• 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!

St. Louis Couple Loses their AR15 (1 Viewer)

ludin said:
breaking down a gate of a gated community is not peaceful it is vandalism and destruction of private property.
Click to expand...

Doesn't justify a response of lethal force though...or even the threat of it.
 
Had Fox on earlier and there was a discussion on these people.

The husband has sued his sister, his father and his fathers care taker. I'm thinking Thanksgiving at their house consists of two people. :roll:
 
VanceMack said:
So you arent satisfied with ****ting on your integrity...you have to smear it all over your character as well...I see...

"The attorneys called the St. Louis Police Department shortly before 7:30 p.m. on Sunday and the police report confirmed that “a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street’ signs.” (For the record, I have seen pictures of the gate and it is not exactly formidable and does appear “smashed.” However, it is clearly marked as private property and was forced open)."

View attachment 67287487

When protesters smash down gates to private property have they committed a destructive act and are they trespassing? Are they peaceful protesters if they are threatening occupants of residencies? Are they still 'peaceful' protesters if they are violating the law?
Click to expand...
I've previously provided the video of the protesters entering the neighborhood. The gate was intact. The gate was broken AFTER the protesters left. Gee. Wonder who had a motivation to do that? Maybe the same person who lied about the actions of the protesters (there is video), made a false police report, and who has previously destroyed property on SEVERAL occasions (at least three), including those very no trespassing signs - Mark McCloskey. Your problem, my friend, is the failure to think for yourself. You accept McCloskey's statements as "true" because they confirm your preconceived notions. Look at the video (not faux news reports). Think. Then ignore me, please.
 
NWRatCon said:
I've previously provided the video of the protesters entering the neighborhood. The gate was intact. The gate was broken AFTER the protesters left. Gee. Wonder who had a motivation to do that? Maybe the same person who lied about the actions of the protesters (there is video), made a false police report, and who has previously destroyed property on SEVERAL occasions (at least three), including those very no trespassing signs - Mark McCloskey. Your problem, my friend, is the failure to think for yourself. You accept McCloskey's statements as "true" because they confirm your preconceived notions. Look at the video (not faux news reports). Think. Then ignore me, please.
Click to expand...
:lamo

You have a nation full of mindless violent idiot leftists and you dont think they damaged that gate. And you want to talk about not thinking for yourself. You have numerous examples of idiot leftists protesters getting violent and you dont think the protesters could have made threatening gestures. You know it was private property but you dont think they were guilty of trespassing.

Of COURSE you defend the mindless leftists.
 
Rich2018 said:
Doesn't justify a response of lethal force though...or even the threat of it.
Click to expand...

sure it does. they are criminals. how knows what they plan to do in the neighborhood.
those people have a right to defend their property against trespassers and vandals.
 
ludin said:
sure it does. they are criminals. how knows what they plan to do in the neighborhood.
those people have a right to defend their property against trespassers and vandals.
Click to expand...

So you think any citizen should be able to kill anyone they deem to be a criminal, based on what they might be capable of doing ?


In that case the (former) Minneapolis policeman was entirely justified in kneeling on the neck of a suspect and killing him

After all, George Floyd could have gone on a rampage when released and killed a dozen other cops.
 
Rich2018 said:
So you think any citizen should be able to kill anyone they deem to be a criminal, based on what they might be capable of doing ?
Click to expand...
Show me where i said that. If not you are strawmaning.

In that case the (former) Minneapolis policeman was entirely justified in kneeling on the neck of a suspect and killing him
Click to expand...

that is your opinion why do you think that way?

After all, George Floyd could have gone on a rampage when released and killed a dozen other cops.
Click to expand...

do you have evidence of this?
 
ludin said:
Show me where i said that. If not you are strawmaning.
Click to expand...

Post #285 when you said:

sure it does. they are criminals. how knows what they plan to do in the neighborhood.
those people have a right to defend their property against trespassers and vandals.
Click to expand...

I was assuming your post contained a typo and should have read "Who knows"

So you're saying that property owners have a right to shoot people on the basis of "who knows" what they might do ?



I mean if someone saw you on their property, "who knows" what you might do ?

Otherwise, please explain why you felt fit to add to add the phrase "who knows" what they plan to do into your post



that is your opinion why do you think that way?
Click to expand...

Because, using your expression, "who knows" what George Floyd might have done, upon his release. He might have gone on a murderous rampage killing policemen. "Who knows" ?



do you have evidence of this?
Click to expand...

Evidence of a possible future?
To paraphrase yourself - "he was a criminal"

About as much evidence as your home owners "defending the property against a group of protesters that "who knew" what they were planning.
 
Rich2018 said:
Post #285 when you said:



I was assuming your post contained a typo and should have read "Who knows"

So you're saying that property owners have a right to shoot people on the basis of "who knows" what they might do ?



I mean if someone saw you on their property, "who knows" what you might do ?

Otherwise, please explain why you felt fit to add to add the phrase "who knows" what they plan to do into your post
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving i didn't say that so we can move on.

Because, using your expression, "who knows" what George Floyd might have done, upon his release. He might have gone on a murderous rampage killing policemen. "Who knows" ?
Click to expand...


so you are just making assumptions ok got it.

Evidence of a possible future?
To paraphrase yourself - "he was a criminal"

About as much evidence as your home owners "defending the property against a group of protesters that "who knew" what they were planning.
Click to expand...

ok so you don't have any evidence to support your claim thanks for sharing.
Do you have an actual argument or going to continue to make up stuff people didn't say?
 
ludin said:
Thanks for proving i didn't say that so we can move on.
Click to expand...

