White couple aims guns at St. Louis protesters

Sorry that you think so.

 

dude she's holding that pistol limpwristed, finger around the trigger, and leaving aside her sweeping the crowd and gesticulating wildly with the thing, she points it at hubbys head at least once.
Not cool.

 

I really wouldn't have to if you'd either quit cutting the quotes, or respond to the points if you just HAVE to cut the quotes. You're not the only person who gets this treatment, anyone who cuts the quotes and doesn't respond to the points gets the hose.

The part of the quote you cut was there for a reason. When you cut it and don't respond to it, you seem disingenuous.

Here it is again: "Which has nothing to do with Patricia pointing a gun at 498 of the 500 people who were there when, after consultation with counsel, she released a statement saying that there were only "2 bad actors" out of the 500 that made any threat at all to the McClosky's or their property. She could point at all 500 if she was able to exercise the defense of property castle law claim of the HOA. Barring that she needs a threat against herself, her husband, or their property to actually POINT the gun at someone and threaten deadly force. She admits she'd only have 2 people who met those predicates to point at, yet we see her point the gun at far more than 2 persons. She's exposed if the county prosecutor cares to make a case of it."

The problem is the McClosky's have put out a statement claiming they were only afraid of 2 people not all 500 only "2 bad actors". Therefore pointing the gun at any but those 2 is Patricia pointing a gun at people she has admitted, WITH COUNSEL, she didn't fear and who hadn't made threats. She opened her mouth and foreclosed the possibility of claiming she was afraid of each and every person she pointed the gun at.

No one said anything about them not being in their rights to stand outside the home with the firearms. I said POINT THEM only at persons you have a reasonable fear of and don't have your lawyers say you were only in reasonable fear of 2 ****ing people when you pointed the gun at at least 20 people individually throughout the video.

 

how do you know she pointed the gun at 20 people?

were those 20 people armed? were they threatening violence or destruction of property?

 

Castle Doctrine says once someone illegally enters a premise, it is legal to assume they are up to no good and may be a threat. If the person threatens you or starts to approach you in a threatening manner, you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself.

 

Ok. Thanks.

 

They both swept each other with their muzzles more than once - neither had much, if any, training with the weapons.

 

Have you not seen the tape Ron?

 

I would never, EVER protest with a gun. Or go to a protest where I knew people would be armed with guns. Its nothing but a stupid act of intimidation.

 

I watched the video in 128. What am I supposed to see special here? It's the same video with a distorted, left wing spin by the commentators. Did they break a law by brandishing weapons outside of the house? I don't know. From what I can see they were on their front porch which is part of the house and were defending themselves from TERRORISTS. NEXT!

 

i searched on Youtube but couldnt find any raw footage.

please post it here, thanks

 

The private street is not their premises for castle law purposes. Its the HOA's. To exercise the HOA's castle law defense of property claim, they'd need a writing from the HOA charging them with that duty.
You do indeed have a right to defense, but the McClosky's say they were only afeared of 2 persons, "2 bad actors", not the entire remaining crowd of 498 persons.

 

What has already been posted.

 

I'm not going to play this game ron, you're on a threat 8 pages long and two days old. Go watch the video.

 

I have to deal with this inanity from the liberals. Usually the conservatives take a bit more pride in their discourse and reputation, than to pull asinine stunts like quote cutting, deflection, and outright burying the lede.

I really wouldn't have to if you'd either quit cutting the quotes, or respond to the points if you just HAVE to cut the quotes. You're not the only person who gets this treatment, anyone who cuts the quotes and doesn't respond to the points gets the hose.

The part of the quote you cut was there for a reason. When you cut it and don't respond to it, you seem disingenuous.

Here it is again: "Which has nothing to do with Patricia pointing a gun at 498 of the 500 people who were there when, after consultation with counsel, she released a statement saying that there were only "2 bad actors" out of the 500 that made any threat at all to the McClosky's or their property. She could point at all 500 if she was able to exercise the defense of property castle law claim of the HOA. Barring that she needs a threat against herself, her husband, or their property to actually POINT the gun at someone and threaten deadly force. She admits she'd only have 2 people who met those predicates to point at, yet we see her point the gun at far more than 2 persons. She's exposed if the county prosecutor cares to make a case of it."

The problem is the McClosky's have put out a statement claiming they were only afraid of 2 people not all 500 only "2 bad actors". Therefore pointing the gun at any but those 2 is Patricia pointing a gun at people she has admitted, WITH COUNSEL, she didn't fear and who hadn't made threats. She opened her mouth and foreclosed the possibility of claiming she was afraid of each and every person she pointed the gun at.

No one said anything about them not being in their rights to stand outside the home with the firearms. I said POINT THEM only at persons you have a reasonable fear of and don't have your lawyers say you were only in reasonable fear of 2 ****ing people when you pointed the gun at at least 20 people individually throughout the video.

 

u do understand ALL of them were trespassing, right?

 

Mobs act as one.

A whole lot of science on mob behavior out there, and none of it supports your assertion.

If your bad actors in the group had turned toward the couple in anger half the tribe would have followed. Had one of your bad actors moved to harm the couple none of the tribe would have thought twice about encouraging the bad act.

Mobs. Get woke.

 

Haven't gotten a good look at the husband, but the wife is clearly and irresponsibly brandishing. She's practically a textbook example of a bad gun owner: finger on the trigger, pointing at something she doesn't plan to shoot. Can't think of a gun range around here who would be willing to have her with that level of irresponsible handling.

 

The video is now available at your local Blockbusters.

 

Like I said dude, scared, out of their element. Forced into acting in self preservation because the government is absent.

I hope they stay out of their element and goofy looking, because after the first shots the innocence will be gone and then they'll look the part. They'll start thinking tactically, next time they'll shoot the mob at the gate not waiting for the mob to get close.

Pray for the innocence to continue. But more importantly, push your government to enforce the law.

 

Agreed with it all, but WHY did the goofy lady feel the need to arm herself?

 

Oh ok I will look back throughTNX

 

Funny!

PS Don't tell any gebonees but there is only one Blockbuster left and it is in Alaska I hear.

 

As I said earlier it is like watching Dumb and Dumber!

 

You were deprived ! In the 1950's we had cap pistols and spring loaded "bullets" that shot plastic projectiles. I also had a battery powered plastic submachinegun that made a firing noise. I did not realize it but the early eighties when my parents were moving to their retirement home I found that think in the attic and my dad said it was like a Soviet ERA 9mm sub machinegun. My "uncle" bought it for me.