Star Trek that has Ferengi as their stereotypical Jew stand in shouldn't get a pass on possible black / yellow face. There are a lot of problematic elements even in media that we love / loved and even recently and the sooner we can accept it the better. An awful lot of stuff...even the best intentioned can step over the line.
I am a fan of the 'wrong then, wrong now, presented in its entirety' disclaimers like Looney Tunes rather than just chucking it down the memory hole.
Of course as a white guy, I'm not the one whose opinion on that matters, and probably should defer to the people who are legitimately defended and if they see acceptable satire of racists or just racist media that belongs in the trash. I just also know there is no universal opinion even in the offended / targeted communities so making the right choice when I don't have skin in the game means probably erring toward throwing away some good with the trash rather than keeping problematic things around.
Oh wow that never even occurred to me. I thought the Ferengi were transparently a metaphor for/parody of American capitalism.
Were the threats mentioned before or after they came out waving guns? Because after yeah threatening back is justified.
How is any threat you make to a homeowner justified when you are trespassing and have been told to leave?
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Yeah, once you break other people's stuff to get access to private property, especially with posted signs which almost certainly would've been on the fence, you're trespassing. I dunno if they were specifically on that lawyer's property or if he was just in the neighborhood, but busting a fence and trespassing is pretty solid grounds for, at a minimum, charges of breaking and entering.
This guy and his wife are also professional inhuman sleaze for a living, though, so I'd much prefer getting information from anybody but them about the actual situation. If anybody knows the right things to say to spin himself to look good, it's going to be a lawyer like that.
But if that really was all their land and the protestors really did break through the gate to just approach the house, the protestors were damned lucky they didn't get shot. They've got zero right to harass some random citizen for being rich and he probably would've been cleared of any wrongdoing if he had shot. If that's the actual set of circumstances.
I kinda saw the video where most protesters were just moving along, and those two came out of a protected position to threaten murder..and could easily have killed *each other* in the process.
If you are really, honestly thinking there's a threat to your life you don't leave the house.
Were the threats mentioned before or after they came out waving guns? Because after yeah threatening back is justified.
Yeah, this was my initial impression. The crowd was moving past and the pair rain inside to haul out some guns to wave at the crowd. Nobody seems remotely interested in advancing on the house (they've got guns, so that's no surprise), and the only threatening was coming from the people with the guns. It's also a short clip missing a huge amount of context, so either side could be in the right.
Given their profession and tensions in the area, I'd wanna see pictures of the broken gate and proof showing the crowd was on private property instead of sidewalks or something long before I'd be interested in buying the lawyer's side of the story. "Defend myself from a mob of the non-wealthy" is a long-held fantasy of wealthy whites, particularly ones looking to shoot the poor and minorities to "heroically" protect their homes.
Were the threats mentioned before or after they came out waving guns? Because after yeah threatening back is justified.
How is any threat you make to a homeowner justified when you are trespassing and have been told to leave?
We don't even know yet if the protestors actually were trespassing or if they were walking through the neighborhood and the guy considers anyone of the wrong color to be "trespassing" in his neighborhood, even if they're on the street or sidewalk or something.
Mostly, we need more than a short clip and a very biased opinion from the homeowner before we can untangle this.
Were the threats mentioned before or after they came out waving guns? Because after yeah threatening back is justified.
How is any threat you make to a homeowner justified when you are trespassing and have been told to leave?
If the homeowner is threatening you. Fun fact: "breaking the law" is not "you are therefore allowed to use lethal violence against this person". MO law specifically requires that they be breaking into the building or "against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony [defined in 563.011 as any felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual, including but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense];" which this ain't it.
If you are trespassing on a lawn and the homeowner threatens you with lethal violence, the homeowner is not acting in accordance with self defense, is the aggressor, and return threats are justified because killing the homeowner is justified.
also that community isn't even entirely gated. Look for yourself, Lindell Drive.
Looks pretty gated to me.
If you are on someone's property, and they tell you to leave, you leave. You don't stand around and pull out your guns and threaten to kill the property owner, you leave. This is something that shouldn't even really need to be discussed.
Ah yes, we've finally found the real victim: rich white people's land
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+52
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
That does not look like Lindell Drive in St Louis, across from the park.
Even if it is a fully gated community I have no problem with protestors breaking into a street that should be public and is only private due to institutionalized racism/classism. That kind of shit is the whole thing they're protesting. A special protected class of mainly white people who surround themselves with walls of privilege, in this case literal ones. Now, if it's true that people in the group were armed and made armed threats to the homeowners, that part I definitely do not support. But holy hell does the entire concept of a "gated community" piss me off, and I can understand the righteous anger of protestors against it.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Star Trek that has Ferengi as their stereotypical Jew stand in shouldn't get a pass on possible black / yellow face. There are a lot of problematic elements even in media that we love / loved and even recently and the sooner we can accept it the better. An awful lot of stuff...even the best intentioned can step over the line.
I am a fan of the 'wrong then, wrong now, presented in its entirety' disclaimers like Looney Tunes rather than just chucking it down the memory hole.
Of course as a white guy, I'm not the one whose opinion on that matters, and probably should defer to the people who are legitimately defended and if they see acceptable satire of racists or just racist media that belongs in the trash. I just also know there is no universal opinion even in the offended / targeted communities so making the right choice when I don't have skin in the game means probably erring toward throwing away some good with the trash rather than keeping problematic things around.
Oh wow that never even occurred to me. I thought the Ferengi were transparently a metaphor for/parody of American capitalism.
They are a criticism of American capitalism. No overtime, no breaks, no unions, healthcare you have to pay for, poor treatment of women, etc etc etc? Hell, Ferengi are even a bit racist! All things the Republican Party prides themselves on actually seeking. If you had asked me 15 years ago I might have agreed that they were standing for Jews, but age and wisdom and experience make me actually believe the showrunners when they say that’s not what was intended and they wanted it to represent American capitalism.
Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
also that community isn't even entirely gated. Look for yourself, Lindell Drive.
Looks pretty gated to me.
If you are on someone's property, and they tell you to leave, you leave. You don't stand around and pull out your guns and threaten to kill the property owner, you leave. This is something that shouldn't even really need to be discussed.
I quoted the law. Would you like to explain why my interpretation of the law is wrong, or are you Judge Dredd? Because you're kinda acting like Judge Dredd. Like I said, if the property owners threatened first they were legally wrong. And the protesters had the right to shoot. Not just yell at them.
(incidentally that file got like, 600kb bigger when I attached it. WTF?)
also that community isn't even entirely gated. Look for yourself, Lindell Drive.
Looks pretty gated to me.
If you are on someone's property, and they tell you to leave, you leave. You don't stand around and pull out your guns and threaten to kill the property owner, you leave. This is something that shouldn't even really need to be discussed.
I'm curious how the law works when it comes to pointing a loaded firearm...with finger on the trigger...at people who are on a private street that your home is located on, rather than actually within the home or on the curtilage. I mean, it may technically be trespassing, but if it's merely a private drive shared by multiple homes I'm not sure you get to shoot somebody for it. For all you know, they're guests of a resident on that drive.
Also, I'm not sure how I feel about the mayor of a city insulating themselves from the public and protests by the public by living on a private drive. Especially one guarded by two chucklefuck ambulance chasing scumbags with guns they don't know how to use.
EDIT: I'm not actually curious at all, I'm pretty confident I know how it works. Both in theory, and in practice. Which in this case are two different things, because wealthy white attorneys don't actually experience the same justice system you, I, or these protesters do.
also that community isn't even entirely gated. Look for yourself, Lindell Drive.
Looks pretty gated to me.
If you are on someone's property, and they tell you to leave, you leave. You don't stand around and pull out your guns and threaten to kill the property owner, you leave. This is something that shouldn't even really need to be discussed.
I'm curious how the law works when it comes to pointing a loaded firearm...with finger on the trigger...at people who are on a private street that your home is located on, rather than actually within the home or on the curtilage. I mean, it may technically be trespassing, but if it's merely a private drive shared by multiple homes I'm not sure you get to shoot somebody for it. For all you know, they're guests of a resident on that drive.
Also, I'm not sure how I feel about the mayor of a city insulating themselves from the public and protests by the public by living on a private drive. Especially one guarded by two chucklefuck ambulance chasing scumbags with guns they don't know how to use.
End of last page, I posted what I was able to find on MO codes.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;
(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.
2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony [defined in 563.011 as any felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual, including but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense];
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.
4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.
That does not look like Lindell Drive in St Louis, across from the park.
That's because it's not Lindell Drive, it's Portland Place, where the actual property that we are talking about is located. The street is private, not public. It is owned and maintained by the property owners, not the city.
Unless you have an existing easement, you have no right to be there without the property owner's permission, and you need to leave immediately if asked to. Everything they did was legal.
