Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

White St Louis couple who pointed guns at protesters to face charges

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/20/st-louis-couple-guns-protesters-charges?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy

...

Ridiculous.

Oh no

this is as dumb as it gets lol

It really is. Whirly posts dumb shit a lot

Oh no!! A governor is going to pardon someone who was wrongly convicted for simply exercising their 2nd amendment rights!! This is unacceptable and just proves that the governor is Hitler!! How dare he?! LOL.

While I understand that it's not necessarily illegal to carry a gun in the States (open carry laws and all that), is it not illegal to actually point it at someone?

I took one gun-safety class and I had things like "never point a gun at anyone unless you plan to use it" and "assume every gun is loaded" drilled in to my head.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
It really is. Whirly posts dumb shit a lot

just to be clear, i mean charges to guys defending their property from trespassing, not keking at governor or something

i don't care at all for the BLM stuff, but one law in the US is clear even to me as a European, your property is your fortress

The only ones that should've been arrested in this case are the left wing prosecutor who is charging them and the cops who violated the couple's rights by searching their property without just cause and illegally confiscating the man's registered firearm.

Yes, I know the cops had a search warrant but imo there was no real cause to issue such a warrant and so the cops shouldn't have searched his house and certainly shouldn't have taken his only means of self-defense. So yeah, the judge who issued the illegal search warrant should be arrested also, imo.


And don't feed me that BS line about the cops were only following orders. It was an illegal order and thus they shouldn't have followed it.

Originally posted by gold slorg
just to be clear, i mean charges to guys defending their property from trespassing, not keking at governor or something

i don't care at all for the BLM stuff, but one law in the US is clear even to me as a European, your property is your fortress

Originally posted by -Pr-
While I understand that it's not necessarily illegal to carry a gun in the States (open carry laws and all that), is it not illegal to actually point it at someone?

I took one gun-safety class and I had things like "never point a gun at anyone unless you plan to use it" and "assume every gun is loaded" drilled in to my head.


Well, in Keene, New Hampshire, a couple of college girls complained a guy pointed a shotgun at them from a pickup truck. The response was basically *Shrug*.


Brandishing is definitely against the law though.

Generally, unless the prosecutor is a political hack. nobody would face charges for displaying a gun in self-defense.

If convicted they are gonna get pardoned so this is all a waste of time and money.

THROW THE BOOK AT THEM!

I enjoy reading the hilarity of far right posters here.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I enjoy reading the hilarity of far right posters here.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/VeneratedFinishedHake-size_restricted.gif

Originally posted by cdtm
Well, in Keene, New Hampshire, a couple of college girls complained a guy pointed a shotgun at them from a pickup truck. The response was basically *Shrug*.


Brandishing is definitely against the law though. i suspected as much and pointing is a threat to kill surely.

The problem is they are saying that some of the protesters were threatening them, including one that was clacking ammo clips together.

It basically comes down to whether you believe the mob or whether you believe the couple.

And this couple...they love to file lawsuits. The husband once filed two unrelated lawsuits in the same day.

So lets hope this doesn't wind up costing the city even more money. Even if they sue and lose it will cost the city money.

It will cost the city money.


They're personal injury lawyers who were successful enough to live in a fugging mansion.




They should be shot into the sun on principle.

Been sued before, I take it?

I hope this goes to trail and the prosecutor manages to stack the jury with the most hardcore antifa types. I want the lefty bias on display for the entire country to see.

Not yet.


I just hate lawyers in general, and personal injury lawyers in particular. That class of people is behind most of the problems in this country.

I'm glad to see some are standing up to these people:

Missouri attorney general entering the McCloskey case to fight for its dismissal

Originally posted by Silent Master
I hope this goes to trail and the prosecutor manages to stack the jury with the most hardcore antifa types. I want the lefty bias on display for the entire country to see. Nice balanced comment from an online "liberal".

Originally posted by gold slorg
just to be clear, i mean charges to guys defending their property from trespassing, not keking at governor or something

i don't care at all for the BLM stuff, but one law in the US is clear even to me as a European, your property is your fortress

Correct

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm glad to see some are standing up to these people:

Missouri attorney general entering the McCloskey case to fight for its dismissal

Let's have the trial, I think it would be very informative.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Correct

Some abodes are more fortressy than others like yours or my brothers.

I still do not own any guns besides my large veiny....

arms.


You thought it was going to be dick, didn't you?


Originally posted by Silent Master
Let's have the trial, I think it would be very informative.

Agreed. Bring on the trial!

I've not followed this at all. Seems they pointed their guns at people while standing in their front lawn and they're being charged for threatening people with violence?

Yeah, you're not allowed to threaten people with your guns without due cause. They're going to have to defend that there was a serious and immediate threat to them and/or their property.

Originally posted by Robtard
I've not followed this at all. Seems they pointed their guns at people while standing in their front lawn and they're being charged for threatening people with violence?

Yeah, you're not allowed to threaten people with your guns without due cause. They're going to have to defend that there was a serious and immediate threat to them and/or their property.


LoL. As usual, you're way off base. The couple felt threatened by the leftist Marxist mob that broke thru the private gates. They had every godddamn right to brandish their guns.

If you're gonna crying like a little b*tch over the woman pointing her little pistol at them "threatening them" (when, in reality, all she was doing was making it clear to the mob that if they came on her property she would rightly cap their asses) then you should also be upset over the thugs who broke down the private gate but of course you won't because you think it's totally acceptable lol.

