Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, July 01, 2020

Since Sunday night, videos of the standoff between the McCloskey's and protesters have gone viral and made national news. St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner said her office is investigating the incident and called the matter a First Amendment violation. "I am alarmed at the events that occurred over the weekend, where peaceful protestors were met by guns and a violent assault. 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," she said in a statement.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

But for the grace of God no one was harmed. That AR-15 could have [...] many protestors and those two armed idiots thought that their guns were magic enough to protect them while they stood out in the open.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2020-07-01 08:21 AM | Reply

hell no... not legal, city ordinances (as quoted
in several newspapers) said so. So why aren't they
under arrest. White Privilege. Period.

Had they been black or brown, there would have
been 15 cop cars there, guns drawn, pointed at the
black or brown 'offenders', and they would have been
Damned Lucky, not to have been shot to death.

Police Brutalities would have naturally followed.

If the state was wise, and most states are not,
they would charge/prosecute/and or fine them according
to that city ordinance.

As I said though, most states are not smart.
And all states still show White Privilege.

#2 | Posted by earthmuse at 2020-07-01 08:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

S.E. Cupp saying they look ridiculous? Excuse me but she looks ridiculous every time she is on the air. Not exactly a person I look to for wisdom or information. She is a ridiculous clown 24/7/365.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2020-07-01 08:41 AM | Reply

That AR-15 could have [...] many protestors and those two armed idiots thought that their guns were magic enough to protect them while they stood out in the open.
#1 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2020-07-01 08:21 AM | FLAG:

Tactical AF. At least only the wife had her finger on the trigger. A protester crowd charging an AR in the open? Don't see that either.

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-07-01 08:43 AM | Reply

This couple is now probably the most popular meme on the Internet. So. Many. Memes.

Hawaii shirts are out. Pink polos are in with the boog boys.

#5 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-07-01 08:44 AM | Reply

A protester crowd charging an AR in the open? Don't see that either.

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-07-01 08:43 AM | Reply

Fire is rarely superior to shock when caught out in the open. As for the protest crowd? Yes, the most likely response would be to scatter when the [...]. But the always possible alternative response based on adrenalin is anger and aggression.

The protestors should have left that private street alone. The 2nd Amendment idiots were just that, idiots.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2020-07-01 08:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What you don't hear in the MSM is the audio portion of this encounter. Burn it down, We [...] you cracker, and other epitaphs are heard. It is obvious that these two have no training what so ever. But they had the ability to defend themselves and their property, something the left would love to end. These "protesters" tore down a heavy iron gate to gain access to this property. Then hurled threats at the occupants and home owners. Let's see, forcible entry, threats made, and armed homeowners. If they had [...], they would be justified. Just as [...]. The law says they can, I believe they should have. Even a mindless mob will flee deadly force. Sometimes that is what it takes to restore order. I would have shot into the dirt, that is effective unless the subject is insane.

#7 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-07-01 10:00 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

These snowflakes should have stayed in the house while the scary black people would have walked on by.

#8 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-07-01 10:03 AM | Reply

I have to say, DOCNJO's post describes it pretty much exactly as the news I heard reported it. They didn't [...] anyone but they had a perfect right to protect themselves from an angry mob.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2020-07-01 10:04 AM | Reply

These "protesters" tore down a heavy iron gate to gain access to this property.

#7 | POSTED BY DOCNJO AT 2020-07-01 10:00 AM | FLAG:

It was open and they just walked through it. How the gate was destroyed sometime after that is unclear.

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-07-01 10:12 AM | Reply

10 | Posted by sitzkrieg According to who? The residents said it was locked because of the unrest in the area.

#11 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-07-01 10:36 AM | Reply

The residents posted on Twitter the video of the broken gate.

The protesters then replied with a video of the gate open, undamaged and walking right through it. If it was locked, it was not damaged in the process of unlocking it.

#12 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-07-01 10:42 AM | Reply

But they had the ability to defend themselves and their property, something the left would love to end.

LOL I'd be willing to bet that if ever there was a push to completely ban guns it would come from the GOP under a person like Trump.

Any claims of "the left" are just hollow, trite nonsense you've been fed for so long you actually believe it.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2020-07-01 10:53 AM | Reply

#9 | Posted by danni

I somewhat agree, but their treatment of the firearms was absolutely not safe.

