St Louis couple charged for pointing guns at protesters

Scroll to see replies

As I said before, semi, schmemi. The distinction is irrelevant in the context of threatening people with it.
"The defendant shot the victim with an automatic rifle".
"Objection! Akshully, it was a a semi-automatic".
"Is the victim still dead?"
"Yes, your honour"
"Does being semi rather than fully automatic have any bearing on the case?"
"No, your honour"
"Well stop wasting my ****ing time, you idiot. The prosecution may proceed".

When that is the strength of your argument, you know you have already lost.

How can you not respect the difference between an automatic rifle and a semi? This is like trying to conflate a .22 with a cannon :lol:

Reply 61

Napp

Original post by Occitanie

"Laws don't care about your feelings!" :lol:

Give it time, the epoch of feelings being life is nigh :wink:

Reply 62

Ascend

Original post by Napp

Give it time, the epoch of feelings being life is nigh :wink:

On a related note, someone recommended I read Paul Bloom's 'Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion'. It seems interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/06/against-empathy-paul-bloom-the-empathy-instinct-peter-bazalgette-review

Bloom is especially vocal on the need for a rational objectivity in political and social policy and the dangers attendant on decisions prompted by empathy because it is “innumerate and biased”. Empathy, he suggests, narrows our focus in a self-regarding way – there is sustained evidence that we empathise more with those that either resemble us or those we find attractive. The picture of five-year-old Omran Daqneesh, pulled from the rubble in Aleppo, prompted widespread breast-beating, but Bloom would be sceptical of this having much effect on our willingness to give aid to Omran’s equally affected – but unknown – fellow citizens.

Reply 63

DSilva

Yet another reason why allowing the populace to have guns with next to no restrictions is absurd.

Reply 64

Napp

Original post by DSilva

Yet another reason why allowing the populace to have guns with next to no restrictions is absurd.

I'm not certain how this makes sense? Two law abiding citizens, such as themselves, would be allowed these guns either way.
Also not sure how this is an example of disallowing guns? Being able to defend you home from violent thugs and rioters being a fairly good reason to own them, no?

Reply 65

username4986690

Original post by DSilva

Yet another reason why allowing the populace to have guns with next to no restrictions is absurd.

Notwithstanding all the restrictions on what you can and can't own :lol:

Reply 66

Napp

Original post by DiddyDec

Notwithstanding all the restrictions on what you can and can't own :lol:

It is quite interesting seeing all the misconceptions people hold about gun laws in America, some assuming everyone has an AR15 in their cupboard despite them being exceptionally hard to get in certain districts. Same for people thinking either machine guns are widespread or impossible to get but the answer lying somewhere in the middle :lol:

Reply 67

SHallowvale

Original post by Occitanie

That's the thing, it is under Missouri Castle Law :lol:

That's irrelevant to the point I was making.

Original post by Napp

Not exactly unreasonable if a bunch of angry thugs invade your property..

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but did they break into anyone's house? Were they stealing things? From what I can find, all they broke was the front gate and they were mostly protesting on roads / sidewalks. It's hardly justified to start threatening to kill people.

Suppose they didn't move and remained where they were, do you think it would have been right to shoot them down?

Reply 68

Napp

Original post by SHallowvale

No they broke onto someones property. Any reasonable person would thus be fearful for themselves if said angry thugs had done that.. the next logical step being them breaking into the house and possibly their heads.
They didnt threaten to kill people? No more so than your average ploddy 'threatens to kill someone' with their side arm. Especially given the yobos were apparently threatening them.
If they stayed still? No. Then again that would show holding the guns was working. If they advanced on them and their house? Thats a different story and rather up to a persons own constitution. Suffice it to say it would be perfectly legal and proper for them to take any such action though.

Reply 69

SHallowvale

Original post by Napp

They were protesting on the street outside their house. At worst the protesters were walking on part of the lawn of their massive front garden. What is there to be scared of? Was there any indication of them breaking into homes, lootings, etc? Did they walk up to the front doors of the house?

They aimed guns at the protesters. What else do you think the implication is, if not 'I am threatening to kill you'?

Reply 70

Dublin Boii

I have zero sympathy for protesters.

Reply 71

DSilva

Original post by Napp

There are 393 million civilian owned firearms in the US. They can't be that difficult to get hold of.

Apart from specifically trained units of the police and the armed force, there is little justifiable reason for anyone to have a gun.

Reply 72

username4986690

Original post by Napp

Even I'm not entirely sure about the laws on machine guns, I know for private citizens there are grandfathered laws but it seems for businesses there are different laws that seem to allow almost any weapon to be automatic :dontknow:

Reply 73

Napp

Original post by DSilva

There are 393 million civilian owned firearms in the US. They can't be that difficult to get hold of.

Well if you're a criminal and try to get one legally it certainly is. It being irrelevent if theyre trying to get one illegally as that applies in all countries.
The point being the type of guns you can get varies wildly between states, for the average citizen.

Apart from specifically trained units of the police and the armed force, there is little justifiable reason for anyone to have a gun.
Hunting, sports, work...

Reply 74

Napp

Original post by SHallowvale

I'm not sure why you think a brief video is proof positive they never went onto the property? The fact they smashed the gate in demonstrating otherwise.
Its a mob, its a given that they tend to do this, especially as it was happening elsewhere across the states at the time.
What does them walking up to the door have to do with it? The point of training a weapon on them was to ensure they didnt.. ?
And? Meh yes and no. As i said, it can be happily be construed as little more than a warning.
I note how you skipped over the part where it was categorically within their rights to do this though..

Reply 75

Napp

Original post by DiddyDec

Indeed, they are quite odd. One of the issues with a federal system and laws varying all over the place :lol:

Reply 76

username4986690

Original post by Napp

Indeed, they are quite odd. One of the issues with a federal system and laws varying all over the place :lol:

And then there is California, those laws just don't make sense.

Reply 77

username1148663

Original post by Napp

Interesting development, especially given the legal right to defend your property from a dangerous mob...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53481537

Not a chance will they get in trouble

Reply 78

SHallowvale

Original post by Napp

Why do you believe that they did go onto their property since all available evidence shows otherwise? The gate was for the entire community, not the couple's home.

You must be incredibly thin skinned, prone to aggression or insanely territorial if you believe people breaking a gate, or even worse stepping on your lawn, is a good enough reason to threaten killing. Apparently it would have been legal for the couple to shoot the protesters, so them aiming guns can't be "happily construed as little more than a warning".

Speaking of, I've "skipped over" the legality of what they did because it's irrelevant. Whether something is justified / acceptable and whether it's legal are separate things.