• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Couple points guns at protestors

For pointing the firearms they'll be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon because people were at a distance and no one was approaching. If the protesters had been charging at them and any had anything that was a weapon, then it would be legal provided having the guns there and out was legal to begin with.

I will qualify this with the video is so clearly edited to make sure NO ONE can see what happened before or after those few seconds that they both may have been legally justified.
 
Last edited:
Trump retweets video of white St Louis couple pointing guns at protesters | US news | The GuardianIt's just a matter of time before someone actually shoots protestors. There is something seriously wrong with people like that.

Consider the source. Neither of them are pointing their firearms at protesters, because there are no protesters. They are law-violating, violent rioters who are terrorizing neighborhoods and destroying private property who deserve to be shot - repeatedly.

Learn the difference.
 
You mean like a protestor who shoots?

Regardless. You are wrong. There is nothing wrong with those who wish to defend that which they earned.

Brandishing a firearm in the manner they were doing, is illegal.
 
For pointing the firearms they'll be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon because people were at a distance and no one was approaching. If the protesters had been charging at them and any had anything that was a weapon, then it would be legal provided having the guns there and out was legal to begin with.

Those "protesters" were on private property. That couple is rich and can afford excellent lawyers. The protesters were very lucky the couple was restrained. They had every right to shoot the protesters right then and there.
 
Brandishing a firearm in the manner they were doing, is illegal.

If you want to make that argument you are going to have to provide the laws concerning use of firearms in that state and then show that it was not used in a manner consistent with the applicable castle doctrine.
 
Brandishing a firearm in the manner they were doing, is illegal.

Same lefty has no problem with looting, arson, blocking streets, demolishing historical statues and rioting though. Sweet November can't come fast enough.
 
Last edited:
Brandishing a firearm in the manner they were doing, is illegal.

Not if they had been chased by an angry mob prior to this. The video is so cropped and edited to only 16 seconds the REAL question is what is The Guardian trying to hide? The picture for the video of the couple isn't even from the video, so we know The Guardian deliberately edited the video to hide the full story and what all actually happened.
 
as far as I saw the guy wasn't pointing at anyone so he is entirely legal. the woman it depends. if they were trespassing on private property, it depends.
 
Those "protesters" were on private property. That couple is rich and can afford excellent lawyers. The protesters were very lucky the couple was restrained. They had every right to shoot the protesters right then and there.

The couple and the protestors are on the lawn of the Governors Mansion.
 
Same lefty has no problem with looting, arson, blocking streets, demolishing histoical statues and rioting though. Sweet November can't come fast enough.

Please provide me with a post of mine condoning rioting and looting.
 
Please provide me with a post of mine condoning rioting and looting.

Please provide me with one post where you denounced everything I just listed. Your silence tells us everything we need to know.
 
Ah, THIS is why The Guardian edited the video:

Mark McCloskey later told KMOV-TV a mob rushed toward the home as the family was having dinner and “put us in fear of our lives”.

“This is all private property,” he said. “There are no public sidewalks or public streets. We were told that we would be killed, our home burned and our dog killed. We were all alone facing an angry mob.”

If that is accurate, they did nothing illegal whatsoever.

I posted about this on the forum a few years ago when an angry group of religious zealots came on our property past the no trespassing signs and were trying to break into the house. Only a woman and a young pregnant teenage girl was present. They wanted to kidnap her to prevent her possibly having an abortion. The response was the woman running out of the house with a Saiga 12 semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun with a 30 shell canister - opening fire on all of them -and an excellent shot hitting many of them. She had a 38 special as back up.

She hit them with bean bags but anyone shot with a bean bag at a few feet believes they've been hit with a full shotgun load. What came of it - since they ran to the Sheriff's office over it? They were all given a ticket for trespassing and informed by a prosecutor they are very lucky for how merciful the woman had been - assuring all of them the prosecutor had scolded the woman for not using AA buckshot instead of bean bags.

They indeed were lucky. I had that Saiga 12 loaded that way for wild hogs to run them off, not to kill hogs in front of the children. The woman at first didn't know at first she was firing just bean bags. She just grabbed the biggest gun with the largest magazine and her 5 shot 38 didn't hold enough bullets. They were attacking the house to try to kidnap the teenage girl - who was fully terrified of what was happening. She was going to defend that teenager and the house even if it took blowing them all away to do it. Plus they were walking in the flower beds trying to figure how to break in, killing the flowers.

A person can use force, including deadly force, against a group of criminals attacking their home vowing to kill them and burn their house. Such threat made them criminals. Felony criminals. Anyone on video making such threats should be prosecuted under the Rico statute for terroristic threats and conspiracy to commit arson, burglary and murder.
 
Last edited:
Those "protesters" were on private property. That couple is rich and can afford excellent lawyers. The protesters were very lucky the couple was restrained. They had every right to shoot the protesters right then and there.

They are lawyers and work together at their own legal center.
 
The protesters were trespassing on a private street!

The homeowner reached out to News 4 Monday morning saying he was havinf [sic] dinner with his family outside of his home when the crowd smashed through wrought iron gates on Portland Place.

“A mob of at least 100 smashed through the historic wrought iron gates of Portland Place, destroying them, rushed towards my home where my family was having dinner outside and put us in fear of our lives,” he said. “This is all private property. There are no public sidewalks or public streets. We were told that we would be killed, our home burned and our dog killed. We were all alone facing an angry mob.”


Missouri recognizes the castle doctrine:

Physical (non-deadly) force is considered justified when a person reasonably believes it’s necessary to defend themselves or someone else from an unlawful use of force by someone else. It may also be used if a person believes it’s necessary to prevent someone from committing theft, tampering or property damage.

Deadly force may be justified under the law if a person reasonably believes it’s required to protect themselves or someone else from physical injury, death or forcible felony. It may also be used against someone who illegally enters a dwelling or vehicle.

That brings us to what are known as “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” laws. These laws, which vary by state, detail when a person has a duty to retreat and when they’re legally allowed to stay and fight, even if leaving the situation is an option.

Each state has its own version of a castle doctrine. Missouri’s law:

Missouri law recognizes the castle doctrine. That means that if someone comes into your home with the intention of harming you or someone else, you have the legal right to stay and use deadly force to prevent an attack. However, in Missouri, people also have no duty to retreat from their vehicles, any property they own or anywhere they’re entitled to be.

There’s another situation in which a person may be legally within their rights to use force against someone to protect themselves or others. That’s if they can provide evidence that they were suffering from a psychological condition known as battered spouse syndrome. Long-term domestic violence victims sometimes develop battered spouse syndrome — also known as battered woman syndrome (BWS). They believe that they’re unable to leave their abuser. Sometimes they lash out physically because they think they have no other choice. In reality, they often don’t.

St. Louis Couple Draws Weapons To Protect Home: 'We Were All Alone Facing an Angry Mob'
 
Back
Top Bottom