If there was a legitimate threat like breaking and entering, that should be very easy for their lawyers to show here.

Sorry, pointing a gun, especially an armed gun at someone is threatening them, you can't just do that just because you feel like it, you need legal cause. If you don't believe me stand in front of your front door and point your gun at everyone who walks by.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I enjoy reading the hilarity of far right posters here.


Yeah, because being a strong supporter of the second amendment equates to being "far right" lmao.


Dumb Marxist.. smh.

Originally posted by Surtur
It basically comes down to whether you believe the mob or whether you believe the couple.

And this couple...they love to file lawsuits. The husband once filed two unrelated lawsuits in the same day.

So lets hope this doesn't wind up costing the city even more money. Even if they sue and lose it will cost the city money.


So what. Their rights were trampled all over. They should sue the prosecutor, the judge who issued the illegal search warrant, and the cops who followed thru with the unjustified order to search their property and illegally seized the man's legally registered firearm leaving him defenseless.

I hope they sue all of the guilty parties for millions and win (as they should). A strong message has to be sent that people's Constitutional rights are not to be violated.


F*** it.... they should sue pooty/whirly also for making such a stupid ass comment that everyone who defends the couple are "far right" lol.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
So what. Their rights were trampled all over. They should sue the prosecutor, the judge who issued the illegal search warrant, and the cops who followed thru with the unjustified order to search their property and illegally seized the man's legally registered firearm leaving him defenseless.

I hope they sue all of the guilty parties for millions and win (as they should). A strong message has to be sent that people's Constitutional rights are not to be violated.


F*** it.... they should sue pooty/whirly also for making such a stupid ass comment that everyone who defends the couple are "far right" lol. You are far right though and so are the others defending this couple pointing guns at people passing by.

Originally posted by Robtard
If there was a legitimate threat like breaking and entering, that should be very easy for their lawyers to show here.

Sorry, pointing a gun, especially an armed gun at someone is threatening them, you can't just do that just because you feel like it, you need legal cause. If you don't believe me stand in front of your front door and point your gun at everyone who walks by.

The problem is they claim the mob was threatening them and that someone was even clacking together ammo clips to intimidate them.

As far as I am concerned, prosecutors should have to prove *nobody* in that mob threatened them with violence.

Though it is moot, if convicted the governor is going to pardon them. The couple has already won.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
So what. Their rights were trampled all over. They should sue the prosecutor, the judge who issued the illegal search warrant, and the cops who followed thru with the unjustified order to search their property and illegally seized the man's legally registered firearm leaving him defenseless.

I hope they sue all of the guilty parties for millions and win (as they should). A strong message has to be sent that people's Constitutional rights are not to be violated.


F*** it.... they should sue pooty/whirly also for making such a stupid ass comment that everyone who defends the couple are 'far right" lol.


Again, if it's as you say, "breaking and entering", it should extremely easy for their lawyers to defend that and then comes the lawsuits.

But if it's not as you say, yeah, they should face charges for threatening people with their guns. You can't just do that without legal cause. I hope this trial doesn't start until after Jan 20th 2021 though.

Whirly triggered you by making a thread about a story it seems.

Edit: nevermind. Not worth the trouble.

Gotta laugh at the race baiters at The Guardian too for being so triggered over this they have to point out the race of the couple in the headline

Originally posted by Surtur
Gotta laugh at the race baiters at The Guardian too for being so triggered over this they have to point out the race of the couple in the headline


Exactly, as if their "race" has anything to actually do with it lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
The problem is they claim the mob was threatening them and that someone was even clacking together ammo clips to intimidate them.

As far as I am concerned, prosecutors should have to prove *nobody* in that mob threatened them with violence.

Though it is moot, if convicted the governor is going to pardon them. The couple has already won.

They'll need to prove that then it seems, since that's their legal cause for threatening people with guns.

With everyone having a camera and the prevalence of cameras on our streets, Should be reasonabe to see what this "mob" did or didn't do.

So the Governor has already decided the will and the law of the people before a trial has even been set? Oh Republicans...

Originally posted by Silent Master
Let's have the trial, I think it would be very informative.

Yeah, I kinda want them to get convicted and then pardoned by the governor, just for the ensuing meltdown.

And I can all but guarantee she will say the governor is doing this because he's racist.

Originally posted by Robtard
They'll need to prove that then it seems, since that's their legal cause for threatening people with guns.

If the city is claiming they pulled guns on a group of peaceful protesters the onus should be on the city.



Nah, in this case it'd definitely be naive to say if it wasn't captured on video it didn't happen.



Somebody needs to put their foot down, so good for him. This whole shtick of activists masquerading as prosecutors needs to cease.

Originally posted by Robtard
They'll need to prove that then it seems, since that's their legal cause for threatening people with guns.

With everyone having a camera and the prevalence of cameras on our streets, Should be reasonabe to see what this "mob" did or didn't do.

So the Governor has already decided the will and the law of the people before a trial has even been set? Oh Republicans... it is cringe!

Originally posted by Surtur
If the city is claiming they pulled guns on a group of peaceful protesters the onus should be on the city.



Nah, in this case it'd definitely be naive to say if it wasn't captured on video it didn't happen.



