Gun Debate Time: where do you stand on the Missouri couple with their guns?

I've repeated several times that is the job of the police. Individuals are not supposed to take the law into their own hands. And I posted the law in St. Louis which you conveniently ignore. Hint: they violated it.

You can be charged with anything. That doesn't make it right or illegal. It doesn't make the person putting the charges on your right either, that is what the courts are for. Get over it. We will find out who was right when this goes to court.

@Xabiss: agreed. i know in fl. brandishing a weapon. is against the law. ie not defending one self.

@LJS9502_basic: How do YOU feel about them not being charged? I didnt ignore it. Can you show me where they have been waving their guns around?

Watch the video.........

@LJS9502_basic: I have. Where is the waving part?

And you didnt answer the question. How do you feel about those people causing vandalism, trespassing, and threatening bodily harm to others and not being charged?

So you are saying someone breaks into your house. It is not your job to defend your house, but to call the police and wait for them as they rape your wife, steal your stuff, or murder you? It has already been stated the police were not coming and at that point they have every right to defend their property until the police get there. You will be so disappointed when this gets thrown out of the courts or the courts find in favor of these people which means they didn't break the law as you claim.

@Xabiss: Blah blah ignore what actually happened police!

No one broke into their house. Can you NOT stick to facts?

You said word for word "Individuals are not supposed to take the law into their own hands." So answer the question I asked because from your statements I can only call the police and wait to see if they can help me.

Also people can't just walk through your yard or private property either. In some states it is legal to shoot someone doing it.

You're the one literally ignoring all the facts.

Here they are. Those people vandalized, trespassed, and threatened the life of the couple.

The couple tried to call for the cops and private security. Cops said no. Security didn't even answer.

They legitimately felt they were in danger. They didn't shoot at anyone. They stood by their house.

Facts.

And you keep ignoring it, so i'll ask here too.

How do you feel about those people causing vandalism, trespassing, and threatening bodily harm to others and not being charged?

@SOedipus: you only point it at people you love and care about:)

Lol, is why your gun crime is way ahead of any other developed country - if you can call the US "developed"?

That's pretty racist

american exceptionalism baby!

Imma have to look up this Karen business.

They were in the right 100%.

Basic, if cops do not respond to a someone breaking the law and you are being threatened and you cannot vacate the area. You own a gun. What should you do?

Pretty simple answer:

The people who did something wrong were: The police for not showing up. Private security for not responding. The peaceful protesters wrecking their gate, threatening them and their dog's life. The media lying about them. And the police again for stealing their weapons.

Maybe over a hundred people who should be in court facing charges.

But I don't know that the couple did anything wrong. Maybe they could have been more subtle about their gun ownership. To me, but I don't live in a country where people can carry, I find all the other things more serious problems.

What happens at a school when someone is bullied by 80 bullies? They get rid of the student being bullied. It's easy, but it ain't right.

The fact this situation exists in the first place is utterly bizarre. The USA is pure entertainment.

They weren't threatened when they were in their house where they should have stayed. Anyway they broke the law.

Thats not what I asked.

I would argue that trespassing is approaching threat territory and requires a response. If a bunch of people started walking through my yard, I'd go out and tell them to piss off, too.

And you can't exactly go "Hey kids, get off my lawn" to a giant, angry mob and spray them with a garden hose like you can with a couple of kids.

I feel they were in the right but, as I said earlier, they probably should have stayed inside to avoid the drama that is going on now.

Either way, no one died, no shots were fired. Textbook example of responsible gun ownership and defense. This is a nothing burger.

Nice trolling. 8 out of 10.

Then explain how they violated the St Louis law.

Fly Colt$

@LJS9502_basic: They didn’t.

They didn't. There is a type of "stand your ground" law there that pertains to protecting your property that allows them to do exactly what they did.

The shit they're getting slapped with is a publicity stunt and I don't think it will stick. I didn't even know they had "fourth degree" charges of anything lol. That's how not-serious this is.

They won't see jail, they won't be fined...they'll lose the court of public opinion because the big bad white gun nuts went against the trend.

It just cracks me up because if there was ever a time for liberals to appear reasonable and not like a bunch of rabid anti-gun fascists, this would be that time.

Just say "999 times out of 1000 guns are bad. This is the exception that proves the rule. These folks are OK".

If people were physically on their property I can't really see how this would hold up. I personally would not have escalated the situation and remained in doors. I can't say that what they did was illegal, but rather it was dumb and ill-advised.

You keep saying they didn't but the prosecutor cited the law.

Pardon the linkage, but this story made me chuckle.

https://www.ksdk.com/mobile/article/news/local/gardner-staffer-ordered-crime-lab-to-reassemble-patricia-mccloskeys-gun/63-be112149-d06c-4f54-a225-6545e74b5c2d

I guess that would explain the poor trigger control. All a show anyways for her.

Ya I saw that haha

And what is the defense saying? There's two sides to this.

Holy shitballs these folks are really going after them.

That is straight-up corrupt.

“It’s disheartening to learn that a law enforcement agency altered evidence in order to prosecute an innocent member of the community,” Schwartz said.

Boy, you said it Schwartz. Disheartening indeed.

God damn I am really starting to dislike liberals, and they make it really hard to be a moderate progressive. Seems like all they want to do is "getcha"...

@mrbojangles25: Brah, they're both shit lol. Saying this for years!

@mrbojangles25: That isn't the point. The prosecutor did cite the law.

