Sebastian Daskawicz-Davis / Cart Narcs / Agent Sebastian - I want you in me Cart Narc

[Mr. Donuts]

Tell me to put my cart back, I dare you.
View attachment 4670712

I drive.

 

[Big moth tiddies]

The Rittenhouse v. Wisconsin defense is that everyone is Rittenhouse as long as they fear for their life, even if they made reckless decisions to put themselves in that situation, it's legalized dueling at that point.

Please tell me you are not actually this retarded. The Rittenhouse defense was self defense, not "legalized dueling." There is no state that allows "legalized dueling." The only states that have even remotely something similar to that are Texas and Washington.

In Washington the law reads as:
A. It is unlawful for any person to intentionally fight with another person in a public place and thereby create a substantial risk of:
1. Injury to a person who is not actively participating in the fight; or
1. Damage to the property of a person who is not actively participating in the fight.

B. In any prosecution under subsection A of this Section 12A.06.025, it is an affirmative defense that:
1. The fight was duly licensed or authorized by law; or
2. The person was acting in self-defense.

Theoretically, if you could convince a police officer to watch the fight and no person and no property unrelated to the fight gets hurt/damaged then MAYBE a judge won't charge you for it. I wouldn't hang my hat on it though.

In Texas, mutual combat is allowed if the conduct did not threaten or inflict serious bodily injury; or the victim knew the conduct was a risk of: his occupation; recognized medical treatment; or a scientific experiment conducted by recognized methods.
This means the moment someone is "seriously injured" the fight would be considered illegal. Again, no guns.

The only reason these guys could shoot cart narc is if they were in legitimate fear of their life, and anyone scared of him and his faggy magnets is going to have a hard time convincing a judge/jury that they were frightened enough for deadly force to be warranted.

 

[Guntburglar]

Yes, showing someone your gun is a crime. It's called brandishing.

Wrong. We're an open carry state.
Holsters aren't "brandishing."
Even flashing your iwb is not brandishing as the state says shit happens.

Only way this would be a charge is if the guy armed is within a building with a 30.06 sign on it and flashed it in there.

 

[internet friend]

So what you're saying is, cart narcs act as a sort of social watchdog?
Exactly! We tend to find that the cart narcs sniff out the lazy or stupid shoppers, so their sociopathic and bad behaviour gets nipped in the bud right away. You've seen these lazybones? Pathetic beta males, with no girlfriends. Imagine how many less they'd be if they have been cart narced early and often.

 

[Mr. Donuts]

The Fat Californian cries as he strikes you.

 

[BigNig]

Wrong. We're an open carry state.
Holsters aren't "brandishing."
Even flashing your iwb is not brandishing as the state says shit happens.

Only way this would be a charge is if the guy armed is within a building with a 30.06 sign on it and flashed it in there.

My nigga I can't tell if you guys are legitimately retarded or just intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying. Open carrying a gun is obviously not brandishing. When you show someone your gun to threaten or intimidate them, like he did in that video, it is brandishing.

 

[Lady Rackets Ass]

My nigga I can't tell if you guys are legitimately retarded or just intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying. Open carrying a gun is obviously not brandishing. When you show someone your gun to threaten or intimidate them, like he did in that video, it is brandishing.

legitimate question can you even read? The relevant statutes have been posted he didn’t break any laws and you’re still retarded and wrong.

 

[Unique User Name]

Please tell me you are not actually this retarded. The Rittenhouse defense was self defense, not "legalized dueling." There is no state that allows "legalized dueling." The only states that have even remotely something similar to that are Texas and Washington.

I was using hyperbole you sped.

 

[Big moth tiddies]

I was using hyperbole you sped.

"I was only pretending to be retarded!"
Go back to reddit.

 

[Unique User Name]

"I was only pretending to be retarded!"
Go back to reddit.

Using hyperbole is not "pretending to be retarded", are you legitimately autistic?

 

[Lady Rackets Ass]

Using hyperbole is not "pretending to be retarded", are you legitimately autistic?

I know you’ve been on my side a couple times today but just take the L bro there was zero indication in tone or language in your post that you were being hyperbolic. You were literally just parroting what Reddit and the media said about the case.

 

[Guntburglar]

My nigga I can't tell if you guys are legitimately retarded or just intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying. Open carrying a gun is obviously not brandishing. When you show someone your gun to threaten or intimidate them, like he did in that video, it is brandishing.

Showing your gun isn't illegal. The state defines it as things happen and if you're concealed carrying, The laws of average dictates it will print, show or fall out and the state doesn't charge people for that.

Putting your hand by/ on your iwb isn't not brandishing it. Flashing iwb is not brandishing. It's holsters. The fact that we are an open carry state makes it so that iwb/owb has no distinction between the two.

Can you not read this are just willfully omting?

If there is no 30.06 restrictions within a building, they can rest their hands on their body however they want. Period

 

[BigNig]

legitimate question can you even read? The relevant statutes have been posted he didn’t break any laws and you’re still retarded and wrong.

Alright fine, since you're too much of an autistic retard to google something that opposes your preconceptions, here you go,

Texas Penal Code Section 42.01 - Disorderly Conduct

Statutes Title 9, Offenses Against Public Order and Decency; Chapter 42, Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses; Section 42.01, Disorderly Conduct. Refreshed: 2021-06-07

texas.public.law

A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
8. displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

I would also like to cite the fact that when you look in the mirror you see a nigger looking back at you. Consider that next time you get uppity with a white man, this is just common sense to us.

 

[Lady Rackets Ass]

Alright fine, since you're too much of an autistic retard to google something that opposes your preconceptions, here you go,

Texas Penal Code Section 42.01 - Disorderly Conduct

Statutes Title 9, Offenses Against Public Order and Decency; Chapter 42, Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses; Section 42.01, Disorderly Conduct. Refreshed: 2021-06-07

texas.public.law

I would also like to cite the fact that when you look in the mirror you see a nigger looking back at you. Consider that next time you get uppity with a white man, this is just common sense to us.

Ok that’s already been posted you sped.

As to the knowingly causing alarm did he cause alarm in anyone except the guy who was harassing him? No. Then it’s irrelevant and as has already been pointed out multiple times he didn’t take the gun out of the holster so basically by the definition of open carry he wouldn’t have been causing alarm. You should really graduate grade school before you start trying to talk about the law.

Edit: also literally no mention of “brandishing” anywhere in that statute

 

[Guntburglar]

Alright fine, since you're too much of an autistic retard to google something that opposes your preconceptions, here you go,

Texas Penal Code Section 42.01 - Disorderly Conduct

Statutes Title 9, Offenses Against Public Order and Decency; Chapter 42, Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses; Section 42.01, Disorderly Conduct. Refreshed: 2021-06-07

texas.public.law

"Knowingly displays"
Meaning draws and points in any direction, on public property.

The fact that we're on open carry state defeats your retarded gotcha.

Holstered =/= Brandishing.
In or out of waistband. There is no distinction unless there is a 30.06/30.07 restricted sign involved.

Can rest my hand on my holster all day, not a crime.

How are you unable to grasp this?

 

[BigNig]

"Knowingly displays"
Meaning points and draws in any direction, on public property.

Pulled that out of your ass

The fact that we're on open carry state defeats your retarded gotcha.

Completely irrelevant.

Holstered =/= Brandishing.
In or out of waistband.

Makes sense if you're a retard. If you're in an altercation with someone, and they lift up their shirt and show you they have a holstered gun, that is brandishing. I don't know if you have the mental capacity to understand hypotheticals, but if so, maybe that illuminates you.

 

[Lady Rackets Ass]

Pulled that out of your ass


Completely irrelevant.


Makes sense if you're a retard. If you're in an altercation with someone, and they lift up their shirt and show you they have a holstered gun, that is brandishing. I don't know if you have the mental capacity to understand hypotheticals, but if so, maybe that illuminates you.

You’re still wrong lmao just give it up friend

Edit: can you point to a single piece of case law like an actual conviction of someone in Texas since the law was changed in 2021 that proves your last point? If so I may concede that you are right and I am in fact a retard in this case.

 

[Guntburglar]

Pulled that out of your ass

No? Constitutional Carry, it's pretty self explanatory.

Completely irrelevant.

It is very relevant.

"
"What kind of holster am I required to use and how can I carry it?

The law says clearly that openly carried handguns must be carried "in a shoulder or belt holster" that is "on or about the person." The law does not define what a "shoulder or belt holster" is, so this is left up for your judgment. To ensure you don't violate the law, use either a holster specifically designed to be worn around or hung from the shoulder or one that is attached the belt in some way.

" "Can I open carry using an inside the waistband (IWB) holster?"

Yes, provided it is a belt holster, it meets the law requiring a "belt" holster. You cannot open carry in your pocket, appendix or the small of your back without a holster. "

FAQ

www.opencarrytexas.org

There is no distinction between Iwb/owb. It's on a belt.

If i lift up my shirt, its a holstered open carry weapon.

The only time in the State of Texas when there is a distinguishing difference of concealed/open is when it comes to 30.06/30.07 restricted buildings.
30.07 you can conceal, not open carry.
30.06 you can't do either.
Both irrelevant as he was on public domain and not in a restricted building.

The lazy old fuck was open carrying his firearm within the confines of the laws of the state of Texas.

Makes sense if you're a retard.

Keep flailing about talking about a state you don't even live in and it's laws, I guess. Everyone else must be the retards.

 

[Blewberry Nausea]

I love how much time LRA has spent negrating jesus christ touch grass faggo. Also retvrn to cart tradition.

 

[Unique User Name]

I know you’ve been on my side a couple times today but just take the L bro there was zero indication in tone or language in your post that you were being hyperbolic. You were literally just parroting what Reddit and the media said about the case.

Just because you don't agree with my take, doesn't mean what I said wasn't obvious hyperbole, where a response to quote different states' mutual combat statutes is warrented or even relevant.

Everything before the comma is what I'm saying the self defense defense was. A defense that wouldn't need to address the reckless decisions both Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz made up to that point, as long as their stated "intent" is "not combat". The state has to then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their intentions were not to help as medics, and that they didn't legitimately fear for their life, despite both showing up armed and past curfew to a location neither had real strong ties to during an active demonstration teetering on the edge of a riot. Given what ended up happening in court, Grosskreutz might have been better off just shooting Rittenhouse and neutralizing him first instead of living with a permanent arm injury.

(You can disagree with any of that --^, that's just my shitty opinion. )

Comma.

If the bar is set that high, you might as well legalize dueling *knowing wink*.

(Also a shitty opinion, and you're free to disagree with my characterization of it, but in no way am I saying there will be a rash of mutual combats now, Rittenhouse was still charged and still had to mount a defense for Christsake.)

I'll take my L that my opinion on it is probably too reddit-esq, but I don't give a fuck, both those morons deserve the rope.