Somebody needs to put their foot down, so good for him. This whole shtick of activists masquerading as prosecutors needs to cease. The city can very easily say "they were peaceful protestors". Without video, how do you prove or disprove that, kinda hard. Was there a wave of vandalism in their wake? Police reports and insurance claims should easily prove that,

Not what I said. What I said is that there's likely video somewhere of this incident, be it phone or street cams.

What the governor should have done is said "I will be watching the trial very closely, if I see these people's rights have been violated, I will intervene". Not preemptively judge before he's seen or heard all the evidence. Then again, Republicans love doing this. eg Mitch McConnell.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, I kinda want them to get convicted and then pardoned by the governor, just for the ensuing meltdown.

And I can all but guarantee she will say the governor is doing this because he's racist.


There are still consequences people have to live with after they are pardoned for a crime. Convicted felons never get back their voting rights, iirc. Not sure if the prosecutor in that case is claiming that it's a felony or not but it wouldn't surprise me if she is. Convicted felons also may not be able to legally own a gun again, but not sure about that one.


If the couple is convicted then our country is truly in trouble. I'm glad they will be pardoned immediately if wrongly convicted but hopefully it won't even have to come to that.

Originally posted by Robtard
The city can very easily say "they were peaceful protestors". Without video, how do you prove or disprove that, kinda hard. Was there a wave of vandalism in their wake? Police reports and insurance claims should easily prove that,

Not what I said. What I said is that there's likely video somewhere of this incident, be it phone or street cams.

What the governor should have done is said "I will be watching the trial very closely, if I see these people's rights have been violated, I will intervene". Not preemptively judge before he's seen or heard all the evidence. Then again, Republicans love doing this. eg Mitch McConnell.

Couple could say "they threatened us" and without video how do you prove or disprove that? And nobody intelligent these days is taking the word of these mobs.

And the governor did the right thing IMO. Democrats need to learn this shit isn't gonna fly anymore.

Originally posted by Robtard
The city can very easily say "they were peaceful protestors". Without video, how do you prove or disprove that, kinda hard. Was there a wave of vandalism in their wake? Police reports and insurance claims should easily prove that,

Not what I said. What I said is that there's likely video somewhere of this incident, be it phone or street cams.

What the governor should have done is said "I will be watching the trial very closely, if I see these people's rights have been violated, I will intervene". Not preemptively judge before he's seen or heard all the evidence. Then again, Republicans love doing this. eg Mitch McConnell.

I'm not following this to much either, the only things I have seen is that it's private property with an entrance through a gate that they supposedly broke and there were 100 of them maybe, not exactly sure.

I think due to all the protesters and violence that happened elsewhere and on the news I'm sure they'll leverage that in their defense in addition to a loud large mob on private property.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I think due to all the protesters and violence that happened elsewhere and on the news I'm sure they'll leverage that in their defense in addition to a loud large mob on private property.

This is why it was petty and irresponsible for Kim Gardner to charge them and waste everybody's time.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I'm not following this to much either, the only things I have seen is that it's private property with an entrance through a gate that they supposedly broke and there were 100 of them maybe, not exactly sure.

I think due to all the protesters and violence that happened elsewhere and on the news I'm sure they'll leverage that in their defense in addition to a loud large mob on private property.

After reading through all the content on this story.

If the couple is black, they become heroes protecting themselves from confused and understandably upset protesters.

The only thing valuable in this story is the couple looks white. That's gold for everyone in the media and involved in the protests.


So here's my suggestion on what should have happened:

The couple should have started killing all of them that crossed their property line. Headshots only.

From the photos, looks like they could have killed at least 20 who were on their property.

Then they can go on trial and we talk about whether or not it was justified homicide.

Last time I checked, being surrounded by an angry mob is not a good situation to be in. In Oklahoma, being surrounded by an angry screaming mob would be grounds for headshots. Super glad I live in Oklahoma.

It's all about race and race baiting. The race of the couple is constantly mentioned when this story is reported on despite the fact this has nothing to do with race.

And yes if they were black they would be treated as heroes or at the very least they would be treated as victims.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's all about race and race baiting. The race of the couple is constantly mentioned when this story is reported on despite the fact this has nothing to do with race.

And yes if they were black they would be treated as heroes or at the very least they would be treated as victims.

Yup. And pooty and rob wouldn't be throwing a little crybaby fit over it.


Since they were white though? Oh shit, they're the devil! LoL.

It's only about race and race baiting to the right. To everyone else it is about equality. You all wanted your culture war... Now it's here.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
It's only about race and race baiting to the right. To everyone else it is about equality. You all wanted your culture war... Now it's here.

Anyone with common sense can see the race baiting. There is no need to highlight their race in the headlines.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
It's only about race and race baiting to the right. To everyone else it is about equality. You all wanted your culture war... Now it's here.

It's odd, because the stories they post from their Far-Right to Russian conspiracy sources like TheBlaze, Dailywire and Zerohedge have also contained "race" in their titles.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's odd, because the stories they post from their Far-Right to Russian conspiracy sources like TheBlaze, Dailywire and Zerohedge have also contained "race" in their titles. it's a double standard he doesn't get Rob.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
It's only about race and race baiting to the right. To everyone else it is about equality. You all wanted your culture war... Now it's here.


LMAO.


It's you idiots on the left that're obsessed with race, not us. Your thread title is race baiting.... why specify "white couple" in your title? Why not just say 'couple'?

The guy who cries about blaze links while linking to the guardian on a daily basis probably doesn't wanna turn this into a convo about double standards.

Originally posted by Surtur
The guy who cries about blaze links while linking to the guardian on a daily basis probably doesn't wanna turn this into a convo about double standards.




"Bingo ".

We are interested in equality of races, you are interested in vilification and subjugation. For rightists they still would like slavery, no doubt.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
it's a double standard he doesn't get Rob.

Oh, they get it. They're just silly hypocrites.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
We are interested in equality of races, you are interested in vilification and subjugation. For rightists they still would like slavery, no doubt.

Legit laughed out loud at this

Yeah, it's hilarious I agree.

Originally posted by Surtur
Legit laughed out loud at this

Critical race theory personified, I love intersectionality too.

New Evidence Reveals the Corruption of the St. Louis Prosecutor | Pink Polo Update

cRYFLug8Rmw

Oh and also apparently an investigation showed at least one of the protesters was armed.

Originally posted by Surtur
New Evidence Reveals the Corruption of the St. Louis Prosecutor | Pink Polo Update

cRYFLug8Rmw

Oh and also apparently an investigation showed at least one of the protesters was armed.


LOL@ anyone who still calls those thugs "protesters" lol.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
LOL@ anyone who still calls those thugs "protesters" lol.

#PeacefulProtests

Not really followed this story closely. Has video or camera proof been shown that these two were threatened with guns prior to them threatening people with their guns?

So far an investigation showed one of the peaceful protesters was armed. You can also hear other peaceful people threatening them, but it's hard to tell who. The prosecutor is also shady, watch the video it's not long.

Do you have a pic?

Do we know if this allegedly armed protestor threatened the couple first?

Do we know if the protesters verbally threatened the couple first?


Because if you're peacefully protesting and someone points their weapon at you or makes verbal threats, you have the right to respond in kind. Similar goes for the couple, if they were just chilling doing nothing and weapons were pointed at them or threats were made first, they have the right to defend themselves.

What this corrupt governor did was shameful, before he had all the facts, he preemptively said he was going to use his executive power to pardon. At least wait until you get all the facts to make that call. But alas, shit precedent has been set again.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
We are interested in equality of races, you are interested in vilification and subjugation. For rightists they still would like slavery, no doubt.

Democrats started the KKK, you need to brush up your history.

They illegally entered private property, what part of that is peaceful?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Democrats started the KKK, you need to brush up your history.

That was over 150 years ago. The KKK have been Republicans for a long time now and largely vote Republican.

eg The KKK endorsing Trump in 2016:

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/11/02/08/crusader-kkk-trump.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you have a pic?

Do we know if this allegedly armed protestor threatened the couple first?

Do we know if the protesters verbally threatened the couple first?


Because if you're peacefully protesting and someone points their weapon at you or makes verbal threats, you have the right to respond in kind. Similar goes for the couple, if they were just chilling doing nothing and weapons were pointed at them or threats were made first, they have the right to defend themselves.

What this corrupt governor did was shameful, before he had all the facts, he preemptively said he was going to use his executive power to pardon. At least wait until you get all the facts to make that call. But alas, shit precedent has been set again.

I don't have a pic all I have are what the investigation is saying it found.

I don't think we know the timing of the things. Which is why I think it would be wrong to convict them of anything.

Now when it comes to the verbal threats I will say, if you were unarmed and someone pointed a gun at you would you respond by threatening them? Not saying it's solid proof the threats came before...

Originally posted by Robtard
That was over 150 years ago. The KKK have been Republicans for a long time now and largely vote Republican.

eg The KKK endorsing Trump in 2016:

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/11/02/08/crusader-kkk-trump.jpg

Regain used Make America Great Again, is he KKK to now ya big dummy?

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't have a pic all I have are what the investigation is saying it found.

I don't think we know the timing of the things. Which is why I think it would be wrong to convict them of anything.

Now when it comes to the verbal threats I will say, if you were unarmed and someone pointed a gun at you would you respond by threatening them? Not saying it's solid proof the threats came before...

We'll have to wait and see then.

See above.

That can go either way. Really depends on the people and circumstance. It's not any kind of proof. Still find it hard to believe there's not a lot of camera footage of this considering almost everyone has a camera on them, homes have cameras, street signs etc.

I feel like prosecutors should have to prove they were not threatened though, that seems fair.

And perhaps there is some footage we do not know about, but I'm sure if it hurts the couples case prosecutors will use it.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Regain used Make America Great Again, is he KKK to now ya big dummy?

I assume you meant "Reagan". As usual, you're dodging the point. The point was that the KKK have been aligned with the Right for a long time now.

It's why they most often support Republican candidates and why they flocked to Trump in records numbers during 2016 because of Trump's racist and xenophobic political 'dog whistling', which the KKK and other White Supremacist groups heard loud and clear.

Originally posted by Surtur
I feel like prosecutors should have to prove they were not threatened though, that seems fair.

And perhaps there is some footage we do not know about, but I'm sure if it hurts the couples case prosecutors will use it.

Your feelings have been noted. But not sure the law works that way.

The defense is free to do the same regarding video footage, should they have any from say the couple or a friendly neighbor's home surveillance or phone.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The far-left only believe in innocent until proven guilty when it's their side being accused.

Originally posted by Surtur
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Originally posted by Silent Master
The far-left only believe in innocent until proven guilty when it's their side being accused.

I made no such claim otherwise, this couple is indeed innocent of the crimes they're accused until found guilty in court. But you two had to try.

