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

[tshile]

Also i don’t think “my wife doesn’t know anything about guns so I gave her one in a stressful situation” is as good of a defense as the husband seems to think it is

 

(I imagine in their minds it was stressful, and I imagine that’s their defense for their thinking, but lol)

Edited June 30, 2020 by tshile

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

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. 

 

 

Try this:

 

The couple has been identified as Mark and Patricia McCloskey. Both are attorneys who have defended their actions, saying they felt threatened by the "mob" that broke through the gate to their property and refused to leave. "The only thing that stopped the crowd was my rifle," Mark McCloskey told 5 On Your Side.  

 

But according to Saint Louis University Lawyer John Amman, the couple's actions could possibly be classified as an assault by putting protesters in fear of their safety. 

"People have a right to threaten force if they are threatened," Amman said. However, if a group of protesters is walking by a home and not doing anything to the homeowners specifically, then they don’t have the right to threaten lethal force without an imminent threat.

 

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/couple-points-guns-protesters-castle-doctrine-understanding/63-531cc88c-336d-4bee-ba15-c270a0fd2879

 

Your insistence that tresspassing--and even breaking the community gate--is enough, is false. It's not, by a long shot.

[TradeTheBeal!]

The couple overplayed their hands, badly.  Call it panic, idiocy or just insufferable boomerness...whatever.  They’re damn lucky nobody got seriously injured.

 

They now must receive a savage memeing!

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Your insistence that tresspassing--and even breaking the community gate--is enough, is false. It's not, by a long shot.

I do not care about whether it was “enough” or not

 

i made no judgement on the use of guns. Or whether they broke a gate. Or whether they should get in trouble. Or pretty much anything you continue to quote me and argue with me on. 

 

Go read the post again. Jesus Christ. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

I do not care about whether it was “enough” or not

 

i made no judgement on the use of guns. Or whether they broke a gate. Or whether they should get in trouble. Or pretty much anything you continue to quote me and argue with me on. 

 

Go read the post again. Jesus Christ. 

 

Your claim was that if you go looking for trouble don't complain when you find it.

 

My point--which I guess i have to spell out--is that trespassing is NOT "looking for trouble". And legally, nobody gives a **** if you think it is. it's not.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Califan007

[TradeTheBeal!]

[Califan007 The Constipated]

18 minutes ago, Destino said:

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.

 

you don't get it.

 

It's people using "trespassing" as a catch-all to explain their actions. it's people using "trespassing" as a sign that someone was up to no good. It's becoming the equivalent of "my account was hacked"...we've seen countless instances where merely the belief of trespassing lead to things escalating, sometimes dangerously. And unfortunately it could also be said that "trespassing" is a rationalization for people's actions as much as it is a legitimate concern.

 

[visionary]

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Here you go: live stream of the "horde" entering the gated community. Trying to understand if the gate is broken here, and if the husband's account fits the video. Hmm...

 

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Califan007

[TradeTheBeal!]

Richmond Chief of Police listing is on Indeed.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

And in case it's not clear enough:

 

https://thebulwark.com/the-missouri-gun-toting-lawyers-are-screwed/?amp&__twitter_impression=true

 

The Missouri Gun-Toting Lawyers Are Screwed

 

Yes, this is a private community. Mr. McCloskey tells KSDK that “There is nothing public in Portland Place. Being inside that gate is like being in my living room.” Except that’s not true at all. Members of that community are not empowered to enforce trespass laws by pointing guns at unarmed people. This is why you call the police.

 

Did the McCloskeys call the police? (Editor’s note: Yes, though it’s unclear when they called the police and what the circumstances were when they did so.)

 

Crimes committed on private property are not exempted from legal scrutiny. Brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner on private property is not like an exemption for a farm vehicle in the Missouri countryside. There are exemptions, and then there are crimes.

 

However, because they are—again—clever trial lawyers, the McCloskeys have already begun their legal defense, suggesting that they were in fear for their safety.

 

Mr. McCloskey told local TV station KMOV:

 

"A mob of at least 100 smashed through the historic wrought iron gates of Portland Place, destroying them, rushed towards my home where my family was having dinner outside, and put us in fear of our lives.”

 

 

 

 

 

[bh32]

1 hour ago, TryTheBeal! said:

The couple overplayed their hands, badly.  Call it panic, idiocy or just insufferable boomerness...whatever.  They’re damn lucky nobody got seriously injured.

 

They now must receive a savage memeing!

Yeah right..you come busting into private property anywhere around here and i guarantee you will have a gun in your face..

[Renegade7]

"We not against rap.  We not against rappers.  But we are against those thugs..."

 

 

[Mr. Sinister]

Gonna make that my wallpaper

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Before the live stream video:

 

"A mob of at least 100 smashed through the historic wrought iron gates of Portland Place, destroying them, rushed towards my home where my family was having dinner outside, and put us in fear of our lives.”

 

 

 

After the live stream video:

 

 

 

 

"A mob of at least 100 smashed through the historic wrought iron gates" has now become "It was a few white malcontents, everybody else was cool" lol...They are scared ****less right now.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Destino]

16 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

you don't get it.

