St. Louis couple point guns at protesters

[BmorePat87]

I'll start the BLM mega thread off with a quick check in with our favorite mustard stained, unsafe gun handling couple from St. Louis

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/507330-trump-calls-treatment-of-st-louis-couple-that-pointed-guns-at?fbclid=IwAR3Smlm2h4XtsSJ6CJieGfrXxcxZBf9OYNC3n51uvQIYZAwYtC34lZ73TdU

Trump decried the poor treatment this couple has been receiving, suggesting that without their criminal, irresponsible, and unsafe behavior, they would have been beat up (if lucky) and their house ransacked and burned.

It should come at no surprise that Trump defended the couple, who have donated hundreds to him and have been involved in a number of legal battles within their neighborhood, including an attempt to keep gay neighbors away. It should also come as no surprise that he suggested that the primarily minority group of protestors would attack the couple, rob them, and then burn their house.

As these protests continue, and his election prospects dwindle, we should see more racially charged remarks from him.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-14-2020, 06:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'll start the BLM mega thread off with a quick check in with our favorite mustard stained, unsafe gun handling couple from St. Louis

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/507330-trump-calls-treatment-of-st-louis-couple-that-pointed-guns-at?fbclid=IwAR3Smlm2h4XtsSJ6CJieGfrXxcxZBf9OYNC3n51uvQIYZAwYtC34lZ73TdU

Trump decried the poor treatment this couple has been receiving, suggesting that without their criminal, irresponsible, and unsafe behavior, they would have been beat up (if lucky) and their house ransacked and burned.

It should come at no surprise that Trump defended the couple, who have donated hundreds to him and have been involved in a number of legal battles within their neighborhood, including an attempt to keep gay neighbors away. It should also come as no surprise that he suggested that the primarily minority group of protestors would attack the couple, rob them, and then burn their house.

As these protests continue, and his election prospects dwindle, we should see more racially charged remarks from him.

Do you know for a fact that these people were not in harm's way?  Were you there?  Can you describe the tone of the situation, as it was actually occurring?

[fredtoast]

(07-14-2020, 07:23 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Do you know for a fact that these people were not in harm's way?  Were you there?  Can you describe the tone of the situation, as it was actually occurring?

  
There is audio to the video.  It is pretty easy to tell that no one was threatening to go in  their property or bother them in any way.  The protestors were just telling them to put their guns away and stop pointing them at them because they had children with them.

Why would the protestors have any reason to bother these people?  They were just going to a peaceful protest at the mayor's home.  There are a lot of other houses in that neighborhood.  The protestors did not bother anyone else.  So why would they mess with those two?

[*jason*]

(07-14-2020, 07:23 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Do you know for a fact that these people were not in harm's way?  Were you there?  Can you describe the tone of the situation, as it was actually occurring?

I know this isn't the first time they've pulled weapons on people... The husband anyway. The other instance involved people being on a piece of land in that community that that couple claims they own... Not exactly an imminent threat there.

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2020, 07:23 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Do you know for a fact that these people were not in harm's way?  Were you there?  Can you describe the tone of the situation, as it was actually occurring?

Fred responded sufficiently to this, but I'll add that you could ask Trump, the one actually making claims about this situation, the same questions. 

Based on the many videos and the lack of violence, it's safe to say that the most dangerous thing that happened was two poorly trained gun owners aiming their weapons at people walking down their street. 

[BmorePat87]

When asked "Why are African Americans still dying at the hands of law enforcement in this country?"

Trump responded "And so are white people, so are white people. What a terrible question to ask. So are white people, more white people, by the way, more white people."

Of course, there are 5 times as many White people as Black people in the US, but research has shown that Black people are disproportionately more likely to be shot and killed by police. One study from 2014-2015 showed Black people were about double their population representation when it came to who is shot and killed by the police. Another study since 2015 by WaPo showed that Black people were 3 times more likely to be shot and killed in cases where the victim appeared to pose little to not threat.