Originally posted by Robtard
I made no such claim otherwise, this couple is indeed innocent of the crimes they're accused until found guilty in court. But you two had to try.

You seemed a little confused about the law, I was happy to help

And now the pretend win after the lie. Right on track.

Originally posted by Robtard
And now the pretend win after the lie. Right on track.

Based on everything you know at the present time, if it was up to you to decide their legal fate what would you do?

Originally posted by Surtur
Based on everything you know at the present time, if it was up to you to decide their legal fate what would you do?

You're talking about feelings again; that's silly. I wouldn't, let all the facts come out first and let a jury decide. That's how it needs to be. Has this been put forth in front of a grand jury already?

I'm just curious what you'd do based on the facts you know.

Originally posted by Robtard
I made no such claim otherwise, this couple is indeed innocent of the crimes they're accused until found guilty in court. But you two had to try.

Do you think any of those protesters that illegally entered private property should be charged?

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm just curious what you'd do based on the facts you know.

I told you last page that I haven't really followed this story, so I'd do nothing based on knowing very little. Wouldn't want to condemn innocent people if they're innocent, nor would I want to let criminals go due to lack of facts.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Do you think any of those protesters that illegally entered private property should be charged?

If the county wants to charge them with trespassing, if they did indeed trespass, I don't care. Trespassing is usually a misdemeanor offense, though it can depend.

Originally posted by Robtard
I told you last page that I haven't really followed this story, so I'd do nothing based on knowing very little. Wouldn't want to condemn innocent people if they're innocent, nor would I want to let criminals go due to lack of facts.

You claim to have a legendary memory and I've told you their claims before.

Assuming the prosecutors can't prove or disprove their version of events what do you think should be done?

Originally posted by Surtur
You claim to have a legendary memory and I've told you their claims before.

Assuming the prosecutors can't prove or disprove their version of events what do you think should be done?

They say one thing and other people say another. I don't know who is telling the truth here, as I wasn't there. This isn't hard to understand, Surt.

It's ultimately up to the prosecution to prove they're guilty, we just went over that they're innocent until proven guilty on this very page. If the prosecution can't do that, they're likely going to be found innocent if this ever ends up in court.

Though it will be a clown-trial as the governor has already preemptively said he'd pardon them without knowing all the facts. Precedent set.

Originally posted by Robtard
They say one thing and other people say another. I don't know who is telling the truth here, as I wasn't there. This isn't hard to understand, Surt.

It's ultimately up to the prosecution to prove they're guilty, we just went over that they're innocent until proven guilty on this very page. If the prosecution can't do that, they're likely going to be found innocent if this ever ends up in court.

Though it will be a clown-trial as the governor has already preemptively said he'd pardon them without knowing all the facts. Precedent set.

Will you at least agree that if it comes down to a mere "he said/she said" they should not be punished?

Already hold that view as that's covered under 'innocent until proven guilty'. If neither side can prove a thing, they should absolutely walk.

Originally posted by Silent Master
They illegally entered private property, what part of that is peaceful?


Bingo.

Originally posted by Surtur
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?


Don't you know by now, Surt, that it only applies to people on the left who're charged with a crime? Right-wingers and/or people who're simply defending their own damn property or lives are guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of leftists.

The fact that the couple was even charged at all while the thuggish BLM 'protestors" who broke thru private property got off scott-free is wrong on so many levels.

Um. Trespassing doesn't always mean it's an attack as well (ie not peaceful), actions matter and why trespasses are largely charged as misdemeanors and not felonies. It really depends what and why. Do you people ever think?

See: Assembly on Private Property

Originally posted by Robtard
Not really followed this story closely. Has video or camera proof been shown that these two were threatened with guns prior to them threatening people with their guns?

Really depends on the state. If it has a castle doctrine and/or they have a no trespassing sign posted anywhere, they can warn once or twice and then shoot to kill very generously if there is even a mild case to be made about the angry mob being an angry mob. In this case, it was definitely and angry mob being an angry mob.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#State-by-state_positions_in_the_United_States

Most states have them. Thankfully.

And this couple is from Missouri. There's no legal justification to do anything at all against the couple and any judge or prosecutor who does should get their ass thrown in jail for gross corruption. No exception at all. That's what the outrage is about.

What should have happened is the couple should have started shooting every single one of them in the brain. Every single one. Only those that were on their property.


Get this: they'd be legally justified in doing so and they would get off 100% free from charges.

Don't fall for the circus clown buffoonery going on related to their case. They will definitely get cleared. It's very much on the books in Missouri. They need to escalate until any judges and prosecutors involved in this situation are severely punished including jail time.





https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-self-defense-laws.html

You responded to a request concerning video/picture proof with a murder revenge fantasy. Just weird, dude.

Originally posted by dadudemon

What should have happened is the couple should have started shooting every single one of them in the brain. Every single one. Only those that were on their property.


Get this: they'd be legally justified in doing so and they would get off 100% free from charges.

If that was the case, I would say the law is clearly unjust.

Originally posted by Artol
If that was the case, I would say the law is clearly unjust.

Why?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why?

Because I don't think it is acceptable in a society that you can gun down anyone you feel threatened by near or on your property. Do you really think the scenario as dadudemon posited it is just, or are you just playing Devil's Advocate?

Originally posted by Robtard
You responded to a request concerning video/picture proof with a murder revenge fantasy. Just weird, dude.

