4 ms·
Exactly. Reynolds deliberately lies about the what the prosecutor said in his first paragraph. The prosecutor did not state that the on-air violation was clear.
by rossjudson 13y ago
Exactly. Reynolds deliberately lies about the what the prosecutor said in his first paragraph. The prosecutor did not state that the on-air violation was clear. What he said was that the device "meets the definition" of the statute.
Gregory was displaying the "device" during a newscast.
bran·dish
verb
gerund or present participle: brandishing
1.
wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.
Did he "brandish" the device? No. Reynolds knows that, but he decides to draw a false equivalence anyway.
- mason240 13y agoSo you would be willing to "displaying the device" on a street in a poor DC neighborhood since you are certain that you would be within the law?
- rossjudson 13y agoOf course not. In a public space, without appropriate context? You know this already. Keep looking for some way to find that Reynolds is right. If the law meant to say "display", it would have said "display". The law says "brandish". That has a meaning. Did Gregory brandish the device with anger, or intent to threaten?
- mason240 13y agoWhy would the public setting, or even context matter? If you are only "displaying" and not "brandishing," you'll be fine.
- yuubi 13y agoChasing links from footnote 1 of the paper, one finds that the statute is supposed to prohibit possession, so whether waving it around on air counts as "brandishing" isn't obviously relevant. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/nbcs-gregory-wont-be-charged-for-displaying-ammunition-clip-on-tv/2013/01/11/984a7bda-5c1d-11e2-beee-6e38f5215402_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/nbcs-gregory-wont-...