St Louis couple charged for pointing guns at protesters

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

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'?

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.

What is there to be scared of? I don't know, maybe the fact there have been riots, looting and businesses destroyed?!

That's irrelevant because it didn't ****ing happen

Of course, what I said is 'irrelevant' to you, but the laws in Missouri don't give a hoot about what you think

They broke down a gate to a private community.

The couple were shouting "Get out [of our property]!" multiple times lol... Plus they're both lawyers, so I'm such they know how they can use Castle Law.

What is there to be scared of? I don't know, maybe the fact there have been riots, looting and businesses destroyed?!

The couple reasonably feared that they and their property were under threat so they used their weapons to get the people off their property, which is fine under Castle Law.

Pointing the guns =/= shooting and killing.

There were NO threats to kill!

The couple is heard shouting "Get out!" multiple times.

"The legality of what they did is irrelevant" - And there we have it... you don't care about due process. You really are a piece of work lol

This is why they need roof Koreans.

I'm afraid that won't work in the 21st century. Asian Americans are now "white adjacent".

Hunting, sports, work...

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.

There isnt a shred of evidence showing they didnt... Umm i never said they went into the home, i said they went into the property, as the couple said. I'm inclined to believe the victims of this here and not thugs.

So your entire argument rests on a boorish ad hominem? Very good. Pity, i thought you were marginally better than such moronically groundless insults.

Umm no they're not. That's literally the point of the law

Laws don't mean anything to these kind of people. It's either "is it justifiable?"/"is it acceptable?"/"does it hurt my feelings?"

Pathetic.

Preach.

There isnt a shred of evidence showing they didnt... Umm i never said they went into the home, i said they went into the property, as the couple said. I'm inclined to believe the victims of this here and not thugs.

So your entire argument rests on a boorish ad hominem? Very good. Pity, i thought you were marginally better than such moronically groundless insults.

Laws don't mean anything to these kind of people. It's either "is it justifiable?"/"is it acceptable?"/"does it hurt my feelings?"

Pathetic.

Umm no they're not. That's literally the point of the law

Preach.

Why take the couple's word over video evidence? The former is far less reliable, for obvious reasons.

My argument rests on the fact that threatening to kill people because they stepped on your lawn / on the street outside your house is unjustified. Hell, aiming guns at protesters in what is clearly a very charged situation is extremely irresponsible.



Current laws don't matter when we are discussing what should be allowed, i.e what should and should not be legal. Current laws also don't matter when we are discussing what is or is not morally acceptable / morally justified.

Why take the couple's word over video evidence? The former is far less reliable, for obvious reasons.

My argument rests on the fact that threatening to kill people because they stepped on your lawn / on the street outside your house is unjustified. Hell, aiming guns at protesters in what is clearly a very charged situation is extremely irresponsible.

Current laws don't matter when we are discussing what should be allowed, i.e what should and should not be legal. Current laws also don't matter when we are discussing what is or is not morally acceptable / morally justified.

Why take the couple's word over video evidence? The former is far less reliable, for obvious reasons.

My argument rests on the fact that threatening to kill people because they stepped on your lawn / on the street outside your house is unjustified. Hell, aiming guns at protesters in what is clearly a very charged situation is extremely irresponsible.

Please show me actual footage where the couple is threatening to kill people. Show me, don't tell me. All I've seen is them shouting "Get out!" which obviously isn't 'threatening to kill'

Laws are put in place to define exactly that (!!): what should and should not be legal...

It could be because I'm really tired, but I'm having a real hard time understanding the ideas behind your reasoning.

I will continue to press that under Missouri Castle Law states, the couple acted LAWFULLY.

Because one persons video in a mob is not considered reliable evidence... need i explain to you the concept of time and angle?
Also, this should be up your ally, you believe the victims first and formost not law breaking rioters who are just out to cause carnage as opposed to anything else.

Your argument is a quaint insult, little more.
No its perfectly justified under the law there. Of course this is ignoring the fact they smashed their way onto their property and, according to them, proceeded to threaten them. Ergo they're within their rights to defend their property from lowlifes.
Indeed it is charged, because of the low life rioters.

We arent discussing what *should" be anything. That is a meaningless discussion with no point to it given it is utterly subjective.
Umm yes it does as the laws reflect the morals, not a hard concept to grasp...