Discussion:
Police seize rifle of St. Louis couple filmed waving guns at BLM protesters
Add Reply
Mighty Wannabe <@😎.🌌🌻🌹🌷🌺🌞>
2020-07-11 11:33:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out
of their house.

Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.

They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their
premises at protesters passing by their house.


*Police seize rifle of St. Louis couple filmed waving guns at BLM protesters

*July 11, 2020

St. Louis police officers reportedly seized a rifle from the
husband-and-wife lawyers filmed waving firearms
<https://nypost.com/2020/06/29/st-louis-couple-draw-firearms-on-protesters-outside-their-home/>
at Black Lives Matter protesters last month.

The officers served a warrant on Mark and Patricia McCloskey on Friday
night, taking the rifle the husband was pictured aiming, the local NBC
affiliate reported
<https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/mccloskeys-served-with-warrant-police-take-rifle-shown-in-viral-pictures-st-louis-protests/63-c6059a94-528c-4fa5-8fea-4a87fba31f1c>.

The officers were told by the couple that their attorney had the second
gun, the pistol brandished by the wife, the report said.

The couple were filmed as they emerged barefoot from their lavish
mansion in the Central West End neighborhood, each toting a firearm as
protesters marched down their private street toward the home of Mayor
Lyda Krewson.

Mark stood with the rifle on their Renaissance-style porch as Patricia
aimed the gun at the passersby with her finger on the trigger
<https://nypost.com/2020/06/29/safety-experts-blast-gun-toting-st-louis-couple/>.

The two have defended their actions by saying they felt their lives were
at risk.

“We were threatened with our lives, threatened with a house being burned
down, my office building being burned down, even our dog’s life being
threatened, Mark McCloskey told the station, KDSK.

“It was about as bad as it can get,” he added.


Mark and Patricia McCloskey, standing in front their house along
Portland Place confront protesters marching to St. Louis Mayor Lyda
Krewson's house in the Central West End of St. Louis.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey, standing in front their house along
Portland Place confront protesters marching to St. Louis Mayor Lyda
Krewson's house in the Central West End of St. Louis.
John Doe
2020-07-11 12:19:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Chronic nym-shifting deranged troll...
--
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.alt.net!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.survival,misc.survivalism,alt.politics,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.trump,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,seattle.politics,alt.california,rec.crafts.metalworking
X-Mozilla-News-Host: snews://news.newsdemon.com:563
Subject: Police seize rifle of St. Louis couple filmed waving guns at BLM protesters
Organization: Prometheus Society
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7F33105B503AF027550C9C90"
Lines: 183
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 11:33:05 UTC
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 07:33:05 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 8132
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4050321988
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:2475183 alt.survival:336385 misc.survivalism:612223 alt.politics:2104407 alt.politics.republicans:451442 alt.politics.trump:111121 alt.society.liberalism:700180 talk.politics.guns:1346493 talk.politics.misc:1137629 or.politics:405841 seattle.politics:179253 alt.california:386223 rec.crafts.metalworking:528894
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out
of their house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their
premises at protesters passing by their house.
*Police seize rifle of St. Louis couple filmed waving guns at BLM protesters
*July 11, 2020
St. Louis police officers reportedly seized a rifle from the
husband-and-wife lawyers filmed waving firearms
<https://nypost.com/2020/06/29/st-louis-couple-draw-firearms-on-protesters-outside-their-home/>
at Black Lives Matter protesters last month.
The officers served a warrant on Mark and Patricia McCloskey on Friday
night, taking the rifle the husband was pictured aiming, the local NBC
affiliate reported
<https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/mccloskeys-served-with-warrant-police-take-rifle-shown-in-viral-pictures-st-louis-protests/63-c6059a94-528c-4fa5-8fea-4a87fba31f1c>.
The officers were told by the couple that their attorney had the second
gun, the pistol brandished by the wife, the report said.
The couple were filmed as they emerged barefoot from their lavish
mansion in the Central West End neighborhood, each toting a firearm as
protesters marched down their private street toward the home of Mayor
Lyda Krewson.
Mark stood with the rifle on their Renaissance-style porch as Patricia
aimed the gun at the passersby with her finger on the trigger
<https://nypost.com/2020/06/29/safety-experts-blast-gun-toting-st-louis-couple/>.
The two have defended their actions by saying they felt their lives were
at risk.
"We were threatened with our lives, threatened with a house being burned
down, my office building being burned down, even our dog's life being
threatened, Mark McCloskey told the station, KDSK.
"It was about as bad as it can get," he added.
Mark and Patricia McCloskey, standing in front their house along
Portland Place confront protesters marching to St. Louis Mayor Lyda
Krewson's house in the Central West End of St. Louis.
Mark and Patricia McCloskey, standing in front their house along
Portland Place confront protesters marching to St. Louis Mayor Lyda
Krewson's house in the Central West End of St. Louis.
--------------7F33105B503AF027550C9C90
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1">The are supposed to be lawyers by profession,
operating a law firm out of their house. <br>
<br>
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.<br>
<br>
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their
premises at protesters passing by their house.<br>
</font><br>
<br>
<b><font size="+1"><font size="+2">Police seize rifle of St. Louis
couple filmed waving guns at BLM protesters</font><br>
<br>
</font></b>July 11, 2020<br>
<br>
<div class="entry-content entry-content-read-more">
<p>St. Louis police officers reportedly seized a rifle from the
husband-and-wife lawyers <a target="_blank"
href="https://nypost.com/2020/06/29/st-louis-couple-draw-firearms-on-protesters-outside-their-home/"
rel="noopener noreferrer">filmed waving firearms</a> at Black
Lives Matter protesters last month.</p>
<p>The officers served a warrant on Mark and Patricia McCloskey on
Friday night, taking the rifle the husband was pictured aiming,
<a
href="https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/mccloskeys-served-with-warrant-police-take-rifle-shown-in-viral-pictures-st-louis-protests/63-c6059a94-528c-4fa5-8fea-4a87fba31f1c"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the local NBC
affiliate reported</a>.</p>
<p>The officers were told by the couple that their attorney had
the second gun, the pistol brandished by the wife, the report
said.</p>
<p>The couple were filmed as they emerged barefoot from their
lavish mansion in the Central West End neighborhood, each toting
a firearm as protesters marched down their private street toward
the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson.</p>
<p>Mark stood with the rifle on their Renaissance-style porch as
Patricia aimed the gun at the passersby with her <a
href="https://nypost.com/2020/06/29/safety-experts-blast-gun-toting-st-louis-couple/"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">finger on the
trigger</a>.</p>
<p>The two have defended their actions by saying they felt their
lives were at risk.</p>
<p>"We were threatened with our lives, threatened with a house
being burned down, my office building being burned down, even
our dog's life being threatened, Mark McCloskey told the
station, KDSK.</p>
<p>"It was about as bad as it can get," he added.</p>
</div>
<br>
<img
srcset="Loading Image...
300w,
Loading Image...
618w,
Loading Image...
600w,
Loading Image...
1236w" sizes="(max-width: 639px) 100vw, 618px"
id="standard-article-image" alt="Mark and Patricia McCloskey,
standing in front their house along Portland Place confront
protesters marching to St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson's house in the
Central West End of St. Louis."
src="Loading Image...
moz-do-not-send="true" width="618" height="410"><br>
<br>
<span>Mark and Patricia McCloskey, standing in front their house
along Portland Place confront protesters marching to St. Louis
Mayor Lyda Krewson's house in the Central West End of St. Louis.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------7F33105B503AF027550C9C90--
Intelligent Party
2020-07-14 00:15:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt stupid lawyers who
belong in jail.
*Police seize rifle of St. Louis couple filmed waving guns at BLM protesters
*July 11, 2020
St. Louis police officers reportedly seized a rifle from the husband-and-wife
lawyers filmed waving firearms
<https://nypost.com/2020/06/29/st-louis-couple-draw-firearms-on-protesters-outside-their-home/>
at Black Lives Matter protesters last month.
The officers served a warrant on Mark and Patricia McCloskey on Friday night,
taking the rifle the husband was pictured aiming, the local NBC affiliate reported
<https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/mccloskeys-served-with-warrant-police-take-rifle-shown-in-viral-pictures-st-louis-protests/63-c6059a94-528c-4fa5-8fea-4a87fba31f1c>.
The officers were told by the couple that their attorney had the second gun, the
pistol brandished by the wife, the report said.
The couple were filmed as they emerged barefoot from their lavish mansion in the
Central West End neighborhood, each toting a firearm as protesters marched down
their private street toward the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson.
Mark stood with the rifle on their Renaissance-style porch as Patricia aimed the
gun at the passersby with her finger on the trigger
<https://nypost.com/2020/06/29/safety-experts-blast-gun-toting-st-louis-couple/>.
The two have defended their actions by saying they felt their lives were at risk.
“We were threatened with our lives, threatened with a house being burned down, my
office building being burned down, even our dog’s life being threatened, Mark
McCloskey told the station, KDSK.
“It was about as bad as it can get,” he added.
Mark and Patricia McCloskey, standing in front their house along Portland Place
confront protesters marching to St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson's house in the
Central West End of St. Louis.
Mark and Patricia McCloskey, standing in front their house along Portland Place
confront protesters marching to St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson's house in the
Central West End of St. Louis.
𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
2020-07-14 00:55:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt stupid
lawyers who belong in jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking asshole must
be a Trump voter.