0
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Also oh my god why are we even trusting what that dipshit says in a news interview, who gives a fuck what reason he's giving for brandishing a rifle to threaten people walking down a sidewalk. I don't give a shit if he "felt threatened", the only reason he felt threatened is because he's a racist who sees Black people existing as inherently threatening, fuck off please.
I'm not actually American so correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in most states its generally not legal to brandish a weapon at someone even if they are trespassing on your property. They have to actually be in your home, at which point you can "stand your ground", but you don't get to take pot shots at someone just for stepping onto your lawn.
Unless you have an existing easement, you have no right to be there without the property owner's permission, and you need to leave immediately if asked to. Everything they did was legal.
I'm skeptical that the owner of property on a private drive...with easement...can legally point a loaded weapon at people on that drive. Again, for all they know these people were invited by another property owner, and making perfectly legal use of the easement. Hell, for all they know a court would find that the use of the easement to transit to a protest outside the home of an elected official would be found to be legal, and valid.
I doubt you've done the research into all the relevant case law to justify your claim, and I doubt they did the research prior to waving a gun around like a couple of tweakers in a trailer park, but of course nothing will come of it either way.
That does not look like Lindell Drive in St Louis, across from the park.
That's because it's not Lindell Drive, it's Portland Place, where the actual property that we are talking about is located. The street is private, not public. It is owned and maintained by the property owners, not the city.
Unless you have an existing easement, you have no right to be there without the property owner's permission, and you need to leave immediately if asked to. Everything they did was legal.
Wrong. Again.
Seriously dude. I can't post up and shoot everyone who's speeding, it shouldn't be hard to figure out that murdering people for misdemeanors isn't a thing. Whether or not the crowd was wrong to be there or not leave doesn't really change the fact that the couple was wrong to wave guns around and threaten people's lives. If they were threatened beforehand- notice the only video proof we have isn't from them and it doesn't show that- that changes things a bit..but the absolute best case scenario for them they were still being incredibly stupid and if the mob was half as angry as they claimed they would be incredibly dead.
Also it wasn't THEIR property the trespass it alleged on..it was the gated community which unless they're the HOA head or equivalent I kinda wonder if they even have the authority to tell people to leave.
Boy smokes if you're this mad about some people trespassing just wait until you hear about what police have been doing.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I’m pretty sure the last thing the realtor said before I got the keys was, “There’s a pistol in your toilet tank, if you can spot them from the front yard it’s fair game.”
That’s not just a welcome to property ownership thing?
With the justice system as stalled as it is, everybody involved was lucky that nobody got shot.
If you find yourself in that kind of situation, either do what you can to reduce the risk of bullets flying or bug out.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That does not look like Lindell Drive in St Louis, across from the park.
That's because it's not Lindell Drive, it's Portland Place, where the actual property that we are talking about is located. The street is private, not public. It is owned and maintained by the property owners, not the city.
Unless you have an existing easement, you have no right to be there without the property owner's permission, and you need to leave immediately if asked to. Everything they did was legal.
Ah. One of those. Yep, and that's the worst kind of gated community. Closing off multiple blocks of an otherwise well-connected grid in the central city near downtown, so nobody can get in but the wealthy homeowners. Once again--those gates should not exist and the city and state should not allow the streets themselves to be private property. It's all kinds of messed up that a group of rich homeowners can get together and close off a significant section of the city that should be public space and exclude everyone else from even walking through the area.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
"Protecting your home from people who are threatening to kill you" and "killing people for misdemeanors" are not comparable. You know that.
The only evidence that this is the order in which this happened...that the couple was threatened with violence before coming out with weapons...is their own self-serving statement.
Newsflash: You are the only one here who believes them.
And they weren't "protecting their home." If the protesters wanted their home burned to the ground it would be, and these peoples' charred bodies would be in the wreckage. Nothing they were gonna do with their saturday night special and sat-in-a-safe-since-1993 musket would change that. But the protesters are better than that. This couple wanted an excuse to point their guns at people and feel powerful. That's it. They got it. Cool.
"Protecting your home from people who are threatening to kill you" and "killing people for misdemeanors" are not comparable. You know that.
The statement that they were threatened is not supported by evidence or their actions. You have repeatedly suggested that mere trespassing was enough, eg here:
Were the threats mentioned before or after they came out waving guns? Because after yeah threatening back is justified.
How is any threat you make to a homeowner justified when you are trespassing and have been told to leave?
If you want to clear that up, feel free. Assuming the available evidence was accurate and the homeowners were not threatened before they came out brandishing, were they in the wrong y/n?
"Protecting your home from people who are threatening to kill you" and "killing people for misdemeanors" are not comparable. You know that.