But you did

You justified citizens taking action based on possibility. Or as you put it, "who knows"

So if you've trespassed on a citizen's property, there's no way of knowing what else you might do. In the presence of such uncertainty, what should an armed citizen do ?

so you are just making assumptions ok got it.
Click to expand...

No, you are

"who knows..." remember ?


ok so you don't have any evidence to support your claim thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

That's the POINT
"Who knows" doesn't work as a rationale for taking action


Do you have an actual argument or going to continue to make up stuff people didn't say?
Click to expand...

Just that you justification of taking action based on "who knows what they might do ?"
Is utterly flaws at best.
 
Rich2018 said:
You justified citizens taking action based on possibility. Or as you put it, "who knows"
Click to expand...
This entire thread is full of people making unbased claims about the facts, the law, the actions of the protesters, etc. It is very difficult to carry on any kind of discussion when they just make things up to support their preferred scenario, rather than addressing what actually happened. When that doesn't work they go for ad hominem attacks and wild accusations about "leftists" and other clap trap. The lack of substance is astounding.
 
NWRatCon said:
This entire thread is full of people making unbased claims about the facts, the law, the actions of the protesters, etc. It is very difficult to carry on any kind of discussion when they just make things up to support their preferred scenario, rather than addressing what actually happened. When that doesn't work they go for ad hominem attacks and wild accusations about "leftists" and other clap trap. The lack of substance is astounding.
Click to expand...

It is.

I think a lot of the motivation is gun owners struggling to justify the usefulness of their toys.

That couple threatened protesters with guns. The only reasonable cause you can have for brandishing a gun is a reasonable fear of a threat to your (or someone else's life), or great bodily harm (including rape.

So it really doesn't matter if the protesters were breaking a law or laws, there was zero justification for threatening anybody with a gun.
 
Rich2018 said:
It is.

I think a lot of the motivation is gun owners struggling to justify the usefulness of their toys.

That couple threatened protesters with guns. The only reasonable cause you can have for brandishing a gun is a reasonable fear of a threat to your (or someone else's life), or great bodily harm (including rape.

So it really doesn't matter if the protesters were breaking a law or laws, there was zero justification for threatening anybody with a gun.
Click to expand...
They'll immediately start changing the subject and interject "they feared for their lives" bull****. If someone fears for their life, they retreat and call for help. They weren't afraid - there's video - they were mad, they were the aggressors. But, look at the video? Nah. Look at the fact? We don't need no stinkin' facts! Read the reports of embedded reporters? Oh, heck no! Pay attention to what the law actually provides? What are you, nuts?
 
NWRatCon said:
They'll immediately start changing the subject and interject "they feared for their lives" bull****. If someone fears for their life, they retreat and call for help. They weren't afraid - there's video - they were mad, they were the aggressors. But, look at the video? Nah. Look at the fact? We don't need no stinkin' facts! Read the reports of embedded reporters? Oh, heck no! Pay attention to what the law actually provides? What are you, nuts?
Click to expand...

I don't think any court will accept a plea that they feared for their lives

In fact I posted the first defense that their (former) attorney filed, that protesters were not under any threat of being shot because the safety of the AR-15 was engaged at all times !

It's a weak defense at best.
 
Hawley, a Missouri Republican, wrote in a letter to Barr that Gardner abused her power in seizing the couple’s guns, investigating them and pursuing a possible indictment. He called her actions “an unacceptable abuse of power and threat to the 2nd Amendment.”

“There is no question under Missouri law that the McCloskeys had the right to own and use their firearms to protect themselves from threatened violence, and that any criminal prosecution for these actions is legally unsound,” Hawley wrote. “The only possible motivation for the investigation, then, is a politically motivated attempt to punish this family for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.”

Barr asked to intervene in case of St. Louis couple who wielded guns at protesters - Los Angeles Times


The thing is: the McCloskeys were violating the protestor's right to peaceable assembly.

If the DA doesn't do her due diligence, she can be arrested and put in jail for violating the protestor's Constitutional rights.




A letter released July 1 by more than three dozen of the McCloskeys’ neighbors condemned “the behavior of anyone who uses threats of violence, especially through the brandishing of firearms, to disrupt peaceful protest, whether it be in this neighborhood or anywhere in the United States.”


That's what happens when you're a huge asshole, people gang up on you. In this case, their neighbors.
 
swing_voter said:
Hawley, a Missouri Republican, wrote in a letter to Barr that Gardner abused her power in seizing the couple’s guns, investigating them and pursuing a possible indictment. He called her actions “an unacceptable abuse of power and threat to the 2nd Amendment.”

“There is no question under Missouri law that the McCloskeys had the right to own and use their firearms to protect themselves from threatened violence, and that any criminal prosecution for these actions is legally unsound,” Hawley wrote. “The only possible motivation for the investigation, then, is a politically motivated attempt to punish this family for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.”

Barr asked to intervene in case of St. Louis couple who wielded guns at protesters - Los Angeles Times


The thing is: the McCloskeys were violating the protestor's right to peaceable assembly.

If the DA doesn't do her due diligence, she can be arrested and put in jail for violating the protestor's Constitutional rights.




A letter released July 1 by more than three dozen of the McCloskeys’ neighbors condemned “the behavior of anyone who uses threats of violence, especially through the brandishing of firearms, to disrupt peaceful protest, whether it be in this neighborhood or anywhere in the United States.”


That's what happens when you're a huge asshole, people gang up on you. In this case, their neighbors.
Click to expand...

They're not going to get many character references.
 
THIS answers the question of guilt or innocence.

106462328_10218396925138871_5387291189837774198_n.jpg


What did the Democratic police department do? Disarm her and her - and leave the criminal anarchist terrorist his rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom