Brandishing Firearms

[Chillfolks]

Couple pointed guns at BLM protesters as they 'feared for lives' | Daily Mail Online

Ok and as more information is made available we will have a better understanding of how events transpired.

 

[Rich2018]

Ok and as more information is made available we will have a better understanding of how events transpired.

As always

 

[Drawdown]

That's not the point, the point is that the homeowner (AR-15) and his wife (handgun) had no threat to their lives and therefore had no right to brandish guns.

They had every right to brandish firearms with a yelling mob breaking into their property and heading toward their home. Your perpetual defense of this and other egregious criminal conduct is pathetic and why America will reject the democrats in the fall. You have zero respect for anyone not part of your cult.

 

[Rich2018]

They had every right to brandish firearms with a yelling mob breaking into their property and heading toward their home. Your perpetual defense of this and other egregious criminal conduct is pathetic and why America will reject the democrats in the fall. You have zero respect for anyone not part of your cult.

No they didn't


You have zero respect for people.


The solution is always guns with you.

 

[Chillfolks]

No they didn't


You have zero respect for people.


The solution is always guns with you.

I could be wrong but it appears that Drawdowns preferred solution is to not have people break into private property. That seems to be the catalyst to all this. Had no-one been treaspassing then no one would of felt threatened enough to grab a gun.

 

[TurtleDude]

If that's true, damn right that couple has the right to defend themselves!

Otherwise, if the protesters are on a public thorough-way I believe brandishing would occur when he points the gun at them. You generally can't point guns at people, unless defending yourself. If it's not legit self-defense, you're brandishing.

I believe it was a private drive. When I was 12, my parents moved to the back 6 acres of my late grandfather's property. While his house was on a public road, the access to my parents' house was a private street. I know this because when the street needed to be plowed, the 9 homeowners on the street paid for the plowing. I remember this specifically, because a newer resident-who was near the end of this street complained about helping pay for the plowing and my father wryly noted that since we were closest to the main road, we should pay less than those who at the end of the one mile long street! When the road needed repaving, once again, the residents ponied up the money to pay for the work. Now city trash trucks, delivery vehicles etc were obviously granted access to the homes on the road, but if protestors came marching down the street and making nuisances of themselves, I believe they could have been charged and arrested for trespassing-the road did have a sign saying "Private Drive-no public access" or no trespassing (I believe it has changed at some point-I haven't been on that road since we sold my late parents' 'home about 12 years ago)

 

[Noodlegawd]

I'm wondering if these people who brandished firearms near protesters, have broken the law?

My understanding is that this is illegal, a gun should only be drawn if there is an imminent threat to your life, I think this is the case too in Arizona which has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.

Here's some info about these laws in Missouri.

View attachment 67285678

Looks to me like these dummies did indeed violate that third rule above.

Obviously, the third point does not apply in the case of justified self-defense.

 

[apdst]

I'm wondering if these people who brandished firearms near protesters, have broken the law?

My understanding is that this is illegal, a gun should only be drawn if there is an imminent threat to your life, I think this is the case too in Arizona which has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.

Here's some info about these laws in Missouri.

View attachment 67285678

Looks to me like these dummies did indeed violate that third rule above.

They were on private property.

 

[vegas giants]

I'm wondering if these people who brandished firearms near protesters, have broken the law?

My understanding is that this is illegal, a gun should only be drawn if there is an imminent threat to your life, I think this is the case too in Arizona which has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.

Here's some info about these laws in Missouri.

View attachment 67285678

Looks to me like these dummies did indeed violate that third rule above.

You have to demonstrate anger or threats

 

[vegas giants]

They were on private property.

It would still be illegal

 

[apdst]

It would still be illegal

Nope.

 

[vegas giants]

Nope.

Yep. You can not brandish a firearm even on private property unless in self defense

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Bigger question, should crowds of the most uncivilized of the third estate be allowed to even press charges considering their cause is a subversive one?

Now that's really no way to speak of the GOP.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yep. You can not brandish a firearm even on private property unless in self defense

This is my understanding too, even here in Arizona.

You draw and point a gun only when your life or someone with you is in immediate danger of life threatening violence, those two have watched too many movies.

 

[vegas giants]

This is my understanding too, even here in Arizona.

You draw and point a gun only when your life or someone with you is in immediate danger of life threatening violence, those two have watched too many movies.

In most jurisdictions pointing the gun is a different charge. You may not carry your gun even on private property in a angry or threatening manner. This is usually determined by statements made at the time

 

[Chomsky]

I believe it was a private drive. When I was 12, my parents moved to the back 6 acres of my late grandfather's property. While his house was on a public road, the access to my parents' house was a private street. I know this because when the street needed to be plowed, the 9 homeowners on the street paid for the plowing. I remember this specifically, because a newer resident-who was near the end of this street complained about helping pay for the plowing and my father wryly noted that since we were closest to the main road, we should pay less than those who at the end of the one mile long street! When the road needed repaving, once again, the residents ponied up the money to pay for the work. Now city trash trucks, delivery vehicles etc were obviously granted access to the homes on the road, but if protestors came marching down the street and making nuisances of themselves, I believe they could have been charged and arrested for trespassing-the road did have a sign saying "Private Drive-no public access" or no trespassing (I believe it has changed at some point-I haven't been on that road since we sold my late parents' 'home about 12 years ago)

I believe you are correct here.

I have a fair amount of properties near me, as you described, where a private road or private street is shared by a group of homeowners. In fact, as I poke around considering I might want a little more space around me, I even looked at several properties like this. And I found I'm wary of it, to be honest.

Because,

1] I would be responsible for the upkeep & maintenance of the road, including as you said, snow removal.

2] Even worse, I would have to do that maintenance as part of a neighborhood group! Argh!

So for the reasons above, I am extremely wary of getting into a relationship like that. It's for the same reason I don't do Homeowner Associations. I'll never say never, but I'm no fan at this time.

(I don't do ravines, either. As visually appealing and an aide to privacy they are, there's no way I'm taking responsibility for maintaining the damn thing to the center of its very bottom!)

 

[SCrider]

I'm wondering if these people who brandished firearms near protesters, have broken the law?

My understanding is that this is illegal, a gun should only be drawn if there is an imminent threat to your life, I think this is the case too in Arizona which has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.

Here's some info about these laws in Missouri.

View attachment 67285678

Looks to me like these dummies did indeed violate that third rule above.

If the NRA and pro gun types had any credibility they would at least call out the woman's reckless behavior with her gun. One pic online I saw showed her head turned gun pointing in another direction with her finger clearly on the trigger.

 

[Chomsky]

If the NRA and pro gun types had any credibility they would at least call out the woman's reckless behavior with her gun. One pic online I saw showed her head turned gun pointing in another direction with her finger clearly on the trigger.

Unbelievable. What the hell firearm education did she receive? That's a text-book no-no.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

They may be in serious trouble and I have no sympathy for them.

Guns are not toys, usage depicted in the movies is often unlawful and unrealistic.

“These folks are straight up aiming firearms at peaceful protestors,” national security attorney Bradley P. Moss observed.

Multiple legal experts said the McCloskeys could face charges.

“State law does not prohibit open carrying of firearms, but does prohibit exhibiting ‘any weapon readily capable of lethal use’ in angry or threatening manner in presence of one or more persons,” noted attorney Mark Zaid. “Their actions should have consequences.”

and

St. Louis University School of Law Professor John Ammann offered local NBC affiliate KSDK another avenue of potential prosecution. He said the McCloskeys’ gun-toting incident might qualify as an assault because brandishing their weapons in such a fashion could have reasonably put the peaceful protesters in fear for their safety.

The woman in particular could be done for here, there are photographs clearly showing her with her finger on the trigger, absolutely a violation of even basic gun safety rules.

 

[Rich2018]

nobody was killed and breaking through a gate and trespassing on people's property are crimes, not political disagreements.

Thankfully...no-one was killed

But you see the potential for tragedy yes ?

That couple need to be stripped of any guns.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Unbelievable. What the hell firearm education did she receive? That's a text-book no-no.

By her behavior and positioning I'd wager the lady has little to no firearms training and I'd bet double that she spends very little - if any - time at the range. That woman was dangerous. Only by luck did she not fire the gun accidently or otherwise.

 

[Rich2018]

By her behavior and positioning I'd wager the lady has little to no firearms training and I'd bet double that she spends very little - if any - time at the range. That woman was dangerous. Only by luck did she not fire the gun accidently or otherwise.

And the guy's stance fills you with confidence ?

 

[Risky Thicket]

And the guy's stance fills you with confidence ?

LOL No. I responded to the post about the woman. But, hell no, the guy holding the AR-15 was not much better.

Were they totally ready to kill people? No, I don’t believe they were. The situation was not even close to that, though I think the couple could have unintentionally escalated it. They were, however, pointing their weapons all over the place including the crowd from time to time. I think both were very scared and unprepared. Training and practice would have helped them. Proper training can/should takeover when you are scared ****less, and they were obviously scared.

 

[Rich2018]

LOL No. I responded to the post about the woman. But, hell no, the guy holding the AR-15 was not much better.

Were they totally ready to kill people? No, I don’t believe they were. The situation was not even close to that, though I think the couple could have unintentionally escalated it. They were, however, pointing their weapons all over the place including the crowd from time to time. I think both were very scared and unprepared. Training and practice would have helped them. Proper training can/should takeover when you are scared ****less, and they were obviously scared.

They were brandishing guns in order to scare people off


But that's how gun battles can start. Do you think either gun was loaded...or even worse cocked and ready to fire ?

 

[Risky Thicket]

They were brandishing guns in order to scare people off


But that's how gun battles can start. Do you think either gun was loaded...or even worse cocked and ready to fire ?

The couple in the OP were scared. We don't really have video from their perspective. We do know that they were on a private street at the their home and a gate to their private street had been breached by protesters. Did they verbally threaten the couple? I don't know. Did the protesters advance toward the house? I don't know.

Judging from the couple's gun handling skills I'd consider it a toss up as to whether the couple was locked and loaded or not. I know the woman did point at the protesters with her pistol and with her finger on the trigger. Her husband swept her several times with his AR-15.

The way the lady was handling her pistol her first round would likely have kneecapped someone if she had hit anything. If she double-tapped, the second round would have been maybe chest high on somebody. Or judging from her stance, if she double-tapped she might have thumbed her eye or broken her nose firing the second round.

All I know is everyone is most fortunate that no one got hurt.