The only evidence that this is the order in which this happened...that the couple was threatened with violence before coming out with weapons...is their own self-serving statement.
Newsflash: You are the only one here who believes them.
And they weren't "protecting their home." If the protesters wanted their home burned to the ground it would be, and these peoples' charred bodies would be in the wreckage. Nothing they were gonna do with their saturday night special and sat-in-a-safe-since-1993 musket would change that. But the protesters are better than that. This couple wanted an excuse to point their guns at people and feel powerful. That's it. They got it. Cool.
The amount of mental gymnastics in this post is astounding. They don't need to defend themselves because although the protesters could burn their house down (something they've made a habit of doing lately) with them inside, they don't want to, because they're "better than that" (which is not a difficult bar to pass, by the way).
Did it ever occur to you that the reason nothing happened may have been because the homeowners were armed? How many times have we heard the "take it to the suburbs" idea since all of this began? Are you even remotely shocked that people in the suburbs might be a little concerned when a group of hundreds of people suddenly breaks onto their property? You've seen what these protests have done to the cities they take place in.
"Protecting your home from people who are threatening to kill you" and "killing people for misdemeanors" are not comparable. You know that.
The only evidence that this is the order in which this happened...that the couple was threatened with violence before coming out with weapons...is their own self-serving statement.
Newsflash: You are the only one here who believes them.
And they weren't "protecting their home." If the protesters wanted their home burned to the ground it would be, and these peoples' charred bodies would be in the wreckage. Nothing they were gonna do with their saturday night special and sat-in-a-safe-since-1993 musket would change that. But the protesters are better than that. This couple wanted an excuse to point their guns at people and feel powerful. That's it. They got it. Cool.
The amount of mental gymnastics in this post is astounding. They don't need to defend themselves because although the protesters could burn their house down (something they've made a habit of doing lately) with them inside, they don't want to, because they're "better than that" (which is not a difficult bar to pass, by the way).
Did it ever occur to you that the reason nothing happened may have been because the homeowners were armed? How many times have we heard the "take it to the suburbs" idea since all of this began? Are you even remotely shocked that people in the suburbs might be a little concerned when a group of hundreds of people suddenly breaks onto their property? You've seen what these protests have done to the cities they take place in.
Ah yes, the riots that have been burning the suburbs to the ground all across the country, leaving thousands of rich white people dead
The real victims in all this
If only the police protected rich white people that live in gated communities
Edit: to be less snarky, approaching a volatile crowd and waving a weapon at them with your finger on the trigger is a much, much better way to get yourself killed than staying in your home. You are incorrect that they would have been justified under the law to open fire. If someone in the protest had been armed, they may have been justified in firing at the home owners though! pointing a weapon at someone is a giant nono unless you intend to pull the trigger. All the protesters were guilty of was trespassing, which is (to my knowledge) not something you can legally shoot anyone for in any state under this set of circumstances
"Protecting your home from people who are threatening to kill you" and "killing people for misdemeanors" are not comparable. You know that.
The only evidence that this is the order in which this happened...that the couple was threatened with violence before coming out with weapons...is their own self-serving statement.
Newsflash: You are the only one here who believes them.
And they weren't "protecting their home." If the protesters wanted their home burned to the ground it would be, and these peoples' charred bodies would be in the wreckage. Nothing they were gonna do with their saturday night special and sat-in-a-safe-since-1993 musket would change that. But the protesters are better than that. This couple wanted an excuse to point their guns at people and feel powerful. That's it. They got it. Cool.
The amount of mental gymnastics in this post is astounding. They don't need to defend themselves because although the protesters could burn their house down (something they've made a habit of doing lately) with them inside, they don't want to, because they're "better than that" (which is not a difficult bar to pass, by the way).
Did it ever occur to you that the reason nothing happened may have been because the homeowners were armed? How many times have we heard the "take it to the suburbs" idea since all of this began? Are you even remotely shocked that people in the suburbs might be a little concerned when a group of hundreds of people suddenly breaks onto their property? You've seen what these protests have done to the cities they take place in.
To the bolded, no. Never considered it. They were there to protest at the mayors house. So it’s pretty stupid to suggest, really. Kind of dumb shit I normally only hear on Fox News.
I’m mostly interested now in seeing if you answer Phoenix-D’s question though.
Assuming the available evidence was accurate and the homeowners were not threatened before they came out brandishing, were they in the wrong y/n?
How about this instead - Assuming you broke a gate and illegally gained access to someone's property, and they came out with a gun and told you to leave, would you do it y/n?
