Brandishing Firearms

[Rich2018]

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.

10-4, it was a fortunate outcome.

And one that did not need to involve guns

At the very most the homeowner needed to come out (and perhaps have his gun ready in the entrance hall if needed.

 

[CLAX1911]

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.

Open carry is permitted in Arizona. Plus they were on their property.

So they didn't commit any crime. Any charges will likely be dismissed and since they are plaintiffs attorneys they'll likely sue rightfully so and win against any activist prosecution.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yeah, aiming a gun at a crowd of people isn't a good idea.

The moment you've aimed it, someone could shoot you dead and claim self defense.

Or you could accidentally squeeze the trigger and kill someone you didn't want to. It happens all the time.

It would be an iron clad self defense case. An angry mob is a imminent threat on your life and limb.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

My understanding is that the protestors had bust through the gates and were walking down the people's driveway, not just passing by on a public sidewalk. In that case, my guess is it is perfectly legal.

Strangely, their is video of the protesters walking through an open and not damaged gate, but none of the gate being damaged.

I’ve haven’t seen a video of even one protestor on the McCloskeys property. Have you?

Protesters standing on their driveway or yard doesn’t justify brandishing.

 

[Outlook]

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 broke through a metal gate.
Ignored private property signs.
Trespassed.
Threatened to kill the homeowner and his pets
Let see, we have seen on TV these peaceful protesters loot, burn and kill.
Under these circumstances, I would have Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson with me to make sure my property and self is protected.
The police will not come to help you.

 

[Outlook]

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.

No they did not violate any laws.

https://handgunlaw.us/states/missouri.pdf

 

[Rich2018]

Open carry is permitted in Arizona. Plus they were on their property.

So they didn't commit any crime. Any charges will likely be dismissed and since they are plaintiffs attorneys they'll likely sue rightfully so and win against any activist prosecution.

Open carry doesn't mean you can point the gun at anyone.

 

[CLAX1911]

Open carry doesn't mean you can point the gun at anyone.

Yeah a violent mob on your doorstep does.

 

[Rich2018]

Yeah a violent mob on your doorstep does.

They weren't a violent mob ?

Did they commit any acts of violence that might be considered a threat to life ?

 

[CLAX1911]

They weren't a violent mob ?

Lol the just showed up for tea?
You are absurd.

Did they commit any acts of violence that might be considered a threat to life ?

Were any of them shot?

 

[Metric Mouse]

Poor liddle armed protesters got scurred by big mean lady after they broke down a gate and marched through her yard where she was eating supper. It would have been better if both sides would have ignored each other and no property had been damaged.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Were any of them shot?

Touche!

 

[Rich2018]

Lol the just showed up for tea?
You are absurd.

They were protesting, so no they weren't responding to an RSVP not that, that could would give them the time of day in any case, much less afternoon tea

Were any of them shot?

No, thank god.

 

[jotathought]

They were protesting, so no they weren't responding to an RSVP not that, that could would give them the time of day in any case, much less afternoon tea

No, thank god.

Yes .. they were "peacefully" protesting and didn't set a precedent from the previous weeks to destroy property, commit arson, vandalize, loot, commit aggravated assaults and mortally injure individuals. They weren't chanting "Our streets" and other provocative language to frighten anyone. Nothing to see here .. :roll:

The home owner has claimed the protesters threatened them with a firearm, by loading the magazine and claiming "they were next."

 

[Rich2018]

Yes .. they were "peacefully" protesting and didn't set a precedent from the previous weeks to destroy property, commit arson, vandalize, loot, commit aggravated assaults and mortally injure individuals. They weren't chanting "Our streets" and other provocative language to frighten anyone. Nothing to see here ...

So explain how you think that couple might have planned to use their guns

The home owner has claimed the protesters threatened them with a firearm, by loading the magazine and claiming "they were next."

Well he would, wouldn't he ?


He's facing the prospect of criminal charges and losing his guns.

 

[jotathought]

So explain how you think that couple might have planned to use their guns

Well he would, wouldn't he ?

He's facing the prospect of criminal charges and losing his guns.

I'm not going to speak on behalf of someone else.

A precedent has been established with the protests across the United States, ending in violence, destruction, injury and death. Who wouldn't be anxious/scared when they show up at your front door?

 

[Rich2018]

I'm not going to speak on behalf of someone else.

You no idea ?

Let's phrase it differently

Do you support that couples right to brandish their guns ?
If so, up to what point do you support any actions that they may take with them ?

A precedent has been established with the protests across the United States, ending in violence, destruction, injury and death. Who wouldn't be anxious/scared when they show up at your front door?

Are you being paranoid ?


Like someone being anxious/scared when they're in a restaurant/store and an armed man/group walks in ?

 

[jotathought]

You no idea ?

Let's phrase it differently

Do you support that couples right to brandish their guns ?
If so, up to what point do you support any actions that they may take with them ?

Are you being paranoid ?

Like someone being anxious/scared when they're in a restaurant/store and an armed man/group walks in ?

I support the couples right to protect themselves from the group that stormed their neighborhood and threatened them. It is clear from the available footage the couple was not disciplined with firearm safety, as they did not practice good muzzle discipline. Brandishing a weapon is not a right -- it demonstrates lack of discipline and education on how to properly use and handle a firearm. On the other hand, defensive display of a weapon to deter a threat is completely legitimate means and is legal in many states.

I support possessing a firearm when threatened or fearful of injury/death, defensive display of the firearm to deter a threat and deadly force when justified.

The situation is based on intent .. an angry group of people walking down a private street who have demonstrated violence and aggression is much different than a law abiding citizen packing a pistol on their hip eating lunch at a restaurant.

 

[Rich2018]

I support the couples right to protect themselves from the group that stormed their neighborhood and threatened them.

I support ANYONE'S right to protect themselves period

It is clear from the available footage the couple was not disciplined with firearm safety, as they did not practice good muzzle discipline. Brandishing a weapon is not a right -- it demonstrates lack of discipline and education on how to properly use and handle a firearm. On the other hand, defensive display of a weapon to deter a threat is completely legitimate means and is legal in many states.

It may be legal, but it depends on what you are attempting to deter

I heard recently of a man charged in Georgia who displayed/brandished a gun to settle a road rage incident

I support possessing a firearm when threatened or fearful of injury/death, defensive display of the firearm to deter a threat and deadly force when justified.

The situation is based on intent .. an angry group of people walking down a private street who have demonstrated violence and aggression is much different than a law abiding citizen packing a pistol on their hip eating lunch at a restaurant.

So since you've attempted to dodge, let me ask you again:

Up to what point do you support any actions that the couple may take with their guns ?

ie: what actions would you condone ?

 

[jotathought]

I support ANYONE'S right to protect themselves period


It may be legal, but it depends on what you are attempting to deter

I heard recently of a man charged in Georgia who displayed/brandished a gun to settle a road rage incident


So since you've attempted to dodge, let me ask you again:

Up to what point do you support any actions that the couple may take with their guns ?

ie: what actions would you condone ?

I'll answer the question a different way. I condoned what the couple did with the exception of poor muzzle discipline. I would condone the use of lethal force if the protesters/mob continued to advance towards the couple.

The best outcome would have been for the couple to either continue their meal or go inside to avoid the contention, and leverage their firearms as a last resort. Unfortunately, what most people predict they would do in a stressful situation vs. what they actually do is often times not congruent.

 

[CLAX1911]

They were protesting, so no they weren't responding to an RSVP not that, that could would give them the time of day in any case, much less afternoon tea




No, thank god.

yeah I don't think this couple did anything wrong I don't think the city has a snowball's chance in hell one charging them with anything, and I think if they do you should sue the ever-living **** out of the city.

BLM is a terrorist organization that has been known to commit arson and murder. Precisely this reason is why people have gun it's why the amendment exists.

 

[Rich2018]

I'll answer the question a different way. I condoned what the couple did with the exception of poor muzzle discipline. I would condone the use of lethal force if the protesters/mob continued to advance towards the couple.

So you think that a citizen has the lawful right to kill a protester if they're in close proximity ?

You're condoning murder

The best outcome would have been for the couple to either continue their meal or go inside to avoid the contention, and leverage their firearms as a last resort. Unfortunately, what most people predict they would do in a stressful situation vs. what they actually do is often times not congruent.

Absolutely, just walk away.

 

[jotathought]

So you think that a citizen has the lawful right to kill a protester if they're in close proximity ?

You're condoning murder

Absolutely, just walk away.

I absolutely believe a citizen has the lawful right to kill another individual IF the victim is responding to an immediate threat, and the victim is in fear of physical harm or death to himself (and nearby individuals as well). That's not murder, it's self-defense.

 

[Rich2018]

I absolutely believe a citizen has the lawful right to kill another individual IF the victim is responding to an immediate threat, and the victim is in fear of physical harm or death to himself (and nearby individuals as well). That's not murder, it's self-defense.

So you think there was a threat of physical harm or even death in this case ?

 

[jotathought]

So you think there was a threat of physical harm or even death in this case ?

I can only judge based on the information provided (which is limited), and the victim has claimed the protesters threatened him with a firearm and claimed "You were next." The victim, in this case, will most likely leverage the precedent set by the protesters all across the United States as justifiable fear.

We don't have all the facts, and opinions and rush to judgement are being based on the short clips that demonize this couple.