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

[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

From your link...

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."​

Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state
Look up Missouri's Castle Doctrine law
GAME SET AND MATCH
You lose

LOL

Dumbfuck, I quoted YOUR source.

Dear dumbfuck Stand your ground no obligation to retreat That is what the castle Doctrine is
Meaning in Missouri you have the right to defend your property and any other place you are at.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That gate is not their front door. Try harder next time.

The gate was more than just a suggestion that the rioters must keep out

I didn't say otherwise. I was merely pointing out to a retard that the gate is not the mccloskey's "front door." Try and pay attention. Ok?

The gate is their property

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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...

If my front door is unlocked does that give you the right to come into my home?

That gate is not their front door. Try harder next time.

Through that gate is private property.

Not their personal private property and most certainly not their front door. It's part of the Portland Place Homeowners Association.

Private property.
Just like my neighborhood.

Still not your property. It's community property, typically owned by the HOA.

so? it's OWNED in partnership----why are you intent on STRUGGLING to be stupid. A gang of KNOWN THUGS entered PRIVATE property uninvited

Who said it's owned in "partnership?"

Who owns the street? Here's a hint it ain't the city that owns it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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...

If my front door is unlocked does that give you the right to come into my home?

That gate is not their front door. Try harder next time.

Through that gate is private property.

Not their personal private property and most certainly not their front door. It's part of the Portland Place Homeowners Association.

Private property.
Just like my neighborhood.

Still not your property. It's community property, typically owned by the HOA.

Well snowflake is sure in hell ain't public property nor does it belong to the trespassing rioters

 

[Mac-7]

by that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they were on their way to her home.

The claim that they were going to see the Wizard - or the mayor - is no excuse for the mob to invade private property

you folks are desperate to avoid the fact that the democrat power structure in st louis failed to protect its citizens and that forced some citizens to protect themselves

 

[Mac-7]

So ... they're not Democrats

do you mean the rioters are not democrats?

they dont have to be democrats as long as they can control democrats in power as the pillagers are successfully doing

 

[MarcATL]

Good! They lucky they they asses aren't in jail for a stunt like that.

 

[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.

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

From your link...

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."​

Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state
Look up Missouri's Castle Doctrine law
GAME SET AND MATCH
You lose

LOL

Dumbfuck, I quoted YOUR source.

Dear dumbfuck Stand your ground no obligation to retreat That is what the castle Doctrine is
Meaning in Missouri you have the right to defend your property and any other place you are at.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, stand your ground beyond your property requires one to be facing an imminent threat of "death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony." Not only wasn't that mob threatening them until they themselves were threatened -- you can't be the initial aggressor and then claim a stand your ground defense. Mark McCloskey was the initial aggressor when he brandished an AR-15 at a crowd of people before they threatened him.

§563.031

A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor;  except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:​

Every time you post, you say something stupid.

 

[Faun]

That gate is not their front door. Try harder next time.

The gate was more than just a suggestion that the rioters must keep out

I didn't say otherwise. I was merely pointing out to a retard that the gate is not the mccloskey's "front door." Try and pay attention. Ok?

The gate is their property

Prove it.

 

[Faun]

So ... they're not Democrats

do you mean the rioters are not democrats?

they dont have to be democrats as long as they can control democrats in power as the pillagers are successfully doing

You really can't follow a dialog, can ya? <smh>

No, I was clearly not talking about the rioters.

 

[Canon Shooter]

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

I'd be willing to bet that the couple owns more than the two guns we see in the video. BLM would be wise to consider that...

 

[Shelzin]

The gate is their property

Prove it.

You think the city put that gate up to protect private property?

 

[Bush92]

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?

100% sure. So was the other domestic terrorist group BLM.

 

[Bush92]

That couple sounds a bit nuts frankly. There were 6 protestors, they stayed on the sidewalk, none were armed, they were peaceful. None were Antifa.

Protest organizers say there was no reason for homeowners to come outside with guns

“For them to come out there with their guns drawn, there was absolutely no reason at all,” Reverend Darryl Gray said

www.ksdk.com

Even their neighbors thought they went overboard.

Neighbors condemn couple who pulled guns on protesters

The McCloskeys say they were just defending their home against protesters who they claim were armed and doing damage to private property

www.ksdk.com

And when the Brown Shirts destroyed the Jewish businesses, their neighbors also said the Jews over reacted to the destruction....

These are not Nazis, they are not Jews, and the comparison is as ignorant as those comparing Trump to Hitler.

They are KGB.

 

[Bush92]

That couple sounds a bit nuts frankly. There were 6 protestors, they stayed on the sidewalk, none were armed, they were peaceful. None were Antifa.

Protest organizers say there was no reason for homeowners to come outside with guns

“For them to come out there with their guns drawn, there was absolutely no reason at all,” Reverend Darryl Gray said

www.ksdk.com

Even their neighbors thought they went overboard.

Neighbors condemn couple who pulled guns on protesters

The McCloskeys say they were just defending their home against protesters who they claim were armed and doing damage to private property

www.ksdk.com

I bet the neighbors voted for Obama twice. That makes them pussies.

 

[Faun]

The gate is their property

Prove it.

You think the city put that gate up to protect private property?

No, I don't think that. Is that your idea of proving that gate is their property?

 

[Shelzin]

No, I don't think that. Is that your idea of proving that gate is their property?

If you don't think that... Then... Obviously the gate is on private property. Right? Is there another option I'm not aware of?

Or... Are you saying that the owner of said gate is happy it was broke down?

 

[satrebil]

Per the title, if the protesters did attack the home and/or the McCloskeys (God forbid) it would be a blessing in disguise. They'd be able to sue the municipality into oblivion for denying them the right to defend themselves.

 

[Calypso Jones]

They're democrats. He defended people just like this against the cops. He's getting a little lesson here. I'm Just gonna sit back and watch it.

 

[Calypso Jones]

The gate is their property

Prove it.

You think the city put that gate up to protect private property?

No, I don't think that. Is that your idea of proving that gate is their property?

They had that gate made and it was at the entrance to their property.