"Protecting your home from people who are threatening to kill you" and "killing people for misdemeanors" are not comparable. You know that.
The only evidence that this is the order in which this happened...that the couple was threatened with violence before coming out with weapons...is their own self-serving statement.
Newsflash: You are the only one here who believes them.
And they weren't "protecting their home." If the protesters wanted their home burned to the ground it would be, and these peoples' charred bodies would be in the wreckage. Nothing they were gonna do with their saturday night special and sat-in-a-safe-since-1993 musket would change that. But the protesters are better than that. This couple wanted an excuse to point their guns at people and feel powerful. That's it. They got it. Cool.
The amount of mental gymnastics in this post is astounding. They don't need to defend themselves because although the protesters could burn their house down (something they've made a habit of doing lately) with them inside, they don't want to, because they're "better than that" (which is not a difficult bar to pass, by the way).
Did it ever occur to you that the reason nothing happened may have been because the homeowners were armed? How many times have we heard the "take it to the suburbs" idea since all of this began? Are you even remotely shocked that people in the suburbs might be a little concerned when a group of hundreds of people suddenly breaks onto their property? You've seen what these protests have done to the cities they take place in.
Ah yes, the riots that have been burning the suburbs to the ground all across the country, leaving thousands of rich white people dead
The real victims in all this
If only the police protected rich white people that live in gated communities
Edit: to be less snarky, approaching a volatile crowd and waving a weapon at them with your finger on the trigger is a much, much better way to get yourself killed than staying in your home. You are incorrect that they would have been justified under the law to open fire. If someone in the protest had been armed, they may have been justified in firing at the home owners though! pointing a weapon at someone is a giant nono unless you intend to pull the trigger. All the protesters were guilty of was trespassing, which is (to my knowledge) not something you can legally shoot anyone for in any state under this set of circumstances
Unless you are a cop ofc
To compound a bit, I don’t think it’s at all reasonable to even say that they knew the protestors were trespassing. The protestors certainly did not seem to be on property owned by the couple, and even if they were trespassing on the HOA’s property, there is no reasonable way that the couple could have known that; how could they possibly be certain that the protestors weren’t invited in by another member of the community? If the couple thought the protestors were trespassing on their HOA’s property, they should’ve contacted the HOA.
Assuming the available evidence was accurate and the homeowners were not threatened before they came out brandishing, were they in the wrong y/n?
How about this instead - Assuming you broke a gate and illegally gained access to someone's property, and they came out with a gun and told you to leave, would you do it y/n?
So now the question is no longer whether their actions were legal, but whether they are effective at scaring people?
Assuming the available evidence was accurate and the homeowners were not threatened before they came out brandishing, were they in the wrong y/n?
How about this instead - Assuming you broke a gate and illegally gained access to someone's property, and they came out with a gun and told you to leave, would you do it y/n?
I really don't think you want to be arguing that authority flows from the barrel of a gun.
Assuming the available evidence was accurate and the homeowners were not threatened before they came out brandishing, were they in the wrong y/n?
How about this instead - Assuming you broke a gate and illegally gained access to someone's property, and they came out with a gun and told you to leave, would you do it y/n?
This is how you get accused of wanting to kill people for misdemeanors. You've been dodging the question for several pages now which makes me suspect you think it doesn't matter because the protesters were "criminals".
It doesn't matter whether the protesters were right or wrong. Absent an imminent threat to life the couple were wrong to have the guns out. Legally, and morally.
Also the protesters weren't trespassing on that couples property and likely there was no legal request to leave.
Assuming the available evidence was accurate and the homeowners were not threatened before they came out brandishing, were they in the wrong y/n?
How about this instead - Assuming you broke a gate and illegally gained access to someone's property, and they came out with a gun and told you to leave, would you do it y/n?
So you’re refusing to answer?
If you want to ask a follow up, answer the question first.
Assuming the available evidence was accurate and the homeowners were not threatened before they came out brandishing, were they in the wrong y/n?
How about this instead - Assuming you broke a gate and illegally gained access to someone's property, and they came out with a gun and told you to leave, would you do it y/n?
So you’re refusing to answer?
If you want to ask a follow up, answer the question first.
I think that a property owner is well within their rights to openly carry a gun on their own property, yes. I also think that if you force your way onto their property and are literally standing on their lawn yelling threats at them than they have every right to protect themselves and their property and tell you to fuck right off somewhere else.
Even some of the people in the group thought that what they were doing was wrong, which is why there were multiple people yelling that they all needed to leave immediately.
Assuming the available evidence was accurate and the homeowners were not threatened before they came out brandishing, were they in the wrong y/n?
How about this instead - Assuming you broke a gate and illegally gained access to someone's property, and they came out with a gun and told you to leave, would you do it y/n?
So you’re refusing to answer?
If you want to ask a follow up, answer the question first.
I think that a property owner is well within their rights to openly carry a gun on their own property, yes. I also think that if you force your way onto their property and are literally standing on their lawn yelling threats at them than they have every right to protect themselves and their property and tell you to fuck right off somewhere else.
Even some of the people in the group thought that what they were doing was wrong, which is why there were multiple people yelling that they all needed to leave immediately.
Section 571.030(4) of the Revised Statutes of Missouri states that anyone who “exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner” has “commit[ed] the offense of unlawful use of weapons.”
Trespassing to go protest the mayor can't be something that is unthinkably uncommon on that street, given that there is a college nearby. As a once rabble rouser I can tell you that, at least for white me, trespassing and being a nuisance results in police asking you politely to leave.
It really feels from your writing like you feel like the crime of trespassing should be met with swift and deadly violence because it's such a serious violation
I think if justice is so important to you, you might want to sit down when you read about what's been happening to black people in this country
There sure are a lot of armchair lawyers in this thread (which is funny to me because the two people we're talking about are actual lawyers). If I were a betting man, I'd bet that one of two things will happen:
A.) They won't be charged with anything
or
B.) They'll be charged with some bullshit violation solely to placate protesters, and the charge will be quietly dropped a few weeks later after everyone has moved on to some new thing
Assuming the available evidence was accurate and the homeowners were not threatened before they came out brandishing, were they in the wrong y/n?
How about this instead - Assuming you broke a gate and illegally gained access to someone's property, and they came out with a gun and told you to leave, would you do it y/n?
So you’re refusing to answer?
If you want to ask a follow up, answer the question first.
I think that a property owner is well within their rights to openly carry a gun on their own property, yes. I also think that if you force your way onto their property and are literally standing on their lawn yelling threats at them than they have every right to protect themselves and their property and tell you to fuck right off somewhere else.
Even some of the people in the group thought that what they were doing was wrong, which is why there were multiple people yelling that they all needed to leave immediately.
Still dodging the question. Also open carry isn't "point at person with finger on the trigger". And again, the protesters could very well be legally and morally in the right to be threatening them if the homeowners threatened them first- which is likely.
There sure are a lot of armchair lawyers in this thread (which is funny to me because the two people we're talking about are actual lawyers). If I were a betting man, I'd bet that one of two things will happen:
I mean you can go back to my first? post where I specifically doubt they'll get hit with anything. But better armchair lawyer than making shit up and deciding that you're right for...what, exactly?
Posts
Oh wow that never even occurred to me. I thought the Ferengi were transparently a metaphor for/parody of American capitalism.
How is any threat you make to a homeowner justified when you are trespassing and have been told to leave?
This guy and his wife are also professional inhuman sleaze for a living, though, so I'd much prefer getting information from anybody but them about the actual situation. If anybody knows the right things to say to spin himself to look good, it's going to be a lawyer like that.
But if that really was all their land and the protestors really did break through the gate to just approach the house, the protestors were damned lucky they didn't get shot. They've got zero right to harass some random citizen for being rich and he probably would've been cleared of any wrongdoing if he had shot. If that's the actual set of circumstances. Yeah, this was my initial impression. The crowd was moving past and the pair rain inside to haul out some guns to wave at the crowd. Nobody seems remotely interested in advancing on the house (they've got guns, so that's no surprise), and the only threatening was coming from the people with the guns. It's also a short clip missing a huge amount of context, so either side could be in the right.
Given their profession and tensions in the area, I'd wanna see pictures of the broken gate and proof showing the crowd was on private property instead of sidewalks or something long before I'd be interested in buying the lawyer's side of the story. "Defend myself from a mob of the non-wealthy" is a long-held fantasy of wealthy whites, particularly ones looking to shoot the poor and minorities to "heroically" protect their homes.
We don't even know yet if the protestors actually were trespassing or if they were walking through the neighborhood and the guy considers anyone of the wrong color to be "trespassing" in his neighborhood, even if they're on the street or sidewalk or something.
Mostly, we need more than a short clip and a very biased opinion from the homeowner before we can untangle this.
If the homeowner is threatening you. Fun fact: "breaking the law" is not "you are therefore allowed to use lethal violence against this person". MO law specifically requires that they be breaking into the building or "against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony [defined in 563.011 as any felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual, including but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense];" which this ain't it.