Watch the muzzle! Keep it pointed in a safe direction at all times. - Fail

Be sure of the target and what is in front of it and beyond it. Know the identifying features of the game you hunt. Make sure you have an adequate backstop " [...]

#14 | Posted by horstngraben at 2020-07-01 10:56 AM | Reply

I would have shot into the dirt, that is effective unless the subject is insane.

#7 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-07-01

Here's my point: shooting into the dirt is just the thing to turn a volatile situation uncontrollable.

The protestors felt empowered by their numbers and the gun-nuts by the special magic of their guns.

By the grace of God no one got killed.

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2020-07-01 10:56 AM | Reply

Shoot into the dirt? Okay Joe Biden with your letting off warning shots.

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-07-01 10:58 AM | Reply

#13 | Posted by jpw, No, I read the literature and statements by the left; BLM, BAMN, Antifa, Democratic Socialist, Democrat Underground. I take what they are saying seriously. You could do so, but you will not. It might destroy you illusions.

#17 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-07-01 11:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

What the brain-dead commy news media and you ANTIFACT idiot children don't respect is the right to private ownership, these folks have the right to defend their property. You two year old Santa Claus snowflake children in 20 something bodies, someday soon the thuggery will come to take all that you have away and then you will scream for the police to help you. You poor melted idiot snowflakes. You would do yourself good by getting a fuooocking job instead on demanding free money from the working taxpayer. You froooking moooches, parasites, scumswilling worms.

#18 | Posted by 107News at 2020-07-01 11:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

What would I have done? A perceptible chance I would have gone out and spoken to the protestors. If truly frightened then that is indeed why we have police. If no police and in fact attacked in my home, of course I defend myself.

Seem like simple rules.

#19 | Posted by Zed at 2020-07-01 11:06 AM | Reply

You brain-dead people all don't grasp the concept of private property. You snowflakes were too busy learning how to be a profession victim in school. You kids will turn 40 soon, and won't have a pot to piss in, nor any freedom.

#20 | Posted by 107News at 2020-07-01 11:14 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Private property doesn't give anyone the right to waive a gun at people walking by.

#21 | Posted by Tor at 2020-07-01 11:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The charge would be assault with a deadly weapon.
Physical contact or injury or discharge of the weapon is not required.
You can assault someone, as the police in NY did, by using your automobile and "charging" someone.
People confuse the legal definition of assault with physical contact. Contact is battery.
When the police charge "assault and battery" it means assault AND battery.

#22 | Posted by YAV at 2020-07-01 11:22 AM | Reply

No, I read the literature and statements by the left; BLM, BAMN, Antifa, Democratic Socialist, Democrat Underground. I take what they are saying seriously. You could do so, but you will not. It might destroy you illusions.

#17 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

LOL none of those groups have the slightest chance of having enough political power to go after guns.

Wake up, dude.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2020-07-01 01:11 PM | Reply

"You brain-dead people all don't grasp the concept of private property. You snowflakes were too busy learning how to be a profession victim in school."

Yeah. That stupid school stuff. An education is so highly overrated, huh?

Except in school you might learn about the Law and that brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner is illegal in most places.

Don't pull your weapon unless you intend to use it.

Ever.

I thought even the NRA taught you that. It's basic gun safety.

-A Well Regulated Marine

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-07-01 01:28 PM | Reply

#23 | Posted by jpw "none of those groups have the slightest chance of having enough political power to go after guns". I said nothing about gun rights. I said I read and understand the objectives and views of the hard left. When I think of this while I am shopping, I buy more ammo for my stash. Why not wake yourself up. These people want to destroy this nation and rule with unlimited power. No free speech, no property rights, racial laws worse than Jim Crow, destroy the family unit, special taxes for particular racial groups, reparations for things that happened 160 years ago... I believe that they are serious, you ignore what they say publicly.

#25 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-07-01 01:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

I believe that they are serious, you ignore what they say publicly.

#25 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Everybody needs a purpose I guess.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2020-07-01 01:37 PM | Reply

I believe that they are serious, you ignore what they say publicly.

#25 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Isn't America wonderful?

We all get to believe what we want to believe.

I believe you are only hearing what is going on in your head and are not listening to what they are saying.