The question you posed is flawed to begin with because your request for such a photo is not required for their use of the castle doctrine in this specific scenario. And you pretending that my statement that they were legally justified in killing every person on their property is somehow a "murder revenge fantasy" is a bit weird. You went from "This is the codification of this law as it applies in this specific scenario" to "I want this to be murder revenge fantasy." Kind creepy, dude.

Originally posted by Artol
If that was the case, I would say the law is clearly unjust.

It's actually very just and it should be the law, nationally. I don't agree with generous interpretations of "stand your grand" but I do with the castle doctrines.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's actually very just and it should be the law, nationally. I don't agree with generous interpretations of "stand your grand" but I do with the castle doctrines.

Why do you think that is good?

Just so we're clear, DDM's scenario of an angry mob illegally being on my property even after I've given them one or two warnings?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Just so we're clear, DDM's scenario of an angry mob illegally being on my property even after I've given them one or two warnings?

I interpreted the scenario slightly differently, but we can go with that. You don't think that a reasonable inquiry into whether there was a threat should take place, and only if there was a credible threat that violent or even lethal force is acceptable?

Originally posted by Artol
Why do you think that is good?

Ask this question differently but with the honest content in it:


Why do I think it is good to defend my person and the people living on my property from violent trespassers when I fear for my life or the lives of the people who live on that property that I am responsible for protecting?

That's your actual question to me. That's the honest question when worded properly and with full intent behind the laws and actual wording in the laws.

Do you understand why people like Silent Master are flabbergasted by your position on castle doctrines?


Castle Doctrines are not "shoot everyone who trespasses onto my property" laws. It requires you to be in a dwelling where you sleep overnight and the trespassers are violent or a reasonable person would suspect they are their loved ones were in danger of experiencing violence from that trespasser.


Capisci?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ask this question differently but with the honest content in it:


Why do I think it is good to defend my person and the people living on my property from violent trespassers when I fear for my life or the lives of the people who live on that property that I am responsible for protecting?

That's your actual question to me. That's the honest question when worded properly and with full intent behind the laws and actual wording in the laws.

Do you understand why people like Silent Master are flabbergasted by your position on castle doctrines?


Castle Doctrines are not "shoot everyone who trespasses onto my property" laws. It requires you to be in a dwelling where you sleep overnight and the trespassers are violent or a reasonable person would suspect they are their loved ones were in danger of experiencing violence from that trespasser.


Capisci?

I do understand why people are flabbergasted by this framing. I don't think it is an accurate framing of the situation we were referring to. You suggested that you think it would be ok for the St. Louis couple to have killed every single one of the people near and on their property according to the castle doctrine. I do not think that is actually the case, and I do not think it should be the case. As we can see by what actually happened to the St. Louis couple, lethal force was not at all necessary, therefore I would say that had they used it that would have been too far. Like I suggested in my last post, I do think that lethal force can be justified when protecting yourself or others, but it must be investigated.

I hope you can see my confusion as to this conversation as well.

Originally posted by Artol
I interpreted the scenario slightly differently, but we can go with that. You don't think that a reasonable inquiry into whether there was a threat should take place, and only if there was a credible threat that violent or even lethal force is acceptable?

Ignoring the castle doctrine for a minute. The usual standard for self-defense is if a reasonable person would have felt threatened in the scenario.

Now ask yourself, would a reasonable person in a area that had weeks of protests several of which escalated to violent riots feel threatened if an angry mob illegally entered their property and then refused to leave?

Edit: in my opinion, a reasonable person would feel threatened in those circumstances.

That said. I personally would wait until they made the first violent move before shooting. But then, I've received far more training than the average person

Originally posted by Silent Master
Ignoring the castle doctrine for a minute. The usual standard for self-defense is if a reasonable person would have felt threatened in the scenario.

Now ask yourself, would a reasonable person in a area that had weeks of protests several of which escalated to violent riots feel threatened if an angry mob illegally entered their property and then refused to leave?

Edit: in my opinion, a reasonable person would feel threatened in those circumstances.

That said. I personally would wait until they made the first violent move before shooting. But then, I've received far more training than the average person

I think that feeling threatened has to be qualified. In my opinion a reasonable person must have felt that they were in danger of grave injury of death before they can take someone else's live. So for example if there is a drunken bar room fight where people push each other around, if someone pulls a gun and shoots the other person, that is an escalation of violence that, may be justified, but very likely isn't, and certainly has to be investigated.

Originally posted by Artol
I do understand why people are flabbergasted by this framing. I don't think it is an accurate framing of the situation we were referring to.

We fundamentally disagree and there's literally nothing you can say other than changing your position and agreeing that the couple was legitimately in physical danger from the angry mob.

In this particular situation, there's no compromise. There's no new position that I can take that is closer to your position while you also taking a new position that is closer to my original position. My position will not change at all because the couple was fundamentally in danger of experience violence from the angry mob who had trespassed onto their property, screaming, yelling, etc. So much so that the couple armed themselves and successfully got the couple of leave their property.


Originally posted by Artol
You suggested that you think it would be ok for the St. Louis couple to have killed every single one of the people near and on their property according to the castle doctrine.

I don't think this. This is the law - what I think doesn't matter. They would be legally justified in doing so.

Point of clarification: people shot in the back clearly running for the gate exit, however, would not be legally justified.

Originally posted by Artol
As we can see by what actually happened to the St. Louis couple, lethal force was not at all necessary, therefore I would say that had they used it that would have been too far.