https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html

571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he
or she knowingly: *

(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon
readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
Intelligent Party
2020-07-14 01:18:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt stupid lawyers who
belong in jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking asshole must be a Trump
voter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she
knowingly: *
(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
So shaking your fist at someone...
𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
2020-07-14 01:59:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Intelligent Party
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt stupid lawyers who
belong in jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking asshole must be a Trump
voter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she
knowingly: *
(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
So shaking your fist at someone...
Read above: "*any weapon readily capable of lethal use*"

A fist doesn't not fall into that category, but a gun does.
Intelligent Party
2020-07-14 01:20:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt stupid lawyers who
belong in jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking asshole must be a Trump
voter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she
knowingly: *
(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
So shaking your fist at someone...
𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
2020-07-14 02:00:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Intelligent Party
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt stupid lawyers who
belong in jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking asshole must be a Trump
voter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she
knowingly: *
(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
So shaking your fist at someone...
Read above: "*any weapon readily capable of lethal use*"

A fist doesn't not fall into that category, but a gun does.
max headroom
2020-07-14 06:44:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at protesters
passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt stupid lawyers who belong in jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking asshole must be a Trump voter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly: *
(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
So shaking your fist at someone...
Read above: "*any weapon readily capable of lethal use*"
A fist doesn't not fall into that category, but a gun does.
https://queenseagle.com/all/sunnyside-man-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-case

https://www.wklaw.com/in-california-one-punch-can-result-in-a-second-degree-murder-conviction/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/he-threw-a-punch-that-killed-a-fellow-student-now-his-guilty-conviction-could-disappear/2016/10/27/4300df0a-9a37-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html

https://www.theledger.com/news/20200316/lakeland-man-convicted-of-manslaughter-for-fatal-punch-faces-15-years

https://licpost.com/college-basketball-coach-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-near-lic-hotel

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-punch-death-bar-sentencing-20200109-gd5ko6wysjgnzc6ubmtjwmm4fm-story.html

https://www.ktnv.com/news/man-convicted-in-single-punch-killing-says-hes-a-changed-man-asks-for-parole
Mighty Wannabe ¸
2020-07-14 09:53:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at protesters
passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt stupid lawyers who belong in jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking asshole must be a Trump voter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly: *
(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
So shaking your fist at someone...
Read above: "*any weapon readily capable of lethal use*"
A fist doesn't not fall into that category, but a gun does.
https://queenseagle.com/all/sunnyside-man-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-case
https://www.wklaw.com/in-california-one-punch-can-result-in-a-second-degree-murder-conviction/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/he-threw-a-punch-that-killed-a-fellow-student-now-his-guilty-conviction-could-disappear/2016/10/27/4300df0a-9a37-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html
https://www.theledger.com/news/20200316/lakeland-man-convicted-of-manslaughter-for-fatal-punch-faces-15-years
https://licpost.com/college-basketball-coach-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-near-lic-hotel
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-punch-death-bar-sentencing-20200109-gd5ko6wysjgnzc6ubmtjwmm4fm-story.html
https://www.ktnv.com/news/man-convicted-in-single-punch-killing-says-hes-a-changed-man-asks-for-parole
Read your own articles. Punching someone is "assault", not "assault with
a weapon".

"Shaking a fist at someone" is "harassment".

https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2013/title-xxxviii/chapter-565/section-565.090/

*Harassment. *

565.090. 1. A person commits the crime of harassment if he or she:

(1) Knowingly communicates a threat to commit any felony to another
person and in so doing frightens, intimidates, or causes emotional
distress to such other person; or


https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html

2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — *

Unlawful use of weapons*

571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he
or she knowingly:

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily
capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;
max headroom
2020-07-14 14:44:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
Post by max headroom
Post by 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at protesters
passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt stupid lawyers who belong in jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking asshole must be a Trump voter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly: *
(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
So shaking your fist at someone...
Read above: "*any weapon readily capable of lethal use*"
A fist doesn't not fall into that category, but a gun does.
https://queenseagle.com/all/sunnyside-man-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-case
https://www.wklaw.com/in-california-one-punch-can-result-in-a-second-degree-murder-conviction/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/he-threw-a-punch-that-killed-a-fellow-student-now-his-guilty-conviction-could-disappear/2016/10/27/4300df0a-9a37-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html
https://www.theledger.com/news/20200316/lakeland-man-convicted-of-manslaughter-for-fatal-punch-faces-15-years
https://licpost.com/college-basketball-coach-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-near-lic-hotel
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-punch-death-bar-sentencing-20200109-gd5ko6wysjgnzc6ubmtjwmm4fm-story.html
https://www.ktnv.com/news/man-convicted-in-single-punch-killing-says-hes-a-changed-man-asks-for-parole
Read your own articles. Punching someone is "assault", not "assault with
a weapon".
Your claim that a fist is not a "weapon readily capable of lethal use" is bogus.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
"Shaking a fist at someone" is "harassment".
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2013/title-xxxviii/chapter-565/section-565.090/
*Harassment. *
(1) Knowingly communicates a threat to commit any felony to another
person and in so doing frightens, intimidates, or causes emotional
distress to such other person; or
A whisper can qualify.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. - *
Unlawful use of weapons*
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily
capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;
"5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall
not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031, RSMo."
Mighty Wannabe ․
2020-07-14 19:50:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
Post by max headroom
Post by 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at protesters
passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt stupid lawyers who belong in jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking asshole must be a Trump voter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly: *
(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
So shaking your fist at someone...
Read above: "*any weapon readily capable of lethal use*"
A fist doesn't not fall into that category, but a gun does.
https://queenseagle.com/all/sunnyside-man-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-case
https://www.wklaw.com/in-california-one-punch-can-result-in-a-second-degree-murder-conviction/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/he-threw-a-punch-that-killed-a-fellow-student-now-his-guilty-conviction-could-disappear/2016/10/27/4300df0a-9a37-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html
https://www.theledger.com/news/20200316/lakeland-man-convicted-of-manslaughter-for-fatal-punch-faces-15-years
https://licpost.com/college-basketball-coach-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-near-lic-hotel
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-punch-death-bar-sentencing-20200109-gd5ko6wysjgnzc6ubmtjwmm4fm-story.html
https://www.ktnv.com/news/man-convicted-in-single-punch-killing-says-hes-a-changed-man-asks-for-parole
Read your own articles. Punching someone is "assault", not "assault with
a weapon".
Your claim that a fist is not a "weapon readily capable of lethal use" is bogus.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
"Shaking a fist at someone" is "harassment".
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2013/title-xxxviii/chapter-565/section-565.090/
*Harassment. *
(1) Knowingly communicates a threat to commit any felony to another
person and in so doing frightens, intimidates, or causes emotional
distress to such other person; or
A whisper can qualify.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. - *
Unlawful use of weapons*
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily
capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;
"5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall
not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031, RSMo."
You have repeated demonstrated yourself to be a lowbrow Trump voter. It
is practically a waste of time to try to teach you anything.

You apparent did not read or did not understand section 563.031.

See part 1 and part 2 that I have highlighted in red and in bold for you:

https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5630000031.html


2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 563.031. — Use of force in defense
of persons.

563.031.

*1. 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 reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or a
third person from what he 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
use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided *

*(a) He has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated
such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in
continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or *

*(b) He is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor
pursuant to section 563.046; or *

*(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this
chapter or other provision of law; *

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be,
the person whom he seeks to protect would not be justified in using such
protective force.

*2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the
circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless he
reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect
himself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy
or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or
arson. *

3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of
physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all
reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is
reasonable to do so.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of
justification under this section.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180)
Just Wondering
2020-07-14 22:26:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mighty Wannabe ․
Post by max headroom
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
Post by max headroom
Post by 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at protesters
passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt stupid lawyers who belong in jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking asshole must be a Trump voter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly: *
(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
So shaking your fist at someone...
Read above: "*any weapon readily capable of lethal use*"
A fist doesn't not fall into that category, but a gun does.
https://queenseagle.com/all/sunnyside-man-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-case
https://www.wklaw.com/in-california-one-punch-can-result-in-a-second-degree-murder-conviction/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/he-threw-a-punch-that-killed-a-fellow-student-now-his-guilty-conviction-could-disappear/2016/10/27/4300df0a-9a37-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html
https://www.theledger.com/news/20200316/lakeland-man-convicted-of-manslaughter-for-fatal-punch-faces-15-years
https://licpost.com/college-basketball-coach-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-near-lic-hotel
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-punch-death-bar-sentencing-20200109-gd5ko6wysjgnzc6ubmtjwmm4fm-story.html
https://www.ktnv.com/news/man-convicted-in-single-punch-killing-says-hes-a-changed-man-asks-for-parole
Read your own articles. Punching someone is "assault", not "assault with
a weapon".
Your claim that a fist is not a "weapon readily capable of lethal use" is bogus.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
"Shaking a fist at someone" is "harassment".
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2013/title-xxxviii/chapter-565/section-565.090/
*Harassment. *
(1) Knowingly communicates a threat to commit any felony to another
person and in so doing frightens, intimidates, or causes emotional
distress to such other person; or
A whisper can qualify.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. - *
Unlawful use of weapons*
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily
capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;
"5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall
not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031, RSMo."
You have repeated demonstrated yourself to be a lowbrow Trump voter. It
is practically a waste of time to try to teach you anything.
You apparent did not read or did not understand section 563.031.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5630000031.html
2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 563.031. — Use of force in defense
of persons.
563.031.
*1. 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 reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or a
third person from what he 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
use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided *
*(a) He has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated
such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in
continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or *
*(b) He is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor
pursuant to section 563.046; or *
*(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this
chapter or other provision of law; *
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be,
the person whom he seeks to protect would not be justified in using such
protective force.
*2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the
circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless he
reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect
himself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy
or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or
arson. *
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of
physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all
reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is
reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of
justification under this section.
Wrong code section. The St. Louis couple did not actually use
physical force upon anyone.
Mighty Wannabe ®†ÒÜ•'ü¾¯ñ
2020-07-14 22:59:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Mighty Wannabe ․
Post by max headroom
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
Post by max headroom
Post by 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
Post by Intelligent Party
Post by 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
Post by Intelligent Party
Post by Mighty Wannabe <@😎.🌌🌻🌹🌷🌺🌞>
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law
firm out of their house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of
their premises at protesters
passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt
stupid lawyers who belong in jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking
asshole must be a Trump voter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of
weapons if he or she knowingly: *
(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any
weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
So shaking your fist at someone...
Read above: "*any weapon readily capable of lethal use*"
A fist doesn't not fall into that category, but a gun does.
https://queenseagle.com/all/sunnyside-man-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-case
https://www.wklaw.com/in-california-one-punch-can-result-in-a-second-degree-murder-conviction/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/he-threw-a-punch-that-killed-a-fellow-student-now-his-guilty-conviction-could-disappear/2016/10/27/4300df0a-9a37-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html
https://www.theledger.com/news/20200316/lakeland-man-convicted-of-manslaughter-for-fatal-punch-faces-15-years
https://licpost.com/college-basketball-coach-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-near-lic-hotel
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-punch-death-bar-sentencing-20200109-gd5ko6wysjgnzc6ubmtjwmm4fm-story.html
https://www.ktnv.com/news/man-convicted-in-single-punch-killing-says-hes-a-changed-man-asks-for-parole
Read your own articles. Punching someone is "assault", not "assault with
a weapon".
Your claim that a fist is not a "weapon readily capable of lethal use" is bogus.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
"Shaking a fist at someone" is "harassment".
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2013/title-xxxviii/chapter-565/section-565.090/
*Harassment. *
(1) Knowingly communicates a threat to commit any felony to another
person and in so doing frightens, intimidates, or causes emotional
distress to such other person; or
A whisper can qualify.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. - *
Unlawful use of weapons*
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily
capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;
"5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of
subsection 1 of this section shall
not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense
pursuant to section 563.031, RSMo."
You have repeated demonstrated yourself to be a lowbrow Trump voter.
It is practically a waste of time to try to teach you anything.
You apparent did not read or did not understand section 563.031.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5630000031.html
2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 563.031. — Use of force in defense
of persons.
563.031.
*1. 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 reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend
himself or a third person from what he 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 use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided *
*(a) He has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated
such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in
continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or *
*(b) He is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor
pursuant to section 563.046; or *
*(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this
chapter or other provision of law; *
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to
be, the person whom he seeks to protect would not be justified in
using such protective force.
*2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the
circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless he
reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect
himself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape,
sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery,
burglary or arson. *
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of
physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes
all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is
reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of
justification under this section.
Wrong code section. The St. Louis couple did not actually use
physical force upon anyone.
It is common sense that the couple had acted illegally. You have now
proven to us that you have been talking out of your ass in this gun
group, because the legality of when you can legally point your gun to
threaten to shoot someone should have been taught in formal gun training
classes.

Read carefully. The couple was threatening physical force by brandishing
firearms and threatening to shoot. Their act would have been legal only
if the couple had satisfied what's stipulated in that statute:


*(1) The actor (the couple) was the initial aggressor; except that in
such case his use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided **
****
**(a) He (the couple) has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively
communicated such withdrawal to such other person (the protestors) but
the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened
use of unlawful force; or **
*
Just Wondering
2020-07-15 02:42:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mighty Wannabe ®†ÒÜ•'ü¾¯ñ
Post by Mighty Wannabe ․
Post by max headroom
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
Post by max headroom
Post by 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
Post by Intelligent Party
Post by 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
Post by Intelligent Party
Post by Mighty Wannabe <@😎.🌌🌻🌹🌷🌺🌞>
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law
firm out of their house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of
their premises at protesters
passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt
stupid lawyers who belong in jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking
asshole must be a Trump voter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of
weapons if he or she knowingly: *
(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any
weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
So shaking your fist at someone...
Read above: "*any weapon readily capable of lethal use*"
A fist doesn't not fall into that category, but a gun does.
https://queenseagle.com/all/sunnyside-man-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-case
https://www.wklaw.com/in-california-one-punch-can-result-in-a-second-degree-murder-conviction/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/he-threw-a-punch-that-killed-a-fellow-student-now-his-guilty-conviction-could-disappear/2016/10/27/4300df0a-9a37-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html
https://www.theledger.com/news/20200316/lakeland-man-convicted-of-manslaughter-for-fatal-punch-faces-15-years
https://licpost.com/college-basketball-coach-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-near-lic-hotel
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-punch-death-bar-sentencing-20200109-gd5ko6wysjgnzc6ubmtjwmm4fm-story.html
https://www.ktnv.com/news/man-convicted-in-single-punch-killing-says-hes-a-changed-man-asks-for-parole
Read your own articles. Punching someone is "assault", not "assault with
a weapon".
Your claim that a fist is not a "weapon readily capable of lethal use" is bogus.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
"Shaking a fist at someone" is "harassment".
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2013/title-xxxviii/chapter-565/section-565.090/
*Harassment. *
(1) Knowingly communicates a threat to commit any felony to another
person and in so doing frightens, intimidates, or causes emotional
distress to such other person; or
A whisper can qualify.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. - *
Unlawful use of weapons*
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily
capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;
"5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of
subsection 1 of this section shall
not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense
pursuant to section 563.031, RSMo."
You have repeated demonstrated yourself to be a lowbrow Trump voter.
It is practically a waste of time to try to teach you anything.
You apparent did not read or did not understand section 563.031.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5630000031.html
2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 563.031. — Use of force in defense
of persons.
563.031.
*1. 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 reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend
himself or a third person from what he 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 use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided *
*(a) He has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated
such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in
continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or *
*(b) He is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor
pursuant to section 563.046; or *
*(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this
chapter or other provision of law; *
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to
be, the person whom he seeks to protect would not be justified in
using such protective force.
*2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the
circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless he
reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect
himself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape,
sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery,
burglary or arson. *
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of
physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes
all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is
reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of
justification under this section.
Wrong code section.  The St. Louis couple did not actually use
physical force upon anyone.
It is common sense that the couple had acted illegally. You have now
proven to us that you have been talking out of your ass in this gun
group, because the legality of when you can legally point your gun to
threaten to shoot someone should have been taught in formal gun training
classes.
They didn't do that.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ®†ÒÜ•'ü¾¯ñ
Read carefully. The couple was threatening physical force by brandishing
firearms and threatening to shoot. Their act would have been legal only
They didn't do that. I realize that you wish they had, but that
doesn't make your wish reality.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ®†ÒÜ•'ü¾¯ñ
*(1) The actor (the couple) was the initial aggressor; except that in
such case his use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided **
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ®†ÒÜ•'ü¾¯ñ
**(a) He (the couple) has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively
communicated such withdrawal to such other person (the protestors) but
the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened
use of unlawful force; or **
*
Siri Cruise
2020-07-15 03:02:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?

