St Louis couple charged for pointing guns at protesters

Watch
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#81
Report 1 week ago
#81
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Suppose they didn't move and remained where they were, do you think it would have been right to shoot them down?
That's irrelevant because it didn't ****ing happen :lol:

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.
Last edited by Occitanie; 1 week ago
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#82
Report 1 week ago
#82
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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'?
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.
1
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#83
Report 1 week ago
#83
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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 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
Last edited by Occitanie; 1 week ago
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#84
Report 1 week ago
#84
(Original post by Occitanie)
What is there to be scared of? I don't know, maybe the fact there have been riots, looting and businesses destroyed?!
Image

'I've Had to Paint 'Black Owned Business' on My Minneapolis Bar During the Riots'
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#85
Report 1 week ago
#85
Imagine that!
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#86
Report 6 days ago
#86
(Original post by Occitanie)
That's irrelevant because it didn't ****ing happen :lol:

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.
(Original post by Occitanie)
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.
(Original post by Occitanie)
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
You keep clinging on to the legality of what the couple did as if it has anything to do with what I have been talking about. It doesn't, or do you believe things that are legal must always be good / acceptable?
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#87
Report 6 days ago
#87
This is why they need roof Koreans.
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#88
Report 6 days ago
#88
(Original post by DiddyDec)
This is why they need roof Koreans.
I'm afraid that won't work in the 21st century. Asian Americans are now "white adjacent".
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#89
Report 6 days ago
#89
(Original post by Ascend)
I'm afraid that won't work in the 21st century. Asian Americans are now "white adjacent".
Even looters don't want to be shot no matter what the race of the wielder is.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#90
Report Thread starter 6 days ago
#90
(Original post by DSilva)
Hunting, sports, work...
Being the vegan I am, I very much think hunting should be banned.[/QUOTE]
Hmm a novel suggestion. Although somewhat self destructive as hunting provides an indispensable service in terms of animal management. For example, if i was a dear id much rather be shot by a hunter than left to starve after the heard grew too bit (not to mention the destruction caused to other flora and fauna)
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#91
Report Thread starter 6 days ago
#91
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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 :lol:
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#92
Report 6 days ago
#92
(Original post by Napp)
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 :lol:
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.
1
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#93
Report Thread starter 6 days ago
#93
(Original post by Occitanie)
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.
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#94
Report 6 days ago
#94
(Original post by Napp)
Preach.
Actually, let me rephrase that: Laws are relevant and matter only when it suits me and my agenda.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#95
Report 6 days ago
#95
(Original post by Napp)
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.
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.

(Original post by Occitanie)
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.
(Original post by Napp)
Umm no they're not. That's literally the point of the law :lol:

Preach.
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.
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#96
Report 6 days ago
#96
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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.
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.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#97
Report Thread starter 6 days ago
#97
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Why take the couple's word over video evidence? The former is far less reliable, for obvious reasons.
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.
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.
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.


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.
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...
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#98
Report 6 days ago
#98
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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.
This video of the protesters trespassing?

https://twitter.com/CassandraRules/s...35223412805638

Or the one of them actually on the couples' land?

https://twitter.com/xshularx/status/1277398234055483393
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#99
Report 6 days ago
#99
(Original post by Occitanie)
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.
By holding up guns, in a state where it would apparently be legal to fire, they are essentially threatening to kill people if they did not leave. Why else would they be holding their guns, to show them off?

I'm aware that the couple aCTed LAwfUlLy. But, as I've said, 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. What part of that don't you understand?
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#100
Report 6 days ago
#100
(Original post by Napp)
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...
It's wasn't just one person's video. Multiple videos, from multiple angles and time points, do not show the protesters on the couple's property.

Here's a video that shows that the couple already had their guns ready as the protesters were entering the gated community. If the guns were a response to the protesters threatening them, how could the protesters have threatened the couple before they entered the community? Notice also that the gate was already open and the protesters walked in. Ergo, the protesters didn't 'smash their way in', although of course the gate was damaged later.

What the law says is legal and what is moral are not the same thing. For example, it is legal to cheat on your partner but it is immoral to do so.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (36)
40.45%
Take autumn exams (32)
35.96%
Look for a job (2)
2.25%
Consider an apprenticeship (3)
3.37%
Take a year out (12)
13.48%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (4)
4.49%

Watched Threads

View All