That's because their use of screaming while holding guns was successful in driving off the angry and violent mob.

However, you're getting to use hindsight to make your assessment and, thankfully, the law doesn't require hindsight like this. The moment the angry mob trespassed and the couple warned them once or twice, they are legally justified to open fire on any accosting them. All the dead bodies. All of them.


Originally posted by Artol
I hope you can see my confusion as to this conversation as well.

Nope. I do not. We fundamentally disagree and it is not a position I will compromise on. So there's no middle ground for us to reach. This is not a middle ground that should be reached. However, you can compromise your personal safety or the safety of your loved ones by not exercising your rights to the castle doctrine so your personal morals are not compromised on this. We both win.

That's our middle ground: the law is there for those who choose to protect themselves and their loved ones. Those who do not wish to do so, do not have to do so. And they can exercise a "personal duty to retreat" in that scenario if they wish.

We at least agree, there, right?

Originally posted by Artol
I think that feeling threatened has to be qualified. In my opinion a reasonable person must have felt that they were in danger of grave injury of death before they can take someone else's live. So for example if there is a drunken bar room fight where people push each other around, if someone pulls a gun and shoots the other person, that is an escalation of violence that, may be justified, but very likely isn't, and certainly has to be investigated.



Are you disagreeing with my opinion that a reasonable person would feel threatened under DDM's stated scenario?

Originally posted by Artol
I do understand why people are flabbergasted by this framing. I don't think it is an accurate framing of the situation we were referring to. You suggested that you think it would be ok for the St. Louis couple to have killed every single one of the people near and on their property according to the castle doctrine. I do not think that is actually the case, and I do not think it should be the case. As we can see by what actually happened to the St. Louis couple, lethal force was not at all necessary, therefore I would say that had they used it that would have been too far. Like I suggested in my last post, I do think that lethal force can be justified when protecting yourself or others, but it must be investigated.

I hope you can see my confusion as to this conversation as well.


If the couple warns them several times to stay off their property and yet the thugs still come on it anyway then yep, they have every right to gun their asses down.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We fundamentally disagree and there's literally nothing you can say other than changing your position and agreeing that the couple was legitimately in physical danger from the angry mob.

In this particular situation, there's no compromise. There's no new position that I can take that is closer to your position while you also taking a new position that is closer to my original position. My position will not change at all because the couple was fundamentally in danger of experience violence from the angry mob who had trespassed onto their property, screaming, yelling, etc. So much so that the couple armed themselves and successfully got the couple of leave their property.




I don't think this. This is the law - what I think doesn't matter. They would be legally justified in doing so.

Point of clarification: people shot in the back clearly running for the gate exit, however, would not be legally justified.



That's because their use of screaming while holding guns was successful in driving off the angry and violent mob.

However, you're getting to use hindsight to make your assessment and, thankfully, the law doesn't require hindsight like this. The moment the angry mob trespassed and the couple warned them once or twice, they are legally justified to open fire on any accosting them. All the dead bodies. All of them.




Nope. I do not. We fundamentally disagree and it is not a position I will compromise on. So there's no middle ground for us to reach. This is not a middle ground that should be reached. However, you can compromise your personal safety or the safety of your loved ones by not exercising your rights to the castle doctrine so your personal morals are not compromised on this. We both win.

That's our middle ground: the law is there for those who choose to protect themselves and their loved ones. Those who do not wish to do so, do not have to do so. And they can exercise a "personal duty to retreat" in that scenario if they wish.

We at least agree, there, right?

Yeah, it does seem like we won't agree on the topic as we just fundamentally see it differently. I found it very informative anyways you hear your and Silent Master's perspective, so thank you for sharing it with me.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Are you disagreeing with my opinion that a reasonable person would feel threatened under DDM's stated scenario?

I am saying that threatened is too wide a term, they would feel threatened for sure, but there are different levels of threat, and not all of them merit a violent or lethal response.

Originally posted by Artol
I am saying that threatened is too wide a term, they would feel threatened for sure, but there are different levels of threat, and not all of them merit a violent or lethal response.

And what level of threat do you feel would justify a violent response?

Originally posted by Silent Master
And what level of threat do you feel would justify a violent response?

A threat of grave injury or death, which would have to be determined in a legal proceeding after a death occurred.

Originally posted by Artol
A threat of grave injury or death, which would have to be determined in a legal proceeding after a death occurred.

So you believe, a reasonable person would not feel that level of threat when faced with an angry mob illegally entering their property and then refusing to leave. Keeping in mind that they live in an area that has been subjected to weeks of protests, several of which escalated into violence?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So you believe, a reasonable person would not feel that level of threat when faced with an angry mob illegally entering their property and then refusing to leave. Keeping in mind that they live in an area that has been subjected to weeks of protests, several of which escalated into violence?

Yes, I think if the St. Louis couple had shot someone they should be prosecuted and face punishment for it.

Originally posted by Artol
Yes, I think if the St. Louis couple had shot someone they should be prosecuted and face charges for it.

Why?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why?

I mean we are at the start of the conversation again. Because I don't think they faced a level of threat that warrants lethal force.

I agree with dadudemon though at this point, I don't think we will get to common ground on this point.

Originally posted by Artol
I mean we are at the start of the conversation again. Because I don't think they faced a level of threat that warrants lethal force.