How many people enterred their lot displaying aggression?

And you're still a macho macho macho idiot.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Baxter
2020-07-15 03:14:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?
How many people enterred their lot displaying aggression?
And you're still a macho macho macho idiot.
The couple did not own the street, and it's problamatical that the
community did either. Nor were the couple deputized by the community to
enforce any rules.
Just Wondering
2020-07-15 06:31:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?
Yes. Along with the other homeowners in the gated community, they
own an undivided interest in all common areas including the PRIVATE
street. They probably paid a substantial amount for that privacy.
Post by Siri Cruise
How many people enterred their lot displaying aggression?
All of them. Brazenly trespassing on private property IS an
aggressive act.
Post by Siri Cruise
And you're still a macho macho macho idiot.
I know how to spell "entered" which makes me less of
an idiot than you.
Baxter
2020-07-15 15:38:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
The couple owned the street?
Yes. Along with the other homeowners in the gated community, they
own an undivided interest in all common areas including the PRIVATE
street. They probably paid a substantial amount for that privacy.
IOW, no, the couple did not own the street, nor were they empowered to
enforce any community rules. The local judge clearly thinks there is a
Public aspect to that "private street".

===========
The state of Missouri allows homeowners to use lethal force to defend
themselves from an intruder on their property under the Castle Doctrine.
But many legal experts believe that that the doctrine doesn’t apply
beyond the homeowner’s property line, even if the homeowner technically
co-owns the street beyond that line. Moreover, there’s no evidence that
unarmed protesters posed any threat to McCloskeys’ well-being — which
would make their show of force an act of escalation, rather than self-
defense.

“They were absolutely furious to see us,” said Micah Hainline, who was
one of the marchers. “They had no reason to fear, leadership was actively
moving people away from them, they were just incensed to see people dare
to be on their private street. There were no weapons in evidence that I
saw other than theirs. Mark came out very quickly and pointed his rifle
at protesters. Maybe four people saw that and ran to the sidewalk from
the street, hands in the air yelling “don’t shoot!” but never reached the
grass. This all took place before they called cops.”

Prominent local attorneys agreed that the video evidence of the incident
did not support a legal argument that the McCloskey’s actions were
justified.

“You cannot control the comings and goings of citizens on your private
street,” attorney Eric Banks, former St. Louis City Counselor, told St.
Louis Public Radio. “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. But you cannot act with impunity, come out of your house with an
automatic weapon, and point it in the direction of people who are walking
down the street. It’s just beyond the pale.”

But even readers who find the McCloskeys’ behavior outrageous may not
fully grasp the outrageously racist history of Portland Place itself, not
to mention the many subdivisions just like it in cities across America.
And some argue that the very concept of “private places” reinforces
spatial anti-Black racism, to quote a term coined by planner and activist
Amina Yasin — and that it’s past time we begin the work of dismantling
them, along with all other forms of white supremacy in the street realm.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/?p=202663

============

Call it for what it is: racism.
max headroom
2020-07-15 21:33:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
The couple owned the street?
Yes. Along with the other homeowners in the gated community, they
own an undivided interest in all common areas including the PRIVATE
street. They probably paid a substantial amount for that privacy.
IOW, no, the couple did not own the street,...
IOW, Baxter cannot comprehend plain English.
... nor were they empowered to
enforce any community rules. The local judge clearly thinks there is a
Public aspect to that "private street".
===========
The state of Missouri allows homeowners to use lethal force to defend
themselves from an intruder on their property under the Castle Doctrine.
But many legal experts believe that that the doctrine doesn’t apply
beyond the homeowner’s property line, even if the homeowner technically
co-owns the street beyond that line. Moreover, there’s no evidence that
unarmed protesters posed any threat to McCloskeys’ well-being — which
would make their show of force an act of escalation, rather than self-
defense.
"KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Missouri Gov. Mike Parson launched into an impassioned and unprompted defense of
the St. Louis couple seen waving guns at Black Lives Matter protesters last month and later
suggested that President Donald Trump has taken an interest in the situation.

[snip]

"On Tuesday, after introducing a new grant program for small businesses during a press conference,
Parson told reporters that he wanted 'to address the McCloskey situation in St. Louis.'

"Parson said the McCloskeys were using the Castle Doctrine to protect their property from
protesters, 'which they had every right to do.'

"During his time as a state legislator, Parson helped expand the Castle Doctrine in Missouri — a
stand-your-ground law that permits property owners to use any means deemed necessary, including
deadly force, to protect themselves and their property when threatened...."

https://www.abc15.com/news/america-in-crisis/missouri-governor-defends-gun-toting-st-louis-couple-says-trump-may-get-involved
Al Czervik
2020-07-16 06:49:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
The couple owned the street?
Yes. Along with the other homeowners in the gated community, they
own an undivided interest in all common areas including the PRIVATE
street. They probably paid a substantial amount for that privacy.
IOW, no, the couple did not own the street,
It's a private street. It's owned and maintained by the community.
Post by Baxter
nor were they empowered to
enforce any community rules.
This is self defense. Not a "community rule" whatever that is.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Baxter
2020-07-16 15:18:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Baxter
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
The couple owned the street?
Yes. Along with the other homeowners in the gated community, they
own an undivided interest in all common areas including the PRIVATE
street. They probably paid a substantial amount for that privacy.
IOW, no, the couple did not own the street,
It's a private street. It's owned and maintained by the community.
Show that the community deputized the couple to enforce against
trespassing.

Typically, if a community wants to enforce against trespassing they hire
someone.
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Baxter
nor were they empowered to
enforce any community rules.
This is self defense. Not a "community rule" whatever that is.
There was no self defense there. If someone walks on the sidewalk in
front of your house, there is no threat.
Al Czervik
2020-07-16 17:01:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Baxter
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
The couple owned the street?
Yes. Along with the other homeowners in the gated community, they
own an undivided interest in all common areas including the PRIVATE
street. They probably paid a substantial amount for that privacy.
IOW, no, the couple did not own the street,
It's a private street. It's owned and maintained by the community.
Show that the community deputized the couple to enforce against
trespassing.
That doesn't make sense. A private community doesn't have a police
force. We as individuals have a right to defend ourselves. It's telling
that you've totally went 180 degrees on George Zimmerman.
Post by Baxter
Typically, if a community wants to enforce against trespassing they hire
someone.
Some places where the is high crime. They do that a lot in Mexico. Here
in Washington State it is very rare that a gated community has a
security guard. Like this community in St. Louis they just put up a gate.
Post by Baxter
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Baxter
nor were they empowered to
enforce any community rules.
This is self defense. Not a "community rule" whatever that is.
There was no self defense there.
They just have to feel threatened. A mob destroying private property is
a threat. A jury will agree. The very wealthy lawyers are going to sue
the city and buy a new home in the Bahamas.
Post by Baxter
If someone walks on the sidewalk in
front of your house, there is no threat.
The procedure in Washington State is you inform them that this is
private property and they must leave. If they don't you call the police
and have them trespassed. If they threaten you, you kill them.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-16 18:24:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:18:34 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Baxter
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
The couple owned the street?
Yes. Along with the other homeowners in the gated community, they
own an undivided interest in all common areas including the PRIVATE
street. They probably paid a substantial amount for that privacy.
IOW, no, the couple did not own the street,
It's a private street. It's owned and maintained by the community.
Show that the community deputized the couple to enforce against
trespassing.
Show that you need to be deputized to enforce against trespassing.
Post by Baxter
Typically, if a community wants to enforce against trespassing they hire
someone.
Show that private security guards are deputized.
Post by Baxter
There was no self defense there. If someone walks on the sidewalk in
front of your house, there is no threat.
If left-wing thug rioters walk in front of your house, there is a
threat.

