Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2020 22:00:21 GMT
Cause it's tiresome searching all over the board for the relevant Karen's. Good riddance.
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Jul 20, 2020 22:15:42 GMT
The woman looks like the stereotypical Karen. Even down to the crazy eyes.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 20, 2020 23:24:47 GMT
Oh, come on now. The only reason that crazy couple pulled guns on unarmed demonstrators was because Trump wasn't quick enough with his Gestapo brigade.
Better luck next time!
|
|
robth
Participant
Posts: 131
|
Post by robth on Jul 20, 2020 23:45:45 GMT
She had a toy gun, his wasn't loaded. The radical St. Louis chief prosecutor has said she will charge the couple. Anyway the governor has said if necessary he would pardon the couple because they did nothing illegal. The were protecting their home from and threatened no one.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 20, 2020 23:58:47 GMT
She had a toy gun, his wasn't loaded. The radical St. Louis chief prosecutor has said she will charge the couple. Anyway the governor has said if necessary he would pardon the couple because they did nothing illegal. The were protecting their home from and threatened no one.
A black couple doing the same would have been blown away by Trump's Gestapo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2020 15:40:03 GMT
When there's nothing new on TV we at least have Karens.....
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 23, 2020 10:01:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crepe05 on Jul 23, 2020 13:37:05 GMT
Oh for goodness sake. Give the facts about the St. Louis couple because you appear stupid and quite unknowledgeable. The rioters broke down the privacy fence to get onto the property. That's a big no-no, and really all you need to know to put the rioters on the wrong side of the law. The home is on private, not public, property. Another chargeable offence, as far as I know. The entire neighborhood (a very nice one) was behind the privacy fence, and the rioters said they were on their way to the Mayors home, which was over one half mile away and not a direct route from the rioters position and the couple's home.
These rioters wanted to start some trouble, and they have succeeded. Unfortunately for the rioters, they hopefully have succeeded in bringing attention to their own law-breaking and will have to acknowledge that by having charges brought against them.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 23, 2020 14:57:11 GMT
Oh for goodness sake. Give the facts about the St. Louis couple because you appear stupid and quite unknowledgeable. The rioters broke down the privacy fence to get onto the property. That's a big no-no, and really all you need to know to put the rioters on the wrong side of the law. The home is on private, not public, property. Another chargeable offence, as far as I know. The entire neighborhood (a very nice one) was behind the privacy fence, and the rioters said they were on their way to the Mayors home, which was over one half mile away and not a direct route from the rioters position and the couple's home. These rioters wanted to start some trouble, and they have succeeded. Unfortunately for the rioters, they hopefully have succeeded in bringing attention to their own law-breaking and will have to acknowledge that by having charges brought against them.
It was a small gated community. So the protestors broke down what was probably a flimsy "privacy fence". OMG!!! Did they hurt anybody? Did they steal anything? Other than the flimsy "fuck you" fence, did they cause any damage.
Plus, it's the Karen couple that is going to be charged, FFS.
Too much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2020 12:43:09 GMT
Oh for goodness sake. Give the facts about the St. Louis couple because you appear stupid and quite unknowledgeable. The rioters broke down the privacy fence to get onto the property. That's a big no-no, and really all you need to know to put the rioters on the wrong side of the law. The home is on private, not public, property. Another chargeable offence, as far as I know. The entire neighborhood (a very nice one) was behind the privacy fence, and the rioters said they were on their way to the Mayors home, which was over one half mile away and not a direct route from the rioters position and the couple's home. These rioters wanted to start some trouble, and they have succeeded. Unfortunately for the rioters, they hopefully have succeeded in bringing attention to their own law-breaking and will have to acknowledge that by having charges brought against them.
It was a small gated community. So the protestors broke down what was probably a flimsy "privacy fence". OMG!!! Did they hurt anybody? Did they steal anything? Other than the flimsy "fuck you" fence, did they cause any damage.
Plus, it's the Karen couple that is going to be charged, FFS.
Too much.
Yes, let us dismiss it all as being the fault of a flimsy privacy fence and not acknowledge the purpose of that gate no matter its' structure. Do you consider a fence on your property a fuck you symbol or is it there for a purpose? What about your front door? So too should we overlook the fact that they were on private property which the owners had every right to defend? Likewise, did the owners hurt anyone? Steal from them? Cause damage? Charged by a rogue prosecutor for obeying the law and excercising their rights. But beyond that, the governor already said he will pardon them and rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by crepe05 on Jul 25, 2020 14:28:14 GMT
Well said, Nelson. Perhaps next time they should electrify the fence, like some home owners do. That could at least slow down the destructors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2020 14:43:59 GMT
Because breaking a gate is a reasonable justification for using deadly force.
