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

[freyasman]

They pulled their guns before they were threatened. Have someone explain time to ya.

i just explained it to you

50 potentially violent protesters are there to intimidate aka threaten others

The protesters were doing none of that until guns were pulled on them.

Try harder next time.

If this was the Klan marching past some black couples house and they did the same damn thing, no one would be blaming the black couple for it.

It's that simple.

 

[Marion Morrison]

He better have some other weapons in that..former sanitarium or whatever it is.

 

[Faun]

You march into my neighborhood in light of whats going on I'll feel threatened.

Thats the purposecof a mob

”Give us what we want - or else”

Nope, that wasn't the purpose of the mob. Their purpose was to go to the mayor's house to protest. Had the McCloskey's ignored the mob, the mob would have simply walked past their house, as they did others, on their way to the mayor.

Testimony IS from the homeowners and their lawyer that you CANT REACH the mayor's house from that private lane... And that's no excuse either for trespassing -- possible breaking and entering...

Didn't say it's an excuse.And if the McCloskey's are claiming one cannot get to the mayor's residence by cutting through Portland Place, then they are lying again. While it's not the optimal route, one can certainly get to the mayor's residence that way. And according to the protesters, they were cutting through there because other streets leading to the mayor's residence were blocked off.

 

[Shelzin]

And according to the protesters, they were cutting through there because other streets leading to the mayor's residence were blocked off.

You know why they didn't block off that street? Because it's fuck'n private property!!!!

 

[Faun]

Neither their property nor their lives were threatened when they pulled out their guns.

Wrong

the threat was conveyed when the mob broke into their private property

You're making shit up again. You should stop. McCloskey already admitted he pulled out his gun when he spotted them approaching. Not when they were in front of his home, which is right near the gate.

YOU do not KNOW if they asked the protesters to LEAVE before arming up.. You've ignored this TWICE now.. And the SOLUTION to the confrontation and the tresspassing and the possible breaking and entering was FOR THEM TO LEAVE... Which is what any cop ENFORCING the laws of Missouri would ASKED them to do...

You really are clueless.. MONUMENTALLY clueless...

Of course I know that. I'm not ignoring it, I heard McCloskey being interviewed. He said he got his gun and when he first saw the protesters approaching and before they reached the front of his home. He can be seen in the video standing with his gun as the protesters begin passing through the gate. He said he got his gun as they breached the gate and told them to go back, that it was private property. You should have known this too if you were paying attention.

 

[Faun]

And according to the protesters, they were cutting through there because other streets leading to the mayor's residence were blocked off.

You know why they didn't block off that street? Because it's fuck'n private property!!!!

So? Again, that makes in trespassing. At worst, a class B misdemeanor in Missouri. That still doesn't give people the right to threaten others with firearms.

 

[Faun]

Which is what any cop ENFORCING the laws of Missouri would ASKED them to do...

but there were no cops there to protect the couple so they had tp protect themselves

Protect themselves from what? They weren't being threatened by those protesters until they themselves drew firearms. How many other houses would that group of protesters passed on their way to the mayor's house? How many complaints were there against them?

 

[Faun]

The assault occurred before the mob threatened the homeowners.

You are the liar

the mob itself was a threat to the homeowners

A group of protesters doing nothing but marching is not a threat.

 

[Shelzin]

So? Again, that makes in trespassing. At worst, a class B misdemeanor in Missouri. That still doesn't give people the right to threaten others with firearms.

yes... It does.

 

[Faun]

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

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

You know you're in the wrong here, right?
And you realize that these endless attempts to bullshit your way into being believable are failing, and are going to keep failing right?

So my question is, how long are you going to keep this horseshit up?
Just curious.

LOL

You should contact the McCloskey's attorney and reassure him his clients are in no legal trouble.

Why?
I don't think he's worried about anything but how to spend his cut of the lawsuit settlement.
Sit back and watch.... we'll see who walks out of the gun smoke when it's over.

LOL

Oh? What settlement? Who are they suing?

You don't think they're going to file a lawsuit against the protest organizers? Or the city? Or the police department?

Do these seem like the kind of folks who won't fight back to you?

