Summer of 2020---The Civil Unrest Thread--Read OP Before Posting (in memory of George Floyd)

[Califan007 The Constipated]

10 minutes ago, Destino said:

what I’m not clear on is just how private “private property” of a gated community is.  

 

Roads are privately owned by the community but are not the private property of any individual. I assume it's at least a little like an apartment complex, which is probably why so many "Karens" keep asking people of color to prove they live in the building--they take the stance that the apartment complex is privately owned and it gives them the right to police it.

 

And they still have to meet the criteria of reasonably believing their lives or the lives of someone else was in imminent danger. The husband claims they came onto his lawn and got into his face. So far not seeing that. We have cases out there of delivery men being shot at because the home owner "thought" they were a burglar. One of the cases i'm thinking of was in Vegas (or at least in Nevada) and the guy was arrested, even though their Stand Your Ground law allows for deadly force even if there is no imminent danger of losing your life (most Stand Your Ground laws apply in the home as well). Trespassing won't be enough, I don't think. And I don't think breaking the gate would suffice as well. If the gate was to their house then yeah, I could see it.

[Mr. Sinister]

Well then nevermind, lol.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

[Destino]

53 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

Right now, if you had to bet your house on it, would you believe that protesters “never antagonized”?  I wouldn’t.  
 

Protests are angry by definition and in this instance a guy dressed like a caricature of whiteness exited his mansion to shoo these protesters away from his manicured lawn.  I just have a hard time believing the response was terribly polite.  Much less so when he appeared (or reappeared depending on who you believe) with an assault weapon and a crazed woman lack any semblance of trigger discipline or firearm safety.  
 

This was a bad idea (breaking into a gated community for attention) that got worse when it was met by a worse idea (threatening a mob with violence).  It’s fortunate no one was hurt.  

[tshile]

I’m sure they just acted on their preconceived notions built upon their daydreams but this time was real

 

but

 

lol @ whoever said they weren’t antagonizers, but when asked why the gate was broken responded with a disturbance was necessary to get the message across

 

i always have a hard time feeling bad when a person goes looking for trouble and finds it. 
 

if we’re gonna start going after each other it’s probably a good thing to remember lots of people have guns. And not everyone shares the same threshold for when it’s appropriate to use one or not. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

I’m sure they just acted on their preconceived notions built upon their daydreams but this time was real

 

but

 

lol @ whoever said they weren’t antagonizers, but when asked why the gate was broken responded with a disturbance was necessary to get the message across

 

i always have a hard time feeling bad when a person goes looking for trouble and finds it. 
 

if we’re gonna start going after each other it’s probably a good thing to remember lots of people have guns. And not everyone shares the same threshold for when it’s appropriate to use one or not. 

 

 

I'd be leery of reaching any conclusions based on an extremely small paraphrased snippet by a reporter. In a tweet.

[tshile]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

 

I'd be leery of reaching any conclusions based on an extremely small paraphrased snippet by a reporter. In a tweet.

did they break a gate to enter a private area or not?

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Just now, tshile said:

did they break a gate to enter a private area or not?

 

 

 

Actually they were asked why they entered private property, not why the broke the gate. I've read reports that the gate was already broken and they took advantage of it to get in.

 

But my point was you haven't heard anything directly from anyone associated with the protestors--the tweet doesn't even use quotation marks--so I tend to suggest that people not  believe they've heard all they need to know to reach conclusions based on a small, paraphrased tweet.

[Llevron]

Yea that was stupid. It doesn’t help anyone. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

16 minutes ago, Destino said:

Right now, if you had to bet your house on it, would you believe that protesters “never antagonized”.  I wouldn’t.  
 

Protests are angry by definition and in this instance a guy dressed like a caricature of whiteness exited his mansion to shoo these protesters away from his manicured lawn.  I just have a hard time believing the response was terribly polite.  Much less so when he appeared (or reappeared depending on who you believe) with an assault weapon and a crazed woman lack any semblance of trigger discipline or firearm safety.  
 

This was a bad idea (breaking into a gated community for attention) that got worse when it was met by a worse idea (threatening a mob with violence).  It’s fortunate no one was hurt.  

 

If they said "antagonize" and not the reporter, I think they used that word for a specific reason.

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Actually they were asked why they entered private property, not why the broke the gate. I've read reports that the gate was already broken and they took advantage of it to get in.

 

But my point was you haven't heard anything directly from anyone associated with the protestors--the tweet doesn't even use quotation marks--so I tend to suggest that people not  believe they've heard all they need to know to reach conclusions based on a small, paraphrased tweet.

destino posted a pic of the gate. I’m assuming they broke the gate. He’s usually on with posting stuff like that and recognizing whether it’s just something someone is saying or legit. 
 

and it doesn’t matter if it’s a quote or not. It’s a mentality that exists. One side wants to say it’s their right or duty or whatever to cause problems - and I’m not talking about looting or violence I’m talking about disturbing/disrupting things. And it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that would escalate over time. 
 

I find it perfectly reasonable that a group of protestors were just trying to disturbe some people and someone wound up getting shot. 
 

and nothing I said is anything more than an observation that such thing was and is likely to happen and continue to happen if this keeps going. 

[tshile]

Also I don’t know if the gate being broken by the protestors or before even matters. You still went through a gate you weren’t allowed to. I could give some leeway on if it wasn’t reasonable to know you’re not allowed but usually private communities aren’t shy about that. 
 

Edited June 29, 2020 by tshile

[Califan007 The Constipated]

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

destino posted a pic of the gate. I’m assuming they broke the gate. He’s usually on with posting stuff like that and recognizing whether it’s just something someone is saying or legit. 
 

and it doesn’t matter if it’s a quote or not. It’s a mentality that exists. One side wants to say it’s their right or duty or whatever to cause problems - and I’m not talking about looting or violence I’m talking about disturbing/disrupting things. And it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that would escalate over time. 
 

I find it perfectly reasonable that a group of protestors were just trying to disturbe some people and someone wound up getting shot. 
 

and nothing I said is anything more than an observation that such thing was and is likely to happen and continue to happen if this keeps going. 

 

1) it also could have been broken, and they could have broken it further. But again, my point is you asked me if they broke the gate to get in--there's no way i could tell you right now. The guy has said all sorts of stuff that sounds a bit over the top and even contradictory. I have no idea if "they broke the gate" is one of them. And I'm ok with not knowing yet and waiting.

 

2) It absolutely does matter if it's a quote. I have read the husband's direct words...thinking I don't also need to hear the protesters' direct words is baffling to me. I also want to see more video--and you KNOW there will be more. That's undeniable. What I do know now, though, is that nothing suggests the protesters were coming right at his house when they entered the community, that they got in his face, that they threatened to kill his dog and burn down his house, or if all he said is "you have to leave this is private property". All that should matter.

 

 

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Also I don’t know if the gate being broken by the protestors or before even matters. You still went through a gate you weren’t allowed to. I could give some leeway on if it wasn’t reasonable to know you’re not allowed but usually private communities aren’t shy about that. 
 

 

If it doesn't matter why did you ask me? lol...

Edited June 29, 2020 by Califan007

[tshile]

Also won’t be surprised if the run the affluency defense

 

they were scared because they watch Fox News all day, so it’s not their fault

 

which would have so many jokes built on jokes inside it might make some people’s heads explode. 

[Destino]

 

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

If it doesn't matter why did you ask me? lol...

I think you’re taking the literal definition instead of a legal one like “breaking and entering”

 

im not at all concerned with the destruction of a gate. Buildings have been burned down. I’m not real concerned about a gate

 

it was the act of going through the gate to a private area, intentionally. That’s the breaking part in that sense. Idk how it being physically broken plays into it legally. 
 

and I don’t even care because that’s a backwards state anyways and I think they should probably go to jail (baring evidence of a different story)

did you really think I was concerned about whether the gate was physically broken by the protestors ? 😂

5 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

1) it also could have been broken, and they could have broken it further. But again, my point is you asked me if they broke the gate to get in--there's no way i could tell you right now. The guy has said all sorts of stuff that sounds a bit over the top and even contradictory. I have no idea if "they broke the gate" is one of them. And I'm ok with not knowing yet and waiting.

 

2) It absolutely does matter if it's a quote. I have read the huaband's direct words...thinking I don't also need to hear the protesters' direct words is baffling to me. I also want to see more video--and you KNOW there will be more. That's undeniable. What I do know now, though, is that nothing suggests the protesters were coming right at his house when they entered the community, that they got in his face, that they threatened to kill his dog and burn down his house, or if all he said is "you have to leave this is private property". All that should matter.

cool

 

 None of that has anything to do with what I said.

Edited June 29, 2020 by tshile

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

I think you’re taking the literal definition instead of a legal one like “breaking and entering”

 

im not at all concerned with the destruction of a gate. Buildings have been burned down. I’m not real concerned about a gate

 

it was the act of going through the gate to a private area, intentionally. That’s the breaking part in that sense. Idk how it being physically broken plays into it legally. 
 

and I don’t even care because that’s a backwards state anyways and I think they should probably go to jail (baring evidence of a different story)

did you really think I was concerned about whether the gate was physically broken by the protestors ? 😂

 

Well, it's strange that if all you cared about was entering private property, you decided to ask me if they broke the gate. Would have been just as easy to say "Did they enter private property or not?"