Like a good Trumptilian.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-07-01 01:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I have to say, DOCNJO's post describes it pretty much exactly as the news I heard reported it. They didn't [...] anyone but they had a perfect right to protect themselves from an angry mob.
#9 | POSTED BY DANNI

Doc and the news you heard is wrong. There was no forced entry as Doc claims. This was a lawful and peaceful protest. The people involved would have simply passed by the McCloskey's house without a word said to them just as they did with all of the other houses they passed on their way to protest at the Mayor's home had the McCloskey's not threatened them with deadly weapons and suppressed their civil rights. Even though Portland Place's road and sidewalks are privately maintained they are still public thoroughfares for pedestrian traffic. The McCloskey's had no right to attempt to restrict them from taking that route.

#28 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-07-01 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#28 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce Do tell what that "peaceful group" was shouting. Oh, you forgot that crap.

#29 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-07-01 03:04 PM | Reply

#28 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce Do tell what that "peaceful group" was shouting. Oh, you forgot that crap.
#29 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

They weren't shouting anything at the McCloskey's until they were threatened with violence. Do you believe you have the legal right to point guns at people who are legally traveling down your street/sidewalk?

#30 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-07-01 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do tell what that "peaceful group" was shouting. Oh, you forgot that crap.
#29 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Since when are you allowed to point a gun at someone, or a group of people, who are shouting in the streets?

Also, based on everything I saw, people were passing by the house in question.

This couple is about to get a lot of money and adulation from the Trumpubliklansmen of America.

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-01 03:26 PM | Reply

Illegally traveling, but trespassing is not sufficient grounds alone for that response to be legal. They had to had a fear for their which the guy with the AR has thoroughly articulates in interviews since. This guy won't make puritans on any side happy. He donates to Democrats and Republicans including Trump and has represented clients in instances for police brutality before.

It was the Mayor being protested for those not caught up, for what the protesters consider to be a doxxing protest leaders who issued demands to the city.

#32 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-07-01 03:27 PM | Reply

Illegally traveling, but trespassing is not sufficient grounds alone for that response to be legal.
#32 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

They were not "illegally traveling" or trespassing. The street/sidewalks in that neighborhood are open to pedestrian traffic. I've walked through their plenty of times myself. See my comment #89 here for explaination. drudge.com

#33 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-07-01 04:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Do tell what that "peaceful group" was shouting. Oh, you forgot that crap.
#29 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Was it "Blood and Soil" or "Jews Will Not Replace Us?"

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-01 04:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

These "protesters" tore down a heavy iron gate to gain access to this property.
#7 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Wow, they tore down a heavy iron gate!

If I keep drinking my soymilk, will I grow up big and strong too?

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-01 04:57 PM | Reply

Was it "Blood and Soil" or "Jews Will Not Replace Us?"

That's a rejoinder!

#36 | Posted by YAV at 2020-07-01 06:22 PM | Reply

St.Louis is a racist city from the ground up. Neighbourhoods are sectioned off from public streets. Parks have few entrances. Sidewalks stop and go all over.

Anyways, who would want to live next to this couple? They suck as people and neighbours. They should go live in the country if they want to live in fear of everyone.

#37 | Posted by Brennnn at 2020-07-01 06:40 PM | Reply

They had to had a fear for their which the guy with the AR has thoroughly articulates in interviews since.

This guy wasn't afraid. He's a POS.

He just knows the right things to say to keep himself safe, from a legal standpoint.

#38 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-01 07:06 PM | Reply

#38 | Posted by ClownShack

I'm pretty sure he soiled himself. No trigger discipline, obviously doesn't know how to handle a weapon. Shouldn't be allowed to own one. FlanYoo you weird 2nd amendment gun worshipers. Gun ownership should require at least back ground checks, and safety training. Don't like it? How about we do away with drivers licenses, and pilot licenses. Don't misquote the 2nd to me either you ridiculous nards.

#39 | Posted by billy_boy at 2020-07-01 07:31 PM | Reply

He was skeeerd

Yup. A real DR "alpha" male

What's the matter with you -----? You scared of some skinny liberals?

----' pansy's. Every damn one of you

#40 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2020-07-01 07:37 PM | Reply

#7 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

This fool thinks it's justified to commit a [...] against a group of people that tore down a gate.

Take a ---- and get some perspective.

#41 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-01 07:40 PM | Reply

The dude certainly wore the pansy wardrobe, all he was missing was his buy one get one free "Tactical Special OPs sunglasses, in super patriotic HD

Then he could have effectively
"Infiltrated their defenses"
And
"Be more aware of your surroundings"

You know, the glasses tools wear thinking they are bad ass

#42 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2020-07-01 07:41 PM | Reply

Missouri is an open carry state.

