- Joined
- Mar 31, 2018
- Messages
- 62,258
- Reaction score
- 6,774
- Location
- Norcross, Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
breaking down a gate of a gated community is not peaceful it is vandalism and destruction of private property.
I've previously provided the video of the protesters entering the neighborhood. The gate was intact. The gate was broken AFTER the protesters left. Gee. Wonder who had a motivation to do that? Maybe the same person who lied about the actions of the protesters (there is video), made a false police report, and who has previously destroyed property on SEVERAL occasions (at least three), including those very no trespassing signs - Mark McCloskey. Your problem, my friend, is the failure to think for yourself. You accept McCloskey's statements as "true" because they confirm your preconceived notions. Look at the video (not faux news reports). Think. Then ignore me, please.So you arent satisfied with ****ting on your integrity...you have to smear it all over your character as well...I see...
"The attorneys called the St. Louis Police Department shortly before 7:30 p.m. on Sunday and the police report confirmed that “a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street’ signs.” (For the record, I have seen pictures of the gate and it is not exactly formidable and does appear “smashed.” However, it is clearly marked as private property and was forced open)."
View attachment 67287487
When protesters smash down gates to private property have they committed a destructive act and are they trespassing? Are they peaceful protesters if they are threatening occupants of residencies? Are they still 'peaceful' protesters if they are violating the law?
:lamoI've previously provided the video of the protesters entering the neighborhood. The gate was intact. The gate was broken AFTER the protesters left. Gee. Wonder who had a motivation to do that? Maybe the same person who lied about the actions of the protesters (there is video), made a false police report, and who has previously destroyed property on SEVERAL occasions (at least three), including those very no trespassing signs - Mark McCloskey. Your problem, my friend, is the failure to think for yourself. You accept McCloskey's statements as "true" because they confirm your preconceived notions. Look at the video (not faux news reports). Think. Then ignore me, please.
Had Fox on earlier and there was a discussion on these people.
Have to ask....why ???
Why did I have Fox on? I was channel surfing and the conversation caught my attention so I paused.
So you don't normally watch Fox ?
No, I really don't have the tv on much at all and if I do I channel surf anywhere from CNN, OANN, FOX, MSNBC and even NWSY.
Doesn't justify a response of lethal force though...or even the threat of it.
sure it does. they are criminals. how knows what they plan to do in the neighborhood.
those people have a right to defend their property against trespassers and vandals.
Show me where i said that. If not you are strawmaning.So you think any citizen should be able to kill anyone they deem to be a criminal, based on what they might be capable of doing ?
In that case the (former) Minneapolis policeman was entirely justified in kneeling on the neck of a suspect and killing him
After all, George Floyd could have gone on a rampage when released and killed a dozen other cops.
Show me where i said that. If not you are strawmaning.
sure it does. they are criminals. how knows what they plan to do in the neighborhood.
those people have a right to defend their property against trespassers and vandals.
that is your opinion why do you think that way?
do you have evidence of this?
Post #285 when you said:
I was assuming your post contained a typo and should have read "Who knows"
So you're saying that property owners have a right to shoot people on the basis of "who knows" what they might do ?
I mean if someone saw you on their property, "who knows" what you might do ?
Otherwise, please explain why you felt fit to add to add the phrase "who knows" what they plan to do into your post
Because, using your expression, "who knows" what George Floyd might have done, upon his release. He might have gone on a murderous rampage killing policemen. "Who knows" ?
Evidence of a possible future?
To paraphrase yourself - "he was a criminal"
About as much evidence as your home owners "defending the property against a group of protesters that "who knew" what they were planning.
Thanks for proving i didn't say that so we can move on.
so you are just making assumptions ok got it.
ok so you don't have any evidence to support your claim thanks for sharing.
Do you have an actual argument or going to continue to make up stuff people didn't say?
This entire thread is full of people making unbased claims about the facts, the law, the actions of the protesters, etc. It is very difficult to carry on any kind of discussion when they just make things up to support their preferred scenario, rather than addressing what actually happened. When that doesn't work they go for ad hominem attacks and wild accusations about "leftists" and other clap trap. The lack of substance is astounding.You justified citizens taking action based on possibility. Or as you put it, "who knows"
This entire thread is full of people making unbased claims about the facts, the law, the actions of the protesters, etc. It is very difficult to carry on any kind of discussion when they just make things up to support their preferred scenario, rather than addressing what actually happened. When that doesn't work they go for ad hominem attacks and wild accusations about "leftists" and other clap trap. The lack of substance is astounding.
They'll immediately start changing the subject and interject "they feared for their lives" bull****. If someone fears for their life, they retreat and call for help. They weren't afraid - there's video - they were mad, they were the aggressors. But, look at the video? Nah. Look at the fact? We don't need no stinkin' facts! Read the reports of embedded reporters? Oh, heck no! Pay attention to what the law actually provides? What are you, nuts?It is.
I think a lot of the motivation is gun owners struggling to justify the usefulness of their toys.
That couple threatened protesters with guns. The only reasonable cause you can have for brandishing a gun is a reasonable fear of a threat to your (or someone else's life), or great bodily harm (including rape.
So it really doesn't matter if the protesters were breaking a law or laws, there was zero justification for threatening anybody with a gun.
They'll immediately start changing the subject and interject "they feared for their lives" bull****. If someone fears for their life, they retreat and call for help. They weren't afraid - there's video - they were mad, they were the aggressors. But, look at the video? Nah. Look at the fact? We don't need no stinkin' facts! Read the reports of embedded reporters? Oh, heck no! Pay attention to what the law actually provides? What are you, nuts?
Hawley, a Missouri Republican, wrote in a letter to Barr that Gardner abused her power in seizing the couple’s guns, investigating them and pursuing a possible indictment. He called her actions “an unacceptable abuse of power and threat to the 2nd Amendment.”
“There is no question under Missouri law that the McCloskeys had the right to own and use their firearms to protect themselves from threatened violence, and that any criminal prosecution for these actions is legally unsound,” Hawley wrote. “The only possible motivation for the investigation, then, is a politically motivated attempt to punish this family for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.”
Barr asked to intervene in case of St. Louis couple who wielded guns at protesters - Los Angeles Times
The thing is: the McCloskeys were violating the protestor's right to peaceable assembly.
If the DA doesn't do her due diligence, she can be arrested and put in jail for violating the protestor's Constitutional rights.
A letter released July 1 by more than three dozen of the McCloskeys’ neighbors condemned “the behavior of anyone who uses threats of violence, especially through the brandishing of firearms, to disrupt peaceful protest, whether it be in this neighborhood or anywhere in the United States.”
That's what happens when you're a huge asshole, people gang up on you. In this case, their neighbors.
So that lawyer couple that brandished guns at peaceful protesters lost their AR15 -
St. Louis Cops Seize Gun That Couple Pointed At Black Lives Matter Protesters | HuffPost
And apparently they are also a real pain for their neighbors. I knew that there was more to this than appeared. Stupid people with guns should be separated.
What law entitled their gun to be confiscated?
What law entitled their gun to be confiscated?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?