How so? Has there been a rash of death threats against mayors in US cities? Can you link a few?
White St. Louis couple point guns at protesters heading past their home to mayor’s house
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Living in a gated community is wrong for a mayor not for any good reason, but just because you say so.
It not wrong per se, but it seems tone deaf. If you want to represent the people I believe it would help if you were able to understand their concerns and frustrations because you live among them instead of locked away from them.
[QUOTE="Pinehawk, post: 7858528, member: 4866"]I hope those homeowners get what is coming to them. You don't recklessly point a weapon at unarmed people.
Lot of people know who they are and where they live now.[/QUOTE]
What are these protester going to do? What's coming to them?
Lot of people know who they are and where they live now.[/QUOTE]
What are these protester going to do? What's coming to them?
Have you not seen what the domestic terrorist groups have been doing? So far a lot of the lib mayors have gone along with it. If, and when they decide to do their job, they are going to be in danger.
The mayor does not live in a gated community. The gun toting couple lives at 1 Portland Place, on a private gated street. The mayor lives at 502 Lake Avenue, in a different neighborhood about half a mile away. The protesters were marching through Portland Place to get to the mayor's house.
Having traveled extensively out west and in rural country in general... I'd absolutely be prepared to have a gun pointed at you if you enter private property.
That's how lots of people are.
That's how lots of people are.
Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that although it's "very dangerous" to engage protesters with guns, the homeowners broke no laws by brandishing or pointing weapons at them because Portland Place is a private street. He said they are legally protected by Missouri's Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.
"The protesters thought they had a right to protest," Walker said. "But as a technical matter, they were not allowed to be there ... It’s essentially a private estate. If anyone was violating the law, it was the protesters. In fact if (the McCloskeys) have photos of the protesters, they could go after them for trespassing."
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...ba6ac9c03.html#tracking-source=home-top-story
"The protesters thought they had a right to protest," Walker said. "But as a technical matter, they were not allowed to be there ... It’s essentially a private estate. If anyone was violating the law, it was the protesters. In fact if (the McCloskeys) have photos of the protesters, they could go after them for trespassing."
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...ba6ac9c03.html#tracking-source=home-top-story
So no links then? It appears I was wrong and the Saint Louis mayor doesn't live in the gated community.
Any idea why these people needed to go through Portland Place to get to the mayor's house?
No idea. There certainly are other ways that are the same distance and don't include forcibly passing through gates and trespassing on private property.
you’re really unbelievable. But you think people like me are the problem.
Do you think it's okay for the mayor to read the names and addresses of protesters out loud on a live Facebook feed? Do you think those protesters might receive threats of their own from those against their cause?
They aren't protesters they are Domestic Terrorists and they are in people's neighborhoods, so in this war, that is going to happen.
Btw, a quick review of 'private roads' and 'gated communities' shows the law is not that clear that the public has no right to access it.
Have they ever taken a public dime for the road repairs or maintenance? Who really owns the street? Do they expect police and fire to respond on their private road? Are traffic laws enforced on the private road?
"Is a gated community a place where a “substantial group of the public” has access? The answer is unclear. Some city police departments may adopt a policy to respond to certain types of calls from gated communities, but not others. Again, the problem involves the provision of public funds for private purposes, which is prohibited by the Constitution and state law."
http://www.jgradyrandlepc.com/local...rivate-roads-public-services-practical-guide/
Have they ever taken a public dime for the road repairs or maintenance? Who really owns the street? Do they expect police and fire to respond on their private road? Are traffic laws enforced on the private road?
"Is a gated community a place where a “substantial group of the public” has access? The answer is unclear. Some city police departments may adopt a policy to respond to certain types of calls from gated communities, but not others. Again, the problem involves the provision of public funds for private purposes, which is prohibited by the Constitution and state law."
http://www.jgradyrandlepc.com/local...rivate-roads-public-services-practical-guide/
No. These are domestic terrorists - Timothy McVeigh, Stephen Paddock, Dylan Roof, Boogaloo Boys and far too many other neo-concervative, white supremacist people and groups are domestic terrorists. Grouping protesters marching against police brutality that occasionally damage property with this group of abhorrent individuals is asinine.
