• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Couple threatened for defending themselves agains a mob who broke in their property ?

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It's a question of degree/type of coverage. It's also a matter of understanding that we know, for a fact, that right wing activists have actually incited violence at protests to undermine the movement. And that some people who aren't connected to BLM engage in violence, looting, etc. simply because they are opportunists.
Those who would defend their property cannot & should not determine
who engages in the destruction, be they left wing thugs or right wing
provocateurs.
Moreover, it's fairly clear that sincere protestors can get riled & become
violent. I saw it personally in my home town in the 60s & 70s. It cannot
be blamed on others, questions about the extent of their involvement
notwithstanding.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Every protest can look like a riot from the right angle.
That strikes me as artful.
In NYC & other cities, businesses burned.
St Louis is particularly renowned for its violence.
In my hometown & many others, there was no violence whatsoever.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If you rent an apartment from somebody else, then it's not your property.
It is property, but rather than fee simple, it's a leasehold estate.
Rights & obligations go along with that.
So somebody who rents an apartment wouldn't be allowed to defend their neighbourhood, as it wouldn't be their property, correct?
That is your view.
I disagree, & would allow them to defend their neighborhood.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Perhaps you should define what you believe a “liberal” is.
Then again, I don’t think that I’m an “average liberal”.
Q: Is there such a thing?
In this case, it's particular individuals who'd identify as such.
Of course, I wouldn't include classical liberals, or other
liberals who didn't weigh in to oppose defense of property.

I thought the context made it clear. But I often
have trouble balancing precision & brevity.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Screen Shot 2020-07-01 at 11.40.09 AM.png
Every protest can look like a riot from the right angle.

Interesting... The couple were Democrats, supporters of Black Lives Matter and the mob was trespassing.

You can't defend yourself from a mob of trespassers?

tsk tsk
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
I'm speaking to the larger issue, ie, liberals objecting to
using threat of violence to defend property. I'll wager that
they're OK with black folk defending their property against
white perps, despite opposing the reverse.
The problem is that this whole scenario is that it's based in knee-jerk idiocy, and cowboy movie fantasies, instead of facts, and reality.

The moment you point a gun at a crowd, ANYONE in that crowd with a weapon has the right, and even an obligation, to shoot you dead, immediately. Because you are posing an open, obvious, and deadly threat to everyone in that crowd. And anyone in that crowd that can respond to that threat, should. This is why anyone with a brain in their head knows that you NEVER point a gun at someone thinking that they will capitulate to your threat. If there were a cop in that crowd, he or she would shoot you dead. Because in real life, when you pose a deadly threat to a cop, or to any other human being, for ANY REASON, they will kill you before you kill them, if they can. They are not going to talk it over, or capitulate. They are simply going to shoot first, if they are able, to stop you from shooting them.

For this reason, if for no others, it was patently moronic of these two home-owners to go out and point their guns at a crowd, no matter what they thought that crowd was intent on doing. And they are very lucky that they were not both shot dead, immediately, by some heroic armed citizen within that crowd. Because he/she would have been completely within their rights to do so.

Secondly, the idea that human lives are not as valuable as the property one thinks he owns, is pathetically irrational. Ownership is a social pact. It only exists as a functional ideal so long as the humans we live with and among agree to honor it as such. If they have not agreed, and we insist on their capitulation, then WE become the aggressor: the 'enemy' of the people, not them. And they have the right (as well as the superior ability) to treat us as such.

Everything we have in life, no matter how much or how little, we have because we are a member of a cooperative society of human beings. Our well-being depends on theirs, and theirs on ours. Understanding this, we mutually agree to abide by the laws that order and control our interactions. Because without that mutual agreement, there is no society. There is no cooperation. There is only endless strife, and competition, and struggle, and suffering, and violence, and death. There is no point in our existing at all, if this is the path we are going to choose as extant beings.

Which is why both under the law, and under the rule of ethical reason, we do not have the right to end a human life for the sake of some inanimate object. No matter how much money it's worth, or how much we may 'love it'.
 
Last edited:

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Screen Shot 2020-07-01 at 11.40.09 AM.png
Every protest can look like a riot from the right angle.

The entire street was a private street and private property. The street they went out to was private property.

looks like destruction of private property and trespassing on even their home property

What exactly is the peaceful purpose of destroying a gate and entering?
 
Last edited:

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
The problem is that this whole scenario is that it's based in knee-jerk idiocy, and cowboy movie fantasies, instead of facts, and reality.

Not true. The whole street was a private street they were on Portland Place is a private stree
see quote below.

The moment you point a gun at a crowd, ANYONE in that crowd with a weapon has the right, and even an obligation, to shoot you dead, immediately. Because you are posing an open, obvious, and deadly threat to everyone in that crowd. And anyone in that crowd that can respond to that threat, should. This is why anyone with a brain in their head knows that you NEVER point a gun at someone thinking that they will capitulate to your threat. If there were a cop in that crowd, he or she would shoot you dead. Because in real life, when you pose a deadly threat to a cop, or to any other human being, for ANY REASON, they will kill you before you kill them, if they can. They are not going to talk it over, or capitulate. They are simply going to shoot first, if they are able, to stop you from shooting them.

For this reason, if for no others, it was patently moronic of these two home-owners to go out and point their guns at a crowd, no matter what they thought that crowd was intent on doing. And they are very lucky that they were not both shot dead, immediately, by some heroic armed citizen within that crowd. Because he/she would have been completely within their rights to do so.