People can go just about anywhere with guns so long as they don't conceal them.

#43 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-07-01 08:30 PM | Reply

#43 - what's your point?

#44 | Posted by YAV at 2020-07-01 08:30 PM | Reply

"Missouri is an open carry state."

Open carry doesn't mean you can point it at someone.

Ask your wife for help, BillJohnson.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-01 08:33 PM | Reply

Is that what I implied mighty Swami?

#46 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-07-01 08:56 PM | Reply

#40 and 42

The McCloskey's are liberals, chief. This proves idiot leftists shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. Donnerboy is the exception to the rule as are the handful of other extreme leftwing Marines.

#47 | Posted by willowby at 2020-07-01 09:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Nice try, pillowbitey. The McCloskeys are full blown MAGAts.

Federal Election Commission records show Mark McCloskey has contributed thousands of dollars to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, the Republican National Committee and Donald J. Trump for President Inc. He also made contributions to a Republican congressional candidate, Bill Phelps, in 1996, and to the Bush-Quayle campaign in 1992.

heavy.com

#48 | Posted by Reinheitsgebot at 2020-07-01 09:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bot, there are also donations to (D)s:
www.opensecrets.org

#49 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-07-01 09:51 PM | Reply

#49

Looks like they were covering all bases.

#50 | Posted by willowby at 2020-07-01 09:56 PM | Reply

According to opensecrets, it appears that his largest individual dollar value contributions have been to (D) candidates and (D) party itself.
2004-$4000 & 2009-$2400

#51 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-07-01 09:57 PM | Reply

I don't get why someone would donate directly to a state's political party office versus an individual candidate they support - maybe it's a monied person/lawyer type of thing.

#52 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-07-01 09:58 PM | Reply

#48

Pillowbitey? Are you 12? At least you quit fantasizing about---------- 24/7

Look at #49. They're personal injury lawyers. They spread their money around. Sucking up to both sides. Reverse Lincoln project as far as their Trump contributions. Probably anybody but Hillary types.

#53 | Posted by willowby at 2020-07-01 10:03 PM | Reply

maybe it's a monied person/lawyer type of thing.

Maybe?!

#54 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-07-01 10:15 PM | Reply

"They're personal injury lawyers ambulance chasers."

Let's keep some perspective.

#55 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-07-01 10:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

53 | POSTED BY WILLOWBY

Says the ------- who voted for the bloated------------. The McCloskeys are MAGATs. Deal with it.

#56 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2020-07-01 11:11 PM | Reply

#56

I knew your perverted obsession would resurface. An incurable affliction.

#57 | Posted by willowby at 2020-07-01 11:29 PM | Reply

#55

I was going to go with land sharks, if I was going juvenile like most of the posters here.

#58 | Posted by willowby at 2020-07-01 11:33 PM | Reply

Willowby is here to ignore white people brandishing weapons.

That's just what Law and Order folks do.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-01 11:37 PM | Reply

"The McCloskey's are liberals, chief."

Then why weren't they out there marching with the other liberals, sport?

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-01 11:58 PM | Reply

#60

They were at home eating when the mob crashed the gate, skippy.

#61 | Posted by willowby at 2020-07-02 12:00 AM | Reply

So why'd the liberals feel threatened by the other liberals, champ?

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-02 12:02 AM | Reply

St louis original name was pain court. There are more ww2 vets alive than st.louis population of 300k. 70k of that are Bosnian transplants. Pink gun guy saved the mayors job for another day. St. Louis is a failed state.

#63 | Posted by visiter at 2020-07-02 12:10 AM | Reply

#62

Tell me, douche. I'm not a pants pissing liberal like you.

#64 | Posted by willowby at 2020-07-02 12:33 AM | Reply

LOL!!!
Who were the pants ------- exactly, the peaceful marchers or the terrified gun brandishers?

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-02 12:46 AM | Reply

It was definitely the leftist gun brandishers, not the trespassing mob.

