.
Of course the method may involve illegal actions, for instance, it's typically illegal to discharge a firearm within so many feet of an occupied dwelling so anyone thinking about shooting themself should do it in the middle of the woods which is also polite as it saves a lot of cleaning up after.
No. While many, but not all, states have laws allowing medically assisted suicide or "death with dignity" for terminally ill patients, those laws do not extend to non-medically assisted suicide or suicide for those who are not terminally ill. Suicide outside those parameters remains illegal in almost all 50 states and setting oneself on fire in public, which requires accelerants, also constitutes reckless endangerment and gross negligence vis-a-vis public safety and private property. Honestly, only a complete ass protests this way, let alone in support of Hamas. No sympathy whatsoever. None. Burn baby burn!
You’re a fucking idiot and a coward. Cheers
I have never been near any burning person. I doubt it's part of any police training. I can't imagine that anyone near a burning person is thinking very clearly very soon. As for pointing a gun, why not? It's near an embassy, it seems a reasonable guess that the burning guy was a failed suicide bomber.
Hell, if anything, I'd give them props for sticking with their duty of guarding the embassy instead of falling for some suicide bomber bait.
Exactly - this situation likely wasn't covered in their training, the only similar example I can think of was the monk (monks?) that set themselves on fire to oppose the Vietnam war.
If the burning man lunged at one of them, that's a threat to the officer, if he hid explosives on his person for a dramatic finale, that's a threat. But the thing is, you don't know what his plan was nor could you predict what comes next.
Sitting in your office chair, watching the video play it's easy to 'Monday morning quarterback' the officers actions, but in the moment, it's an entirely different thing. You read a description, then decided to click a link to see what happened - imagine you turn the corner at your local grocery store tonight after work and saw what this officer saw - what would you do, really? I think you'd just stand there staring, maybe screaming some expletives - and after you've had the benefit of thinking through this very scenario earlier in the day.
The thing everyone is saying, what if he were a suicide bomber whose vest malfunctioned? Well, what if he were? How is shooting the guy's vest going to protect anyone? The entire point is that this behavior is a classic example of the hamheadedness that people have come to expect from law enforcement. Such walking stereotypes deserve to be ridiculed.
It might prevent the would-be bomber from pressing a manual detonator.
The agent pointing the gun was a humanitarian who wanted to put the burner out of his misery, but was prevented from doing the right thing by the bleeding hearts with fire extinguishers. It's so obvious.
Waste of fire extinguishers. How about questioning that,
Nothing says SANE, RATIONAL, SAFE TO APPROACH like dousing self in lit gasoline. If the Hummus ragheads had done that instead of invading, killing and kidnapping Israelis, there would be no violence in the Middle East today.
Why Did Cops Point a Gun at a Burning Gaza Protester?
Probably because someone lighting themselves is fucking nuts and so outside the realm of normal behavior they had no idea what the fuck they were even witnessing at the time.
I’m not sure how I’d react to some lunatic dousing himself in flammable chemicals and then lighting himself either. Other than grab some marshmallows… too soon?
there is no too soon.
Any time's a good time for S'mores, am I right?
Last of the Mohicans Maj. Duncan Heyward burning at the stake.
Dude’s on fire, end his suffering.
Probably because someone lighting themselves is fucking nuts
Setting oneself on fire intentionally and non-performatively (YKWIM) is an overt demonstration of disregard for self and others, something some people would rightly diagnose as a threat, others would rightly diagnose at not being a threat, and only retards from their barcaloungers would armchair on Monday like Petti did.
Yup, I agree with this. Seeing a man set himself on fire is outside the norm, outside their training (I imagine), and outside anything they'd prepared for. So they just did a thing, even though it wouldn't help, because they had no idea what to do.
Easy enough to criticize in a nice calm room with plenty of time to think. Much harder in the moment, with adrenaline and fear and amazement overwhelming the mind, to figure out what to do RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW!!!!!
[Ignore this filler inserted to get around the Reason bug that screws up comments with a blockquote.]
True.
And much of that was because the agent holding the gun probably had little idea what the real situation was. The guy could have been wearing a fireproof suit and been quite capable (or thought he was) of setting off a bomb he had manual control of and planned to detonate at the end of his performance art exhibition. If that were the case and the bomb had been set off and killed innocents, the question would then have been “why were the agents trying to put out the fire instead of negating the threat to innocents”.
Monday morning quarterbacking is so much easier than Sunday afternoon quarterbacking.
Well, given your name, why didn't you do something? Maybe come down from your cross, turn some wine into water, and put him out?
🙂
😉
A) I am not Jesus. My name is an ancient Jewish name, and the fact that the fellow that started Christianity carried it is no fault of mine.
B) Jesus is not G-d. He was just a minor cult leader whose followers included a marketing genius with good luck.