Sue for what? Sue protesters for being on their street? Sue the city for protesters being on their street? Sue the police department for protesters being on their street? There are mixed reports about the police in this matter. I've seen both the police were called and the police weren't called during this episode.

Sue them for damages incurred by trespassing, destroying private property, emotional distress for menacing, etc.
They can sue the city for failing to maintain law and order, they can sue the cops for oppression under color of law, they can file a complaint with the state ethics board for malicious prosecution by the DA...... there are probably a couple of dozen other things they can file suit for.

And something tells me they will. The kind of people that will face down a hostile mob on their lawn are most likely not going to be intimidated easily. And they're lawyers..... I bet they can't wait to get these people into court.

The only damage seen by them was to that gate. That's what they're going to sue for? And what law and order was not maintained by the city? That the city had no one on guard at their home to keep people off their street? That's their responsibility, not the city's. And they haven't been prosecuted (yet) so where's the malicious prosecution. If they do get prosecuted, it would be for drawing a gun at people who didn't threaten them, which is an assault according to Missouri law.

Will they sue? Probably. They're lawyers and that's what lawyers do. But I still don't see grounds for a lawsuit.

 

[Faun]

So? Again, that makes in trespassing. At worst, a class B misdemeanor in Missouri. That still doesn't give people the right to threaten others with firearms.

yes... It does.

No, it doesn't. Unless you're in fear of imminent death or serious physical injury, Missouri law does not allow someone to do what the McCloskey's did. There are several laws for which they may face criminal charges.

§571.030

1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121 , if he or she knowingly:

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;​

5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031.

§563.031

1. 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:​

§565.056

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;

​

​

 

[Marion Morrison]

And according to the protesters, they were cutting through there because other streets leading to the mayor's residence were blocked off.

You know why they didn't block off that street? Because it's fuck'n private property!!!!

So? Again, that makes in trespassing. At worst, a class B misdemeanor in Missouri. That still doesn't give people the right to threaten others with firearms.

Come mucking around in my backyard. You won't leave it, I will plant your ass in it. You don't belong there.
I live in FL. I won't even call the law because they're useless.

 

[freyasman]

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

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

You know you're in the wrong here, right?
And you realize that these endless attempts to bullshit your way into being believable are failing, and are going to keep failing right?

So my question is, how long are you going to keep this horseshit up?
Just curious.

LOL

You should contact the McCloskey's attorney and reassure him his clients are in no legal trouble.

Why?
I don't think he's worried about anything but how to spend his cut of the lawsuit settlement.
Sit back and watch.... we'll see who walks out of the gun smoke when it's over.

LOL

Oh? What settlement? Who are they suing?

You don't think they're going to file a lawsuit against the protest organizers? Or the city? Or the police department?

Do these seem like the kind of folks who won't fight back to you?

Sue for what? Sue protesters for being on their street? Sue the city for protesters being on their street? Sue the police department for protesters being on their street? There are mixed reports about the police in this matter. I've seen both the police were called and the police weren't called during this episode.

Sue them for damages incurred by trespassing, destroying private property, emotional distress for menacing, etc.
They can sue the city for failing to maintain law and order, they can sue the cops for oppression under color of law, they can file a complaint with the state ethics board for malicious prosecution by the DA...... there are probably a couple of dozen other things they can file suit for.

And something tells me they will. The kind of people that will face down a hostile mob on their lawn are most likely not going to be intimidated easily. And they're lawyers..... I bet they can't wait to get these people into court.

The only damage seen by them was to that gate. That's what they're going to sue for? And what law and order was not maintained by the city? That the city had no one on guard at their home to keep people off their street? That's their responsibility, not the city's. And they haven't been prosecuted (yet) so where's the malicious prosecution. If they do get prosecuted, it would be for drawing a gun at people who didn't threaten them, which is an assault according to Missouri law.

Will they sue? Probably. They're lawyers and that's what lawyers do. But I still don't see grounds for a lawsuit.

My point is, they are going to fight back and a lot of people will support them..... because they would have done the same thing.