 

Anyway, here's the guy's words:

 

"Somebody forced the gate, and I stood up and announced that this is private property. Go back. I can't remember in detail anymore. I went inside, I got a rifle. And when they ... because as soon as I said this is private property, those words enraged the crowd. Horde, absolute horde came through the now smashed down gates coming right at the house."

 

1) That part in bold is rather...convenient lol. "I can't remember any details of what I said to them..."

2) It almost appears as if he realized he didn't set the scene well enough to show why he got his rifle, and backtracked...like, "I went and got my rifle, and then they--well first, they were acting like a horde of rioters coming right at me. THEN I got my rifle."

 

This doesn't mean what he said isn't more or less true, but his account is full of things that made me go "hmm"...

[Destino]

 

this is the only photo I’ve found of the other side of the gate.  I wanted to know if there was a posted sign indicating the road is private.  It appears that there was whenever this was taken.

[tshile]

Yeah I don’t care about his account. 
 

My original comment wasn’t on whether anyone was right or someone deserved something 

 

it was a warning that if you’re going looking for trouble you might find it

 

and that if you’re going at peoples houses, they probably have guns. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Is this gategate??

 

My suggest is to avoid stepping into private property if you are concerned that some crazy people might come at you with weapons. And atleast 40 percent of the country is really crazy so I’d be concerned.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Some more:

 

"My house, my east patio was 40 feet from Portland Place Drive. And these people were right up in my face, scared to death. And then, I stood out there. The only thing we said is this is private property. Go back. Private property. Leave now."

 

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/interview-man-with-rifle-during-st-louis-protest/63-eeb61c07-4adc-4df0-a7d0-000d40a89e78

 

 

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

Yeah I don’t care about his account. 
 

My original comment wasn’t on whether anyone was right or someone deserved something 

 

it was a warning that if you’re going looking for trouble you might find it

 

and that if you’re going at peoples houses, they probably have guns. 

 

 

You should care because right now the only person saying they were "going at" his house is him. If they were walking BY his house and didn't interact with him and his wife until he pointed guns at the protesters, that paints a different picture, regardless of whether they were trespassing. If they were not yelling threats to kill them and burn down his house, that paints a different picture. If his wife was the one who closed the gap and got into the protesters' faces and not the protesters who got into his face, that paints a different picture. Or at least it should.

 

Tresspassing is not a get-out-of-jail card that exonerates people's actions. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Califan007

[tshile]

12 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

You should care because right now the only person saying they were "going at" his house is him.

They were in a private community that required breaking a gate or going through a broken gate to access it. 
 

it’s just not that hard to understand. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

15 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Is this gategate??

 

My suggest is to avoid stepping into private property if you are concerned that some crazy people might come at you with weapons. And atleast 40 percent of the country is really crazy so I’d be concerned.

 

 

Does anyone else remember how trespassing was used at first to try and explain why the father-son duo went after Ahmaud Arbery in their truck?

 

The issue here should not be whether or not they were trespassing. It should be what did they do once they were in the community that warranted having guns pointed at them. And guess what--trespassing isn't enough. It's even pointed to in their gun laws--it's not enough for someone to simply be on your property. Why do you think the husband--a lawyer--is painting an image of an angry mob and using the word "horde" and saying they were coming right at his house and threatening to kill him and his wife and burn down the house?...Because saying "they were trespassing" isn't enough. Did they actually say all that? I don't know.

 

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

They were in a private community that required breaking a gate or going through a broken gate to access it. 
 

it’s just not that hard to understand. 

 

Read above.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Califan007

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Read above.

You’re having a difficult time here

 

if you go into private communities or on yo other private property uninvited, in this country, getting shot is a strong possibility

 

I don’t care for the rest of your “I don’t know any facts at all but let me tell you a bunch that I can make an argument with” analysis at this point

 

i don’t believe a single person has argued for what you’re arguing against. Maybe a generic question or two. But that seems like it. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by tshile

[Destino]

1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

Does anyone else remember how trespassing was used at first to try and explain why the father-son duo went after Ahmaud Arbery in their truck?

They chased Arbery down in trucks for walking around a construction site and murdered him.  These people didn’t leave their own property and didn’t kill anyone.  This is an enormous difference.