this is a felony.

Harvest76

Well-Known Member
They were on property that the entire neighborhood is responsible for and in which they are the closest lot.

The law that you need to worry about in their defense is the castle doctrine which in Missouri is petty broad and vague... they dont have to prove the protesters were aggressing...all they have to prove is that the defendants felt reasonable fear.

" reasonable..." comes up a lot in definitions the of castle doctrine for Missouri... gonna be a toss up depending on jury or judge
Thankfully, there is plenty of video showing people marching away from their property on a sidewalk, with march leaders standing between marchers and the homeowners to stop anyone from getting closer, and clear video of the homeowners waving guns aggressively and moving toward the marchers. Castle doctrine defense would be absurd with all of the evidence available.
 

father nature

Well-Known Member
I thought you meant the violent scum of the life "protesters" in Portland....please continue

Oh, and we need more of these people standing up to the shithead arsonist destroying this country. Come near my house and expect the same....as it should be
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
i'm glad you posted this pic i looked for and couldn't find. the point was propaganda and someone had posted this as 'black man with gun', in reality it's a sound boom.
the reason i'm bringing this up is because we have to get real (honest) here..michigan gun karen's vid was edited to appear as though out of nowhere this happened..our racial issues cannot heal themselves unless we are real (honest) with each other..
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
,

I agree shes not showing gun safety, at all...just courts arent really their to make morale decisions they uphold laws..which law is she breaking that governs stance... their rebuttle will always be we felt threatened and then they will say i have all these certificates of gun safety and that will be it
it keeps being reported the protesters broke the lock on a gate and were on their property..weren't they on the sidewalk which is public?
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
it keeps being reported the protesters broke the lock on a gate and were on their property..weren't they on the sidewalk which is public?
They didnt it was broke later, gate was open or opened...they were on a strip of land that was considered communal as it lead to the gate...their property just happens to be at the gate...

like being seated by the bathroom at a restaurant , i beat they have a ton of complaints about use of the gate and communal zone...
 

Harvest76

Well-Known Member
it keeps being reported the protesters broke the lock on a gate and were on their property..weren't they on the sidewalk which is public?
it keeps being reported the protesters broke the lock on a gate and were on their property..weren't they on the sidewalk which is public?
It's been reported that it was a gated community, so it's possible that the sidewalks are "private property", but that is a wholly seperate issue from the gun-waiving Karen and Kevin. Maybe the marchers were trespassing on SOMEONE'S property (HOA, maybe?), but I'm not sure those Badasses in pastels have the legal authority to police it at the barrel of a gun.
 

Herb & Suds

Well-Known Member
They were on property that the entire neighborhood is responsible for and in which they are the closest lot.

The law that you need to worry about in their defense is the castle doctrine which in Missouri is petty broad and vague... they dont have to prove the protesters were aggressing...all they have to prove is that the defendants felt reasonable fear.

" reasonable..." comes up a lot in definitions the of castle doctrine for Missouri... gonna be a toss up depending on jury or judge
Just because "you can get away with it" doesn't make it right
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
It's been reported that it was a gated community, so it's possible that the sidewalks are "private property", but that is a wholly seperate issue from the gun-waiving Karen and Kevin. Maybe the marchers were trespassing on SOMEONE'S property (HOA, maybe?), but I'm not sure those Badasses in pastels have the legal authority to police it at the barrel of a gun.
where were the guards to the gated community?:lol: if any of those protesters lived in that gated community karens point is moot people are allowed to have friends and visitors.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I'm a well-armed liberal. Not all of us are anti-gun, but those of us who support the 2nd amendment understand the awesome responsibility of such a potentially dangerous amendment. When we see people like this with guns, we cringe at the thought of what might happen to our rights. Having a right to bear arms doesnt mean you get to do everything short of killing someone and most states have laws that recognize that fact. Including Missouri.
+rep:clap::hug:
 

Harvest76

Well-Known Member
I'll add: can you imagine being so privileged and detached from "average" societal problems, that seeing a bunch of people of color marching past your palace frightens you so much you threaten their lives? How absolutely sad for them.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I almost wish they would have, but then the cry babies would be saying just the other. Second Amendment this, Trump did that, all the Bullshit they spew is just to start a fight with anyone who don't see things their way when they know it's wrong.

They like to call liberals Sheep and snowflakes. I believe they should look in the mirror and go, BAHHHH BAHHH, I am melting.
this is Trumpy's* MO..he starts something, then provokes the shit out of it until you respond, at which time he acts surprised and feels the need to 'come at you 15 times harder'.

he's going to keep at it until he has the response he's looking for- a fight.
 
Top