They're coming for your guns

[GMDino]

(07-12-2020, 10:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Classic example of victim shaming. 

How so?  

The article contains public records.  When asked the couple were not "ashamed" of anything they filed suit over.

The couple do not own that piece of land.  The admit they have threatened others with guns who dared touch a piece of land they "believe" is theirs but is not.  That is why they aimed guns at the marchers this time too.  It is the reason behind their actions.

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 10:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Link to the Mayor inviting these folks in. 

I never said they were invited so why should I have to post a link?  I was just pointing out that these people did not have exclusive ownership and control of the streets.  It is not the same as their own yard.

(07-12-2020, 10:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Who got shot? 

Who did I say got shot?  I was just pointing out that these people would not have been justified in shooting these people because there was no threat.

Threatening to shoot someone when you don't have authority to shoot that person can be an assault.  For example, you are allowed to stand as an armed guard on the edge of your lawn, but you can still get in big trouble for pointing a gun at people for just walking by.

You are not saying these people would have been justified if they had killed some of these protestors are you?

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2020, 10:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I never said they were invited so why should I have to post a link?  I was just pointing out that these people did not have exclusive ownership and control of the streets.  It is not the same as their own yard.



Who did I say got shot?  I was just pointing out that these people would not have been justified in shooting these people because there was no threat.

Threatening to shoot someone when you don't have authority to shoot that person can be an assault.  For example, you are allowed to stand as an armed guard on the edge of your lawn, but you can still get in big trouble for pointing a gun at people for just walking by.

You are not saying these people would have been justified if they had killed some of these protestors are you?

My point is you are making a lot of ifs and buts to support these folks having their private property seized. 

These people were not invited onto the property and no one shot at them. 

[GMDino]

(07-12-2020, 10:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Because if they did not have a warrant the subjects could have just told them "No" and then gotten rid of the evidence before the authgorities got a warrant.





To me the optics are bad to pull guns on peacefull protestors, but that is just a matter of indivdual opinion.

I am not saying these people are guilty of anything.  We simply do not know all the facts.  These people may have made terroristic threats with these weapons or something else we don't know about.  Even their own neighbors say they are aggressive assholes.

If they have not broken any laws then they should get their guns back.  

But they broke a gate!  So if a couple who doesn't own the gate (and may not have even known it was broken) want to shoot people for walking on land they don't own so what! 

All seriousness aside some people defended the man who killed a protestor with his car because they were blocking the street (breaking the law).

The gun couple were just escalating things despite their claim to be simply "defending" themselves.  While I'm sure they thought they could de-escalate it by threatening the group.  Sometimes angry people don't think straight.

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 10:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: These folks broke down a gate and entered provate property yet you and other continue to label them as peaceful protestors.

Link to them breaking the gate to enter.  Everything I have seen shows that the gate was not broken when they entered.

(07-12-2020, 10:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This is a huge problem today and the leading reason these protests turn to lawlessness. 

Look these protesters are peaceful too:

You can not shoot one person becaiuse another person became violent somewhere else.

The law is that you are not allowed to shoot a person for tresspassing if he is not a threat.  Riots that happen at other places don't change that.

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 10:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: My point is you are making a lot of ifs and buts to support these folks having their private property seized. 

No.  I am just explaining the law.

You are the one using "but protestors in other places got violent" to justify their actions.

What is your understanding of the law?  Do you think these people could pull a gun on anyone who walks by their house just because it is a gated community?  Do you think they would have been justifired to shoot the protestors?

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2020, 10:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: How so?  

The article contains public records.  When asked the couple were not "ashamed" of anything they filed suit over.

The couple do not own that piece of land.  The admit they have threatened others with guns who dared touch a piece of land they "believe" is theirs but is not.  That is why they aimed guns at the marchers this time too.  It is the reason behind their actions.

Because you and the writer try to tarnish the image of the victim instead of focusing on the merits of this case. 

Did you know George Floyd once pointed a gun at a woman's stomach during an armed robbery? And was arrested for multiple other crimes? He also had meth and other drugs in his system when he was killed.