If you are trespassing on a lawn and the homeowner threatens you with lethal violence, the homeowner is not acting in accordance with self defense, is the aggressor, and return threats are justified because killing the homeowner is justified.
CW:police violence
Looks pretty gated to me.
If you are on someone's property, and they tell you to leave, you leave. You don't stand around and pull out your guns and threaten to kill the property owner, you leave. This is something that shouldn't even really need to be discussed.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
They are a criticism of American capitalism. No overtime, no breaks, no unions, healthcare you have to pay for, poor treatment of women, etc etc etc? Hell, Ferengi are even a bit racist! All things the Republican Party prides themselves on actually seeking. If you had asked me 15 years ago I might have agreed that they were standing for Jews, but age and wisdom and experience make me actually believe the showrunners when they say that’s not what was intended and they wanted it to represent American capitalism.
No. This does though.
As you can tell...just a sign. Taken last year from Street View.
I quoted the law. Would you like to explain why my interpretation of the law is wrong, or are you Judge Dredd? Because you're kinda acting like Judge Dredd. Like I said, if the property owners threatened first they were legally wrong. And the protesters had the right to shoot. Not just yell at them.
(incidentally that file got like, 600kb bigger when I attached it. WTF?)
I'm curious how the law works when it comes to pointing a loaded firearm...with finger on the trigger...at people who are on a private street that your home is located on, rather than actually within the home or on the curtilage. I mean, it may technically be trespassing, but if it's merely a private drive shared by multiple homes I'm not sure you get to shoot somebody for it. For all you know, they're guests of a resident on that drive.
Also, I'm not sure how I feel about the mayor of a city insulating themselves from the public and protests by the public by living on a private drive. Especially one guarded by two chucklefuck ambulance chasing scumbags with guns they don't know how to use.
EDIT: I'm not actually curious at all, I'm pretty confident I know how it works. Both in theory, and in practice. Which in this case are two different things, because wealthy white attorneys don't actually experience the same justice system you, I, or these protesters do.
End of last page, I posted what I was able to find on MO codes.
That's because it's not Lindell Drive, it's Portland Place, where the actual property that we are talking about is located. The street is private, not public. It is owned and maintained by the property owners, not the city.
Unless you have an existing easement, you have no right to be there without the property owner's permission, and you need to leave immediately if asked to. Everything they did was legal.
I'm skeptical that the owner of property on a private drive...with easement...can legally point a loaded weapon at people on that drive. Again, for all they know these people were invited by another property owner, and making perfectly legal use of the easement. Hell, for all they know a court would find that the use of the easement to transit to a protest outside the home of an elected official would be found to be legal, and valid.
I doubt you've done the research into all the relevant case law to justify your claim, and I doubt they did the research prior to waving a gun around like a couple of tweakers in a trailer park, but of course nothing will come of it either way.
Wrong. Again.
Seriously dude. I can't post up and shoot everyone who's speeding, it shouldn't be hard to figure out that murdering people for misdemeanors isn't a thing. Whether or not the crowd was wrong to be there or not leave doesn't really change the fact that the couple was wrong to wave guns around and threaten people's lives. If they were threatened beforehand- notice the only video proof we have isn't from them and it doesn't show that- that changes things a bit..but the absolute best case scenario for them they were still being incredibly stupid and if the mob was half as angry as they claimed they would be incredibly dead.
Also it wasn't THEIR property the trespass it alleged on..it was the gated community which unless they're the HOA head or equivalent I kinda wonder if they even have the authority to tell people to leave.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Boy you really just keep trying to present their totally unsupported-by-evidence lurid version of events as the inarguable truth, huh?
That’s not just a welcome to property ownership thing?
If you find yourself in that kind of situation, either do what you can to reduce the risk of bullets flying or bug out.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Ah. One of those. Yep, and that's the worst kind of gated community. Closing off multiple blocks of an otherwise well-connected grid in the central city near downtown, so nobody can get in but the wealthy homeowners. Once again--those gates should not exist and the city and state should not allow the streets themselves to be private property. It's all kinds of messed up that a group of rich homeowners can get together and close off a significant section of the city that should be public space and exclude everyone else from even walking through the area.
The only evidence that this is the order in which this happened...that the couple was threatened with violence before coming out with weapons...is their own self-serving statement.
Newsflash: You are the only one here who believes them.
And they weren't "protecting their home." If the protesters wanted their home burned to the ground it would be, and these peoples' charred bodies would be in the wreckage. Nothing they were gonna do with their saturday night special and sat-in-a-safe-since-1993 musket would change that. But the protesters are better than that. This couple wanted an excuse to point their guns at people and feel powerful. That's it. They got it. Cool.
The statement that they were threatened is not supported by evidence or their actions. You have repeatedly suggested that mere trespassing was enough, eg here:
If you want to clear that up, feel free. Assuming the available evidence was accurate and the homeowners were not threatened before they came out brandishing, were they in the wrong y/n?
The amount of mental gymnastics in this post is astounding. They don't need to defend themselves because although the protesters could burn their house down (something they've made a habit of doing lately) with them inside, they don't want to, because they're "better than that" (which is not a difficult bar to pass, by the way).
Did it ever occur to you that the reason nothing happened may have been because the homeowners were armed? How many times have we heard the "take it to the suburbs" idea since all of this began? Are you even remotely shocked that people in the suburbs might be a little concerned when a group of hundreds of people suddenly breaks onto their property? You've seen what these protests have done to the cities they take place in.
Ah yes, the riots that have been burning the suburbs to the ground all across the country, leaving thousands of rich white people dead
The real victims in all this
If only the police protected rich white people that live in gated communities
Edit: to be less snarky, approaching a volatile crowd and waving a weapon at them with your finger on the trigger is a much, much better way to get yourself killed than staying in your home. You are incorrect that they would have been justified under the law to open fire. If someone in the protest had been armed, they may have been justified in firing at the home owners though! pointing a weapon at someone is a giant nono unless you intend to pull the trigger. All the protesters were guilty of was trespassing, which is (to my knowledge) not something you can legally shoot anyone for in any state under this set of circumstances
Unless you are a cop ofc
To the bolded, no. Never considered it. They were there to protest at the mayors house. So it’s pretty stupid to suggest, really. Kind of dumb shit I normally only hear on Fox News.
I’m mostly interested now in seeing if you answer Phoenix-D’s question though.
How about this instead - Assuming you broke a gate and illegally gained access to someone's property, and they came out with a gun and told you to leave, would you do it y/n?
To compound a bit, I don’t think it’s at all reasonable to even say that they knew the protestors were trespassing. The protestors certainly did not seem to be on property owned by the couple, and even if they were trespassing on the HOA’s property, there is no reasonable way that the couple could have known that; how could they possibly be certain that the protestors weren’t invited in by another member of the community? If the couple thought the protestors were trespassing on their HOA’s property, they should’ve contacted the HOA.
So now the question is no longer whether their actions were legal, but whether they are effective at scaring people?
I really don't think you want to be arguing that authority flows from the barrel of a gun.
This is how you get accused of wanting to kill people for misdemeanors. You've been dodging the question for several pages now which makes me suspect you think it doesn't matter because the protesters were "criminals".
It doesn't matter whether the protesters were right or wrong. Absent an imminent threat to life the couple were wrong to have the guns out. Legally, and morally.
Also the protesters weren't trespassing on that couples property and likely there was no legal request to leave.
So you’re refusing to answer?
If you want to ask a follow up, answer the question first.
I think that a property owner is well within their rights to openly carry a gun on their own property, yes. I also think that if you force your way onto their property and are literally standing on their lawn yelling threats at them than they have every right to protect themselves and their property and tell you to fuck right off somewhere else.
Even some of the people in the group thought that what they were doing was wrong, which is why there were multiple people yelling that they all needed to leave immediately.
Section 571.030(4) of the Revised Statutes of Missouri states that anyone who “exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner” has “commit[ed] the offense of unlawful use of weapons.”
Trespassing to go protest the mayor can't be something that is unthinkably uncommon on that street, given that there is a college nearby. As a once rabble rouser I can tell you that, at least for white me, trespassing and being a nuisance results in police asking you politely to leave.
It really feels from your writing like you feel like the crime of trespassing should be met with swift and deadly violence because it's such a serious violation
I think if justice is so important to you, you might want to sit down when you read about what's been happening to black people in this country
A.) They won't be charged with anything
or
B.) They'll be charged with some bullshit violation solely to placate protesters, and the charge will be quietly dropped a few weeks later after everyone has moved on to some new thing
Still dodging the question. Also open carry isn't "point at person with finger on the trigger". And again, the protesters could very well be legally and morally in the right to be threatening them if the homeowners threatened them first- which is likely.
I mean you can go back to my first? post where I specifically doubt they'll get hit with anything. But better armchair lawyer than making shit up and deciding that you're right for...what, exactly?