 

It's people using "trespassing" as a catch-all to explain their actions. it's people using "trespassing" as a sign that someone was up to no good. It's becoming the equivalent of "my account was hacked"...we've seen countless instances where merely the belief of trespassing lead to things escalating, sometimes dangerously. And unfortunately it could also be said that "trespassing" is a rationalization for people's actions as much as it is a legitimate concern.

 

I get it, I’m just not arriving at the same conclusion.  In one case we have people witnessing a group trespassing that then refuses to leave.  I have a strong dislike for people caught breaking the law that then continue doing so with impunity.  That stance removes sensible resolution from the table and leaves only two options violence (physically removed) or victimization (allow them to continue breaking the law)
 

That is incomparable to a man checking out a construction site, doing nothing wrong, and then fleeing his attackers.  In fact the roles are entirely reversed.  The people that removed a sensible solution from available options are the murderers that continued in their pursuit until they forced a confrontation.  
 

I’m not ready to accept trespassing as a dog whistle at this point.  Certainly not in an instance where it appears to have been done intentionally to get attention.  
 

I believe I mentioned that I am a big fan of castle laws.  We’re unlikely to see eye to eye here.

[Spaceman Spiff]

8 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Richmond Chief of Police listing is on Indeed.

 

Does @RichmondRedskin88need help with his resume?

[LD0506]

These people made themselves into memes

 

They could have easily chosen other ways to react but went this way

 

I'm not concerned with charges, this is their punishment

 

 

[PokerPacker]

So based on that video, the guy already had his AR-15 at the ready before the protestors broke through and stormed the gate ambled through the open gate.

[Corcaigh]

37 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

So based on that video, the guy already had his AR-15 at the ready before the protestors broke through and stormed the gate ambled through the open gate.

As the homeowner closest to the gate he has to be prepared at all times in case someone wearing a hoodie and armed with a bag of skittles might walk by.

[RansomthePasserby]

I mean, if a large group enters a usually quiet neighborhood, whether it’s technically trespassing or not, the people living there are going to feel outnumbered and invaded by strangers and therefore threatened. They have nowhere else to go since they’re at their houses already, so it’s not surprising that some of them will resort to guns to try to balance the scales by using guns as a numbers multiplier.
 

In the moment of potential conflict, the perceived threat is what matters (I’m not talking legally here). It’s the same concept as “don’t corner a wild animal.” It may attack you even if you don’t intend to hurt it because it doesn’t know your intent. 

[tshile]

Also I think it’s important to differentiate between what is right, reasonable, legal

and

what is an expected response

 

because those can diverge quickly and I think most people are playing on the expected response side not the other side

 

maybe it’s where I live, how I was raised, or that there’s just something wrong with me, but if I go onto private property uninvited and don’t leave when directed my expectation is to be confronted with a gun. Or a bat, or a knife, or whatever. And I don’t have a problem with that. 
 

🤷‍♂️ 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

41 minutes ago, RansomthePasserby said:

I mean, if a large group enters a usually quiet neighborhood, whether it’s technically trespassing or not, the people living there are going to feel outnumbered and invaded by strangers and therefore threatened. They have nowhere else to go since they’re at their houses already, so it’s not surprising that some of them will resort to guns to try to balance the scales by using guns as a numbers multiplier.
 

In the moment of potential conflict, the perceived threat is what matters (I’m not talking legally here). It’s the same concept as “don’t corner a wild animal.” It may attack you even if you don’t intend to hurt it because it doesn’t know your intent. 

The only problem there is, the couple is saying the protesters were peaceful and that it was a few individuals that made them feel unsafe. So the whole "mob enters private neighborhood and made them feel unsafe" is now flushed down the toilet, because they're saying it was NOT the "mob" that made them fearful.

 

Of course that's all bull****. Their original story of "The horde of people breaking down the iron gate to force their way in" was all bull**** as well. It got shot full of holes by the live stream video. We are now left with giving reasons for their actions that even they themselves are saying isn't true.

 

The truth is probably that they lied about what happened for legal reasons, knowing that saying "They were trespassing" wouldn't be anywhere near enough to justify aiming their guns at unarmed people walking by their house. They felt threatened because of their preconceived perceptions of protests leading to riots and looting. And that's not enough to justify it, either. it's a bit alarming to think a segment of people would have blamed the protesters if the woman had shot indiscriminately and killed one of the people walking by her house. The way she's holding the gun that was a very real possibility. That should not be overlooked in any of this, nor should it be blamed on the protesters. Her actions are her own. Otherwise, you could use that same logic and blame the mayor for instigating the protest with her actions.

 

Had they simply kept the guns by their sides there wouldn't be much to the story. The nanosecond they aim a firearm at someone who is not threatening them, it becomes an entirely different situation, both legally and morally. Legally and career-wise, they're gonna feel the repercussions. They know this. They are revising their story on the fly because of it.

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Had they simply kept the guns by their sides there wouldn't be much to the story

That’s a convenient and incorrect comment

 

the second they walked outside with guns visible this story was set on its current path and wouldn’t change (except if they actually killed someone or the protestors actually then attacked or something, then it would be the same path just an extension into a worse area of it)

 

but I do find it cute that you now are trying to suggest that if they’d just left their guns at their side this wouldn’t be as big of a deal as it is. 
 

and I’ll counter that ridiculousness  with the idea that I’d they hadn’t gone onto private property none of it would have happened at all. 
 

🤷‍♂️