2d ago

Witnesses: Man with gun threatened protesters in Lafayette anti-Trump rally; police: man was defending self

www.jconline.com

Summary

At a Lafayette, Indiana anti-Trump rally Saturday, a man pulled an assault-style rifle after clashing with protesters who blocked his truck at a Third Street intersection.

Video shows the man in a MAGA hat yelling at protesters, prompting another man—angered by the confrontation with women—to intervene.

The two exchanged shouts before the protester headbutted the man. He returned to his truck, retrieved a rifle, and reentered the crowd.

Police detained but released him, citing self-defense. The “Hands Off!” rally drew nearly 1,000 people and ended early amid safety concerns.

Indiana @midwest.social

jared @mander.xyz

2d ago

Witnesses: Man with gun threatened protesters in Lafayette anti-Trump rally; police: man was defending self

www.jconline.com /story/news/local/2025/04/05/bystanders-man-with-long-gun-arrested-after-altercation-in-downtown-lafayette-anti-trump-protest/82949910007/

96 comments

Self-defense requires there to be an ongoing threat to your or someone else's immediate safety. If he was able to leave the altercation, head to his truck to retrieve his rifle, and then return to the situation that's not self-defense, its premeditation.
- It's self defense, because the cops are on the same side as the guy...
  Same reason you never see Miley Cyrus and Hanna Montana in the same room at the same time.
- He’s probably white and identifies as CIS male. In today’s reality, that qualifies as self-defense to police.
  
  always has

I bet if someone drew a concealed pistol on him after he pulled out his rifle the cops would NOT consider it self defense.
ACAB.

He will shoot next time. Like a not so smart missile they just aimed him at decent human beings.

Protestors should bear arms. Soon enough, the Rittenhouses of the right will need to be put down when they behave like rabid DOGEs.
Conservatives escalate, and must be met in kind when they do so.
- Protestors should bear arms.
  I do. Concealed, for the moment, because my liberal NYS made it illegal to keep and bear arms while exercising your first amendment right.
  And, I'm of the wrong political persuasion to test that law.
- hey, new guy. Searg said you bring him donuts ASAP. also while you go there stop by the other department and tell the guys there that boss wants to entrap even more mentally ill muslims into trying to join ISIS this month.

Mr. Mangione was defending himself. Case Dismissed.
- He was defending the entire country
  
  He wasn't. Because he didn't kill that CEO. My man's innocent.
  Whoever did happen to off that CEO certainly did everyone a favor tho
- No, he didn't. We were having breakfast that morning, when it's alleged he killed a mass murderer.

I mean lots of people open carry. Hopefully we don’t get to this point, but if someone threatens someone else with firearm, lots of localities justify lethal force at that point (one must always assume a firearm is loaded)

If you can leave the situation safely - like being able to go back to your truck - it’s not self defense.
- yup. as soon as he grabbed the gun and went back to threaten people with it.. he committed the felony.
  
  Louder. For the people in the back.
  
  Tell that to the police...
- Self-defense isn't going back to your vehicle to get a weapon to come back and terrorize people. That's assault.
  If he had returned with his weapon, and someone killed him, THAT would be self-defense.
- Doesn't matter. They even determined that planning to get yourself in an unsafe situation with the purpose of shooting protesters, travelling across states with a gun to again very intentionally get yourself in a situation where you'd need to use it, is still self defense. Even when you shoot someone without actually being in danger, it becomes self defense when other people are trying to stop you. All of this, as long as your victims are protesting against right-wing policies, has been determined in court to be self defense.
  
  Only if you're white and conservative.
  
  I wonder if I could legally defend myself in this manner at one of the neo nazi rallies in Springfield or Charlottesville? Somehow I doubt the police would characterize it the same way.
- Exactly. It's obvious who the cops were siding with here.
- But what about pre-emptive self defense? That's a thing, right?
  
  You don't understand, your honor, I know I was gonna say something that would make them threaten my life! I had to start shooting.
  
  It'll get you on a talk show circuit

Inserts himself into a situation he wasn’t invited to, or welcome at, instigates people for the purpose of “justified” retaliation- whips out his loaded lib-killer , and is summarily released by law enforcement.
I’d say those folks dun’ got Rittenhoused!
- I agree with you. That's not how "self-defense works". If the snowflake geot hit, walks away from the situation, gets armed, and returns to attack the person that attacked such a fragile sheep, this is not self-defense, it's retaliation.
  The sheep crybaby and whoever proclaimed this as self-defense are just a bunch of puppets.
  
  That’s most likely why the police changed the order of events around:
  "During the event, an adult male driver attempted to make a lawful turn at the intersection of Third Street andColumbia Street when his path was obstructed by protesters standing in the roadway. A verbal altercationensued between the driver and protesters," the release said. "The situation escalated when the driver exited his vehicle and was subsequently pushed and battered by individuals in the crowd. The driver then retrieved a firearm from his vehicle in what he described as an act of self-defense.
  "He did not discharge the weapon and promptly returned it to his truck. Shortly after, a male protester approachedthe driver and head-butted him, causing injury," police said.
  Even though multiple protesters described it otherwise. ACAB.
  Edit: punctuationification

Gravy Seal Clown
- Meal team six

Self defense would be a headbutt back or fists, not the AmRepublican-14.
- there's video, no one was doing anything to him. he got out of his SUV, started yelling at people, returned to the vehicle, got back out with the weapon at his side. self defense would have been (a) for literally anyone to have threatened him and (b) for him to simply leave the scene.
  
  Since you didn't link the video, here it is on reddit.
  I can see the headbutt, it's at second 12.
  Still an insane overreaction of course, but the truth is important.
  