Now that's not victim shaming as it's public record

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 10:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Because you and the writer try to tarnish the image of the victim instead of focusing on the merits of this case. 

Did you know George Floyd once pointed a gun at a woman's stomach during an armed robbery? And was arrested for multiple other crimes? He also had meth and other drugs in his system when he was killed.

Now that's not victim shaming as it's public record

I agree that the term "victim shaming" gets used at times when it is not appropriate.

If police claimed they killed George Floyd because he was crazy on meth and pulled a gun on them then it would be okay to bring up the fact that he had meth in his system and went to prison for pulling a gun on someone before.  It would not be okay to bring up the fact that he did not pay child support or had some weed in his pocket.

So if these people had used unjustifiable threats of violence before it is okay to bring that up.  I mentioned the fact that they were considered "aggressive assholes" (my terminology) because that is the type of behavior that could lead to charges in this case.  It has been alleged that they have used guns to threaten people before for tresspassing on a piece of property that they do not even have clear title to.

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2020, 10:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Link to them breaking the gate to enter.  Everything I have seen shows that the gate was not broken when they entered.



You can not shoot one person becaiuse another person became violent somewhere else.

The law is that you are not allowed to shoot a person for tresspassing if he is not a threat.  Riots that happen at other places don't change that.

You cannot keep making up an alternate reality where someone was shot in this instance and then keep claiming you're not saying that. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2020, 10:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I am just explaining the law.

You are the one using "but protestors in other places got violent" to justify their actions.

What is your understanding of the law?  Do you think these people could pull a gun on anyone who walks by their house just because it is a gated community?  Do you think they would have been justifired to shoot the protestors?

Nah, those folks I shared the video of did not get violent; they were just breaking the law aka "peaceful protesters". 

My understanding of the law is that if someone enters my private property I can demonstrate to them that it may not be in their best interest to continue forward. 

They did not pull a gun on anyone just by walking by their house and they did not shoot anyone. I am not the one making things up here. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2020, 10:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree that the term "victim shaming" gets used at times when it is not appropriate.

If police claimed they killed George Floyd because he was crazy on meth and pulled a gun on them then it would be okay to bring up the fact that he had meth in his system and went to prison for pulling a gun on someone before.  It would not be okay to bring up the fact that he did not pay child support or had some weed in his pocket.

So if these people had used unjustifiable threats of violence before it is okay to bring that up.  I mentioned the fact that they were considered "aggressive assholes" (my terminology) because that is the type of behavior that could lead to charges in this case.

Most likely why I didn't quote you. I quoted pointing to all the things these guys have done "wrong" in the past. 

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 10:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You cannot keep making up an alternate reality where someone was shot in this instance and then keep claiming you're not saying that. 

First of all I never said someone got shot.  I pointed this out to you and I woukold appreciate if you would stop making false allegations against me.  I don't think that helps if we really want to have civil adult conversations.

Second of all I asked for a link to the gate being broken as the protestors entered

Let me show you what I found.


https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/portland-place-couple-who-confronted-protesters-have-a-long-history-of-not-backing-down/article_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

The protest moved north on Kingshighway again. At Portland Place, protester Derk Brown’s live feed shows he is one of the first protesters to pass through the iron gate held open by protester Tory Russell.

Although the McCloskeys have displayed photos of a crumpled gate as evidence the protesters broke it down, the feed shows the gate is intact. It was not clear when it was damaged.

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2020, 11:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Link to the gate being broken as the protestors enter?

Let me show you what I found.


https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/portland-place-couple-who-confronted-protesters-have-a-long-history-of-not-backing-down/article_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

The protest moved north on Kingshighway again. At Portland Place, protester Derk Brown’s live feed shows he is one of the first protesters to pass through the iron gate held open by protester Tory Russell.

