They're ambulance chasers, my company has destroyed two firms of ambulance chasers who Dunning-Krugered so hard that they didn't think they needed to hire contract lawyers before signing something
Them being lawyers does not impress me, a good lawyer would seek to lighten their own liability, perhaps by seeking a secure location within their home and informing police of possible trespassers, and defending ones own home
Besides, you keep bringing up that they were legally in the right, and that doesn't seem to be how I read Missouri's laws, you can't hit us with the law and then get all "oh look at these armchair lawyers" when we disagree with your interpretation of it
I can tell you they are dangerously wrong, if it were legally possible, the state should remove their firearms, they have no idea how to use them or even basic understanding of safety, speaking as someone who both has been taught how to use firearms and whos childhood best friend was killed by an idiotic suburbanite waving a gun around and shooting through his neighbor's wall
I'm guessing they probably won't be charged with anything, however it's possible that some of the protesters might sue them (which won't get "quietly dropped" because there isn't an overarching political entity that just picks and chooses civil lawsuits to drop)
"We'll smash our way onto your property, intimidate and threaten you, refuse to leave, try to get you disbarred, and vandalize your business, and then try to get the government take away the only tool you have to defend yourselves with" is really not a great sales pitch for getting upper middle class white people onboard with your cause.
"We'll smash our way onto your property, intimidate and threaten you, refuse to leave, try to get you disbarred, and vandalize your business, and then try to get the government take away the only tool you have to defend yourselves with" is really not a great sales pitch for getting upper middle class white people onboard with your cause.
You realize the protesters were...on their way to the mayor's house, right? I mean everything sounds bad if you invent a scenario in your head and stick with it past all reason.
Also ask yourself if in any other situation you would take the word of the violent criminal that their actions were justified because the victim acted first. We have video. In that video is there any evidence of the protesters threatening the couple first? Is there any video from inside the house of this stream of violent tirades that prompted them to get armed? Any 911 calls? Any evidence at all besides "I said so"?
"We'll smash our way onto your property, intimidate and threaten you, refuse to leave, try to get you disbarred, and vandalize your business, and then try to get the government take away the only tool you have to defend yourselves with" is really not a great sales pitch for getting upper middle class white people onboard with your cause.
Those people, and frankly you, if I'm reading between the lines right, will never be onboard with the cause of racial justice
Those people's rifle is not their "only tool they have to defend themselves with". Watch the goddamned video again, those two don't look like they've ever held a gun before. You can't pull out a 2nd amendment argument on me for people who are obviously not people who use guns
And I'm going to roll my eyes as hard as I possibly can at the notion of rich people who live on the same street as the mayor "Having no tools to defend themselves". Unlike for most of us, the cops would be at their house in a heartbeat
"We'll smash our way onto your property, intimidate and threaten you, refuse to leave, try to get you disbarred, and vandalize your business, and then try to get the government take away the only tool you have to defend yourselves with" is really not a great sales pitch for getting upper middle class white people onboard with your cause.
The march continued down the road without incident, all that couple's brandishing did was show how fucking deranged White America is being at the moment.
I'm down with the idea of telling the concept of gated communities to fuck right off. The first problem is that it's a means for bigot assholes to created special little enclaves for themselves that the unworthy can't enter. Throw in the fact that those very fuckers also setup their lives so that their interaction with the unworthy is kept to a minimum. it's pretty much a recipe to perpetuate shitty racism with minimum effort. Take a spike club to that bubble and smash it to bits. There's also the fact that the fuckers have found a way to use gated communities to fuck with the vote as well. Throw a polling station in there and then refuse to let people in so they can vote. Then when people point out it's bullshit, the powers involved claim they didn't know it was a gated community. Outlawing gated communities nixes that shit real fucking quick and the geese that live in gated communities can learn to fucking deal with it.
I don't know, maybe if they actually have to call the cops for a change because their precious little gates no longer exist to keep people out. They'll start to realize what a fucking monstrous organization they've created. I mean it's only a matter of time before the rabid fuckers in the PDs fuck over some wealthy white guy over a petty thing.
They don't own the street outside, so they can get fucked
Yes, actually, they do. It's a private street, owned and maintained by the property owners. The property boundaries are literally posted on the previous page.
I wonder what would happen if we actually breached gated communities. I suspect people would start hiring private security firms or use other hostile barriers like electric fences or guard animals to reduce personal liability for what might turn out to be murder.
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.
They don't own the street outside, so they can get fucked
Yes, actually, they do. It's a private street, owned and maintained by the property owners. The property boundaries are literally posted on the previous page.
So everybody who drives down that road, including their neighbours, is trespassing constantly until they get home?
Or is there dispensation granted by the HOA, which means that they have final say, and therefore should be the authority enforcing street access?
The private road thing is definitely tenuous, but for the sake of not making false assumptions about the law or personal safety guarantees, a person can kill you if you trespass beyond the physical threshold of their home and be cleared of criminal charges in some states.
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.
Listening to a cartoon podcast and it came up that the WB Censored Eleven cartoons were removed from circulation in response to MLK's assassination in 1968.
I don't know if they put out a press release back then or just did it quietly.
They don't own the street outside, so they can get fucked
Yes, actually, they do. It's a private street, owned and maintained by the property owners. The property boundaries are literally posted on the previous page.
So everybody who drives down that road, including their neighbours, is trespassing constantly until they get home?
Or is there dispensation granted by the HOA, which means that they have final say, and therefore should be the authority enforcing street access?
Landowners can make legal contracts with other people that give them certain permissions (non-possessory rights) to utilize their land, called an easement. An example of this is parcels of land that are completely "landlocked" by other parcels of land and do not have access to a road. The owner of the landlocked parcel might have an agreement with the owner of the parcel next to theirs that allows them to utilize a driveway built on their property to get to a main road (as an example).
The property owners in that neighborhood have some sort of group legal agreement allowing other residents of that neighborhood to pass through their land on the road so that they can get to and from their home. Honestly the entire neighborhood looks like it's HOA'd out the fucking ass so I am sure the agreements are incredibly detailed and filled with stupid minutiae because that is what HOAs excel at.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
There's certainly a discussion that needs to happen in America, and policy set forth afterward, about what kinds of property should actually be able to be claimed as 'private' or not. The privatization of roads, the understood basic means of travel, is pretty contradictory to what people would reasonably consider public. It frankly shouldn't be allowed, because at minimum it leads to this kind of absolute horse shit.
That road only serves that neighborhood, there is no destination along that road for anyone other than the people who live in that neighborhood.
They're not blocking access to a grocery store or a polling center, they are simply deciding as a group that the only people who should have the ability to enter their respective properties are people who are required to do so to get to their homes.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
That road only serves that neighborhood, there is no destination along that road for anyone other than the people who live in that neighborhood.
They're not blocking access to a grocery store or a polling center, they are simply deciding as a group that the only people who should have the ability to enter their respective properties are people who are required to do so to get to their homes.
So hypothetically speaking then, if a single household on that neighborhood road was okay with a group of people coming up and down the road, would that invalidate the people not being okay with it? Are we going to have to break out chalk and designate who has say over what portions of the road now?
Edit - The point being, it starts to get insanely convoluted trying to handle this sort of situation. There's lots of issues at hand like delivery peoples, census workers, can you see the end of the road from the start of it, etc. The easiest solution is all roads, streets, avenues, etc made public.
That road only serves that neighborhood, there is no destination along that road for anyone other than the people who live in that neighborhood.
They're not blocking access to a grocery store or a polling center, they are simply deciding as a group that the only people who should have the ability to enter their respective properties are people who are required to do so to get to their homes.
When you close off segments of a street like this to outside traffic you are limiting potential routes of travel. What might be a 10 minute walk if you cut through the closed street could become a 15 or 20 minute walk. Simply because people who live on that street don't want """undesirables""" in their neighborhood.
Edit: My larger point being, they are putting a significant burden of inconvenience on other people who live in the city to protect their little rich person bubble. That's screwed up and it should not be allowed to stand. And honestly, that type of planning probably shouldn't happen anywhere, because it's inefficient and exclusionary--but it's much more egregious when, as in this case, it happens in a densely populated neighborhood a few miles from downtown, as opposed to in some tract home community way out in the boonies.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
It's not an HOA thing but I do walk to work and I would cut though a neighborhood into a unimproved area that would take to the shopping area where I work
One day a notice went up they were closing off that unimproved area because of "water access" a very expensive fence went up but the interesting fact was what was preventing it was there no fire hydrant on the shopping area side of that area
So the fire hydrant went up on a Sunday {who in a city payroll works on a sunday?} I found out later the person to the left of that unimproved area was friends with the city councilor of that area and used city funds to put the fence up as they did not like the foot traffic going into their neighborhood {the cistern or a flood control area is the border behind that neighborhood and is a place where the homeless hang out
It is not the only nasty thing I know about that neighborhood but it is sadly a way showing personal influence in city government
the guy's wife needs a stern talking to about trigger discipline, but the protesters clearly were standing on the footpath that is part of their property, not just the street, and if what the guy says is true then they were shouting threats and displaying arms as well as having broken down the gate
the guy was within his rights to display a firearm and tell them to fuck off imo, albeit he made a fool out of himself doing so.
also there is an ungated road which leads into that cul de sac with just a "no trespassing" sign which would have been a much better path to take to the mayor's office
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.
Trying to provide additional context: I went to undergrad at that college (Washington University in St. Louis) and I'm almost certain I walked down that street (i know i went to parties at a house on Waterman a couple blocks north of it). Maybe something changed in the last 10 years but I would swear the foot gate was open at least during the day, unless my memory is totally false. I think I also canvassed it, or an adjacent street, in the 2012 election. And as I said in my above post, there is a also signposted-but-ungated street that provides access to the cul de sac. I don't recall anyone organizing any protests at the mayor's house, but this was before Ferguson, so idk
I didn't know the mayor lived there at the time, but I think it's inappropriate for the mayor's residence to be in a community closed to the public, partly for this reason.
I'm curious if they actually "broke down" the gate or just like, busted the latch or prevented it from closing. It is worth noting that this guy's front door is quite close to the protesters' point of entry, so it could have sounded genuinely very alarming if they were at their kitchen table.
Dongs Galore on
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
People who own property should be allowed to decide who can be on that property.
There are about ten threads worth of the history of segregation needed to flesh out how terrible a position this is.
A lot of this thread are being reductive as fuck, and these two lawyers can get bent for all I care. That said, you, me, and everyone else gets to decide who can come and go in our houses. That includes the police without a warrant, and randos wandering down my street. Private property is a thing, its law, and its something that isn't going away, and our problems right now are police flagrantly ignoring the laws around private property. That should be the focus here. "Own" here extends to rental agreements. We have laws about this that go back in western culture to the very earliest of our legal systems.
These two fuckhead lawyers, regardless of circumstances, are a sideshow. Yes, they are perfect for a poster of white privilege and fuck them and their mini-palace built off the suffering of others. That doesn't excuse people for threatening them on their property. It doesn't matter if its the police doing a goddamn no-knock warrant on the wrong house and killing you when you try and defend yourself or two yuppie lawyers in kahkis and pink polo shirts aiming guns at people who broke down their front gate. Legally you decide who gets to be on your property, and violations of that are part of what these protests are about.
It also doesn't excuse them for pointing loaded weapons at people. Fuck those people and their casual disregard for life.
We currently enforce those rights unequally, but everyone should have the ability to be safe in their homes. That's what these protests are about. That these white chuckleheads are able to live comfortably while literally any minority fears ICE, the police, or any number of other forces are going to ignore the laws because fuck you is why. And while its vaguely cathartic to see the fear in the eyes of this 1% couple, it makes them into martyrs for the police cause and this entire affair is only going to slow progress. Defending anyone involved in it is folly, everyone involved here were fuckups and have only made things worse.
Enc on
+2
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited June 2020
I thought something important was happening in the thread given I woke up to like 60 new posts, instead of a limp defense of white fragility.
Alas.
Vanguard on
+58
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
the dude straight up admitted his wife doesn't have any knowledge about guns, absolutely wild that two lawyers who have lawyers couldn't have made a less stupid statement
the dude straight up admitted his wife doesn't have any knowledge about guns, absolutely wild that two lawyers who have lawyers couldn't have made a less stupid statement
i hope they're both charged with felonies
I know far, far too many people who basically only own guns because of their fantasy of "justified" self defense. The kind of people who, quite literally, look for reasons to justify shooting somebody in any vaguely hostile situation. It's a very damning stain on gun culture, which I didn't have a high opinion of to begin with.
These people might genuinely be stupider than that.
the dude straight up admitted his wife doesn't have any knowledge about guns, absolutely wild that two lawyers who have lawyers couldn't have made a less stupid statement
i hope they're both charged with felonies
He also in this clip very clearly swings the rifle around so it's pointing almost head on with the camera, and we know there were people to the left of the camera as they'd just walked past.
So he's full of shit on "very very carefully didn't point it at anyone". He might not have tried to actively aim at someone, but at multiple points during this encounter, the barrel was pointing at someone.
So it's not just his wife that's an irresponsible gun owner.
+21
Options
NEO|PhyteThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
the dude straight up admitted his wife doesn't have any knowledge about guns, absolutely wild that two lawyers who have lawyers couldn't have made a less stupid statement
i hope they're both charged with felonies
So it's not just his wife that's an irresponsible gun owner.
Well yeah, he handed a gun to someone that had no idea how to use one.
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
I don't know why anyone listens to someone who says they are a lawyer but at the first sign of trouble went to confront people and escalate with tools they had no idea how to use, and then when called out ran to the media to talk about the event and spin. You know, things law professionals suggest people should do and not "stay away, lawyer up and shut up"
That road only serves that neighborhood, there is no destination along that road for anyone other than the people who live in that neighborhood.
They're not blocking access to a grocery store or a polling center, they are simply deciding as a group that the only people who should have the ability to enter their respective properties are people who are required to do so to get to their homes.
You did not read what I posted did you? The criticism isn't that one has to travel around a shitty gated community, added excessive time on travel to get anywhere because of pathetic geese that fear everyone is trying to take their shitty knickknacks. No, the critique is that we've had cases where polling precincts were placed in those shitty gated communities and someone on the HOA knew damn well it was happening and made damn sure it causes problems because they damn were pieces of shit.
https://privateofficernews.org/security-guards-block-access-to-polling-station-inside-a-gated-community/ to show that that one community in Broward County Florida wasn't an isolated incident and that there were other instances of the bullshit going on. Hell, even if it was just one, it would be one too fucking many. Again the concept of gated communities can fuck right off because it's not grounded in anything noble or worthwhile.
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
And Broward County isn't the only place that has happened. I know it happened in the past in Central Florida as well for the same regard. Gated communities are a problem.
There are also concerns re-planning law with "private communities" gaining access to public works, so a public road being blocked for exclusive access that ISN'T driven by the state is a problem. It's not a taxed highway, its a "these people have more rights for right-of-way-passage" than others, which is highly problematic.
the dude straight up admitted his wife doesn't have any knowledge about guns, absolutely wild that two lawyers who have lawyers couldn't have made a less stupid statement
Posts
Them being lawyers does not impress me, a good lawyer would seek to lighten their own liability, perhaps by seeking a secure location within their home and informing police of possible trespassers, and defending ones own home
Besides, you keep bringing up that they were legally in the right, and that doesn't seem to be how I read Missouri's laws, you can't hit us with the law and then get all "oh look at these armchair lawyers" when we disagree with your interpretation of it
I can tell you they are dangerously wrong, if it were legally possible, the state should remove their firearms, they have no idea how to use them or even basic understanding of safety, speaking as someone who both has been taught how to use firearms and whos childhood best friend was killed by an idiotic suburbanite waving a gun around and shooting through his neighbor's wall
I'm guessing they probably won't be charged with anything, however it's possible that some of the protesters might sue them (which won't get "quietly dropped" because there isn't an overarching political entity that just picks and chooses civil lawsuits to drop)
You realize the protesters were...on their way to the mayor's house, right? I mean everything sounds bad if you invent a scenario in your head and stick with it past all reason.
Also ask yourself if in any other situation you would take the word of the violent criminal that their actions were justified because the victim acted first. We have video. In that video is there any evidence of the protesters threatening the couple first? Is there any video from inside the house of this stream of violent tirades that prompted them to get armed? Any 911 calls? Any evidence at all besides "I said so"?
Because if there is I certainly haven't seen it..
Those people, and frankly you, if I'm reading between the lines right, will never be onboard with the cause of racial justice
Those people's rifle is not their "only tool they have to defend themselves with". Watch the goddamned video again, those two don't look like they've ever held a gun before. You can't pull out a 2nd amendment argument on me for people who are obviously not people who use guns
And I'm going to roll my eyes as hard as I possibly can at the notion of rich people who live on the same street as the mayor "Having no tools to defend themselves". Unlike for most of us, the cops would be at their house in a heartbeat
The march continued down the road without incident, all that couple's brandishing did was show how fucking deranged White America is being at the moment.
I don't know, maybe if they actually have to call the cops for a change because their precious little gates no longer exist to keep people out. They'll start to realize what a fucking monstrous organization they've created. I mean it's only a matter of time before the rabid fuckers in the PDs fuck over some wealthy white guy over a petty thing.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
There are about ten threads worth of the history of segregation needed to flesh out how terrible a position this is.
Brandishing a gun at someone in my back yard when none of my family is out there is deluded. Seek help.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Yes, actually, they do. It's a private street, owned and maintained by the property owners. The property boundaries are literally posted on the previous page.
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.
It is the dream of several of the people I work with.
So everybody who drives down that road, including their neighbours, is trespassing constantly until they get home?
Or is there dispensation granted by the HOA, which means that they have final say, and therefore should be the authority enforcing street access?
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.
I don't know if they put out a press release back then or just did it quietly.
Thomas Jefferson would have agreed. Sally Hemings probably wouldn't.
Landowners can make legal contracts with other people that give them certain permissions (non-possessory rights) to utilize their land, called an easement. An example of this is parcels of land that are completely "landlocked" by other parcels of land and do not have access to a road. The owner of the landlocked parcel might have an agreement with the owner of the parcel next to theirs that allows them to utilize a driveway built on their property to get to a main road (as an example).
The property owners in that neighborhood have some sort of group legal agreement allowing other residents of that neighborhood to pass through their land on the road so that they can get to and from their home. Honestly the entire neighborhood looks like it's HOA'd out the fucking ass so I am sure the agreements are incredibly detailed and filled with stupid minutiae because that is what HOAs excel at.
They're not blocking access to a grocery store or a polling center, they are simply deciding as a group that the only people who should have the ability to enter their respective properties are people who are required to do so to get to their homes.
Edit - The point being, it starts to get insanely convoluted trying to handle this sort of situation. There's lots of issues at hand like delivery peoples, census workers, can you see the end of the road from the start of it, etc. The easiest solution is all roads, streets, avenues, etc made public.
When you close off segments of a street like this to outside traffic you are limiting potential routes of travel. What might be a 10 minute walk if you cut through the closed street could become a 15 or 20 minute walk. Simply because people who live on that street don't want """undesirables""" in their neighborhood.
Edit: My larger point being, they are putting a significant burden of inconvenience on other people who live in the city to protect their little rich person bubble. That's screwed up and it should not be allowed to stand. And honestly, that type of planning probably shouldn't happen anywhere, because it's inefficient and exclusionary--but it's much more egregious when, as in this case, it happens in a densely populated neighborhood a few miles from downtown, as opposed to in some tract home community way out in the boonies.
One day a notice went up they were closing off that unimproved area because of "water access" a very expensive fence went up but the interesting fact was what was preventing it was there no fire hydrant on the shopping area side of that area
So the fire hydrant went up on a Sunday {who in a city payroll works on a sunday?} I found out later the person to the left of that unimproved area was friends with the city councilor of that area and used city funds to put the fence up as they did not like the foot traffic going into their neighborhood {the cistern or a flood control area is the border behind that neighborhood and is a place where the homeless hang out
It is not the only nasty thing I know about that neighborhood but it is sadly a way showing personal influence in city government
the guy was within his rights to display a firearm and tell them to fuck off imo, albeit he made a fool out of himself doing so.
also there is an ungated road which leads into that cul de sac with just a "no trespassing" sign which would have been a much better path to take to the mayor's office
Trying to provide additional context: I went to undergrad at that college (Washington University in St. Louis) and I'm almost certain I walked down that street (i know i went to parties at a house on Waterman a couple blocks north of it). Maybe something changed in the last 10 years but I would swear the foot gate was open at least during the day, unless my memory is totally false. I think I also canvassed it, or an adjacent street, in the 2012 election. And as I said in my above post, there is a also signposted-but-ungated street that provides access to the cul de sac. I don't recall anyone organizing any protests at the mayor's house, but this was before Ferguson, so idk
I didn't know the mayor lived there at the time, but I think it's inappropriate for the mayor's residence to be in a community closed to the public, partly for this reason.