That DA is probably going to wish she had left them alone.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

Well stated. All our civil rights center and hinge around your right to bear arms. They better have a good reason before trying to disarm a person. Defending your home, family and self against a gang of thugs is NOT a good reason, especially if you merely brandished an arm to AVOID an escalation of conflict! History shows that the first step in taking over a population is registration followed by confiscation. When the authorities show up wanting to disarm you leaving you open to further attack while promising not to defend you in your gun's absence, it may be time to start worrying very much. History teaches us that an unarmed, uninformed population is easy to control, so defending your right to self-defense is both your lawful, moral and legal responsibility, lest you become an idiot sheeple like FooledByEverything.

 

[toobfreak]

That still doesn't give people the right to threaten others with firearms.

Come mucking around in my backyard. You won't leave it, I will plant your ass in it. You don't belong there.

If you plant Faun, you would only have a bare spot in your lawn. He wouldn't provide nourishment to feed a grape.

 

[TwoTonTommy]

New here. This incident is what turns moderates into conservatives and stimulus checks into AR-15s. The animals could have been bringing flowers or a Molotov, the peaceful protests collectively created this legitimate quandary. Grow some balls you cuckold masses.

 

[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

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

You know you're in the wrong here, right?
And you realize that these endless attempts to bullshit your way into being believable are failing, and are going to keep failing right?

So my question is, how long are you going to keep this horseshit up?
Just curious.

LOL

You should contact the McCloskey's attorney and reassure him his clients are in no legal trouble.

Why?
I don't think he's worried about anything but how to spend his cut of the lawsuit settlement.
Sit back and watch.... we'll see who walks out of the gun smoke when it's over.

LOL

Oh? What settlement? Who are they suing?

You don't think they're going to file a lawsuit against the protest organizers? Or the city? Or the police department?

Do these seem like the kind of folks who won't fight back to you?

Sue for what? Sue protesters for being on their street? Sue the city for protesters being on their street? Sue the police department for protesters being on their street? There are mixed reports about the police in this matter. I've seen both the police were called and the police weren't called during this episode.

Sue them for damages incurred by trespassing, destroying private property, emotional distress for menacing, etc.
They can sue the city for failing to maintain law and order, they can sue the cops for oppression under color of law, they can file a complaint with the state ethics board for malicious prosecution by the DA...... there are probably a couple of dozen other things they can file suit for.

And something tells me they will. The kind of people that will face down a hostile mob on their lawn are most likely not going to be intimidated easily. And they're lawyers..... I bet they can't wait to get these people into court.

The mayor needs to be held personally responsible for doing nothing to protect the citizens of st louis

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

You know you're in the wrong here, right?
And you realize that these endless attempts to bullshit your way into being believable are failing, and are going to keep failing right?

So my question is, how long are you going to keep this horseshit up?
Just curious.

LOL

You should contact the McCloskey's attorney and reassure him his clients are in no legal trouble.

Why?
I don't think he's worried about anything but how to spend his cut of the lawsuit settlement.
Sit back and watch.... we'll see who walks out of the gun smoke when it's over.

LOL

Oh? What settlement? Who are they suing?

You don't think they're going to file a lawsuit against the protest organizers? Or the city? Or the police department?

Do these seem like the kind of folks who won't fight back to you?

Sue for what? Sue protesters for being on their street? Sue the city for protesters being on their street? Sue the police department for protesters being on their street? There are mixed reports about the police in this matter. I've seen both the police were called and the police weren't called during this episode.

Sue them for damages incurred by trespassing, destroying private property, emotional distress for menacing, etc.
They can sue the city for failing to maintain law and order, they can sue the cops for oppression under color of law, they can file a complaint with the state ethics board for malicious prosecution by the DA...... there are probably a couple of dozen other things they can file suit for.

And something tells me they will. The kind of people that will face down a hostile mob on their lawn are most likely not going to be intimidated easily. And they're lawyers..... I bet they can't wait to get these people into court.

The mayor needs to be held personally responsible for doing nothing to protect the citizens of st louis

I agree.

 

[Mac-7]

He said he got his gun and when he first saw the protesters approaching and before they reached the front of his home.

In America he can “get his gun” anytime he chooses in his own home

he would not have had to if the police were doing their job

it apparently they were all busy guarding the mayors house

 

[Mac-7]

They weren't being threatened by those protesters until they themselves drew firearms.

They were being threatened the instant that angry mob entered thir property