Rifle used by couple to stop democrat party terrorists confiscated....expect to see the protestors attack...

[freyasman]

No answer for where I ever said "any warrant," eh?

I gave you an answer. You ignored it.,

If you threatened to kill cops over one kind of warrant as you stated how do they know you wouldn’t kill cops for any warrant?

My point is that if you are arrested - you will be separated from your beloved guns.

the right answer is that you would never shoot to kill police officers for serving a warrant to confiscate your arsenal. But you are not willing to say that.

I would, and I am willing to say it.
There is no legit reason the government should ever come to steal my property and if they are taking my guns, which is property I use to defend the rest of my property, and my family, and myself, then that is clearly an attempt to weaken my position in order to make further aggression against me easier. In the military, we called that "Prepping the objective". Government agents coming to take your firearms is a loud and clear message that the powers that be intend for you to die...... prepare accordingly.
You don't have to have a gun battle with them right then and there with your family and kids in the house, but you better have some kind of plan B in place.

PACE;
primary
alternate
contingency
emergency


The time to gather intel and plan a course of action is before you need it.

 

[Faun]

No, I don't think that. Is that your idea of proving that gate is their property?

If you don't think that... Then... Obviously the gate is on private property. Right? Is there another option I'm not aware of?

Or... Are you saying that the owner of said gate is happy it was broke down?

The question wasn't whether or not the gate is on private property -- the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

 

[Faun]

The gate is their property

Prove it.

You think the city put that gate up to protect private property?

No, I don't think that. Is that your idea of proving that gate is their property?

They had that gate made and it was at the entrance to their property.

It's the entrance to that community.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The gate is their property

Prove it.

You think the city put that gate up to protect private property?

No, I don't think that. Is that your idea of proving that gate is their property?

They had that gate made and it was at the entrance to their property.

It's the entrance to that community.

which the rioters had no right to be at

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, I don't think that. Is that your idea of proving that gate is their property?

If you don't think that... Then... Obviously the gate is on private property. Right? Is there another option I'm not aware of?

Or... Are you saying that the owner of said gate is happy it was broke down?

The question wasn't whether or not the gate is on private property -- the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

It doesn't belong to the city snowflake

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.

he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018

From your link...

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."​

Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state
Look up Missouri's Castle Doctrine law
GAME SET AND MATCH
You lose

LOL

Dumbfuck, I quoted YOUR source.

Dear dumbfuck Stand your ground no obligation to retreat That is what the castle Doctrine is
Meaning in Missouri you have the right to defend your property and any other place you are at.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, stand your ground beyond your property requires one to be facing an imminent threat of "death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony." Not only wasn't that mob threatening them until they themselves were threatened -- you can't be the initial aggressor and then claim a stand your ground defense. Mark McCloskey was the initial aggressor when he brandished an AR-15 at a crowd of people before they threatened him.

§563.031​

​

A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:​

​

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor;  except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:​

Every time you post, you say something stupid.

There was an imminent threat the rioters who were trespassing you dumbfuck

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That gate is not their front door. Try harder next time.

The gate was more than just a suggestion that the rioters must keep out

I didn't say otherwise. I was merely pointing out to a retard that the gate is not the mccloskey's "front door." Try and pay attention. Ok?

The gate is their property

Prove it.

Prove it's not it sure in the hell doesn't belong to the city or the trespassers

 

[Shelzin]

The question wasn't whether or not the gate is on private property -- the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

My answer to that is that it doesn't matter. They destroyed private property. They should not have been there.

 

[Faun]

The gate is their property

Prove it.

You think the city put that gate up to protect private property?

No, I don't think that. Is that your idea of proving that gate is their property?

They had that gate made and it was at the entrance to their property.

It's the entrance to that community.

which the rioters had no right to be at

Correct, it's a class B misdemeanor.

 

[luchitociencia]

Police had a great opportunity to arrest the ones threatening their lives but rather than calling for back up and do the right process, they allowed the protesters to continue their threats.

Guns should be given back to the owners of that house, and let them shoot as many of those protesters as they can in self defense.

Life of a person is a precious thing, but no one can be allowed to think he can impose his ideology and frustration on others. The one who wants to play "bully" must be removed from society one way or another. Main purpose is to keep peace and order, and this task, in many cases will require to hit aggressors as the primary target.

These protesters are getting desperate, they received some attention at the beginning, but people are ignoring them more and more each day. Never comply with their demands until the day they become civilized and say "please". Lol.

 

[Pete7469]

That couple sounds a bit nuts frankly. There were 6 protestors, they stayed on the sidewalk, none were armed, they were peaceful. None were Antifa.

Protest organizers say there was no reason for homeowners to come outside with guns

“For them to come out there with their guns drawn, there was absolutely no reason at all,” Reverend Darryl Gray said

www.ksdk.com

Even their neighbors thought they went overboard.

Neighbors condemn couple who pulled guns on protesters

The McCloskeys say they were just defending their home against protesters who they claim were armed and doing damage to private property

www.ksdk.com

Good Lord you are such a malignant piece of shit sometimes....

I don't care if it was just 2 marxist pieces of shit that destroyed a gate and entered private property. The fact is if you watched all the videos that have surfaced, it was far more than just a few dozen. People who break into private property should be shot on sight.