  It is Indiana. Basically wild west style gun laws. You buy the gun, its yours ... done. No permit, no concealed carry, nothing. You bought the gun, take it where you want. Pretty much anywhere. If people are yelling at you on the street then Indiana's stand your ground style law basically kicks in. The state is very much "fuck around and find out".

How does going back to your vehicle and retrieving a n assault rifle count as self defense? That's premeditated at that point if he were to use it.
The difference between this, and any other mass shooting is just whether this guy decided to pull the trigger, which he obviously wanted too.
- I wouldn't say premeditated as it was in the heat of the moment, but intentional as hell and not self defense at all
  
  He drove there with an assault rifle.
  
  Premeditated has a specific legal definition. He went back to his truck and came back with a gun. I would find it a hard sell to say that wasn't premeditated if I was on a jury.

ACAB.

This is what we're up against.
I'll be damned if I let these people continue to run our country

Why does it feel like he was a failed attempt at inciting violence in protests to make them look unreasonable?
- He fucked around and found out most of them were exceedingly reasonable, except the one that busted his face 😊
  
  Looks like he slipped
  
  Well I mean it was a reasonable breakage of said face, since y'know... Nazi.. but your point is valid
- An Agent Provocateur.
- Judging by the US rhetoric over the past few years .... protestors of any side for any political movement, whether left or right, legitimate or not, moral or immoral ... are figuring out that you need a gun to stand your ground.
  It would be easy to destabilize any protest by just drawing a gun .... then someone else answers the challenge and pulls their own gun ... then more people join in ... next you have a Mexican stand off.... and given enough occurrences you now have a fire fight.
  It's so volatile because of the freedom to own guns.
  It's like watching a group of people fighting with torches next to an open pool of gasoline.

Never forget: AC AB
- Can we use an animal where that’s actually true? Crabs are very much intersexual, which isn’t quite the same thing as bisexual.
- You can put them next to each other. We're not on Reddit

So Indiana is a "stand your ground" state. That generally removes any duty to retreat. I'd be curious how they rule when he clearly retreated to his vehicle already, and only then retrieved a weapon, brandished it, and reentered a crowd. If they allow self defense, how far is someone allowed to retreat in order to retrieve a weapon and re-engage? Can I go all the way back to my house and get a gun to defend myself?
Of course this will only be litigated if the public can pressure the prosecutor to press charges. If not it'll be easy for the cops to disproportionately apply that defense to like minded miscreants.
- It removes your duty to retreat if you are in a life-threatening situation, whether on private or public property. It essentially extends the castle doctrine to include your personal space at all times.
  If after being headbutted, he pulled a CCW, or even had the AR on his person, I think he could make a reasonable claim of self defense. If the protestor followed him back to his truck, he could make a claim of self defense, but if you have the time and security to go back to your truck, get your gun, and the return to confront someone, I think you've gone outside the realm of being in a life-threatening situation, and therefore self-defense no longer applies.
  
  And I'd agree with that. But if it's not settled in court, cops are allowed to pick and choose how they apply that.

It shocks me every time again, seeing how casually people carry guns in the US
- It's for self defense. It says so right there in the article!
- The sad thing is for a lot of us it’s incredibly normal. I hate to admit it. I don’t even blink when I see someone carrying in my city.
  In fact what is far more concerning is we got rid of concealed carry permits about a year ago, so I don’t even need to see them anymore. I just assume people are packing basically everywhere I go. It’s basically the wild West down here
  
  Texas?

Of course. If he was black the story would be different

Wonder if the boots taste different in Indiana...
- the boot type is also accurate, this is well done
- Less like cow leather. More like cow shit.

What an actual POS, but do we really expect anything else from a Trump supporter. Clear as day he should not have been released citing any self-defence. Anyone who argues against this fact shows they should not even own a gun. US is going US though, not even dead kids can separate them from their guns.

The shape of things to come.

The source loses my respect for calling it an "assault rifle" when it almost certainly was not. This summary (which I assume was written by MicroWave) calls it an "assault-style rifle", which has no meaning at all.
This is not an assault rifle, and not fully automatic. If it was, the gun's existence would have been almost certainly illegal.
Words have meaning. The meaning in this case is important. Use your words.
- At this point it's difficult to take this critique seriously when right wing gun nuts use arguing over minutiae like this to prevent any kind of constructive discussion whatsoever.
  Yes, there is a technical definition of an "assault rifle". It's also a shorthand that regular people not familiar with firearms use to mean "gun that looks like something the military carries" or something approaching that. It's not even relevant here. We do not need to break up every single discussion involving firearms with arguments over meaningless definitions.
  
  they do it to intentionally derail the conversation. Fuck them.
- Youre trying to change the subject. 🤡
- “…which has no meaning at all.”
  OK. So I go to a donut shop, and ask for a Boston Creme. The clerk pulls out a donut and gives it to me, I pay him and say thank you and am on my way.
  Next, I go to a donut shop, and ask for a Boston Creme. The clerk pulls out an assault-style rifle, waves it around, I pay him and say thank you and am on my way.
  Yeah, words have meaning. What part of returning to his vehicle, pulling out a firearm and threatening the protesters with it did you fail to attach meaning to?
  He threatened assault with a rifle. The fact that we don’t know if the firearm was legally classified as an assault rifle, in any sane location on earth, would be immaterial.
  Or are you worried that he may be confused with someone who could have got a few more shots off into the crowd before being disarmed or killed, due to their faster firing firearm with rifled barrel?
- Who fucking cares
- What would you call it?
  
  A rifle
- It was a rifle, used for an assault, ergo, an assault rifle.

96 comments