I do anyway. Have a gun at the ready if you feel threatened. Call the cops certainly. Watch from inside the house. All of that is reasonable.
-
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 ?
- Thread starter whirlingmerc
- Start date
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Of course if a mob has expressed threats, broken gates, threaten to kill their dog etc... of course it would be legal
If the mailman or garbage man were going about their business of course not. And protesting on private property is not legal by itself
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
A mob coming into a private gated community illegally of course is threatening
Particularly when they break your gate and threaten to kill your dog
Particularly when they break your gate and threaten to kill your dog
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Now that's a controversial statement if I ever saw one!
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I think that makes some excellent points that would involve intent.
It's true I don't point my gun at the postman, or garbage men, the FedEx or UPS guy, or other trusted people going about their business. Hell I don't point my gun even at Jehovah Witnesses although relishing the thought does gets entertaining once in awhile ... Ahem....
Mobs, protesters, well that's where the difference starts because you know what potentially comes around the corner when they do. Cocked and loaded. Both ways I may add.
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
It's pretty easy to claim the protesters are peaceful, when it's not your life or home being threatened.
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
Would you like these "peaceful protesters" to protest in front of your house? If so you could always give them your address. I'm sure some would willingly oblige you.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
I used to live in the middle of Vienna until two weeks ago, right next to a large plaza. People protested there all the time.
It seems like you think people shouldn't be allowed to protest in the streets. Did you know that protest is a form of political speech, and therefore protected under the human right to freedom of speech?
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
Peaceful protest is protected. It isn't peaceful when you burn down businesses, loot, vandalize, beat innocent people, tear down public statues, throw bricks, kill police officers, and destroy others property.
And then we have those that want to get rid of the police, and evidently don't want to allow us to even defend ourselves.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Nobody in the situation described in the article looted, beat innocent people, threw bricks, tore down statues, or harmed police officers, so I don't see what your point is.
Do you support these people's right to protest, or not?
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
Those are exactly the kind of protests that have been going on in many cities.
If it's true that these protesters were threatening to kill their dog, and harm them and their house - then no I don't support their right to protest that way. That is not what I call peaceful.
Do you support these people's right to protect themselves, or not?
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
No, I don't support their right to shoot protesters.
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
Who said they have a right to shoot protesters? They have a right to defend themselves if the protesters get violent against them.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
How do you think they would defend themselves, with only lethal guns at their disposal?
averageJOE
zombie
And people like Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, John Crawford III, Jason Washington, Emantic Bradford and many others were shot and killed by police for doing far less than what these two did.
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
At the point they are attacked the protesters are no longer peaceful. So they would be shooting attackers which used to be protesters.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Who decides when an "attack" has occurred?
One indicator: if someone levels a gun at you with their finger on the trigger - as the McCloskeys did - they're attacking the person they're pointing at.
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
Please tell us what the correct course of action was in their position.
Not sure about "correct," but seeing how the MCloskeys presented a direct and immediate threat to the people in the crowd, if anyone in the crowd had a firearm, I think they would have been justified in firing on the McCloskeys.