|
|
|
Post by crepe05 on Jul 25, 2020 14:58:53 GMT
Actually, breaking a privacy fence or gate and entering private property where you are not invited can be considered a threatening act, as far as I'm concerned. What was the purpose of breaking onto someone's property. What were you planning on doing and why did you want to do it? Home owners have a right to only have people whom they have invited to be on their property. It's not public property. Do you know the difference?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2020 15:03:22 GMT
Because breaking a gate is a reasonable justification for using deadly force. What deadly force did they use? Displaying a weapon they legally owned? But again what deadly force did they use? I suppose I'm free to walk all over your property as long as I don't display any deadly force. Here's a better question for you. What justification do they have for breaking that gate which doesn't belong to them? Why would they need to and why would they also have a need to be on someone else's property?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2020 15:38:42 GMT
Actually, breaking a privacy fence or gate and entering private property where you are not invited can be considered a threatening act, as far as I'm concerned. What was the purpose of breaking onto someone's property. What were you planning on doing and why did you want to do it? Home owners have a right to only have people whom they have invited to be on their property. It's not public property. Do you know the difference? The issue is that those opposing the homeowners know that the owners are right so instead of admitting it; they create arguments that have nothing to do with it. Notice that they refuse to acknowledge what you pointed out. So far we have heard justifications from the fence was flmsy to the homeowners displaying deadly force. They were protecting themselves from a perceived threat on THEIR property by people who did not belong there. Also a misguided prosecutor brings charges which still doesn't prove they are wrong. Let's see if they get convicted. "Under Missouri's Castle Doctrine, "a person has the right, has the absolute unmitigated right to protect his or her castle or family while on their property," Watkins said. "And in this particular fact situation, you have individuals who are acting on private property, trespassing as lawbreakers onto private property, damaging and destroying private property and acting in a threatening and hostile fashion, such as to give rise to what any human being would consider to be placing them in a position of abject horror and certainly in a position of feeling in fear of imminent harm." www.foxnews.com/us/st-louis-gun-couple-investigated-clash-protesters
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Jul 25, 2020 16:27:45 GMT
Oh for goodness sake. Give the facts about the St. Louis couple because you appear stupid and quite unknowledgeable. The rioters broke down the privacy fence to get onto the property. That's a big no-no, and really all you need to know to put the rioters on the wrong side of the law. The home is on private, not public, property. Another chargeable offence, as far as I know. The entire neighborhood (a very nice one) was behind the privacy fence, and the rioters said they were on their way to the Mayors home, which was over one half mile away and not a direct route from the rioters position and the couple's home. These rioters wanted to start some trouble, and they have succeeded. Unfortunately for the rioters, they hopefully have succeeded in bringing attention to their own law-breaking and will have to acknowledge that by having charges brought against them.
It was a small gated community. So the protestors broke down what was probably a flimsy "privacy fence". OMG!!! Did they hurt anybody? Did they steal anything? Other than the flimsy "fuck you" fence, did they cause any damage.
Plus, it's the Karen couple that is going to be charged, FFS.
Too much.
The protesters broke into private property. That couple had the right to confront them with fire arms.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,482
|
Post by thor on Jul 25, 2020 17:41:11 GMT
The woman looks like the stereotypical Karen. Even down to the crazy eyes.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 25, 2020 17:46:50 GMT
Actually, breaking a privacy fence or gate and entering private property where you are not invited can be considered a threatening act, as far as I'm concerned. What was the purpose of breaking onto someone's property. What were you planning on doing and why did you want to do it? Home owners have a right to only have people whom they have invited to be on their property. It's not public property. Do you know the difference? The issue is that those opposing the homeowners know that the owners are right so instead of admitting it; they create arguments that have nothing to do with it. Notice that they refuse to acknowledge what you pointed out. So far we have heard justifications from the fence was flmsy to the homeowners displaying deadly force. They were protecting themselves from a perceived threat on THEIR property by people who did not belong there. Also a misguided prosecutor brings charges which still doesn't prove they are wrong. Let's see if they get convicted. "Under Missouri's Castle Doctrine, "a person has the right, has the absolute unmitigated right to protect his or her castle or family while on their property," Watkins said. "And in this particular fact situation, you have individuals who are acting on private property, trespassing as lawbreakers onto private property, damaging and destroying private property and acting in a threatening and hostile fashion, such as to give rise to what any human being would consider to be placing them in a position of abject horror and certainly in a position of feeling in fear of imminent harm." www.foxnews.com/us/st-louis-gun-couple-investigated-clash-protesters
Technically the area the protesters were in wasn't the property of the gun wielding homeowners. It was shared community property.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2020 18:58:27 GMT
The issue is that those opposing the homeowners know that the owners are right so instead of admitting it; they create arguments that have nothing to do with it. Notice that they refuse to acknowledge what you pointed out. So far we have heard justifications from the fence was flmsy to the homeowners displaying deadly force. They were protecting themselves from a perceived threat on THEIR property by people who did not belong there. Also a misguided prosecutor brings charges which still doesn't prove they are wrong. Let's see if they get convicted. "Under Missouri's Castle Doctrine, "a person has the right, has the absolute unmitigated right to protect his or her castle or family while on their property," Watkins said. "And in this particular fact situation, you have individuals who are acting on private property, trespassing as lawbreakers onto private property, damaging and destroying private property and acting in a threatening and hostile fashion, such as to give rise to what any human being would consider to be placing them in a position of abject horror and certainly in a position of feeling in fear of imminent harm." www.foxnews.com/us/st-louis-gun-couple-investigated-clash-protesters
Technically the area the protesters were in wasn't the property of the gun wielding homeowners. It was shared community property.
Technically speaking of course, they were still trespassing on private property. It also changes nothing as far as their right to bear arms when feeling threatened on their own private property. The Missouri AG also wants the charges dropped and the Governor as I stated will pardon them if ever convicted. news.yahoo.com/missouri-g-seek-dismissal-charges-141327581.htmlnews.yahoo.com/st-louis-couple-charged-pointing-220300399.htmlwww.curbed.com/2020/6/29/21306868/st-louis-gun-couple-protest-street
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 25, 2020 21:11:14 GMT
If you want to fence off the world, then move to a mountain top or deserted island.
|
|