Rifle used by couple to stop democrat party terrorists confiscated....expect to see the protestors attack...

[Mac-7]

I asked for what property was destroyed by the protesters who were going to the mayor's house; and you idiotically post a burnt down building with zero evidence that any of those protesters were involved.

The looting a robbing just blocks way were done during Only Black Lives Matter protests

thats more than sufficient evidence of what the protesters are capable of

 

[Rambunctious]

The democrat party Circuit Attorney in St. Louis ordered the police to take the guns from the couple who stood up to the terrorists of the democrat party.......antifa and black lives matter....

This is how they did it in Germany in the 1930s....

The question to ask? Did the democrat party Circuit Attorney call the black lives matter and antifa terrorists herself, to let them know the couple is without guns....or did she use a cut out to do it....?

Law enforcement officials in St. Louis have allegedly served a warrant on the St. Louis couple who recently defended their home when a large mob of angry demonstrators allegedly trespassed onto their private property.

Fox News host Shannon Bream tweeted: “BREAKING: Warrant reportedly served on St. Louis couple who stood outside their home with weapons as protesters approached. We’re told weapon(s) seized. We’ve got the warrant and pictures for you at 11p – PLUS, Missouri @AGEricSchmitt joins us LIVE…”

Warrant Served On St. Louis Couple Who Defended Private Property, Rifle Confiscated | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Isn't this a violation of their 2nd amendment rights?...they will ultimately win this in court...the lib Nazis need to stop picking on patriots with enough money to fight back...but I'll keep an eye out for a go fund me page never the less...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

 

[Desperado]

What property did they destroy?

View attachment 362156

I asked for what property was destroyed by the protesters who were going to the mayor's house; and you idiotically post a burnt down building with zero evidence that any of those protesters were involved.

They broke down the entrance gate and they trespassed on private property

 

[Mac-7]

So the burden of proof is on the city, or whoever made the claim to the city. Get it, puppy ?

Unfortunately the city has the weapons so the couple are now defenseless since the city has done nothing to protect them

 

[Quasar44]

They were morons. Like the snowflakes on this board they were mad about people protesting because white people are of course the real victims. In response they attempted to intimidate with a firearm. Their best defense is that they are too cowardly to intimidate anyone. No one was on their property. Certainly not threatening them.

And what would you have done in their place? Surrender your Home?

I support the couple

 

[Mac-7]

Isn't this a violation of their 2nd amendment rights?...they will ultimately win this in court..

See post #265

the democrats have found a way around the 2nd amendment

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Isn't this a violation of their 2nd amendment rights?...they will ultimately win this in court..

See post #265

the democrats have found a way around the 2nd amendment

same with the red flag laws

 

[Mac-7]

same with the red flag laws

Yes, they will be abused by democrat gun grabbers

 

[Faun]

What violence did those protesters commit...?

on that particular day?

They broke down a gate and swarmed onto private property

but on previous days during the same riot they looted and burned buildings just blocks away

They entered through an open gate...

 

[citygator]

They were morons. Like the snowflakes on this board they were mad about people protesting because white people are of course the real victims. In response they attempted to intimidate with a firearm. Their best defense is that they are too cowardly to intimidate anyone. No one was on their property. Certainly not threatening them.

And what would you have done in their place? Surrender your Home?

I would have done what the neighbors did. Watch protesters walk by to the Mayors house. Seemed to work out for everyone.

 

[Faun]

I asked for what property was destroyed by the protesters who were going to the mayor's house; and you idiotically post a burnt down building with zero evidence that any of those protesters were involved.

The looting a robbing just blocks way were done during Only Black Lives Matter protests

thats more than sufficient evidence of what the protesters are capable of

It doesn't prove the protesters who entered their neighborhood had anything to do with that building being burnt down. Thanks for [unwittingly] admitting you made that shit up.

 

[protectionist]

According to videos they did not break down a gate.

But you're not posting those "videos"

 

[Faun]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.