And an AR-15 is a PERFECT way to deal with that threat.
Baxter
2020-07-16 20:35:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:18:34 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Baxter
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
The couple owned the street?
Yes. Along with the other homeowners in the gated community, they
own an undivided interest in all common areas including the PRIVATE
street. They probably paid a substantial amount for that privacy.
IOW, no, the couple did not own the street,
It's a private street. It's owned and maintained by the community.
Show that the community deputized the couple to enforce against
trespassing.
Show that you need to be deputized to enforce against trespassing.
So you have one neighbor that invites a person in, and another who calls
that invitee a trespasser. Ok, show that all the people in that gated
community agree with the gun toting couple. Having one person/couple
making decisions without the agreement of the whole group is simply chaos
-- and stupidity. That couple were NOT in charge of the community -
although other reports show that they seemed to think they were.

Again, the judge who signed the warrent to seize their guns clearly
thinks they were not in charge and in fact could be guilty of a crime.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-16 23:14:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 20:35:35 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:18:34 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Baxter
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
The couple owned the street?
Yes. Along with the other homeowners in the gated community, they
own an undivided interest in all common areas including the PRIVATE
street. They probably paid a substantial amount for that privacy.
IOW, no, the couple did not own the street,
It's a private street. It's owned and maintained by the community.
Show that the community deputized the couple to enforce against
trespassing.
Show that you need to be deputized to enforce against trespassing.
So you have one neighbor that invites a person in, and another who calls
that invitee a trespasser. Ok, show that all the people in that gated
community agree with the gun toting couple. Having one person/couple
making decisions without the agreement of the whole group is simply chaos
-- and stupidity. That couple were NOT in charge of the community -
although other reports show that they seemed to think they were.
They weren't invited. They were an unruly trespassing mob. The husband
and wife were protecting their home from the unruly, leftist mob.
Post by Baxter
Again, the judge who signed the warrent to seize their guns clearly
thinks they were not in charge and in fact could be guilty of a crime.
The judge is an idiot. Or are you thinking that all judges make good
decisions?
Baxter
2020-07-17 03:09:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
They weren't invited. They were an unruly trespassing mob.
Nope. the "unruly trespassing mob" is entirely you own racist invention
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
The husband
and wife were protecting their home from the unruly, leftist mob.
Nope. They were threating death to people walking by on the sidewalk.
max headroom
2020-07-17 04:59:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
They weren't invited. They were an unruly trespassing mob.
Nope. the "unruly trespassing mob" is entirely you own racist invention
BWAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha.... Baxter plays the Race Card!
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
The husband and wife were protecting their home from the unruly, leftist mob.
Nope....
Yup.
Post by Baxter
... They were threating death to people walking by on the sidewalk.
They were confronting criminals.
Baxter
2020-07-17 15:27:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
They weren't invited. They were an unruly trespassing mob.
Nope. the "unruly trespassing mob" is entirely you own racist invention
BWAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha.... Baxter plays the Race Card!
And Klaus plays the fraudulent "Get Out of Racism" card.
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
The husband and wife were protecting their home from the unruly, leftist mob.
Nope....
Yup.
Nope. There was no threat on the couple nor their home. The protesters
were walking by on the sidewalk. Klaus, if someone walks by your house
on the sidewalk they are NOT threatening you nor your house - you are NOT
allowed to shoot them - not here, not St Louis, not anywhere. And even if
someone were to step onto your deeded property you need more than just
their presence there to claim a threat to you person or property. If you
are so paranoid that you think that someone walking by your house is a
threat, you need professional mental health - get some soon.
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
... They were threating death to people walking by on the sidewalk.
They were confronting criminals.
Trespass is not usually considered a felony. And the judge and cops
apparently didn't think it even a misdemeanor.
Just Wondering
2020-07-17 17:10:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
They weren't invited. They were an unruly trespassing mob.
Nope. the "unruly trespassing mob" is entirely you own racist invention
BWAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha.... Baxter plays the Race Card!
And Klaus plays the fraudulent "Get Out of Racism" card.
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
The husband and wife were protecting their home from the unruly, leftist mob.
Nope....
Yup.
Nope. There was no threat on the couple nor their home. The protesters
were walking by on the sidewalk. Klaus, if someone walks by your house
on the sidewalk they are NOT threatening you nor your house - you are NOT
allowed to shoot them - not here, not St Louis, not anywhere. And even if
someone were to step onto your deeded property you need more than just
their presence there to claim a threat to you person or property. If you
are so paranoid that you think that someone walking by your house is a
threat, you need professional mental health - get some soon.
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
... They were threating death to people walking by on the sidewalk.
They were confronting criminals.
Trespass is not usually considered a felony. And the judge and
cops apparently didn't think it even a misdemeanor.
Missouri Revised Statutes - § 569.140. — Trespass in the first degree.
569.140. 1. A person commits the crime of trespass in the first degree
if he knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully ...
upon real property.
2. A person does not commit the crime of trespass in the first degree by
entering or remaining upon real property unless the real property is
fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders
or as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(1) Actual communication to the actor; or
(2) Posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of
intruders.
3. Trespass in the first degree is a class B misdemeanor.

The protesters entered and remained upon private real property
that was fenced in a manner designed to exclude intruders, and
that was marked with private property signs. Under Missouri law
their presence in the gated community was a crime.
Baxter
2020-07-18 15:39:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
They weren't invited. They were an unruly trespassing mob.
Nope. the "unruly trespassing mob" is entirely you own racist invention
BWAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha.... Baxter plays the Race Card!
And Klaus plays the fraudulent "Get Out of Racism" card.
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
The husband and wife were protecting their home from the unruly, leftist mob.
Nope....
Yup.
Nope. There was no threat on the couple nor their home. The
protesters were walking by on the sidewalk. Klaus, if someone walks
by your house on the sidewalk they are NOT threatening you nor your
house - you are NOT allowed to shoot them - not here, not St Louis,
not anywhere. And even if someone were to step onto your deeded
property you need more than just their presence there to claim a
threat to you person or property. If you are so paranoid that you
think that someone walking by your house is a threat, you need
professional mental health - get some soon.
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
... They were threating death to people walking by on the
sidewalk.
They were confronting criminals.
Trespass is not usually considered a felony. And the judge and
cops apparently didn't think it even a misdemeanor.
Missouri Revised Statutes - § 569.140. — Trespass in the first
degree. 569.140. 1. A person commits the crime of trespass in the
first degree if he knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains
unlawfully ... upon real property.
2. A person does not commit the crime of trespass in the first degree
by entering or remaining upon real property unless the real property
is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude
(1) Actual communication to the actor; or
(2) Posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of
intruders.
3. Trespass in the first degree is a class B misdemeanor.
The protesters entered and remained upon private real property
that was fenced in a manner designed to exclude intruders, and
that was marked with private property signs. Under Missouri law
their presence in the gated community was a crime.
I'm going to believe a St Louis judge over an amUsenet troll from
thousands of miles away from the situation in question.