@mrbojangles25: I feel the same way about conservatives. They make it impossible to tolerate them.

Well, another attorney on the list. Tampering with evidence. It seems like a clear cut case with or without tampering. She should step down while she still can. Revoke her ****ing license. Malicious prosecution, tampering with evidence, following illegal orders. The cops involved can get sued. Good riddance.

The 60 something prosecutors backing her up should be investigated and her previous cases re-examined. Maybe this is a bigger attempt at political hijacking of the court system. Wouldn't be that surprising considering her past transgressions. Their letter certainly made it sound that way. The list is public.

Maybe it IS time for a purge. Just not one by the far left or the far right. I don't know that there is another way to root out the corruption of court, media, and education in the USA.

both sides, really.

The far left is insufferable because they go after every little thing that fits their agenda in the name of "change", while the far right doesn't want to make any [positive] changes at all.

There is zero chance you get 12 jurors to agree to charge them with anything.

Jurors don't decide charges. The DA does. Jurors convict or acquit.

It seems like you are ignoring a lot of things for the purpose of throwing this couple under the bus. Several laws were broken prior to them drawing their weapons, to include the destruction of private property (front gate), trespassing, communicating a threat (threatening to kill them), and probably a few others I missed. But the DA, like yourself, appears to be determined to ignore the laws broken by the protestors and instead target the couple that was presumably afraid for their lives.

My biggest criticism of the couple is their complete lack of trigger discipline and poor muzzle awareness. Stuff like that is typical for someone without training, but it can also happen when trained people are scared (seen people forget their training while deployed when the bullets started flying on more than one occasion).

You say that they should have just retreated into their house. That could have possibly ended in several different ways:

The best-case scenario would involve the protestors moving on.

The second best-case scenario would have been the protestors vandalizing the outside of their home and moving on, costing them a few thousand in repair bills the city would probably be unwilling to pay and may or may not fall under insurance.

The second worst-case scenario would have been some protestors breaking in, getting shot with the rifle, and the rest fleeing. The shooting would have been legally justified, but the media will be sure to tell you he just wanted to murder a BLM protestor and that was his excuse, not the possibility the man was worried that they would beat him, possibly rape his wife, and kill them.

Worst case scenario would have involved the protestors breaking in, the couple not being able to shoot, and they end up getting beaten or even killed. I bet the worst-case scenario wouldn’t have gotten nearly as much media coverage as them defending themselves outside of a few right-wing media outlets using it to further discredit the BLM movement.

@mrbojangles25 gave you an out by saying this should be considered one of the rare cases where the gun owners are correct and you rejected it. Since you won’t listen to him just let me remind you that attitudes like the one you are presenting are what prevents right-leaning moderates from voting the way you want them to vote. If you’re telling me to vote for your preferred candidate because his values are closer to yours, then why would I, as a gun owner, vote for your preferred candidate after you are suggesting that his view of guns matches yours? Will I go to jail for defending myself if your preferred candidate gets into power?

If everything I typed above means nothing, then here’s an interesting question I would want you to answer: would you be saying the same thing if everything was the same, except instead of a crowd of BLM protestors it was a crowd of people wearing MAGA/KAG hats and Don’t Tread on Me shirts while holding Trump 2020 signs?

@ad1x2: Broken gate? Even Fox News says it wasn't...

But the video shows the protesters walking through the gate, which did not appear to be damaged at the time.

If it was destroyed, it was destroyed later on.

Edit: By standard right wing argument I now need to call all of your arguments on what happened a lie. At least not trustworthy as you have posted one lie. :P

Honestly,

I find the Far X to be the problem. The problem with extremists of any kind, is that more often than not, the people should serve the ideals rather than the ideals serving the people.

The goal should ALWAYS be the greatest ammount of well being for the most ammount of people, not equality or the preservation of tradition. I can learn from, and converse with conservatives, I cannot converse with the far left, who often believe in what they believe in for the sake of believing in it.

As a liberal, I want to come to a mutual understanding with the right, see eachothers viewpoints and compromise on the best solution. I dont want them to be trapped by an alt-right cult, and villifying them via cancel culture is a surefire way to do that.

I agree with all your points, but I focused on "compromise" because unfortunately that's a bad word for politicians apparently :(

There is no more diplomacy left in politics it seems like. The Cold War ended and now politicians fight eachother instead of the Soviets.

If the protestors didn't break the gate, then that is one less offense against them. That still wouldn't erase the threats, trespassing, and other violations the St. Louis DA is ignoring in favor of going after a couple that was presumably afraid for their lives.

@ad1x2: They broke the law of that municipality. Two wrongs don't make a right. And that has been my stance the entire time in this thread. Unlike you I don't ignore the law when I like a stance...........like you do for trump. If you don't like the law then work to have it changed.

@Maroxad: I can converse with the left, even the far left. The right on the other hand seems more interested in demeaning people than honest debate. I just don’t have any positive interactions with them.

They shouldn't have pointed.

Nonetheless, they were defending their property. Protesters shouldn't have been there. They knew what they were doing too. They want to provoke people and be violent.

Pointing is a big no-no, I totally agree. There is a huge difference between a defensive posture and a threatening one. Not to mention the whole accident likelihood (i.e. accidentally discharging) skyrockets when you start pointing guns at people with finger on the trigger versus holding guns pointing at the ground with finger off.

Functional or not, it was worrying to see that woman handle her gun so nonchalantly.