Although the McCloskeys have displayed photos of a crumpled gate as evidence the protesters broke it down, the feed shows the gate is intact. It was not clear when it was damaged.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-st-louis-rioters-threatened-couple-guns-attorney

Quote:The pair called the St. Louis Police Department shortly before 7:30 p.m. Sunday. They told arriving officers that they had heard a "commotion" and, upon investigating further, “observed a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street' signs,” according to an incident summary provided to Fox News by the department.

According to this the couple didn't immediately arm themselves. But we're to dismiss their account and roll with "It was not clear when it was damaged"


All of that and the fact remains; these folks entered private property by breaching a gate. Are you saying the smoking gun is whether they damaged the gate or not upon their trespass? 

You asked this: Link to them breaking the gate to enter.

and 2 has been provided, both a picture and an eyewitness account.

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 11:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-st-louis-rioters-threatened-couple-guns-attorney



According to this the couple didn't immediately arm themselves. But we're to dismiss their account and roll with "It was not clear when it was damaged"


All of that and the fact remains; these folks entered private property by breaching a gate. Are you saying the smoking gun is whether they damaged the gate or not upon their trespass? 

You asked this: Link to them breaking the gate to enter.

and 2 has been provided, both a picture and an eyewitness account.

The "eye witness" account is from an unreliable source.  And an "eyewitness account" does not change video proof.

And, to me, the breaking of the gate could be a big deal.  And I think it is a big deal to you also since you were the one who brought it up to prove that the protestors were a threat.

(07-12-2020, 10:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  These folks broke down a gate and entered provate property yet you and other continue to label them as peaceful protestors.

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 10:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Most likely why I didn't quote you. I quoted pointing to all the things these guys have done "wrong" in the past. 

So do you agree it is okay to bring up the fact that they have threatened people with weapons before over a piece of property they don't even have legal ownership to?

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2020, 11:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The "eye witness" account is from an unreliable source.  And an "eyewitness account" does not change video proof.

And, to me, the breaking of the gate could be a big deal.  And I think it is a big deal to you also since you were the one who brought it up to prove that the protestors were a threat.

The video you posted clearly said it's unclear when the gate was broken. So what does it prove?

A big deal to me was they were trespassing en mass

This is just ridiculous. Good luck. 

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 11:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The video you posted clearly said it's unclear when the gate was broken. So what does it prove?

It proves that the gate was not broken when the protestors entered.

They did not "break down the gate" in order to enter the community.

[GMDino]

(07-12-2020, 10:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Because you and the writer try to tarnish the image of the victim instead of focusing on the merits of this case. 

Did you know George Floyd once pointed a gun at a woman's stomach during an armed robbery? And was arrested for multiple other crimes? He also had meth and other drugs in his system when he was killed.

Now that's not victim shaming as it's public record

I didn't try to tarnish anyone.  I shared what they did and explained why they then aimed guns at the protestors.

I *do* think they probably awful people based on the sheet level of lawsuits (and what they were for) but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to defend themselves if that was what they were doing.  It would seem that based on the lawsuit and their previous admitted actions that they are threatening people, even neighbors, for being on or near property that they do not own.

Floyd is a separate issue that I would love to discuss in another thread.  But just to respond to the post here the police did not kill Floyd because he was a threat.  They killed him because they were overzealous and careless.  Floyds past might make him a bad person just like their lawsuits used by the couple make them bad people.  That doesn't mean he deserved be choked to death by an officer while three others watched nor does it mean the couple should be arrested and or treated poorly by the police.  Right now there is an active investigation where a warrant was granted and they lost two pieces of property.  The third they claim they do not have and no one seems to have any idea what happened to it.  (Very irresponsible gun owners if that is truly the case.)

[fredtoast]

Does anyone think these people would have been justified in shooting these protestors?

A person is allowed to stand guard on his private property, but he can not point a gun at a person who is not a threat. The fact that this was a "private community" muddies the waters a bit, but this couple did not haver exclusive private control of the streets where the protestors were.

I don't know all the facts of this case, so I am not predicting what will happen, but a police investigation is justified. And while a peson is being investigated for threat with a deadly weapon it is usually a condition of their bond that the disposses themselves of all weapons. I assume that is why the wife's lawyer already had her gun.