The judge has not taken any action against the protesters, but HAS taken
action against the idiot couple waving guns and threatening the protester
that were just walking by.
Al Czervik
2020-07-18 20:44:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
They weren't invited. They were an unruly trespassing mob.
Nope. the "unruly trespassing mob" is entirely you own racist invention
BWAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha.... Baxter plays the Race Card!
And Klaus plays the fraudulent "Get Out of Racism" card.
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
The husband and wife were protecting their home from the unruly, leftist mob.
Nope....
Yup.
Nope. There was no threat on the couple nor their home. The
protesters were walking by on the sidewalk. Klaus, if someone walks
by your house on the sidewalk they are NOT threatening you nor your
house - you are NOT allowed to shoot them - not here, not St Louis,
not anywhere. And even if someone were to step onto your deeded
property you need more than just their presence there to claim a
threat to you person or property. If you are so paranoid that you
think that someone walking by your house is a threat, you need
professional mental health - get some soon.
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
... They were threating death to people walking by on the
sidewalk.
They were confronting criminals.
Trespass is not usually considered a felony. And the judge and
cops apparently didn't think it even a misdemeanor.
Missouri Revised Statutes - § 569.140. — Trespass in the first
degree. 569.140. 1. A person commits the crime of trespass in the
first degree if he knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains
unlawfully ... upon real property.
2. A person does not commit the crime of trespass in the first degree
by entering or remaining upon real property unless the real property
is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude
(1) Actual communication to the actor; or
(2) Posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of
intruders.
3. Trespass in the first degree is a class B misdemeanor.
The protesters entered and remained upon private real property
that was fenced in a manner designed to exclude intruders, and
that was marked with private property signs. Under Missouri law
their presence in the gated community was a crime.
I'm going to believe a St Louis judge over an amUsenet troll from
thousands of miles away from the situation in question.
The judge has not taken any action against the protesters, but HAS taken
action against the idiot couple waving guns and threatening the protester
that were just walking by.
That's not how it works. The judge issues a warrant - not on his own
accord. You're like 180 years old and you don't know shit.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Baxter
2020-07-19 03:51:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Baxter
I'm going to believe a St Louis judge over an amUsenet troll from
thousands of miles away from the situation in question.
The judge has not taken any action against the protesters, but HAS
taken action against the idiot couple waving guns and threatening the
protester that were just walking by.
That's not how it works. The judge issues a warrant - not on his own
accord. You're like 180 years old and you don't know shit.
I didn't say he issued on his own accord - but he doesn't rubber stamp
either - he looks at the evidence and looks at the law and then decides
whether or not to issue a warrant. In this case, the judge decided that
the law was on the side of seizing the couple's guns.
Al Czervik
2020-07-19 05:23:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Baxter
I'm going to believe a St Louis judge over an amUsenet troll from
thousands of miles away from the situation in question.
The judge has not taken any action against the protesters, but HAS
taken action against the idiot couple waving guns and threatening the
protester that were just walking by.
That's not how it works. The judge issues a warrant - not on his own
accord. You're like 180 years old and you don't know shit.
I didn't say he issued on his own accord - but he doesn't rubber stamp
either - he looks at the evidence
That's given to him. A complaint against the trespassers will take a
different investigation and most likely a different judge. To imply that
this judge "ruled" on one complaint but not the other is ignorant at
best and dishonest at worst.
Post by Baxter
and looks at the law and then decides
whether or not to issue a warrant. In this case, the judge decided that
the law was on the side of seizing the couple's guns.
Wrong again. The judge did not try them at this time. He said the police
had enough evidence to warrant.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Just Wondering
2020-07-19 00:35:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
They weren't invited. They were an unruly trespassing mob.
Nope. the "unruly trespassing mob" is entirely you own racist invention
BWAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha.... Baxter plays the Race Card!
And Klaus plays the fraudulent "Get Out of Racism" card.
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
The husband and wife were protecting their home from the unruly, leftist mob.
Nope....
Yup.
Nope. There was no threat on the couple nor their home. The
protesters were walking by on the sidewalk. Klaus, if someone walks
by your house on the sidewalk they are NOT threatening you nor your
house - you are NOT allowed to shoot them - not here, not St Louis,
not anywhere. And even if someone were to step onto your deeded
property you need more than just their presence there to claim a
threat to you person or property. If you are so paranoid that you
think that someone walking by your house is a threat, you need
professional mental health - get some soon.
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
... They were threating death to people walking by on the
sidewalk.
They were confronting criminals.
Trespass is not usually considered a felony. And the judge and
cops apparently didn't think it even a misdemeanor.
Missouri Revised Statutes - § 569.140. — Trespass in the first
degree. 569.140. 1. A person commits the crime of trespass in the
first degree if he knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains
unlawfully ... upon real property.
2. A person does not commit the crime of trespass in the first degree
by entering or remaining upon real property unless the real property
is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude
(1) Actual communication to the actor; or
(2) Posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of
intruders.
3. Trespass in the first degree is a class B misdemeanor.
The protesters entered and remained upon private real property
that was fenced in a manner designed to exclude intruders, and
that was marked with private property signs. Under Missouri law
their presence in the gated community was a crime.
I'm going to believe a St Louis judge over an amUsenet troll from
thousands of miles away from the situation in question.
The judge has not taken any action against the protesters, but HAS taken
action against the idiot couple waving guns and threatening the protester
that were just walking by.
It's not my problem when you make yourself feel better
by ignoring the facts.
Baxter
2020-07-19 03:49:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Baxter
I'm going to believe a St Louis judge over an amUsenet troll from
thousands of miles away from the situation in question.
The judge has not taken any action against the protesters, but HAS
taken action against the idiot couple waving guns and threatening the
protester that were just walking by.
It's not my problem when you make yourself feel better
by ignoring the facts.
You're projecting your own flaws.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-17 18:58:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:27:32 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by max headroom
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
They weren't invited. They were an unruly trespassing mob.
Nope. the "unruly trespassing mob" is entirely you own racist invention
BWAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha.... Baxter plays the Race Card!
And Klaus plays the fraudulent "Get Out of Racism" card.
Put down that joint, Baxter. You're not replying to me.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-17 09:14:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 03:09:19 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
They weren't invited. They were an unruly trespassing mob.
Nope. the "unruly trespassing mob" is entirely you own racist invention
Nope. I have no idea what race they were.
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
The husband
and wife were protecting their home from the unruly, leftist mob.
Nope. They were threating death to people walking by on the sidewalk.
Yep. They were letting the rioting leftist mob know that they would
die if they attacked their home. Nothing wrong with that.
Al Czervik
2020-07-17 20:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
They weren't invited. They were an unruly trespassing mob.
Nope. the "unruly trespassing mob" is entirely you own racist invention
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
The husband
and wife were protecting their home from the unruly, leftist mob.
Nope. They were threating death to people walking by on the sidewalk.
A nice warm beverage will soothe your outrage when this couple not only
is vindicated but receives a nice big settlement from the city.
𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
2020-07-15 16:01:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?
Yes. Along with the other homeowners in the gated community, they
own an undivided interest in all common areas including the PRIVATE
street. They probably paid a substantial amount for that privacy.
Post by Siri Cruise
How many people enterred their lot displaying aggression?
All of them. Brazenly trespassing on private property IS an
aggressive act.
Post by Siri Cruise
And you're still a macho macho macho idiot.
I know how to spell "entered" which makes me less of
an idiot than you.
Fuck off.
max headroom
2020-07-15 20:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?
Yes. Along with the other homeowners in the gated community, they
own an undivided interest in all common areas including the PRIVATE
street. They probably paid a substantial amount for that privacy.
Post by Siri Cruise
How many people enterred their lot displaying aggression?
All of them. Brazenly trespassing on private property IS an
aggressive act.
Post by Siri Cruise
And you're still a macho macho macho idiot.
I know how to spell "entered" which makes me less of
an idiot than you.
Fuck off.
We acknowledge your concession.
Al Czervik
2020-07-16 06:42:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?
This wasn't a public street.
Post by Siri Cruise
How many people enterred their lot displaying aggression?
On the left is the private property sign right next to the gate they
destroyed:
Loading Image...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Baxter
2020-07-16 15:15:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?
This wasn't a public street.
That does not answer the question. Show any evidence that the _couple_
owned the street. Does it show in their deed that they owned the street.
Al Czervik
2020-07-16 16:44:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?
This wasn't a public street.
That does not answer the question. Show any evidence that the _couple_
owned the street. Does it show in their deed that they owned the street.
That does not answer the question. Show me the proof that was a _public_
street and that mob had a right to be there.
Just Wondering
2020-07-16 21:32:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?
This wasn't a public street.
That does not answer the question. Show any evidence that the _couple_
owned the street. Does it show in their deed that they owned the street.
Usually, when people buy homes in private gated communities
like this one, their deeds include title to an undivided
interest in all common areas.
Al Czervik
2020-07-16 22:03:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?
This wasn't a public street.
That does not answer the question.  Show any evidence that the _couple_
owned the street. Does it show in their deed that they owned the street.
Usually, when people buy homes in private gated communities
like this one, their deeds include title to an undivided
interest in all common areas.
This is why they pay all the maintenance of their common areas and not
the city. Little difference in bashing down a gate of a gated community
and bashing down a door on Detroit Avenue. So what if they just wanted
to go *through* your house...?
Baxter
2020-07-17 03:06:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Baxter
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?
This wasn't a public street.
That does not answer the question. Show any evidence that the _couple_
owned the street. Does it show in their deed that they owned the street.
Usually, when people buy homes in private gated communities
like this one, their deeds include title to an undivided
interest in all common areas.
Go ahead, post a copy of the deed. Until then, you're just parroting the
couple's lies.
max headroom
2020-07-17 05:05:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Baxter
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?
This wasn't a public street.
That does not answer the question. Show any evidence that the _couple_
owned the street. Does it show in their deed that they owned the street.
Usually, when people buy homes in private gated communities
like this one, their deeds include title to an undivided
interest in all common areas.
Go ahead, post a copy of the deed. Until then, you're just parroting the
couple's lies.
Whose lies are you parroting? It's established that it is a private gated community. No one disputes
that. You're desperately clutching at straws.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-17 09:16:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 03:06:08 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Baxter
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?
This wasn't a public street.
That does not answer the question. Show any evidence that the
_couple_
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Baxter
owned the street. Does it show in their deed that they owned the
street.
Post by Just Wondering
Usually, when people buy homes in private gated communities
like this one, their deeds include title to an undivided
interest in all common areas.
Go ahead, post a copy of the deed. Until then, you're just parroting the
couple's lies.
You've been a renter all your life, haven't you LeRoy?

