St. Louis couple pulls guns on protesters marching to mayor's house

[Twilight Hue]

No, it's not, or they wouldn't be doing it, lol.

You can actually carry firearms on any private property you own and on any property you have permission from the owner to do so, provided they're openly displayed. The law is weird with concealment, but with open carry it's clear. Secondly, they called the police and the gated community security (where they live... again they were on a private road/entrance, not the same as being in the public) and neither came. I don't blame them, but it looks like some uppity Dem prosecutors are going to try to get them. Considering it was 500 versus 2, I think the firearms were a reasonable way to deal with it. Before they got the guns the "peaceful protest" threatened their lives, home, and their pets with murder... So, yeah...

Anyway, if any of you lefties think these guys are on your side - they're not. Anyone, they feel like declaring a fascist is, and that includes anyone that happened to accidentally get in their way like these people. Left eating their own, again... The couple was not only life Democrats, donors to BLM, and whatnot, but also trial attorneys specializing in cases where they defended people of color against injustice. These BLM people are complete morons and their rage is blind.

And now you know why assault weapons should not be banned for people. It's not just for a tyrannical government, it's also for brainwashed mindless mobs who are becoming increasingly brazen enough to cross over private borders.

 

[Lyndon]

Yes assault weapons are for brainless gun toting mobs.

 

[PureX]

This is what happens when we think property is more important that human lives. These two weren't afraid for their lives, they were afraid for their property. And they were willing to kill anyone who threatened it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the group marches on private property I would point the firearm at them myself. You just don't cross a particular line.

Not your private property, but just private property in general, right?

(Since the protestors never actively entered these two nuts' house or grounds).

BTW: do you think someone having a gun pointed at them is justified in responding with deadly force?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you think that other gated communities might look at this incident and consider beefing up their own security?

Sure, why not.
We all learn from the experience (especially failures) of others.

 

[Revoltingest]

No they handled it wisely.

If people are getting emboldened enough to start entering ones private property, then it's high time to put the brakes on it and put a stop to it with whatever means are necessary.

If this had been on public property I would have agreed with you.

I disagree they handled it wisely.
There was no need to brandish any weapons when no imminent
threat was posed (as I understand the situation to have been).
But there are downsides to such behavior, eg, inflaming tensions.

I'll defend my property with guns. But unless one is actually posing
an imminent threat, one would never see a gun...only the stink eye.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And now you know why assault weapons should not be banned for people. It's not just for a tyrannical government, it's also for brainwashed mindless mobs who are becoming increasingly brazen enough to cross over private borders.

I have to admit that my own stance on firearms has changed lately.

When gunmen took over the Michigan capitol, the police did nothing.

When "3 percenter" snipers took up elevated positions around a BLM protest, the police did nothing.

"Ken and Karen" here felt like they could brandish firearms at protestors marching past their house with impunity and - at least so far - the police did nothing.

And meanwhile, there's story after story in the news about BIPOC being brutalized by the police.

It's become undeniable that, in many communities, a certain segment of the people can't rely on the police to not kill them, to say nothing of protecting their rights. It's also undeniable that - as it always has been - the cause of civil rights is opposed by violence.

So arm the left.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not your private property, but just private property in general, right?

(Since the protestors never actively entered these two nuts' house or grounds).

BTW: do you think someone having a gun pointed at them is justified in responding with deadly force?

You don't have to pull the trigger in order to show that you mean business. The ball is always going to be in the aggressors court. Not the defenders. That's the way the game is played.

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't have to pull the trigger in order to show that you mean business. The ball is always going to be in the aggressors court. Not the defenders. That's the way the game is played.

I favor countering a threat of violence (against person
or property) with a threat of violence against the perp.
The goal is to entirely avoid violence.
This better than the simplistic dictum:
Don't defend property because all life is worth more.

 

[Quetzal]

Central West End couple explains why they pointed guns at protesters who demanded Krewson's resignation



The couple stated that they received death threats. Their attorney said in statement that the couple actually supports Black Lives Matter and the cause of the protesters.