Secondly, the idea that human lives are not as valuable as the property one thinks he owns, is pathetically irrational. Ownership is a social pact. It only exists as a functional ideal so long as the humans we live with and among agree to honor it as such. If they have not agreed, and we insist on their capitulation, then WE become the aggressor: the 'enemy' of the people, not them. And they have the right (as well as the superior ability) to treat us as such.

Everything we have in life, no matter how much or how little, we have because we are a member of a cooperative society of human beings. Our well-being depends on theirs, and theirs on ours. Understanding this, we mutually agree to abide by the laws that order and control our interactions. Because without that mutual agreement, there is no society. There is no cooperation. There is only endless strife, and competition, and struggle, and suffering, and violence, and death. There is no point in our existing at all, if this is the path we are going to choose as extant beings.

Which is why both under the law, and under the rule of ethical reason, we do not have the right to end a human life for the sake of some inanimate object. No matter how much money it's worth, or how much we may 'love it'.

Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that although it’s “very dangerous” to engage protesters with guns, the homeowners broke no laws by brandishing or pointing weapons at them because Portland Place is a private street. He said the McCloskeys are protected by Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.

“At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn,” Walker said, calling the state’s Castle Doctrine a “force field” that “indemnifies you, and you can even pull the trigger in Missouri.”

from
Just In: As MO Police Investigate Real Crime, Soros Funded Attorney Threatens Armed Couple
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Looks like both sides were peaceful.
Not a shot was fired.
No property was destroyed or looted.
Everyone wins.
"They didn't actually shoot" <> "they were peaceful."

Brandishing a loaded firearm and pointing it at another person is not a peaceful act.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
"They didn't actually shoot" <> "they were peaceful."

Brandishing a loaded firearm and pointing it at another person is not a peaceful act.

It was a private street and the mob was on it.
Portland Place is a private street. The McCloskeys are protected by Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.

Their house was private property on a private street
the entire think was trespassing on several levels

Yes, legally they were allowed to go on the private street with the arms to defend their property

Ironically they were Black Lives Matter supporters and Democrats and just thrown under the bus by the left.... oh well....
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Peaceful mob exercising their rights OR violent mob covered up by liberal media?

CNN's Cuomo vs. St. Louis Home Defender: You Are The Face Of "White Resistance" To Black Lives Matter Chris Cuomo was dismissive of the property invation.

Who is Kimberly Gardner, St. Louis prosecutor investigating gun-toting couple?
The St Louis prosecutor characterized the mob as 'peaceful protestors exercising their rights.
No matter how much you believe it and insist it, the protests have been largely and mostly peaceful. And we already had a thread about this. The couple you're defending did it to a peaceful protest.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I wonder.....
Suppose the KKK came into a black neighborhood intending to torch businesses & homes.
Would our pacifist liberal friends decry violent resistance to the arsonists?

The equivocation of the KKK and BLM is exactly the kind of inaccurate frame that incites fear in right wingers like the people in this story and leads people like Trump to engage in both sides-ism when actual, literal white supremacists protest.

BLM is not a black supremacist group. The vast majority of BLM protestors are peaceful and have no interest in "torching businesses and homes."
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
View attachment 41165

The entire street was a private street and private property. The street they went out to was private property.

looks like destruction of private property and trespassing on even their home property`

What exactly is the peaceful purpose of destroying a gate and entering?
Who destroyed the gate? There's video out there of the gare undamaged as a stream of protestors walk through it.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Looks like people breaking down gates threatening people have newly discovered rights.
and resisting the mob is a crime now?

According to BuzzFeed News, a St. Louis Police report identifies the couple as the victims in the incident and the news site reports the McCloskeys called police.
That's cute, is that what Fox told you? You do realize RW gossip is in the business of misinformation right?
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
I wonder.....
Suppose the KKK came into a black neighborhood intending to torch businesses & homes.
Would our pacifist liberal friends decry violent resistance to the arsonists?
False equivalence. Some here will assume they're equal.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
The equivocation of the KKK and BLM is exactly the kind of inaccurate frame that incites fear in right wingers like the people in this story and leads people like Trump to engage in both sides-ism n actual, literal white supremacists protest.

BLM is not a black supremacist group. The vast majority of BLM protestors are peaceful and have no interest in "torching businesses and homes."

Very dismissive of law. Trespassing on a private street, destroying a gate and intruding into a private home property are all cause to stand outside one's home to defend it and advise the protestors they are on private property

Would you allow Right to life protestors to go on private property? no and in fact they insist they stay a distance from it
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
That's cute, is that what Fox told you? You do realize RW gossip is in the business of misinformation right?

Cute is not the correct word

Actually multiple sources confirm the street itself was private property. The gate to the home private property was destroyed and some of the mob entered the gate

The couple was standing on private property as the street itself was a private street
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I wonder.....
Suppose the KKK came into a black neighborhood intending to torch businesses & homes.
Would our pacifist liberal friends decry violent resistance to the arsonists?
"intending to torch..." Sheer speculation without any factual evidence.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
"intending to torch..." Sheer speculation without any factual evidence.

In the case of Missouri law, one may defend private property with arms
Trespassing is sufficient.

That particular street outside was private property
That gate was private property
That yard and home was private property within the gate

The whole left wing narrative is counter the Missouri law.
 
Top