It's not uncommon among the lower classes to be totally unfamiliar
with HOA's and common interest communities.
Al Czervik
2020-07-17 20:30:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 03:06:08 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Baxter
Post by Al Czervik
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
The crowd became the initial aggressor the instant they crossed the
fence line and trespassed on the private property of the gated community.
The couple owned the street?
This wasn't a public street.
That does not answer the question. Show any evidence that the
_couple_
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Baxter
owned the street. Does it show in their deed that they owned the
street.
Post by Just Wondering
Usually, when people buy homes in private gated communities
like this one, their deeds include title to an undivided
interest in all common areas.
Go ahead, post a copy of the deed. Until then, you're just parroting the
couple's lies.
You've been a renter all your life, haven't you LeRoy?
LeRoy has the "Biggest and Nicest" home on his block of Detroit Ave. He
remodeled... What has it been about 10 years now?
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
It's not uncommon among the lower classes to be totally unfamiliar
with HOA's and common interest communities.
His neighborhood is older. There aren't any private community spaces.
Al Czervik
2020-07-16 06:17:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mighty Wannabe ®†ÒÜ•'ü¾¯ñ
Post by Mighty Wannabe ․
Post by max headroom
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
Post by max headroom
Post by 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
Post by Intelligent Party
Post by 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
Post by Intelligent Party
Post by Mighty Wannabe <@😎.🌌🌻🌹🌷🌺🌞>
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law
firm out of their house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of
their premises at protesters
passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt
stupid lawyers who belong in jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking
asshole must be a Trump voter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of
weapons if he or she knowingly: *
(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any
weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
So shaking your fist at someone...
Read above: "*any weapon readily capable of lethal use*"
A fist doesn't not fall into that category, but a gun does.
https://queenseagle.com/all/sunnyside-man-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-case
https://www.wklaw.com/in-california-one-punch-can-result-in-a-second-degree-murder-conviction/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/he-threw-a-punch-that-killed-a-fellow-student-now-his-guilty-conviction-could-disappear/2016/10/27/4300df0a-9a37-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html
https://www.theledger.com/news/20200316/lakeland-man-convicted-of-manslaughter-for-fatal-punch-faces-15-years
https://licpost.com/college-basketball-coach-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-near-lic-hotel
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-punch-death-bar-sentencing-20200109-gd5ko6wysjgnzc6ubmtjwmm4fm-story.html
https://www.ktnv.com/news/man-convicted-in-single-punch-killing-says-hes-a-changed-man-asks-for-parole
Read your own articles. Punching someone is "assault", not "assault with
a weapon".
Your claim that a fist is not a "weapon readily capable of lethal use" is bogus.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
"Shaking a fist at someone" is "harassment".
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2013/title-xxxviii/chapter-565/section-565.090/
*Harassment. *
(1) Knowingly communicates a threat to commit any felony to another
person and in so doing frightens, intimidates, or causes emotional
distress to such other person; or
A whisper can qualify.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. - *
Unlawful use of weapons*
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily
capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;
"5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of
subsection 1 of this section shall
not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense
pursuant to section 563.031, RSMo."
You have repeated demonstrated yourself to be a lowbrow Trump voter.
It is practically a waste of time to try to teach you anything.
You apparent did not read or did not understand section 563.031.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5630000031.html
2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 563.031. — Use of force in defense
of persons.
563.031.
*1. 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 reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend
himself or a third person from what he 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 use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided *
*(a) He has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated
such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in
continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or *
*(b) He is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor
pursuant to section 563.046; or *
*(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this
chapter or other provision of law; *
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to
be, the person whom he seeks to protect would not be justified in
using such protective force.
*2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the
circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless he
reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect
himself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape,
sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery,
burglary or arson. *
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of
physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes
all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is
reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of
justification under this section.
Wrong code section.  The St. Louis couple did not actually use
physical force upon anyone.
It is common sense that the couple had acted illegally.
They are going to sue the city and win.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
max headroom
2020-07-15 20:56:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
Post by max headroom
Post by 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at protesters
passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful, and the police are some butt stupid lawyers who belong in
jail.
Apparently you have no intelligence up there. You fucking asshole must be a Trump voter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030. 1. *A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly: *
(4) *Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;*
So shaking your fist at someone...
Read above: "*any weapon readily capable of lethal use*"
A fist doesn't not fall into that category, but a gun does.
https://queenseagle.com/all/sunnyside-man-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-case
https://www.wklaw.com/in-california-one-punch-can-result-in-a-second-degree-murder-conviction/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/he-threw-a-punch-that-killed-a-fellow-student-now-his-guilty-conviction-
could-disappear/2016/10/27/4300df0a-9a37-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html
Post by max headroom
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
Post by max headroom
https://www.theledger.com/news/20200316/lakeland-man-convicted-of-manslaughter-for-fatal-punch-faces-15-years
https://licpost.com/college-basketball-coach-convicted-of-assault-in-one-punch-death-near-lic-hotel
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-punch-death-bar-sentencing-20200109-gd5ko6wysjgnzc6ubmtjwmm4fm-story.html
https://www.ktnv.com/news/man-convicted-in-single-punch-killing-says-hes-a-changed-man-asks-for-parole
Read your own articles. Punching someone is "assault", not "assault with
a weapon".
Your claim that a fist is not a "weapon readily capable of lethal use" is bogus.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
"Shaking a fist at someone" is "harassment".
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2013/title-xxxviii/chapter-565/section-565.090/
*Harassment. *
(1) Knowingly communicates a threat to commit any felony to another
person and in so doing frightens, intimidates, or causes emotional
distress to such other person; or
A whisper can qualify.
Post by Mighty Wannabe ¸
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. - *
Unlawful use of weapons*
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily
capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;
"5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section
shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section
563.031, RSMo."
You have repeated demonstrated yourself to be a lowbrow Trump voter....
I have not.
... It is practically a waste of time to try to teach you anything.
It IS a waste of your time to tell lies here.
You apparent did not read or did not understand section 563.031.
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5630000031.html
2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 563.031. - Use of force in defense
of persons.
No force was used. The demonstration that force could be used for defense was reasonable.
Scout
2020-07-14 21:20:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful,
Excuse me, but when did it become legal to break into and trespass on
private property?
RosemontCrest
2020-07-14 21:30:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful,
Excuse me, but when did it become legal to break into and trespass on
private property?
It's not. Why do you ask?
Scout
2020-07-14 21:51:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RosemontCrest
Post by Scout
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful,
Excuse me, but when did it become legal to break into and trespass on
private property?
It's not. Why do you ask?
Because that's exactly what your "peaceful protesters" did.

So can't really call it a "peaceful protest" when they are engaged in
illegal activities.