 

[Faun]

What property did they destroy?

View attachment 362156

I asked for what property was destroyed by the protesters who were going to the mayor's house; and you idiotically post a burnt down building with zero evidence that any of those protesters were involved.

They broke down the entrance gate and they trespassed on private property

The gate was open when the entered...

 

[protectionist]

The weapons weren't illegal, the McCloskey's were defending themselves and their property. More than 300 people broke down a gate to private propety, threatened the McCloskey family by threatening to kill them.
They called the police multiple times and there was no response to their pleas of help, they had no choice in the matter.
Yet, THEY are the ones who get their guns taken away? What is wrong with this picture?
The fact that the gun(s) has been seized has no justification whatsoever. It is the Blue Plantation mayor of St. Louis harrassing this couple. The weapoans were not fired, therefore confiscation are not needed as evidence in any investigation.

​

Correct, and that is really what should be the focus of this thread. the fact that a legal gun owner's gun was confiscated. Is that even legal ?

Sounds like ROBBERY to me,... of somebody's property.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.

he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What property did they destroy?

View attachment 362156

I asked for what property was destroyed by the protesters who were going to the mayor's house; and you idiotically post a burnt down building with zero evidence that any of those protesters were involved.

They broke down the entrance gate and they trespassed on private property

The gate was open when the entered...

Dumb fuck if you didn't see the big black guy on the left side open the gate you're blind as a bat

 

[Doc7505]

The democrat party Circuit Attorney in St. Louis ordered the police to take the guns from the couple who stood up to the terrorists of the democrat party.......antifa and black lives matter....

This is how they did it in Germany in the 1930s....

The question to ask? Did the democrat party Circuit Attorney call the black lives matter and antifa terrorists herself, to let them know the couple is without guns....or did she use a cut out to do it....?

Law enforcement officials in St. Louis have allegedly served a warrant on the St. Louis couple who recently defended their home when a large mob of angry demonstrators allegedly trespassed onto their private property.

Fox News host Shannon Bream tweeted: “BREAKING: Warrant reportedly served on St. Louis couple who stood outside their home with weapons as protesters approached. We’re told weapon(s) seized. We’ve got the warrant and pictures for you at 11p – PLUS, Missouri @AGEricSchmitt joins us LIVE…”

Warrant Served On St. Louis Couple Who Defended Private Property, Rifle Confiscated | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Antifa was there? You sure about that?

Yep.......

Proof?

The weapons weren't illegal, the McCloskey's were defending themselves and their property. More than 300 people broke down a gate to private propety, threatened the McCloskey family by threatening to kill them.
They called the police multiple times and there was no response to their pleas of help, they had no choice in the matter.
Yet, THEY are the ones who get their guns taken away? What is wrong with this picture?
The fact that the gun(s) has been seized has no justification whatsoever. It is the Blue Plantation mayor of St. Louis harrassing this couple. The weapoans were not fired, therefore confiscation are not needed as evidence in any investigation.

​

How do you know they called the police multiple times? They came right out armed, doesn’t seem like muchtime elapsed. Can the police confirm this?

What property did they destroy?

View attachment 362156

I asked for what property was destroyed by the protesters who were going to the mayor's house; and you idiotically post a burnt down building with zero evidence that any of those protesters were involved.

They broke down the entrance gate and they trespassed on private property

The gate was open when the entered...

It certainly was closed until the terrorists broke the gate it off it's hinges...

 

[Coyote]

I want to make this very clear as to what I said, and the edited down version that was attributed to me.

I posted: " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime that means a person can use LETHAL force. "

What Shelzin edited down to was only, " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime "

WillHaftawaite Coyote flacaltenn Dont Taz Me Bro

*shrugs* I changed it. It doesn't matter to my point. Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

What I said still stands.

Altering quotes so as to change is against the rules, and in this case it clearly changes the meaning even if unintended. So, just don’t do it again.