I'm curious if they actually "broke down" the gate or just like, busted the latch or prevented it from closing. It is worth noting that this guy's front door is quite close to the protesters' point of entry, so it could have sounded genuinely very alarming if they were at their kitchen table.
A lot of this thread are being reductive as fuck, and these two lawyers can get bent for all I care. That said, you, me, and everyone else gets to decide who can come and go in our houses. That includes the police without a warrant, and randos wandering down my street. Private property is a thing, its law, and its something that isn't going away, and our problems right now are police flagrantly ignoring the laws around private property. That should be the focus here. "Own" here extends to rental agreements. We have laws about this that go back in western culture to the very earliest of our legal systems.
These two fuckhead lawyers, regardless of circumstances, are a sideshow. Yes, they are perfect for a poster of white privilege and fuck them and their mini-palace built off the suffering of others. That doesn't excuse people for threatening them on their property. It doesn't matter if its the police doing a goddamn no-knock warrant on the wrong house and killing you when you try and defend yourself or two yuppie lawyers in kahkis and pink polo shirts aiming guns at people who broke down their front gate. Legally you decide who gets to be on your property, and violations of that are part of what these protests are about.
It also doesn't excuse them for pointing loaded weapons at people. Fuck those people and their casual disregard for life.
We currently enforce those rights unequally, but everyone should have the ability to be safe in their homes. That's what these protests are about. That these white chuckleheads are able to live comfortably while literally any minority fears ICE, the police, or any number of other forces are going to ignore the laws because fuck you is why. And while its vaguely cathartic to see the fear in the eyes of this 1% couple, it makes them into martyrs for the police cause and this entire affair is only going to slow progress. Defending anyone involved in it is folly, everyone involved here were fuckups and have only made things worse.
Alas.
the dude straight up admitted his wife doesn't have any knowledge about guns, absolutely wild that two lawyers who have lawyers couldn't have made a less stupid statement
i hope they're both charged with felonies
I know far, far too many people who basically only own guns because of their fantasy of "justified" self defense. The kind of people who, quite literally, look for reasons to justify shooting somebody in any vaguely hostile situation. It's a very damning stain on gun culture, which I didn't have a high opinion of to begin with.
These people might genuinely be stupider than that.
He also in this clip very clearly swings the rifle around so it's pointing almost head on with the camera, and we know there were people to the left of the camera as they'd just walked past.
So he's full of shit on "very very carefully didn't point it at anyone". He might not have tried to actively aim at someone, but at multiple points during this encounter, the barrel was pointing at someone.
So it's not just his wife that's an irresponsible gun owner.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
You did not read what I posted did you? The criticism isn't that one has to travel around a shitty gated community, added excessive time on travel to get anywhere because of pathetic geese that fear everyone is trying to take their shitty knickknacks. No, the critique is that we've had cases where polling precincts were placed in those shitty gated communities and someone on the HOA knew damn well it was happening and made damn sure it causes problems because they damn were pieces of shit.
https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/politics/elections/south-florida-polling-place-moved-to-gated-community-requiring-voters-to-show-id/67-611792472 Broward County Florida
https://privateofficernews.org/security-guards-block-access-to-polling-station-inside-a-gated-community/ to show that that one community in Broward County Florida wasn't an isolated incident and that there were other instances of the bullshit going on. Hell, even if it was just one, it would be one too fucking many. Again the concept of gated communities can fuck right off because it's not grounded in anything noble or worthwhile.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
There are also concerns re-planning law with "private communities" gaining access to public works, so a public road being blocked for exclusive access that ISN'T driven by the state is a problem. It's not a taxed highway, its a "these people have more rights for right-of-way-passage" than others, which is highly problematic.
Also....he...did...point...it..at...people????