The protest organizer said that the protests were non-violent and no threats were made.



But this couple was scared enough to start brandishing firearms.

I guess everyone managed to keep their cool and nobody got shot, but who can say what might happen the next time, or the next time after that?

Where are we headed?

Eek! Terrible trigger discipline.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't have to pull the trigger in order to show that you mean business.

The woman in the photo very nearly did.

The ball is always going to be in the aggressors court. Not the defenders. That's the way the game is played.

The aggressor in this situation is the one pointing a gun at other human beings.

 

[tytlyf]

Looks like irresponsible gun owners to me. Pointing guns at people, etc. It's not the gun, it's the person behind it that I don't trust.

 

[PureX]

I favor countering a threat of violence (against person
or property) with a threat of violence against the perp.
The goal is to entirely avoid violence.
This better than the simplistic dictum:
Don't defend property because all life is worth more.

So for you, stopping a broken window is worth more than a human life? Or would it be two broken windows? Or is it deliberately breaking your windows in front of you? When does the "violence against property" warrant a violent response against a human being? And when does it warrant a potentially deadly violent response?

And by what logical reasoning do we justify deadly force in protection of property?

 

[Thief]

it might be scary....having a gun pointed at you

but the alternative is scarier

having the shot fired......and you didn't see the weapon at all

 

[ecco]

If the group marches on private property I would point the firearm at them myself. You just don't cross a particular line.

In the USA, a sidewalk is not private property. Perhaps laws are different in your country.

 

[Revoltingest]

So for you, stopping a broken window is worth more than a human life? Or would it be two broken windows? Or is it deliberately breaking your windows in front of you?

Would I know whether the broken window
is the end or the beginning of the violence?
It would make a difference.

If a group threatened to loot & burn your home,
would you threaten any violent action to prevent this?

When does the "violence against property" warrant a violent response against a human being? And when does it warrant a potentially deadly violent response?

When it threatens escalation to major loss of property.

And by what logical reasoning do we justify deadly force in protection of property?

I suspect that you & I start with different premises,
making any logical argument unconvincing to the other.
You value life more than property.
I value my property more than the life of one who would destroy it.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the USA, a sidewalk is not private property. Perhaps laws are different in your country.

This is untrue in many cases.
One may own a sidewalk with all attendant liability,
but with a public easement on it.

 

[ecco]

Watch the video - at 23 seconds in the woman has walked in front of the man and his AK is pointing at her.

I don't care if they are Dems or Repubs, gun owners are dumb.

 

[halbhh]

Central West End couple explains why they pointed guns at protesters who demanded Krewson's resignation



The couple stated that they received death threats. Their attorney said in statement that the couple actually supports Black Lives Matter and the cause of the protesters.



The protest organizer said that the protests were non-violent and no threats were made.



But this couple was scared enough to start brandishing firearms.

I guess everyone managed to keep their cool and nobody got shot, but who can say what might happen the next time, or the next time after that?

Where are we headed?

It's not like none of them ever shoot:

Right-wing extremists killed 38 people in U.S. in 2019, Anti-Defamation League finds

They aren't mentally....in a good, in-touch-with-reality place tho, at times....

So, the danger is non-zero -- there is real danger.

The other day, a confused situation happened, and I've not yet read if they found out who all was shooting:
1 Person Dead, 1 In Custody After Shooting At Site Of Breonna Taylor Protests

Still, we are usually willing to take risk to stand up for what is right.

Because living in fear of what is inevitable anyway, it's not the best way to live. Instead, people need to continue to speak up for what is right, to speak up and show up against racism. Continuing in a peaceful way, just as Martin Luther King, Jr. would (who himself had an ultimate Guide, Christ Jesus, to inform his principles).

 

[halbhh]

Recommended:

Selma -- 2014, 2hr 8 min, on Amazon Video, currently free to watch I think.