He went on to defend the Confederate flag "People love it, and I know people that like the Confederate flag and they're not thinking of slavery, I look at NASCAR you had the flags all over the place... All I say is freedom of speech, it's very simple, my attitude is freedom of speech. Very strong views on the confederate flag. With me it's freedom of speech, very simple. Like it, don't like, it's freedom of speech... I am comfortable with freedom of speech, it's very simple."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-claims-white-people-die-hands-law-enforcement/story?id=71783935&cid=social_fb_abcnp&fbclid=IwAR3aoWb6xl0vbNT1qV_Gazj19AEZ0Jc04cEal5b1wMO_-YYvJmb3IflBqJM

[*bfine32*]

(07-14-2020, 06:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'll start the BLM mega thread off with a quick check in with our favorite mustard stained, unsafe gun handling couple from St. Louis

Well at least we know it's going to be an unbiased open-minded discussion. 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-14-2020, 07:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Fred responded sufficiently to this, but I'll add that you could ask Trump, the one actually making claims about this situation, the same questions. 

Based on the many videos and the lack of violence, it's safe to say that the most dangerous thing that happened was two poorly trained gun owners aiming their weapons at people walking down their street. 

As I understand, that is a private subdivision.  Unless the protesting group had asked for and received permission to walk about and perform their protest, they were trespassing.  Typically if something unusual is going to happen in a private subdivision, the POA or HOA, alerts the residents to what is coming, specifically so that they know that it's nothing to be alarmed about..

The "bit of land" that the suspects did not own, that is actually property of the neighborhood that the protesters were standing on, means nothing in terms of weather the protesters had permission to even be on the private property of the subdivision or not.

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2020, 08:48 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As I understand, that is a private subdivision.  Unless the protesting group had asked for and received permission to walk about and perform their protest, they were trespassing.  Typically if something unusual is going to happen in a private subdivision, the POA or HOA, alerts the residents to what is coming, specifically so that they know that it's nothing to be alarmed about..

The "bit of land" that the suspects did not own, that is actually property of the neighborhood that the protesters were standing on, means nothing in terms of weather the protesters had permission to even be on the private property of the subdivision or not.

Yea, the fact that it was a private street was addressed the night this happened. What does this have to do with Trump's claim, a lack of violence or threats in the videos, or their poor firearm handling? 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-14-2020, 08:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, the fact that it was a private street was addressed the night this happened. What does this have to do with Trump's claim, a lack of violence or threats in the videos, or their poor firearm handling? 

Don't change the channel, once a serious faux pas, on the part of the protesting group has been brought up.  Why the heck were they on private property without permission?  Trump didn't make them do that.  He never said "go there"..

[*bfine32*]

(07-14-2020, 07:23 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Do you know for a fact that these people were not in harm's way?  Were you there?  Can you describe the tone of the situation, as it was actually occurring?

There are some situations you just have to concede are too absurd to debate. This couple was in their home, on their property when folks broke into their private property in mass. Like all of us they had watched videos of numerous "protests" that turned in breaking and entering and looting. 

But in some liberal, crazy twist of logic these folks are to blame because they showed they were willing to defend their property. I recommend you let this go and just enjoy the absurdity. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2020, 08:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Don't change the channel, once a serious faux pas, on the part of the protesting group has been brought up.  Why the heck were they on private property without permission?  Trump didn't make them do that.  He never said "go there"..

You're literally the one changing the discussion...

You responded to me by asking if I was there to know for a fact that the couple was not in danger. I said Trump was the one making the claims, that there's no evidence that they were in danger, and that the couple was being dangerous with the way they handled their guns.

You then ignored all of that and mentioned the fact that it was a private street, so I reiterated all of those things and asked how your non sequitur changed any of it. 


This is PnR 2.0, we're not suppose to be playing these games anymore. Making up shit is how threads get derailed.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-14-2020, 09:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're literally the one changing the discussion...

You responded to me by asking if I was there to know for a fact that the couple was not in danger. I said Trump was the one making the claims, that there's no evidence that they were in danger, and that the couple was being dangerous with the way they handled their guns.

You then ignored all of that and mentioned the fact that it was a private street, so I reiterated all of those things and asked how your non sequitur changed any of it. 


This is PnR 2.0, we're not suppose to be playing these games anymore. Making up shit is how threads get derailed.

Oh, my apologies.  I took your bit in the OP as just "typical Left add on" to steer a situation toward your point of view.  Again, this is P&R 2.0, why would you continue to play those old games? 

Edit: Am I really "changing the discussion" by pointing out that the protesters were in the wrong, by trespassing on private property, from the get-go? It seems to actually be the overlooked part of the entire scene.