#66 | Posted by willowby at 2020-07-02 02:15 AM | Reply

See my comment #89 here for explaination. drudge.com

#33 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE AT 2020-07-01 04:38 PM | FLAG:

That comment is an opinion on how all private communities work based on a street you briefly lived on as a child. Interesting, but, in the overwhelming majority of gated communities, they own the streets and there are not public throughfares for people to travel. There are at utility easements, accessed by utility workers. A meter reader has to be legally allowed in. Protesters do not. Being all private property the HOA lawfully restricts travel at the entrances via remote gates, keyed gates, and/or security guards. HOA dues are often 10x higher than non-gated communities.

#67 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-07-02 08:47 AM | Reply

These two toolbags have the worst muzzle discipline I have ever seen, and clearly haven't got the most basic understanding of weapon safety.

That said, I guarantee they will successfully argue that given the recent history of protests turning violent and incidents of looting, they were in immediate fear for their safety.

I'm not saying they are right, just saying that is what is going to happen.

#68 | Posted by ABH at 2020-07-02 09:08 AM | Reply

They shoudna brought the guns out. Instead they shouda asked for some moly cocktails to be "served" up.
Only then would the left and the huffmyshortsers be satisfied.

#69 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-07-02 10:18 AM | Reply

That comment is an opinion on how all private communities work based on a street you briefly lived on as a child. Interesting, but, in the overwhelming majority of gated communities, they own the streets and there are not public throughfares for people to travel. There are at utility easements, accessed by utility workers. A meter reader has to be legally allowed in. Protesters do not. Being all private property the HOA lawfully restricts travel at the entrances via remote gates, keyed gates, and/or security guards. HOA dues are often 10x higher than non-gated communities.

#67 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

My comment is based on a lifetime of experience living in St. Louis and frequently walking/running/biking through that very neighborhood and others like it. And I backed it up by a statement from a city attorney. This neighborhood isn't like most in the US. It's history goes back to the creation of Forest Park in the mid-late 19th century. Even the record on Portland-Westmoreland with the national register lists the neighborhood accessible to the public but with a restriction on vehicular travel.

#70 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-07-02 11:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Redial,

"They're personal injury lawyers ambulance chasers."

I used to think cute stuff like when I didn't know any better.

Some personal injury lawyers may indeed be parasites but by and large they serve an invaluable service to inexperienced usually suffering individuals or families.

In our 20's I saw my wife get struck by a car and tossed over 2 lanes.

Missed me by inches. I suspect he was driving too fast to get through a light. Took me and my wife a little longer to get across the road than we gauged I guess since she was pregnant and pretty close to giving birth. I can still hear the screeching of his brakes that went on and on.

His insurance company took advantage of our youth, inexperience and belief they could be trusted.

Left her handicapped.

I wish to God an ambulance chaser had chased us.

Don't be so cutesy tutesy with the ambulance chaser judging.

#71 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-07-02 12:55 PM | Reply

No comments please...nothing to be said.

But do drop the ambulance chasing BS.

#72 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-07-02 01:02 PM | Reply

"Some personal injury lawyers may indeed be parasites but by and large they serve an invaluable service to inexperienced usually suffering individuals or families."

Try looking at it this way:

The state failed your wife, by not simply addressing her needs directly, but instead punting their responsibility to predatory and adversarial lawyers.

If the state wasn't allowed to punt, we wouldn't need ambulance chasers in the first place.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-02 01:05 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

You expect me to believe "the state" would have done us better than a good lawyer?

People like you won't be happy until the government is in complete control of everything you have, are allowed to do and what to think and say.

No thank you.

I'm trying to polite to you or as you call it when people don't cuss and say please "moral high ground".

#75 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-07-02 01:51 PM | Reply

Hahaha!

My comment calling BillJohnson an ambulance chaser isn't there anymore.

IBillJohnson is offended he has been exposed as an ambulance chaser who makes his money of the misery and suffering of others.

Quick BillJohnson! Flag my post offensive!

Hide your shame!!

#76 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-02 04:23 PM | Reply

Private property doesn't give anyone the right to waive a gun at people walking by.
#21 | POSTED BY TOR AT 2020-07-01 11:21 AM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1: Would depend on the laws of that particular state as there is no 'universal' answer.

#77 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-07-02 05:21 PM | Reply

MSGt - Please list one state where it's OK to assault someone with a firearm.
Thank you.

#78 | Posted by YAV at 2020-07-02 06:09 PM | Reply

Look on Googlemaps. The gates and entrances are clearly marked "No trespassing" and "private road." I don't think i would point a weapon at anyone unless I was firing, but if i were in that couple's shoes and a group trespassed"probably forecibly"while raising hell, I would make a show of force too.