I agree with dadudemon though at this point, I don't think we will get to common ground on this point.

What are you basing your opinion that they did not face that level of threat on?

Originally posted by Silent Master
What are you basing your opinion that they did not face that level of threat on?

The videos, pictures and news stories that I have seen and read on the topic. I assume that is the same for all of us.

What about the videos and pictures lead you to that conclusion?

Originally posted by Artol
Yeah, it does seem like we won't agree on the topic as we just fundamentally see it differently. I found it very informative anyways you hear your and Silent Master's perspective, so thank you for sharing it with me.

Good news is, your position of "duty to retreat" on your property is the law in many locations outside the US including the UK. You're not alone in your position nor are you crazy for thinking you have a duty to retreat.

This is why I say let us have a national castle doctrine. You would prefer to take yourself and your loved ones away instead of standing your ground on your "castle" and defending yourself and your loved ones. I prefer the standing of the ground on my "castle" and protecting the myself and loved ones.

This is just a difference in approach to the situation. And I don't think you should be brown beaten into submission to have to think like I do. "Duty to retreat" is a valid position. In a large enough mob, if I foolishly try to defend my "castle", I could get myself and my loved ones killed and you would be the objectively most correct person in the scenario.


Originally posted by Artol
I mean we are at the start of the conversation again.

haermm

This is why you don't argue with Silent Master: he's almost always right.

He's correct, here. No reasonable person should conclude that they were not at threat for their life or personal integrity based on the body count and injuries from the violent rioting, up to that point. A reasonable person should assume they were in danger. This event occurred near or after the apex of the violent rioting. It was at the most heated.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So you believe, a reasonable person would not feel that level of threat when faced with an angry mob illegally entering their property and then refusing to leave. Keeping in mind that they live in an area that has been subjected to weeks of protests, several of which escalated into violence?

I think it should be pointed out that these violent riots had resulted in multiple deaths and injuries, by that point. They were reasonably justified in assuming they would be another one of the bodies.

I believe Artol realized the flaw in his reasoning which is why he didn't respond to my last question

Originally posted by Silent Master
I believe Artol realized the flaw in his reasoning which is why he didn't respond to my last question

No, I feel like I have gone over it, and therefore do not want to repeat the conversation. That's why I disengaged.

Let's be honest here, you were basing your opinion that the threat level was not high enough to justify violence or killing because nothing ended up happening.

The problem with that logic is, that information was not available during the confrontation. You were doing the very definition of Monday morning quarterbacking.

.. double post

Artol seems to think that the couple would not be justified in shooting anyone until the "protestors" had already shot at the couple or tried to injure them in some other way.

If the couple had warned them repeatedly to stay off their lawn though and they came on it anyway that would be more than enough reason, imo, for the couple to think they were in very real danger and thus would be justified in shooting before the "protestors" got too close to them.

Wrong. DDM and I are looking at it from the perspective of what was actually known during the confrontation to determine how a reasonable person would have viewed the threat level. You on the other hand are using future knowledge to try to claim that a reasonable person wouldn't have felt they were in danger of bodily injury or death.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Wrong. DDM and I are looking at it from the perspective of what was actually known during the confrontation to determine how a reasonable person would have viewed the threat level. You on the other hand are using future knowledge to try to claim that a reasonable person wouldn't have felt they were in danger of bodily injury or death.

I am saying that the outcome that we know suggests that it was not as dangerous, of course if they had shot someone no one would know that this would have been the outcome.

In other words, you're doing exactly what I said. You using future knowledge to justify that a reasonable person would not have felt in danger during the actual event. Even though, the reasonable person would not have had the benefit of that future knowledge during the confrontation.

Originally posted by Silent Master
In other words, you're doing exactly what I said. You using future knowledge to justify that a reasonable person would not have felt in danger during the actual event. Even though, the reasonable person would not have had the benefit of that future knowledge during the confrontation.

No.

I am saying that I think a reasonable person should not have determined that they were in danger to a degree that warrant lethal force based on the information publicly available at the time that you, dadudemon, and I are all referencing

I am also making an additional point that all three of us with the power of hindsight can now see that if the couple had shot someone that would have lead to more deaths than the alternative of not shooting anyone.

I am now also adding another additional point, that with the power of hindsight, it now seems clear that if they did shoot someone that would have significantly increased the likelihood that they would have died or be harmed in retaliation.

The publicly available information at the time was the area had experienced violent riots that resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. So why knowing that information do you believe a reasonable person would not have felt they were in danger of being injured or killed when an angry mob illegally entered their property and then refused to leave?

I see, so you're just going to ignore the report from the police and the couple themselves that there were people in the crowd making threats and at least one of them was armed. If you're not going to be honest during this debate I guess there's no point.

@silentmaster

Would you have shot into the crowd of protestors if you were in that same exact situation?

I already answered that

I missed it, can you quote?

Originally posted by Silent Master
That said. I personally would wait until they made the first violent move before shooting. But then, I've received far more training than the average person

At the end of the day, the couple should not be charged unless it is demonstrated with concrete evidence that they lied about being threatened.

Is there anyone here who disagrees with that?

Yeah so in other words: it's on the innocent to prove they aren't guilty.

Pathetic and I know you feel it's wrong, right? I know you do, but confirm it.

Cuz I know nobody is sad and pathetic enough to say they should be charged if there is no evidence to prove or disprove their claims.

The tantrum ur throwing over legal definitions being posted is hilarious