Indeed, if they had obeyed the law, they would have had an 8' stone wall
between them and the home owners.
Mighty Wannabe ․
2020-07-14 22:06:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by RosemontCrest
Post by Scout
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful,
Excuse me, but when did it become legal to break into and trespass
on private property?
It's not. Why do you ask?
Because that's exactly what your "peaceful protesters" did.
So can't really call it a "peaceful protest" when they are engaged in
illegal activities.
Indeed, if they had obeyed the law, they would have had an 8' stone
wall between them and the home owners.
The protesters were not presenting any threat to the idiotic couples.
The protesters were marching to the mayor's house.

The idiotic couples are lawyers. They are the stupidest lawyers I have
ever seen. They were pointing their firearms at passersby who are not
posing any immediate threat to them. Their action is illegal in most
civilized countries in the world.

571.030.

1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she
knowingly:

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily
capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;


See below:

https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html


2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of
weapons--exceptions--penalties.

571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he
or she knowingly:

(1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a
firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or

(2) Sets a spring gun; or

(3) Discharges or shoots a firearm into a dwelling house, a railroad
train, boat, aircraft, or motor vehicle as defined in section 302.010,
RSMo, or any building or structure used for the assembling of people; or

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily
capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or

(5) Possesses or discharges a firearm or projectile weapon while
intoxicated; or

(6) Discharges a firearm within one hundred yards of any occupied
schoolhouse, courthouse, or church building; or

(7) Discharges or shoots a firearm at a mark, at any object, or at
random, on, along or across a public highway or discharges or shoots a
firearm into any outbuilding; or

(8) Carries a firearm or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use
into any church or place where people have assembled for worship, or
into any election precinct on any election day, or into any building
owned or occupied by any agency of the federal government, state
government, or political subdivision thereof; or

(9) Discharges or shoots a firearm at or from a motor vehicle, as
defined in section 301.010, RSMo, discharges or shoots a firearm at any
person, or at any other motor vehicle, or at any building or habitable
structure, unless the person was lawfully acting in self-defense; or

(10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon
readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or
onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by
school officials or the district school board.
Just Wondering
2020-07-15 02:46:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mighty Wannabe ․
Post by Scout
Post by RosemontCrest
Post by Scout
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful,
Excuse me, but when did it become legal to break into and trespass
on private property?
It's not. Why do you ask?
Because that's exactly what your "peaceful protesters" did.
So can't really call it a "peaceful protest" when they are engaged in
illegal activities.
Indeed, if they had obeyed the law, they would have had an 8' stone
wall between them and the home owners.
The protesters were not presenting any threat to the idiotic couples.
The protesters were marching to the mayor's house.
The idiotic couples are lawyers. They are the stupidest lawyers I have
ever seen. They were pointing their firearms at passersby who are not
posing any immediate threat to them. Their action is illegal in most
civilized countries in the world.
571.030.
1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily
capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030 5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and
(10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who
are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031.
Mighty Wannabe ․
2020-07-15 05:23:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Mighty Wannabe ․
Post by Scout
Post by RosemontCrest
Post by Scout
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful,
Excuse me, but when did it become legal to break into and trespass
on private property?
It's not. Why do you ask?
Because that's exactly what your "peaceful protesters" did.
So can't really call it a "peaceful protest" when they are engaged
in illegal activities.
Indeed, if they had obeyed the law, they would have had an 8' stone
wall between them and the home owners.
The protesters were not presenting any threat to the idiotic couples.
The protesters were marching to the mayor's house.
The idiotic couples are lawyers. They are the stupidest lawyers I
have ever seen. They were pointing their firearms at passersby who
are not posing any immediate threat to them. Their action is illegal
in most civilized countries in the world.
571.030.
1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon
readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
571.030 5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and
(10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who
are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031.
You are a useless, illiterate idiot.
RosemontCrest
2020-07-14 22:56:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by RosemontCrest
Post by Scout
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful,
Excuse me, but when did it become legal to break into and trespass on
private property?
It's not. Why do you ask?
Because that's exactly what your "peaceful protesters" did.
They are not my protesters.
Post by Scout
So can't really call it a "peaceful protest" when they are engaged in
illegal activities.
Indeed, if they had obeyed the law, they would have had an 8' stone wall
between them and the home owners.
I agree. I believe that you may have misunderstood Intelligent Party.
Baxter
2020-07-15 01:30:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful,
Excuse me, but when did it become legal to break into and trespass on
private property?
Cops had a warrant - totally legal.

If you're thinking protesters - they were on the sidewalk - Public
Property. The gun waver apparently thinks he owns the entire
neighborhood, but that's not what his deed says.
Just Wondering
2020-07-15 02:39:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Scout
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful,
Excuse me, but when did it become legal to break into and trespass on
private property?
Cops had a warrant - totally legal.
If you're thinking protesters - they were on the sidewalk - Public
Property. The gun waver apparently thinks he owns the entire
neighborhood, but that's not what his deed says.
They went through a broken gate in a solid fence separating
public property from the gated community where every square
inch including that sidewalk and toads is all private property.
The instant the crowd crossed the fence line, everywhere
they went was a criminal trespass on private property.
Mighty Wannabe ․
2020-07-15 05:35:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Baxter
Post by Scout
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful,
Excuse me, but when did it become legal to break into and trespass on
private property?
Cops had a warrant - totally legal.
If you're thinking protesters - they were on the sidewalk - Public
Property. The gun waver apparently thinks he owns the entire
neighborhood, but that's not what his deed says.
They went through a broken gate in a solid fence separating
public property from the gated community where every square
inch including that sidewalk and toads is all private property.
The instant the crowd crossed the fence line, everywhere
they went was a criminal trespass on private property.
Fuck off, you raving idiot. Read the statutes I have quoted for you in
this thread. It was never legal to point your gun outside of your house
at people passing by.

If the couple disliked the people passing by. They should have called
police. You are fucking stupid and illiterate. You cannot understand
simple English used in the legal statutes.
max headroom
2020-07-15 15:40:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Baxter
Post by Scout
Post by Intelligent Party
Post by Mighty Wannabe <@😎.🌌🌻🌹🌷🌺🌞>
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm
out of their house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their
premises at protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful,
Excuse me, but when did it become legal to break into and trespass on
private property?
Cops had a warrant - totally legal.
If you're thinking protesters - they were on the sidewalk - Public
Property. The gun waver apparently thinks he owns the entire
neighborhood, but that's not what his deed says.
They went through a broken gate in a solid fence separating
public property from the gated community where every square
inch including that sidewalk and toads is all private property.
The instant the crowd crossed the fence line, everywhere
they went was a criminal trespass on private property.
Fuck off, you raving idiot....
Profanity is the first sign of defeat.
... Read the statutes I have quoted for you in this thread. It was never legal to point your gun
outside of your house at people passing by.
It is legal to repel criminals.
If the couple disliked the people passing by....
?????
... They should have called police....
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
... You are fucking stupid and illiterate....
Insults will get you nowhere.
... You cannot understand simple English used in the legal statutes.
We realize English is not your mother tongue and our language, laws, and customs are foreign to you,
but you should not lecture us about our laws.
Al Czervik
2020-07-16 06:44:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mighty Wannabe ․
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Baxter
Post by Scout
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful,
Excuse me, but when did it become legal to break into and trespass on
private property?
Cops had a warrant - totally legal.
If you're thinking protesters - they were on the sidewalk - Public
Property.  The gun waver apparently thinks he owns the entire
neighborhood, but that's not what his deed says.
They went through a broken gate in a solid fence separating
public property from the gated community where every square
inch including that sidewalk and toads is all private property.
The instant the crowd crossed the fence line, everywhere
they went was a criminal trespass on private property.
Fuck off, you raving idiot. Read the statutes I have quoted for you in
this thread.  It was never legal to point your gun outside of your house
at people passing by.
All they have to do is say they felt threatened.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Al Czervik
2020-07-16 06:25:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Scout
Post by Intelligent Party
The are supposed to be lawyers by profession, operating a law firm out of their
house.
Both of them must be some butt stupid lawyers.
They were illegally waving and pointing firearms outside of their premises at
protesters passing by their house.
No, they were totally lawful,
Excuse me, but when did it become legal to break into and trespass on
private property?
Cops had a warrant - totally legal.
If you're thinking protesters - they were on the sidewalk - Public
Property. The gun waver apparently thinks he owns the entire
neighborhood, but that's not what his deed says.
Before:
Loading Image...

After:
Loading Image...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Loading...