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2020, 09:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Oh, my apologies.  I took your bit in the OP as just "typical Left add on" to steer a situation toward your point of view.  Again, this is P&R 2.0, why would you continue to play those old games? 


Edit:  Am I really "changing the discussion" by pointing out that the protesters were in the wrong, by trespassing on private property, from the get-go?  It seems to actually be the overlooked part of the entire scene.

All of this was addressed in the post your quoting. If you have no desire to engage in conversation, just be honest with me so I know to ignore your posts. I don't want us to lose this forum and I am not going to engage in any behavior that will cause that to happen. I hope that you feel the same way. 


Edit: my response was

"Yea, the fact that it was a private street was addressed the night this happened. What does this have to do with Trump's claim, a lack of violence or threats in the videos, or their poor firearm handling? "

If you want to continue the discussion and tell me what it being a private street had to do with those things in the my post that you were responding to, I would enjoy discussing that.

[Millhouse]

I am not entirely 100% behind all of the BLM movement, though I am behind the general spirit of it. Is this allowed by the pc culture of mid-2020?

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2020, 09:30 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I am not entirely 100% behind all of the BLM movement, though I am behind the general spirit of it. Is this allowed by the pc culture of mid-2020?

I guess the question that has to be asked to answer this is, what about it are you not 100% behind?

There's plenty of people not behind "defund the police" that are still behind most of BLM. Most Democratic politicians fall under that category. 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-14-2020, 09:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: All of this was addressed in the post your quoting. If you have no desire to engage in conversation, just be honest with me so I know to ignore your posts. I don't want us to lose this forum and I am not going to engage in any behavior that will cause that to happen. I hope that you feel the same way. 


Edit: my response was

"Yea, the fact that it was a private street was addressed the night this happened. What does this have to do with Trump's claim, a lack of violence or threats in the videos, or their poor firearm handling? "

If you want to continue the discussion and tell me what it being a private street had to do with those things in the my post that you were responding to, I would enjoy discussing that.

Ok, my apologies.  You actually wanted to discuss Trump's response, rather than BLM, as the title of the thread indicated?  Help me out here, I'm getting a little confused.

And, it's not because I don't want to participate in civil discussion, I just loathe loaded arguments and talking points.  So, if you would really like to have a friendly discussion of the event in question, you must also open yourself to the idea that the group was trespassing by even being there.  Then, you must think of the private citizens who's privacy was violated, and take into account their shocked response.

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2020, 09:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ok, my apologies.  You actually wanted to discuss Trump's response, rather than BLM, as the title of the thread indicated?  Help me out here, I'm getting a little confused.

This is unnecessary. 

Quote:And, it's not because I don't want to participate in civil discussion, I just loathe loaded arguments and talking points.  So, if you would really like to have a friendly discussion of the event in question, you must also open yourself to the idea that the group was trespassing by even being there.  Then, you must think of the private citizens who's privacy was violated, and take into account their shocked response.

I asked you what the relevance to it being a private street, something acknowledged and discussed the night this happened when it was posted here, to the three things I pointed to in my response. I want to know how the private street piece addresses my post that you were quoting.

By asking what the relevance of it was, I was in no way closing myself off from it.

Are you suggesting that:

 1) Trump's claims had merit because it was a private street, despite video of the night showing no violence or threats to them

2) they were right to engage in dangerous mishandling of firearms, including pointing weapons at people with their finger on the trigger, because those people were walking on a private street?

This is the discussion I've asked us to have 3 times now. 

[Benton]

(07-14-2020, 08:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Don't change the channel, once a serious faux pas, on the part of the protesting group has been brought up.  Why the heck were they on private property without permission?  Trump didn't make them do that.  He never said "go there"..

I don't support protesting on private property.

On the other hand, protestors were attempting to protest a public official who was on a private island due to how St Louis divided up private neighborhoods years ago. I do think they have the right to address the public official peacefully.

[Millhouse]

(07-14-2020, 09:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I guess the question that has to be asked to answer this is, what about it are you not 100% behind?

There's plenty of people not behind "defund the police" that are still behind most of BLM. Most Democratic politicians fall under that category. 

Defund the police is the main one. I dont know if most Democrat politicians arent behind it, when Biden already seems to back it which surprised me, even if it was a knee jerk reaction. But they could be, like the city council here in Cincy seems to be.