C) I’m quite pleased that this worthless fellow died. There are people that make the world a better place by leaving it. Mr. Light-himself-on-fire was one of them.
Wow I had no idea libertarians were such heartless assholes who don't feel passionate about anything.
Your lack of understanding is appalling.
If a guy is rolling around on the ground in front of you on fire screaming in pain, human instinct should guide you.
Oh, I guess not.
"Hey put yourself out you big flaming baby!"
I’m not a libertarian. I do feel passionately that a virulent antisemite like Mr. Bushnell should leave the world as quickly as possible.
I have no compassion whatsoever for people that want my children to be tortured to death.
Yehoshua’s passion and mine is for survival, both for ourselves and other people of good will.
That’s kind of hard when someone is setting themselves on fire and thereby threatening the lives and property of those around them, not to mention supporting practitioners of genocide and Islamofascism!
And again, it’s not like law enforcers carry fire extinguishers along with their .44s and pepper spray. Even if law enforcers have the extinguishers in vehicles, that still takes time to get when seconds count.
I was joking around of course.
🙂
😉
I am an Atheist who doesn't believe a God (with or without vowels) exists.
I am a Secularist who doesn't hold to any religion, Abrahamic, Vedic, Pagan, or otherwise, and I find no evidence that a man who proported to be The Son of God in the region of The Holy Land ever existed.
A couple people here think because I am Atheist that I am Antisemitic but that's not true at all. I am 100 percent pro-Israel since it is a largely Secular nation with citizens from all over the world.
Despite it's Socialist economic policies, Israel is a multi-party parliamentary polity with a private sector that is closer to Libertarian than it's Islamic enemies. Any problems with Israel can be solved by citizens and allies gently nudging it in a more Libertarian direction.
I share your sentiment about Israel's genocidal and suicidal enemies and I only hate that they don't commit suicide before they attempt genocide.
Since you don't have holes in your hands, put her there, Yehoshua! Like The Doobie Brothers said, you're just all right with me!
🙂
😉
We’ll have to agree to disagree about the existence of the One Above. I am, as you may have gathered, strongly monotheistic.
I am happy to inform you that Israel has moved quite far away from its socialist start. While we still have traces of the old socialist regime in place, today the economy is far more free-market than command. Mr. Netanyahu has been instrumental in pushing this economic/political revolution forward. To my mind, this has been one of several great services that he provided to the country.
If you ever come for a visit, let me know–I’d be pleased to invite you to my home for lunch or dinner, or get together for falafel.
yehoshua.kahan@gmail.com
Eeeew! Burning human carcass and gasoline are not a good addition to S'mores!
You’re partially right that he was nuts. As it turns out he worked in military intelligence, not just IT. He also was raised in a cult. This cult has ties to at least the Canadian military, as well as control over a Canadian school that was shut down for doing cult shit to the kids.
Although these kids were tortured, the military turned a blind eye to one of its lt colonels (who also worked at the school) who was torturing literally - and proven in court - the children.
Idk about you guys but I can sometimes read between the lines. Dude came from a military family, raised in a cult (cults are known to be experiments ran by the military) and worked in intelligence of all things. Sounds sus. If we think they really stopped with mknultra we are simply in deniall.
Idk motive, Idk why our military would want to brainwash one of its officers into doing this ostensibly for Palestine, and idk how they do it. I’m just saying it’s beginning to appear that there may be some weird shit going on with black ops (see Havana syndrome).
He thought it was Johnny Storm and the Fantastic Four were going rouge.
If he'd survived, he could be Sarah Palin's running mate.
Because he might have gone all boomy from that tacticool vest he was wearing?
Putting out the fire seems like a better way to avoid that than pointing a gun at him.
Ah, but what law enforcer carries an extinguisher next to the .44 and the pepper sprsy on the utility belt?
Never understood why anyone would want to turn himself into human saganaki.
No, but people do lots of things I can't imagine deliberately doing. I can't understand why anyone would kill themselves at all.
Your handle tells us tons.
I'm surprised we ever got out of Viet Nam with candy asses like you in the mix.
You’ve prob lived a sheltered life
According to Wikipedia:
“Tarek El-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi was a Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire on 17 December 2010 in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, an act which became a catalyst for the Tunisian Revolution and the wider Arab Spring against autocratic regimes.”
The revolution faded over time and no country ended up freer than before. Bouazizi, an actual victim of government theft of his goods, killed himself from frustration over being deprived of a means to earn a living.
Bushnell was virtue signalling, telling people what good man he was by opposing an imaginary genocide, That was more important to him than his life.
Bouazizi was a sympathetic figure, Bushnell was merely pathetic.
Actually Tunisia is still freer than before. Not a democracy today but not as oppressive as it was in 2010.
But you are right about Bushnell. Law enforcement was right to consider him as a likely suicide terrorist. Jew hating Arabs didn't invent modern suicide terrorism but they do it a lot.
Even for the just csuse of standing up to tyranny in the Arab/Islamic world, self-immolation is not a peaceful, legitimate, practical means of protest.
Keeping uninvolved civilians who are potential allies out of harm's way and outliving your enemies is always a best practice.
🙂
😉
Why Did Cops Point a Gun at a Burning Gaza Protester?
^Tell me you live in a bubble in your white, Western neighborhood without saying "I live in a bubble in my white, Western neighborhood." Petti, you retard.
American Protesting Military Occupation: [sets self on fire]
Salafis and Baathists Everywhere: Hold my semtex.
"I don't need guns," another agent shouted in frustration. "I need fire extinguishers."
But enough about the insurrection, what about this story?
but viewers can judge for themselves just how necessary the guns were
Go fuck yourself hoplophobe. Someone set themselves on fire and dies of their burns and you use it to demonize firearms? Shove it up your ass sideway you fucking ghoul.
I must inform you that that's not what the article is saying, it's not close to what the article is saying- and you would have to be an imbecile of a very high order to make that mistake, my dude.
I must inform you dude, whether you and Petti are too delusional or retarded realize it or not, that's what the article is saying. The guy set himself on fire and died while, and not because, guns were present and Petti's focus is the completely irrelevant presence of guns.
In typical gun-control fashion: Would you and Petti feel better about him immolating himself if they'd drawn tasers or batons or snares? If yes, pretty fucking ghoulish that the dude sets himself on fire and your thoughts on the matter are "Well, at least they didn't point guns at him." If no, then WTH would you write an article complaining about the guns?
Just because you retarded dickheads choose to frame things as "I must inform you...", doesn't mean you're being any more polite than someone making a racist joke with "I don't mean to sound racist, but..." in front of it. Petti didn't write an article questioning why the Secret Service pointed guns at someone immolating themselves and then, nobly, allow the readers to decide. He's, like an ass, giving the reader permission to claim the conclusion he lead them to, even if it's nonsense. What's he, or you, going to do? Disarm the Secret Service for pointing guns at someone who set themselves on fire? Fuck him and fuck you. Dude sets fire to himself in my proximity, I'm validated in taking him as a threat every bit as much as he's validated taking me as a threat for drawing a weapon.
The focus was on unnecessary force, not demonizing use of guns. It’s a common motif in libertarian politics for reference.
If they pointed tasers, batons, or any non-lethal force against a guy engaged in self announced self immolation, it would be equally silly and (watch the video) just as unnecessary.
Also, your post opened with “Go fuck yourself” and mine started with I “must inform you” you have absolutely no ground to get butthurt when you’re an even bigger asshole to everyone else lmao suck my fucking balls.
The article is an emotionally manipulative trash fire of proggy concerns. Who gives a fuck about some leftist nutter who commits suicide and attached it to the cause de jour? The guns and response to a potential threat were perfectly reasonable while watching some lunatic set themselves ablaze.
Who gives a fuck about some leftist nutter who commits suicide and attached it to the cause de jour?
Again, this I could understand. Petti talking about sports or the weather or the complexities of the sociopolitical cause itself and how the stunt is comparatively insignificant? Makes sense.
Petti didn't do that. He specifically chose to overlook the dead body and the reason why it was dead in order to make it seem like the guns were somehow more material to the issue than the person lighting themselves on fire and dying. It's rather transparently the same anti-gun animism that looks at Chicago's murder rate, rants for several paragraphs about guns, and then says, "I leave it up to you the reader to decide whether the guns are necessary." And, to wit, the same MO, that such people don't actually care about the guy who lit himself on fire or shooting each other to death in Chicago, they care about people finding guns necessary.
If the force was necessary, not the guns..
Which is why he said "viewers can judge for themselves just how necessary the use of force was"?
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
Self immolation is newsworthy, sorry. I know it’s bad for your team, mister “social justice is neither.” But just take the L you chump.
If you’ve got such as problem with it, stage a counterprotest!
We're perfectly happy to let idiot leftists kill themselves. No counter-protest required. Feel free to join him in solidarity.
Also, your post opened with “Go fuck yourself” and mine started with I “must inform you” you have absolutely no ground to get butthurt when you’re an even bigger asshole to everyone else lmao suck my fucking balls.
My post started with “Go fuck yourself.” to Petti. You started yours with “I must inform you…” which is a lie. You don’t need and didn’t. Again, just because you metaphorically put a “I don’t mean to sound racist but…” in front of your ” …black people are generally more stupid than asians.” doesn’t make it not racist or correct or informative. It just demonstrates how self-unaware and disingenuous you are.
Again, you’re trying to pretend that what’s obvious isn’t obvious like a 4 yr. old thinking they’re clever by saying “No” while shaking their head “Yes” while everyone is looking at you. That trick might work when no one’s watching or everyone is already sympathetic, but if you’ve got even one person whose even modestly impartial, it’s going to be very obvious that you’re either stunted to the developmental level of a 4 yr. old or your so crooked and self-delusional that you think you can lie to peoples’ faces and get away with it.
If they pointed tasers, batons, or any non-lethal force against a guy engaged in self announced self immolation, it would be equally silly and (watch the video) just as unnecessary.
And the article would be equally pointless if not ghoulish for acting like the possession of police batons is the most significant socio-political factor in the guy's demise. People could already judge for themselves. They didn’t need Petti to tell them. Unless, of course, the article isn’t just telling people the guns were unnecessary but suggesting that the author felt people shouldn’t own guns in public.
Maybe, if Petti had brought up the weather or the sports scores, he would have a point about the insignificance or pointlessness of this guy's stunt, but Petti didn't do that. Instead, he chose the exact same anti-gun animus that any off-the-shelf Leftist would choose.
Also, your post opened with “Go fuck yourself” and mine started with I “must inform you” you have absolutely no ground to get butthurt when you’re an even bigger asshole to everyone else lmao suck my fucking balls.
Again, just because you prepend your “… Mexicans are lazy.” comment with “I’m politely trying not to sound racist but I must inform you…” doesn’t make your statement non-racist, justified, or honest. Rather the opposite. Repeating it and then dropping the pretense doesn’t make things any better.
You're a pretentious windbag.
I'm sorry that "Go fuck yourself." was too pretentious and long winded for you Mr. "I feel compelled to inform you (and I'm totally not just being a pretentious asshat)..."
Um, there is no video there. Torquemada has acted to protect us from bad things.
Because he was a terrorist supporter potentially trying to attack a foreign government’s embassy?
I’m not being facetious, how do they know he wasn’t also wearing a suicide vest?
If some crazy guy sets himself on fire in front of an Israeli target, how do you not suspect, even a little, a potential suicide bomber?
Let him burn out, then roll an explosive robot over him to make sure.
Truth be told, there is a longer tradition of suicide bombers than of people setting themselves on fire, especially when Israel is concerned. It would not be unreasonable to suspect that he had a bomb on him.
My thought too...consider the circumstances, and the times. How can you be sure the guy isn't a suicide bomber?
How many more people in the military think like the self immolater?
I am old enough to remember the Second Intifada.
I was in Israel during the Second Intifada. I saw the police blow up someone's backpack that was left on the sidewalk. Too many such backpacks had blown up by themselves.
Start with the robot. It's too late if he blows up first.
WAIT! Maybe the guy was brainwashed. Two days ago Tatsuya Hirohito's cartoon strip showed poor Hamas Napalm Boy being fierily mistreated by Jyooz FOR NO REASON! https://sinfest.xyz/view.php?date=2024-02-25
This article is banal in the extreme and seeks to make political points with zero regard for the humanity of its targets. The first question every sane human being, including law enforcement, asks is, “Am I and mine going home today?” In the initial moments, most of those agents were probably in shock and trying to assess whether this man was a threat only to himself, to bystanders, or to them. Most human beings, including those with badges, will likely find a person lighting themselves on fire shocking and, believe it or not, outside their usual wheelhouse. It’s unsurprising that it took them an extra minute to process what was happening. It’s not the behavior of a rational actor or what they train for. Personally, even if most agents were grabbing fire extinguishers, I would want one with a gun out and down-ready just in case, in those initial moments, he lunged at the agents trying to put him out or thrashed around, potentially harming a bystander or rolling into flammables and creating a larger fire. While putting him out and trying to save him is a priority, it is only one of many, and not even the top priority. A person who sets themselves on fire is potentially putting others in harm’s way. The safety of those others comes first.
^This. It's not any more complicated than that. It's not evil intent, it's instinct to see something crazy as a potential threat and react on instinct.
In any free country, LEOs would be subject to the same laws as the people. And in my state, drawing your gun for any reason (the person could be inside your home and in the act of raping your family members to death) and not shooting it (even if that's because the assailant surrendered or fled) is assault with a deadly weapon, period. Can't imagine it's any less like that in D.C.
Drawing a gun and shooting the person is, I am sure, a worse form of assault with a deadly weapon, if not homicide or attempted homicide. In either case the normal defenses like self-defense can apply.
And in my state, drawing your gun for any reason (the person could be inside your home and in the act of raping your family members to death) and not shooting it (even if that’s because the assailant surrendered or fled) is assault with a deadly weapon, period.
Either you're retarded and don't understand the laws of your state, retarded and don't understand what you wrote, or both. There are States and municipalities where brandishing or pointing a weapon at someone constitutes a crime but the law specifically delineates between drawing a weapon and brandishing and/or pointing.
I honestly hope I misunderstood that law but I'm not optimistic about that hope. It's a long precedent here that if you did not produce a corpse then you did not need lethal force.
drawing your gun for any reason
There is no State that bans drawing a gun at a shooting range. There is no State that bans drawing a gun to turn it in at a buyback or to surrender to police. There is no state that bans drawing a gun for demonstration purposes to the viewers on your YouTube channel.
There is a distinction between drawing a gun and brandishing or pointing and threatening. Some States ban the latter, some states leave it to the courts which, since there are cases where people brandish and/or point guns in order to threaten and/or harm someone else, is *precisely* the sort of thing (lots of libertarians believe) the courts could or should decide is a criminal act or protected performance.
Hyperbolic, lazy, stupid, dishonest… take your pick. I don’t care.
I have never heard anyone call it “drawing” to unholster a firearm for recreational or utilitarian purposes.
And what the fuck is your problem anyway, asshole? Are you so insecure that you don't know what basic words mean that you have to take it out on everyone else?
I have never heard anyone call it “drawing” to unholster a firearm for recreational or utilitarian purposes.
OK, then I was right when I said you don't understand the laws of your State and, apparently, haven't seen like 95+% of the range and training videos on YouTube.
The law is broadly very clear about open carrying vs. unholstering vs. drawing vs. brandishing vs. pointing and/or aiming whether you are or not. And, to be clear, many states can and do regard brandishing as a crime whether you actually draw the weapon or not... BECAUSE BRANDISHING SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO THE THREAT.
Are you so insecure that you don’t know what basic words mean that you have to take it out on everyone else?
I know what the words mean. My problem is, very much analogous to firearms, people who use them without the minimal amount of understanding required to avoid shooting themselves or someone else with them. If you hadn't metaphorically drawn your pistols and begun firing them like a retard into the air, I wouldn't have said anything.
Don't get mad at me because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and insist on doing it anyway.
If you can articulate that, in that initial moment of shock, you drew your weapon because you feared significant injury or death to yourself or others, and then holstered your weapon when you realized what was happening, you have, in almost all 50 states, a positive defense for the crimes you mention. This is doubly true if your weapon is down-ready as opposed to pointed at the person's head. You could also, quite reasonably, articulate that had the burning man, having lost his mind, run into a crowd, a bus, or a vehicle, that he might have started a larger fire and put many more lives in danger. Most reasonable people confronted with such an unexpected, unusual, and quite frankly shocking and disturbing event will, quite reasonably, experience a moment of significant fear and alawm. And, that's just for private citizens who are entitled to run away rather than duty-bound to run towards the burning man. No, these officers have plenty of reasonable and articulable rationales for drawing their weapons under these circumstances. Hatred of cops and / or firearms doesn't change the basic legal math.
And in my state, drawing your gun for any reason (the person could be inside your home and in the act of raping your family members to death) and not shooting it (even if that’s because the assailant surrendered or fled) is assault with a deadly weapon, period.
No, it's not. Please refrain from making statements of fact about subjects you know nothing about. Thanks.
It's not possible for LEOs to be subject to the exact same laws as non-LEOs. For example, I cannot legally handcuff a person and put him in a cage. If I try to do that, I will commit a very serious crime. For an LEO, it's literally part of his job.
Bushnell's act, which eventually killed him, was meant to protest U.S. support for Israel's war effort in Gaza.
Another gullible victim of radical leftist propaganda.
He was protesting US support for Israel's war effort in Gaza, which was in retaliation for the terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel. So really he was protesting Hamas.
And the humane thing to do would be to pull the trigger, not wait for him to burn to death.
Really, he was protecting Hamas.
Which is exactly why I am glad to hear that he died of his self-inflicted injuries. People like this make the world a better place by leaving it.
And the humane thing to do would be to pull the trigger, not wait for him to burn to death.
While I don't disagree, can you imagine the apoplexy this would cause?
Someone set themselves on fire over foreign policy, nobody was shot and we have Reason, retarding all over themselves about how the Secret Service shouldn't have regarded someone setting themselves on fire as a threat and/or possessed guns.
I dunno, why did some dumbass think dousing himself and gasoline and lighting himself on fire would solve anything? That's probably a much better question.
But then you can't dog whistle to your anti-cop, pro-Palestinian, pro-protest, anti-gun friends.
What harm did pointing his gun at a man who had set himself on fire do?
Pretty easy to explain this one. If crazy guy is only potentially a threat to himself then let him carry out his own fate. I see no duty to render aid to someone explicitly harming only himself. This isn’t that situation. He was a danger to others at face value because fire spreads. They didn’t know if he had other weapons or further intent. He could even lunge out at someone simply out of pain and desperation. It would have been safer (and more humane) to drop him in place and put out the fire of his corpse. I swear nobody at Reason has any ability to consider externalities. A bunch of bleeding heart dumbfucks who only care about satisying their petty, short-sighted emotions.
His last words: "I got a bright idea!"
Spark of genius
Mr. Petti. Can you write another article explaining the Libertarian free market angle to your post? As my handle implies, I am an oaf so admit that understanding complex issues often escapes me. Please, do tell.
But video of the event also showcased the disorderly, confused, and aggressive law enforcement response.
The twitter response is even funnier.
Jill Stein: "Rest in Power."
Blacktivists: "THAT AIN'T FOR WHITE PEOPLE!!!!!"
More Blacktivists: "ESPECIALLY NOT FOR WHITE MILITARY!!!"
Progressivism: "Well, I mean, it does kind of apply."
Blacktivists: "THAT IS OUR TERM."
LGBTP: "It's kind of ours too."
MAGA: "He self-immolated for people that would murder you without hesitation, queer."
LGBTP: "Like that transgender pedophile that committed suicide the other day? Rest in power."
MAGA/Blacktivists: ".... no, dead transgender pedophiles are a good thing. SHUT UP. We're not supposed to agree!"
Losertarians: "Hey! HEY!!! Someone pay attention to us! What about how bad the cops were?"
MAGA: "What are you even talking about? Put down the bong already."
Blacktivists: "Just cause you love drugs and hate cops don't make us friends, crackas!"
MAGA/Blacktivists: "SHUT UP!! We're not supposed to agree!!!"
Israel: *not paying attention, righteously slaughtering terrorist scumbags en masse*
Normal People: "This is the most hilarious martyrdom ever."
Clown World. Greatest reality tv show ever.
The funny thing is that none these characters in your little screenplay sound as stupid as you have, Mamet Mini-Me!
Don't think I've forgotten your little crack about pickup trucks and dragging ropes! Come near me with that and you won't need to be on fire!
Stay away from the kids and you won’t have anything to worry about.
I don’t have kids, so I have no real skin in the game. I’m just warning you bro – if the alphabet rainbow cult keeps pushing, and the media/politicians/law keep running interference/protectionism for them – the parents, and all these kids today whose lives the LGBTP and its enablers has destroyed, are going to come for you. And no activist, journalist, congressman, or cop will be able to stop them. They will come with a scorched earth vengeance unlike anything this nation has ever seen or can imagine.
I don’t believe in using violence to solve social problems (or, in the case of LGBTP, social viruses) – you won’t see me supporting them when they come for you with their truck and a length of rope. But when you’re crying for help, I won’t be available. I…. have to wash my hair.
You know how I think it’s going to start, Tre? As bad as the groomers and the pedos and those castrating the kids are – I truly think the girl’s sports are going to be the first domino to fall. I think girls are going to be the first to get to the point where enough is enough, and they’re going to start going Tonya Harding on the boys invading their locker rooms. Like, career-ending kneecappings. And I think they’ll be real brazen about it. “OK ballsack, you want to play with the girls? Come play with the girls.” And after that domino falls, everyone else will start coming for all those rainbow sicko perverts as well.
It’s not going to be me coming for you Tre. It’s going to be a whole lot worse than me.
Better start policing your own. Fast.
I don’t believe in using violence to solve social problems (or, in the case of LGBTP, social viruses) – you won’t see me supporting them when they come for you with their truck and a length of rope. But when you’re crying for help, I won’t be available. I…. have to wash my hair.
Oh, Bullshit! Violence is all you've talked about when it comes to LGBTQ people, though you now reveal that you don't have the stones, so to speak, to practice your murderous preaching!
Child molesters are not one of "mine" to police, any more than they are Heterosexuals to police, Dummy! If you were sane, you'd understand that child molesters are the bane of all good people, regardless of sexual orientation and all should stand against abusing children!
I say this and I'm Childfree By Choice! I have no children to harm and won't bring children into a world where Religion, State, or riff-raff in general can abuse them! And I support no institution or individual who would abuse children!
And since you're just a tough-talking chickenshit who won't act on his own words, what I said applies to your allies with trucks and ropes too! Tell them to spend their useless lives taking on the real abusers of children and stay the fuck away from me or it's at their own risk!
Violence is all you’ve talked about when it comes to LGBTQ people
In the same way one might talk about the way a bear will ultimately react if you keep poking it, or try to come for its cubs.
Of course, your response is a default position for the LGBTP. Anything anyone says that's in any way shape or form disagreeing or critical of them, they consider "violence."
'course, nobody buys it anymore. Which is why their days are numbered.
Child molesters are not one of “mine” to police
This is another immediate fallback of the LGBTP. Trying to distance themselves from the "worst" - while glossing over all the other horrible predatory behavior. Like, say, introducing made-up pronouns to grade schoolers and chastising them for using the wrong ones. Yea, maybe you're they're not sexually molesting them (YET) - but are you going to sit there and tell me that's not emotionally/psychologically abusive, particularly to someone so young?
And here's the thing, slick - the people doing that? They're waving your flag. You are a part of the same acronym they are.
Yea, they ARE yours to police. If you wanted legitimacy and acceptance and tolerance, you should be the VERY FIRST PERSON OUT THERE shouting, "Whoa - that sicko pervert is NOT with us." You should frankly be taking the same position I have - that if those people aren't stopped, it's quickly going to escalate to rope and truck hitch time. You should be saying it desperately, and out of a sense of self-preservation!
If that's something you want to prevent, YOU should be the first in line saying, "I just want to be gay - THAT DUDE, that drag queen over there with the children's book scanning the crowd for children - HE needs to be chemically castrated, and then locked up for life."
Why aren't you saying that, incidentally? You go to great pains to criticize me, but how come I don't see you criticize them?
(I already know the answer.)
And it's why I'll be busy... um... folding laundry when a bunch of pissed of parents and kids-turned-mutilated-adults, whom the law and the social contract utterly failed, come for their vengeance and don't discriminate.
You won't get to pretend "I'm not with them" by then. They'll know better. Heck, everyone already knows better.
any more than they are Heterosexuals to police
And yet, heterosexuals do police them. It ain't a bunch of straight guys in nuclear families that are in the schools and in the libraries and in media/pop culture advocating vehemently for the grooming of children.
It's the heterosexuals in nuclear families that are the loudest opponents to that sort of thing. And the response of the LGBTP and their enablers is to try and jail them or have their kids forcibly removed from their care or to brainstorm ways to prey on their kids secretly behind their backs.
So, yea - this is coming from YOUR people. Not mine.
Everyone else is already doing everything they can - and many are quickly coming to the realization that it's going to take more drastic steps. Steps that the law, media, and culture are no longer willing to take for them.
and all should stand against abusing children!
So lead by example. Or, are you afraid of what might happen if you do?
It's well documented. Google the term "TERF" - and see the vitriol, hatred, cancelling, swatting, and death threats directed at anyone who draws a line across the rainbow and declares, "This is as far as I go, everything past this is evil and wrong."
That's the catch-22 for the LGBTP. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Came for the gay, stayed for the trans, now stuck with the pedo.
I'm really getting tired of the police-can-do-no-right attitude of the Reason writers. If cops do violate someone's rights, by all means report on it. But whose rights were violated here? This wasn't civil asset forfeiture. This wasn't a no-knock drug raid. This wasn't a cop using their authority to stalk somebody. This was a clearly-dangerous and unpredictable situation. What exactly were the officers supposed to do in this case?
Not to mention, quoting someone from the gun-hating ACLU is hardly objectivity.
What if he was a decoy to draw attention while others assaulted the Embassy? It's real easy to sit there and Monday morning quarterback when your ass isn't on the line. If I was there I'd probably have pulled a weapon as well. Then I'd be looking for threats to myself and others.
Lawn chairs, chips and salsa, and fruity cocktails with little umbrellas. For the career-minded? Roast hotdogs and make smores.
Please, no! Don't poison and desecrate The Host of good campers everywhere by roasting Ball Park Franks and S'mores over gasoline and the flesh of genocidal lunatics!
Yep it used to be that libertarians recognized that the one essential role of government that can't just be done by private parties is the role of representative violence.
Someone somewhere ultimately needs to enforce the few laws we truly need to keep people from harming each other, and those laws ultimately are enforced by violence. And the only way that doesn't turn into protection rackets and warlords and fueds is if you have a representative government to have an exclusive monopoly on violence to enforce those few essential laws.
In this case the cop was right. And it's not like he shot him.
I suppose an argument could be made that he should have just shot him to put him out of his misery. What a horrible and horrific thing to experience (for all involved).
who treated Bushnell as both a victim in need of saving and a deadly threat.
Meh. Crazy can lead to all kinds of outcomes no one can predict. Best be prepared.
U.S. Secret Service Communications Chief Anthony Guglielmi insisted in a statement to Reason that “this situation was unpredictable and occurred rapidly. In that instant, the level of threat to the public and the embassy was unknown, and our officers acted swiftly and professionally.”
The (much more) libertarian closing sentence(s) we could’ve had:
With such a thoroughly penetrated and threatened position being appraised as swiftly and professionally handled, one might question the efficacy or necessity of the Secret Service. The video shows that the situation did unfold rapidly, but viewers can judge for themselves just how necessary the Servicemen were.
The Left-“libertarian” closing sentence we got:
The video shows that the situation did unfold rapidly, but viewers can judge for themselves just how necessary the guns were.
Again, go fuck yourself, Petti.
I thought it was a good example. If self-heating gasoline baths had been more popular among Jew-haters in the 1930s, Christian National Socialism would've burned itself out way before building Treblinka, Auschwitz, Chelmno, Belzec, Sorbibor, Treblinka, Majdanek... What I want to know is how did Church of the Transfiguration and Community of Jesus Torch Boy manage to enlist in the Trump-era ARMED Services.
He could have hurt the guy!
Cops who pull guns during routine traffic stops deserve all the scorn and need to be fired (pun not intended). This, on the other hand, was a clearly violent act and one cop with a gun and another with a fire extinguisher is probably the exact correct response. Johnny Human Torch could obviously have harmed someone else had he lunged at them.
+1 Plain, simple, common sense... as opposed to Reason's take.
Any competent police or security officer who has studied Islamic terrorist tactics would suspect that anyone crazy enough to very publicly set themself on fire might also be carrying/concealing a bomb whose explosion could kill dozens of innocent bystanders.
But of course, an idiot at Reason is blaming police for this guy's decision to kill himself.
Okay, Matt, here's my suggestion for you: light something on fire and then hug it. If your initial response is "No way, I don't want to get burned!" then you understand why the Secret Service had guns drawn.
Fire, as we learned from the video is capable of causing death or grievous injury. People are mobile. People in distress are unpredictable. This fire is thus mobile, unpredictable, and capable of causing death or grievous injury. This is the exact situation where drawing a firearm is warranted.
Also, I'll head off the bleating about the agent saying he needed more extinguishers not guns. That doesn't magically spawn fire extinguishers into the agents' inventory screen. Unless they're all walking around with fire extinguishers it's likely that all the available extinguishers had been or were in the process of being obtained and used.
Maybe they should carry around more fire extinguishers. Just not the assault fire extinguishers that the treasonous Jan 6 insurrectionists used to kill the dozens of cops that were bludgeoned over the head on that day that was worse than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor combined.
/sarc (shouldn't be necessary to disclose that, but Poe's Law and all)
A man who set himself on fire with accelerant is a mortal danger to others. If he ran towards an innocent bystander, they’d be every bit justified in shooting him.
This isn’t the show horse for stupid police you think it is.
His courageous and incandescent example will hopefully inspire many, many others who feel the same way to follow his scorching example.
Damn! Ol' mad.casual is, dare I say, on fire with Dangerangel and Derpifer! And rightly so!
I don't know whether to say "Blind Squirrel Finds Nut" or "Blind Nut Finds Squirrel"!
And LiberTrans Hank is sounding like he's making sense!
Finally, there's somebody named YehoshuaK who has manifested here!
If I didn"t know better, I'd say it's The Apocalypse!
🙂
😉
Sigh, do you think secret service wouldn't draw guns on a burning man approaching the president? I'm not surprised that THIS is reason's takeaway, but it still makes me shake my head.
This miscreant thought festival goers were fair targets for genocide. The real question is how he was able to land any position in the army. Remember Robert Card? How many radicals and gang members are we training to kill with guns?
And the real outrage is the likes of Cornell West praising this man as a martyr. Donald Trump can't hurt you in real terms. But these people have the power to cancel you, send mobs after you, and empower with baby killers.
Cases like this are why I say that it should be forbidden for judges to make enrolling in the Armed Forces a condition of sentencing Juvinile offenders. All that does is put dangerous people into access to training and munitions and contacfs that will make them even more dangerous when they get out of the Armed Forces.
Something like over 2 percent of people in the Armed Forces have gang affiliations, and no doubt even terrorist affiliations as well, and Jack-legged judges are probably a big reason.
The lionizing of the immolater is kind of astonishing. I did not expect it to be so loud and so many people participating. The far left are more radicalized into their cult like ways than I thought.
With the million or so tributes on Twitter making the guy out as a hero, I would not be surprised in the least if there are copycats this weekend. Or even worse, suicide bombers (I don't believe for a second that a large portion of the people praising how great a suicide for a cause is, wouldn't love to see a few "enemies" taken out in a suicide. Afterall the cause they are supporting lionizes suicide bombers as freedom fighters, why shouldn't they?
What obligation does a guard protecting an embassy have to save the life of someone who wants to see them and their country eliminated? Especially when that person is intentionally killing themselves in order to trigger the elimination of your country and people?
I'd say the guards had zero obligation to save him, only an obligation to Israel in order diminish his message by having him be a failed immolater.
Add in that failed suicide bombers catching on fire are WAY more common than self-immolation, and I'd say it was completely reasonable to keep a gun trained on him. He was quite mobile while ablaze and could have easily spread his self harm to those nearby. A totally valid reason to shoot him.
If anything the inhumane thing to do was nullify his message by putting him out before he died, and then making him suffer through the pain on an ambulance ride to the hospital. The guy with the gun was the humane one. If only he'd shot him and saved him from an hour of agony.