Now they way these untrained lawyers handled the weapons and flagged the crowds was stupid, but for you to pretend these rioting assholes that were trespassing aren't leftist pieces of shit like you offends me far more.

 

[Faun]

No, I don't think that. Is that your idea of proving that gate is their property?

If you don't think that... Then... Obviously the gate is on private property. Right? Is there another option I'm not aware of?

Or... Are you saying that the owner of said gate is happy it was broke down?

The question wasn't whether or not the gate is on private property -- the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

It doesn't belong to the city snowflake

Dumbfuck, how many times need I say it's not on public property until you finally understand I'm saying it's not on public property??

Just throw out a number so we can get past your idiocy.

 

[Faun]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.

he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018

From your link...

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."​

Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state
Look up Missouri's Castle Doctrine law
GAME SET AND MATCH
You lose

LOL

Dumbfuck, I quoted YOUR source.

Dear dumbfuck Stand your ground no obligation to retreat That is what the castle Doctrine is
Meaning in Missouri you have the right to defend your property and any other place you are at.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, stand your ground beyond your property requires one to be facing an imminent threat of "death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony." Not only wasn't that mob threatening them until they themselves were threatened -- you can't be the initial aggressor and then claim a stand your ground defense. Mark McCloskey was the initial aggressor when he brandished an AR-15 at a crowd of people before they threatened him.

§563.031​

​

A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:​

​

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor;  except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:​

Every time you post, you say something stupid.

There was an imminent threat the rioters who were trespassing you dumbfuck

Trespassing is a misdemeanor and not an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. Even worse for you retards -- Mark McCloskey confessed he pulled his gun before he even felt threatened.

 

[Faun]

That gate is not their front door. Try harder next time.

The gate was more than just a suggestion that the rioters must keep out

I didn't say otherwise. I was merely pointing out to a retard that the gate is not the mccloskey's "front door." Try and pay attention. Ok?

The gate is their property

Prove it.

Prove it's not it sure in the hell doesn't belong to the city or the trespassers

As always, the onus to prove a claim falls upon the person making the claim. You claim it's their property -- it's your burden to prove.

I'll accept your failed attempt to switch your burden of proof onto me as proof you can't prove your claim.

 

[Faun]

The question wasn't whether or not the gate is on private property -- the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

My answer to that is that it doesn't matter. They destroyed private property. They should not have been there.

Irrelevant. They have zero legal authority to resort to lethal force to defend someone else's personal property. Doing so constitutes an assault.

 

[Faun]

Police had a great opportunity to arrest the ones threatening their lives but rather than calling for back up and do the right process, they allowed the protesters to continue their threats.

Guns should be given back to the owners of that house, and let them shoot as many of those protesters as they can in self defense.

Life of a person is a precious thing, but no one can be allowed to think he can impose his ideology and frustration on others. The one who wants to play "bully" must be removed from society one way or another. Main purpose is to keep peace and order, and this task, in many cases will require to hit aggressors as the primary target.

These protesters are getting desperate, they received some attention at the beginning, but people are ignoring them more and more each day. Never comply with their demands until the day they become civilized and say "please". Lol.

In Missouri, shooting protesters who are not on your own personal property is murder.

 

[irosie91]

Police had a great opportunity to arrest the ones threatening their lives but rather than calling for back up and do the right process, they allowed the protesters to continue their threats.

Guns should be given back to the owners of that house, and let them shoot as many of those protesters as they can in self defense.

Life of a person is a precious thing, but no one can be allowed to think he can impose his ideology and frustration on others. The one who wants to play "bully" must be removed from society one way or another. Main purpose is to keep peace and order, and this task, in many cases will require to hit aggressors as the primary target.

These protesters are getting desperate, they received some attention at the beginning, but people are ignoring them more and more each day. Never comply with their demands until the day they become civilized and say "please". Lol.

In Missouri, shooting protesters who are not on your own personal property is murder.

what does "personal property" mean in your depraved lexicon? Can you cite the specific law to which you imagine you refer?

 

[Shelzin]

Irrelevant. They have zero legal authority to resort to lethal force to defend someone else's personal property. Doing so constitutes an assault.

That's not correct. They did not use lethal force. They threatened lethal force. Nothing wrong with that.

Edit: SPECIFICALLY and ESPECIALLY because they are on their own property.

 

[Mac-7]

the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

It does not matter who owns the gate except that it does not belong to rioters who tore it up

 

[Faun]

Police had a great opportunity to arrest the ones threatening their lives but rather than calling for back up and do the right process, they allowed the protesters to continue their threats.

Guns should be given back to the owners of that house, and let them shoot as many of those protesters as they can in self defense.

Life of a person is a precious thing, but no one can be allowed to think he can impose his ideology and frustration on others. The one who wants to play "bully" must be removed from society one way or another. Main purpose is to keep peace and order, and this task, in many cases will require to hit aggressors as the primary target.

These protesters are getting desperate, they received some attention at the beginning, but people are ignoring them more and more each day. Never comply with their demands until the day they become civilized and say "please". Lol.

In Missouri, shooting protesters who are not on your own personal property is murder.

what does "personal property" mean in your depraved lexicon? Can you cite the specific law to which you imagine you refer?

Personal property, as is property owned by someone would be their personal property.