People like you thought MLK and the protests he led were terrorizing as well. They were wrong too.
It's private property, why is that confusing you? The property owners maintain the common grounds and roads.
And, the property owners pay taxes and are entitled to police and fire protection. That doesn't mean their property is public.
Dude, they pay LOTS of property taxes and my guess is pay their own snow removal and maintenance. That is the way our private roads work.
He is siding with the domestic terrorists here for some reason. They are where they should not be
I am not sure about that. Usually the right to use deadly force to protect yourself only applies if you have reason to believe that they are there to hurt you. They didn't approach the people or the home. For the most part they were walking past it.
Yes they where trespassing. Yes the police should have arrested them for it.
But protecting yourself doesn't extend to trespassing. If some kid starts biking on your lawn he's trespassing. That doesn't give you the right to let him have it with your AR-15.
This is the kind of shit that leads to unnecessary deaths. I can't remember specifically the incidences but a couple black people got shot because they were looking for help and knocked on the door of some terrified nut or approached the wrong house looking for a party and had a nut blast them.
People need to stop thinking that once someone touches a blade of your grass you can kill them for it.
I hadn't noticed that the gunman and gunwoman were both barefoot. I'm guessing they were truly terrified as opposed to the tactical cosplayers we sometimes see. Went for the armory and didn't even remember to put shoes on.
Also, gunman is apparently an accepted word, but gunwoman gets the red squiggle line and is not recognized in google as its own word, that's weird.
Also, gunman is apparently an accepted word, but gunwoman gets the red squiggle line and is not recognized in google as its own word, that's weird.
Missouri's Castle Doctrine 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. This means that if someone illegally enters your front porch or backyard, you can use deadly force against them without retreating first.
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-self-defense-laws.html
Sure sure. Burning buildings and stealing from people are ok?
I was pretty clear there are domestic terrorists on both sides. Unlike the lefties.
These are left wing domestic terrorists plain and simple. Do what we say or we destroy.
You’re right. I’m sure that YOU, some guy in Indiana knows more about the Castle Doctrine law in St. Louis than a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University.
If you leave your house and forget to lock one of your doors and a robber is able to simply open that door and enter your house, isn't it still robbery if he takes stuff? It's still trespassing on private property, unless there's a quirk in Missouri law. No one invited them on the property.
The next paragraph in the article states:
"St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner appeared to take a different view, releasing a statement Monday that said she's "alarmed at the events that occurred over the weekend where peaceful protestors (sic) were met by guns and a violent assault."
Gardner said her office is investigating.
"We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation or threat of deadly force will not be tolerated," Gardner said. "Make no mistake: we will not tolerate the use of force against those exercising their First Amendment rights, and will use the full power of Missouri law to hold people accountable."
Wait, what? So guns are ok to have and to carry and to open carry...unless you're protesting. Wait, no...that's not right...because they're ok if you're protesting hair cuts.....so you become a rioter if you're protesting against the killing of POC and carrying a weapon? This is all very confusing. Perhaps you can make a chart...
Guess we'll find out when it hits the courts...
But, yes, people do it on University property all the time.
Physical force may be used when.
- May be used when individuals believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an attack of unlawful force from another person.
- May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from committing stealing, property damage, or tampering.
However deadly force can only be used when
- Reasonable believe that the force is necessary for self-defense or defense of others (including unborn children) to prevent death, serious physical injury, or a forcible felony.
- The force is used against a person who unlawfully enters a dwelling, residence or vehicle.
Remember the claim was "Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that although it's "very dangerous" to engage protesters with guns, the homeowners broke no laws by brandishing or pointing weapons at them because Portland Place is a private street. He said they are legally protected by Missouri's Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property."
But that link says they can use physical force but not deadly force to defend private property. Firing one of those guns would have been deadly force.
They can't use deadly force as a response to trespassing. As far as the front porch bit, that depends on circumstances and if you consider the front porch to be part of the dwelling. Which you could make the case with an enclosed front porch, but not an open one. And their entry would have to be clearly unlawful. Which means they are breaking in or have been told to go away and refuse.