#79 | Posted by e1g1 at 2020-07-02 08:56 PM | Reply

I would make a show of force too.
#79 | POSTED BY E1G1

Why?

They weren't trespassing. Look up the definition if you need to, but a show of force against a group of people walking by is reasonable on what planet?

Or did this couple, and would you hypothetically, have a sense of guilt behind the wonder of why this group of people are walking down their (your) street?

IOW, what did they (you) do to expect violence to come upon your front lawn (that never actually materialized, but they [you] were so worried about)?

#80 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-02 09:14 PM | Reply

#70 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE

I've been following our comments about this matter and find you to be far more convincing.

And you're suggestions have been corroborated on other websites that I frequent.

The couple in question had no reasonable fear of their lives. If they had, they would not have exposed themselves (barefoot and all) beyond the walls of their refuge. The idea that they were attempting to protect their property is based on the hypothetical that the protesters exhibited violence, which the only evidence suggesting that happened involved a gate at the entrance to the community. Was the couple aware of the gate's destruction prior to walking out of the house? Sincere question, that would justify a modicum of fear. But even so, that justification is swiped away the minute they step foot outside of their confines pointing weapons at people. I'll explain more on this point in a minute...

No matter what right you have to 'protect your property,' your egregious actions must be justifiable based on a reasonable sense of fear. A comparison to the liquor store owners during the L.A. riots is an apt comparison here to illustrate how the situations are apples and oranges. Liquor store owners had seen the rash of looting and destruction leading up to their decision to take action. Stores around their businesses had already been looted and burned, reasonably justifying their sense of fear. This situation had no such context for the couple to consider. The only sense of danger they had came from what they were watching on TV that was taking place outside of their community. They made an immediate association, that was based on hyperbole, that influenced their reaction.

It's one thing to walk outside of your protective confines with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder (many anti-quarantine protesters proved this), just observing the group walking by. It's a totally different situation to hold your weapon at the ready, engaging in taunts with the crowd, and occasionally pointing the weapon at the people. That's not reasonable behavior as a reaction to reasonable fear.

I ask, please someone, convince me otherwise.

#81 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-02 09:29 PM | Reply

The videos so far shows others with their phones out. There is a lot more videos to secure. Be nice to have them all.

#82 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-07-02 09:43 PM | Reply

The video presented in the twitter feed of the right-wing and racist ------ steaming about the protesters shows the gate open, undamaged, and people going through it from the very start, while the couple comes out before they even enter the gate and stand on their front porch yelling at them.

You folks that are still hanging on to them being right look like you aren't looking at the evidence, or you're unable to comprehend what if there in plain sight because your have a predetermined conclusion you won't let anything conflict with.

#83 | Posted by YAV at 2020-07-02 10:00 PM | Reply

Look on Googlemaps. The gates and entrances are clearly marked "No trespassing" and "private road." I don't think i would point a weapon at anyone unless I was firing, but if i were in that couple's shoes and a group trespassed"probably forecibly"while raising hell, I would make a show of force too.

#79 | POSTED BY E1G1

Anytime can put up a sign but it doesn't mean it's true

St. Louis City attorney Eric Banks speaking to our local NPR station here in St Louis "you cannot control the comings and goings of citizens on your private street. I don't care if you have gates there. I don't care if you have off-duty police officers as security. It's just not possible. That is a myth that the private street residents frequently want to put forth."

#84 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-07-02 10:01 PM | Reply

*Anyone

#85 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-07-02 10:12 PM | Reply

Following up on Johnny's excellent post and specifically for E1G1:

Actually the sign says "private street" and "access limited to residents" which means it's a public easement that they're trying to control. They have no legal right to do so, however. twitter.com

twitter.com
Also, please note this is a right-wing feed by a real twit and a lot of the comments are by a bunch of people equating this to the horrors of what happened in South Africa, so if there is bias it would go against the protesters.

For me the protesters come out ahead in this confrontation and in the ridiculous allegations by the two doofuses with the guns.

#86 | Posted by YAV at 2020-07-02 10:29 PM | Reply

#86

You're right, they"re doofuses. With better muzzle discipline, I'd favor them.

#87 | Posted by willowby at 2020-07-02 10:42 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort