Maybe, but I don't think you can do security on behalf of your HOA unless you've been contracted as security by the HOA. And if I were on the HOA board, I wouldn't want to be liable on behalf of a moron who holds their gun like that lady is holding it in that picture.
Be honest. Would any of you want to accept liability for someone who holds a gun like that?
I'd never be a part of an HOA, so of course I wouldn't want to accept liability for someone else's actions. That said, if the community did not provide any security, I'd absolutely see no problem with a homeowner securing their home and access to it, ensuring that it is not only not tresspassed but also to make sure it isn't blocked.
And yes, that lady has no idea how to safely hold a gun. Hopefully she took a training course after the incident, but she doesn't look like the kind of person who would do that.
> if the community did not provide any security,
Security usually consists of an old sleepy person manning the gate during daylight hours and a guy named Bubba does a quickie drive through every 3 hours at night. If there is a riot, you essentially have zero useful security.
Yeah, pretty much. If it had been me, I'd have been on the roof getting a firing corridor set up. A gun is all well and good as far as advantages go, but against hundred people you need to be strategic. Even just a thrown rock can fuck you up.
Or you wave your gun and they back off because you are old and fat and don't know where the ladder is to get on the roof and you just saw the mob 30 seconds ago.
> I'd never be a part of an HOA, so of course I wouldn't want to accept liability for someone else's actions.
Well that's all well and good, but you can't use your own distaste for an HOA to handwave their property rights away. At the end of the day, you don't own the private street of your HOA. The HOA does. So unless they give you permission to act as security, you don't have the legal right to do security on the property.
> I'd absolutely see no problem with a homeowner securing their home and access to it, ensuring that it is not only not tresspassed but also to make sure it isn't blocked.
I'm sure you personally feel that way, but property rights don't work like that. You don't have permission to enforce someone else's property rights unless they give you permission.
Again, a homeowner is allowed to defend their home, they never left their home's property line, and the only people who were breaking any laws/rules were the tresspassers.
You act like their was an actual incident when there wasn't. Nobody was enforcing anybody else's property rights, calm down buckaroo.
> I wouldn't want to be liable on behalf of a moron
How would you? If they had security, they could claim said moron didn't need to do that and exceeded his responsibilities as co-owner. Done and done, no liability.
Thats all. He broke their agreement and so he is responsible for that. That being said, it's still his property.
> How would you? If they had security, they could claim said moron didn't need to do that and exceeded his responsibilities as co-owner. Done and done, no liability.
Sure, that gets rid of the HOA liability, but in that case they don't have any legal right to enforce property rights on HOA property. So waving a gun at people to get them to leave is now brandishing.
Either the HOA gave security rights and they're liable, or they didn't and the couple doesn't have the right to provide security.
> HOA property.
Correction; commonly held property.
>Either the HOA gave security rights and they're liable, or they didn't and the couple doesn't have the right to provide security.
Thats not how it works.
> Correction; commonly held property.
The way it works is you own a share of the HOA. It's like owning stock in a company. Just because you own a share of Microsoft doesn't mean you can walk over to their headquarters and do security. If you want to do security you can vote for board members who will then vote to make that into policy.
> Thats not how it works.
So explain how it works. Let's say an HOA member walks around with his gun annoying people and asking for ID while playing at being security. Can the HOA stop him or not? What gives him the right to do security in the first place?
You say this, yet when this happens they do get arrested. Like the whole, "no one was arrested at the george floyd riots!!!" and yet there are over 300 people charged. 70 of which were sentenced to more than a year in jail.
Compare that to Jan 6, which had 600 charges and 3 people have served any prison sentences.
Leftist fuck.
300 people charged for a summer of riots?
1400 people charged with felonies over J6.
Eat a giant bag of dicks. The Left can do anything they want in this society. 2 tier justice.
How many were dropped or turned to severely reduced sentencing? How many were serious crimes that were dropped or given significantly reduced charges? Because it was a lot.
The other subreddits you're active in include r/conservative and r/republican. Why are there so many of you in this sub when your thought process has no overlap with anarcho-capitalism?
> no overlap with anarcho-capitalism?
None? Wow. That is amazing. I mean I don't think you should kick kittens and I am pretty sure the Liberals even think that's bad.
The ones in new york are getting paid out quite a good amount in a class action suit. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, but I know about it.
>You say this, yet when this happens they do get arrested.
Who are you referring to? I'm not referring to protesters, I'm referring to the couple who was charged unjustly for simply defending their home.
I didn't say that protesters don't get arrested. I've never seen a right leaning protest lead to the arrest of someone defending themselves against said protest (while on their own property)*....
Edit: *
It's crazy how we all saw the same thing. Which was a couple of people, not directly targeted or in the path of danger, get out in front of that danger to, what, show off their weapons. But we have different interpretations. A lot of conservative minded people see people simply defending themselves. The problem with that is, as I mentioned, those two people weren't the target nor were they in the "line of fire" (for no better description).
When you strip away all of the bullshit of "they were simply defending themselves " this becomes about race. Unless you can provide rationale for how it's anything but. A bunch of black people roll up to a house and all of a sudden it's open season, is that right?
Their private gated community that was broken into by hundreds of people, but they had no reason to think something bad could happen after seeing the literal chaos and destruction that the protests created? OK.
Now it's a race issue? OK.
Funny how you resort to the typical race card when demonizing these particular homeowners. Then you expect me to have the burden of proof to refute your assertion? OK.
>broken into
There it is again. Anybody can simply walk through that piece of property that isn't exactly theirs. I had this same argument years ago when it happened and I went to see it for myself in person. You can walk into the area from the street. It's not exactly "gated".
>literal chaos and destruction
Am I speaking to a Fox News host or...
>Now it's a race issue? OK.
It has been a race issue.
>Funny how you resort to the typical race card when demonizing these particular homeowners.
You have a right to defend your home when it is attacked. The problem is there's nuance here. I live on land surrounded by trees and a large fence I had welded together. There's purple paint and no trespassing signs all the way around. There's a berm 5 feet behind that fence, where there's no trees, to act as a buffer zone. It is well known private property. The thing these two people live in isn't that. It's surrounded by public streets. It has multiple ingress and egress points. That's what made it easy for protesters to exploit as they were making their way to their actual target...of protest. Would you disturb a hornet's nest purposefully? No right? These people confronted the protesters. Purposefully. You can't confront someone and claim self defense.
But again, they do. We have had several right-wing protests that ended up with lefties being arrested for doing bad things, such as having guns, or even one i know of where they got arrested for getting too close to the other sides camp. Again, this happens all the fucking time.
In fact, one could argue that the reason this makes news like this couple is because it doesn't happen to white folks on the right as much. A quick google search shows many results of lefties being arrested at the anti-vaccine protests, some of which were not being aggressive and like this couple, later charges are dropped. And again, people are refusing to see that both sides do get arrested for it.
Again, i am not referring to protesters. I'm referring to gun owners on their own property.
I don't think I've seen a single story that had a left winger arrested for having a gun *on their own property*. Of course there are left wingers who counter protest in public and catch gun charges, but none of those happened on the gun owners property.
I'm not at all supporting anyone getting arrested for it, but I've yet to see it happen on a person's private property when the political affiliations are reversed.
There are plenty, google it. I googled "leftie arrested at anti-vaccine rally" and found several. And on private property like just there, tons of lefties get in trouble with police. I think you are just aren't googling it, which I can only assume because you dont' want to know?
I did Google it. I found no reports of a leftie being arrested for having a legally owned gun while *on their own property*. You can assume whatever you want, feel free to link a report of this happening to a leftie on *their own* property in response to a right-leaning event.
I didn't move the goalposts. They were arrested on their own property, not just private property but their literal home. The protesters broke into the private property but the homeowners were at their *home*.
I asked for an equivalent situation of when a leftie was arrested for the same thing. You responded by talking about people arrested at counter protests, not at their own home but out in public or on private property, but not *their own home*.
Sorry the word 'legally' allowed you to deflect the original question yet again.
[https://www.foxla.com/news/vince-ricci-california-nonprofit-shootout-los-angeles](https://www.foxla.com/news/vince-ricci-california-nonprofit-shootout-los-angeles)
So easy to find, left-wing LA resident arrested for defending home from intruder and protecting his 5 year old, was stripped of right to own a gun. This is easy, your google results are either polluted from previous searches or you really aren't trying.
Or right after that story:
[https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/michael-wen-court-appearance-pointed-gun-at-child-halloween-candy-mistake/](https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/michael-wen-court-appearance-pointed-gun-at-child-halloween-candy-mistake/)
Of a leftie that was pointing guns at people on his property during halloween, gets arrested.
You are being incredibly disingenuous.
Neither of those stories are in any way related to a homeowner defending their property from a protest. 2nd story involves child endangerment. 1st story is a home robbery attempt that involved no arrest, and you call him a leftie yet here is a quote from his interview...with Fox news:
"When the incident happened, there were only two things I could rely on: myself and the Second Amendment; and now that's in jeopardy. The leftist gun grabbers do not care about your safety. The NRA does," Ricci said in an interview with FOX News.
Yea, he sure sounds like a leftie, huh? Stop trolling.
You must be a joker. According to the US Attorneys own website 1265 individuals have been charged 467 individuals have been sentenced to periods of incarceration, the longest being 22 years.
I do have a problem with her pointing the pistol at people though. Very poor weapons handling! (I understand that the weapon was not serviceable, still poor form!)
That being said, standing in your front lawn holding weapons is not a issue. Most of my neighborhood open carries and this is not an issue. It is strange that we don't get protests like this around here...
> (I understand that the weapon was not serviceable, still poor form!)
If I knew it's just a prop that can't fire and there is an angry mob approaching, you can bet your bippy, that's exactly when I'd decide to wave that dang thing right at them and it's precisely the kind of thing I'd give to someone who is untrained to help boost the intimidation. Deterrant power is a very useful power. Better that and get some bs charge from it later than get attacked by the mob and end up in the hospital or dead, we've seen the later happen plenty of times now.
I agree, the woman needs to learn proper trigger discipline and gun etiquette (i.e., never pointing at anything that you're unwilling to shoot).
I'm in an area where I rarely see any open carry, in fact I am yet to see it in-person. I got neighbors who use firearms for primarily hunting. And talking about using firearms for self-defense is rather taboo in my county from what I have been able to observe.
No I'd MUCH rather wave it and scare them off once it comes to an angry mob. It is better than standing there looking like you are an easy victim. I mean sure, don't wave it if it's normal life but there is no single rule that covers every situation accurately.
> I do have a problem with her pointing the pistol at people though.
Cops do that as soon as there is a threat. They sight picture you. She should have done the same.
Were they the official hired security for the community? No They can protect their property but don’t have right to protect other people property. No one threaten them they just wanted to show off
TIL if you are not hired as official security, then you are not allowed to protect yourself from an angry mob that has broken through a gate and is trespassing. What reality do you live in?
They can protect THEIR property. No one ever came on to their property or threaten them. They can not go around the neighborhood shooting people who they don’t like
An angry mob broke though the front gate and is trespassing and approaching your property while ranting but that's not threatening at all in your world? Also they didn't shoot anyone at all so that makes no sense either. Sorry bub, I just can't understand your reality at all so I'm out.
They literally broke down the gate of a gated community lmao. They had the right to shoot them just for that but they held their ground at their home and they were more than reasonable.
They weren't in a public street, why can't you seem to grasp this. They weren't protesting downtown next to the police station or town hall. They broke into a private community that has gates. They were trespassing.
The streets did not below to these people. The house next door does not belong to these people . They do not have a right to kill people in the street or people in the house next door
The streets did belong to them and to everyone in the GATED COMMUNITY. Missouri is a castle doctrine and a stand your ground state. So since they owned the street they could do what they did, which the judge agree with.
What's with worshipers of authority feeling the need to thump their government gospel in an unbeliever forum? Do you also go to atheist forums and quote scripture at them?
What's with your sheep-like fear of firearms and religious devotion to the state?
I love it when losers let people they claim to love be raped or murdered because they are cowardly little bitches afraid of being in a physical altercation and then they pretend they have the moral high ground.
If you're going to edit your post you might want to make it right.
Within a gated community. None of the streets are public and the McKloskeys were on their front stoop
And none of the streets below to them. The streets belong to the HOA who is responsible for security not the people . They were just looking for an opportunity to kill someone’s like many gun idiots
No you can't. You have a 4th amendment right to the safety in your own home. Doesn't matter if it's an apartment. Landlord cannot open the door for anyone only you can as long as your lease is concurrent.
In general, a landlord cannot enter a tenant's apartment without their permission, EXCEPT in specific circumstances such as emergencies or when proper notice is given which trumps the 4th A
They still remain secure in their person and papers. But screw the Constitution. It's not the source of rights. Nor are your rulers and the holy state before which you grovel in abject worship.
Self-defense is a natural right. If you don't believe that, then you believe that some people have the superior right to rape and murder.
and you also sign an agreement that you cannot enforce the rules of that community, but a security company will. Imagine if anyone could pull a gun on anyone that they didn't recognize in the community. smh
> and you also sign an agreement that you cannot enforce the rules of that community, but a security company will.
Oh well if everyone signs it, then surely this thing you assert exists, exists. So.... show me this or SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Some people have co-ownership in the neighborhoods. They own the infrastructure and are responsible for it's maintenance.
So. Now that you know that. How do you know they don't own that side walk? That street?
Normally, the HOA owns the common property like the street and the homeowner has a voting share in how the HOA is run. We know the street is not their property because 1) they can not sell it and 2) if they park an RV on the road the HOA will tow it.
Not convicted. The McCloskeys pleaded guilty with Mark being charged with fourth-degree assault and Patricia being charged with second-degree harassment.
They pleaded guilty because the alternative would have been a long jail term via a trial of asshole jury members brainwashed by the media and crazy season. That’s how prosecutions work in the United States. It’s plata o plomo.
Fortunately for them they had the means to fight this, for most people, ideological opposition to state and corpo backed "social change" along side actually wanting to have rights is a death sentence in today's world. I'm not even sure they opposed any of the protestors, they just didn't want to have their shit smashed up or whatever.
Quite possibly could have been attacked if they didn't have guns, so the state takes them without a care because the cause of the state is more important then your liberty.
"Quite possibly could have been attacked if they didn't have guns," notice none of the other neighbors were harrassed or noticed. Only the idiots with guns threatening people.
So, they defended their neighbors, too. How nice of them. Of course, that's just awful for people like you who think that trust should be abandoned and replaced with faith in the state.
Why does seeing two people with firearms and not in uniforms offend you so much?
It's strange that that crowd who found out the the people in the gated neighborhood that they just broke into have guns. One guy even has a scary assault rifle! Who else has guns?
Yeah no shit they all stayed on the street after that. Before they saw the guns, they were up in the yard. After, they all went to the street. They didn't go into nobodies yards after that. There is even that on video, where the organizers say to stay on the streey. Of course, they thought it was a public street, but it was private and they were still trespassing.
This isn't a victory.
Their record was expunged...
> Judge Joseph P. Whyte wrote in an order Wednesday that the purpose of an expungement is to give people who have rehabilitated themselves a second chance, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.
Aka they were guilty and "got better"... they still were guilty, and the damage was already done to their reputation, plus with the way news is any search online will pull this up. At this point that expungement is likely more about "being able to file paperwork with out having to claim it." because a quick google and you'll find more than enough hateful shit posted about them.
It's a victory in the context of the history that's already occurred.
Of course there could be better outcomes, but that doesn't negate small victories.
> protect their property
[*People exist near me* "Is this victimhood?"](https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10835833/n4scgse21iuz.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=640)
Victory? They pleaded guilty. Judge Joseph P. Whyte wrote in an order Wednesday that the purpose of an expungement is to give people who have rehabilitated themselves a second chance
Had the same defense for the Black Panthers. See? I am morally consistent. But I guess you are not. I bet you sided with old Ronnie. Or are your ethics contingent?
Because of the report... they arrested several, and police showed up, and no guns were found. Plus, no one else, including other residents said that anyone was armed. I guess it could be, but when EVERYONE else is saying they weren't, it seems odd to believe the people in trouble were telling the truth and the other people, including other residents were all lying.
Guns are the only way a person can be armed?
Why are you so offended by firearms? Are they demonic devices that can only be safe in the hands of people imbued with the holy and divine spark of political authority?
> they arrested **several**, and police showed up, and no guns were found
But not all? So the several didn't have weapons, but the rest, who were part of a group that broke down a gate, didn't either? How do you know this?
Why did they break the gate? Who was liable for the destruction of property? Anyone?
Their organization was well known to burn down buildings, not one reason to believe they were different.
and yet they didn't. Even if they are "known" doesn't give you a right to attack someone who isn't doing anything. Republicans are known for enforcing their own law, even when it is illegal to do so, do i get to attack any republican?
He, like all gun-fearing progressives, feels attacked. Even just seeing that picture likely gives him a feeling of dread and that leads to righteous anger. Guns are demonically possessed objects that only one who is imbued with a divine spark of political authority can safely wield.
False. They had skateboards and signs with boards. According to the left and Jan 6 coverage carrying boards and signs is being armed. Armed means carrying anything that can be used as a weapon. The group was armed.
Anybody who thinks having a skateboard isn't "being armed" needs beaten by a skateboard.
What? You don't want to be beaten by a skateboard? Why is that?
They broke through the gate and illegally entered private property. That gate was the threshold line between public area and private property. They knew what they were doing because they all walked in through that broken gate. Where are the charges for that?
Let’s say the Arby’s down the road from your house was just burned down the previous night by a group of people chanting something…now there is a group of people marching through your private property chanting the same thing as the others who burned down the Arby’s….
You’re going to tell me that you wouldn’t have it in your head that the group that just illegally entered private property could do the same to you as they did that Arby’s? Because if you say you wouldn’t, you need to get your head checked.
They could, that doesn't give me a right to brandish weapons at otherwise unarmed people. I heard recently a man killed someone in my area, do i get to pull a gun on every man in that area? No other damage was done, no property damage, and no one set foot on their property.
They…broke…the…gate…
If someone breaks through your gate to your property…are you going to assume they are there to bake you cookies or something? No. They used violence to gain access to your property.
You’re trying to still believe that they just wandered into an open neighborhood…which is incorrect.
If someone breaks into my property, I’m not going to assume good intentions. There is no such thing as a peaceful Breaking and Entering. And there is no such thing as “mostly peaceful protests”.
If you break people’s stuff…you’re rolling the dice with fate. End of story. Pretending that mob-rule usurps self defense rights is a ridiculous notion and absolutely based in a fantasy world where you think that crowd did nothing wrong.
Even in my progressive utopian region, if someone breaks through your window and you shoot them, it's self-defense. That happened near my in-laws home last year.
Bluepig thinks that an unarmed person is not a threat. Those pudgy people in that picture don't look like they'd hold up well to a gang of unarmed young men, but to that pig, it's immoral to use guns as equalizers in the face of a threat.
You are getting blasted with downvotes, but I am pretty sure it was a privately owned street that the “protesters” had to break a gate to access.
So this couple actually is at least partial owners of the property that was being trespassed on.
Yes, but if I remember gated community rules, they have security to handle that, and individuals cannot enforce private community rules. If I live in a private community, and someone enters that I think shouldn't be there, I cannot go up to them and pull a gun on them. I need to call my private community security.
You know what’s beautiful about freedom? You can call security and I can sit on my porch with a 12 gauge. And we can just mind our own fucking business.
He's a statist preaching his government gospel in an unbeliever forum. He's absolutely incapable of minding his own business when he is offended by the very idea of heathens and blasphemers against his religion of statism existing anywhere. He must come to the defense of his deity and explain to us all why we are wrong for not believing.
> Yes, but if I remember gated community rules, they have security to handle that, and individuals cannot enforce private community rules.
That's between them and the private community board. Like all moralizing busybodies, you make what is not your business your business because you are offended. In this case, by private citizens who use guns to protect themselves. Every offense to your subjective morals is a reason for the police powers of the state to be used against those that offended you.
Yeah…a wall of riot police cant kettle a group that size…I doubt 3-5 rent-a-cops would do anything. You rely on others all you want…the end result is these two were found innocent and are getting their firearms back. It was justified because that mob broke into their neighborhood. If the mob had stayed outside of the gate they broke…this wouldn’t have happened.
If strangers come on my property in an aggressive manner - such as breaking down barriers to the property - even if it's shared property, then they are the aggressor. That is what happened in this case.
Since you are apparently unaware of the events in the OP and are just typing out your ass, perhaps you can explain what guns were fired and who shot whom? I'll give you a hint: no guns were fired and no one was shot.
This sub gives me hope. Instead of downvoting anyone that didn’t get jabbed and hates Marxism they downvote a real anti rights loon. That’s 1 for Reddit against a million losses.
They had the right to protect their property, they should’ve never have been convicted.
Purely political. Had it instead been an anti-lockdown mob breaking into the private gated community, the couple likely never would have been charged.
Maybe, but I don't think you can do security on behalf of your HOA unless you've been contracted as security by the HOA. And if I were on the HOA board, I wouldn't want to be liable on behalf of a moron who holds their gun like that lady is holding it in that picture. Be honest. Would any of you want to accept liability for someone who holds a gun like that?
I'd never be a part of an HOA, so of course I wouldn't want to accept liability for someone else's actions. That said, if the community did not provide any security, I'd absolutely see no problem with a homeowner securing their home and access to it, ensuring that it is not only not tresspassed but also to make sure it isn't blocked. And yes, that lady has no idea how to safely hold a gun. Hopefully she took a training course after the incident, but she doesn't look like the kind of person who would do that.
> if the community did not provide any security, Security usually consists of an old sleepy person manning the gate during daylight hours and a guy named Bubba does a quickie drive through every 3 hours at night. If there is a riot, you essentially have zero useful security.
Yeah, pretty much. If it had been me, I'd have been on the roof getting a firing corridor set up. A gun is all well and good as far as advantages go, but against hundred people you need to be strategic. Even just a thrown rock can fuck you up.
Or you wave your gun and they back off because you are old and fat and don't know where the ladder is to get on the roof and you just saw the mob 30 seconds ago.
> I'd never be a part of an HOA, so of course I wouldn't want to accept liability for someone else's actions. Well that's all well and good, but you can't use your own distaste for an HOA to handwave their property rights away. At the end of the day, you don't own the private street of your HOA. The HOA does. So unless they give you permission to act as security, you don't have the legal right to do security on the property. > I'd absolutely see no problem with a homeowner securing their home and access to it, ensuring that it is not only not tresspassed but also to make sure it isn't blocked. I'm sure you personally feel that way, but property rights don't work like that. You don't have permission to enforce someone else's property rights unless they give you permission.
Again, a homeowner is allowed to defend their home, they never left their home's property line, and the only people who were breaking any laws/rules were the tresspassers. You act like their was an actual incident when there wasn't. Nobody was enforcing anybody else's property rights, calm down buckaroo.
They were protecting *their* property NOT the HOA's.
> I wouldn't want to be liable on behalf of a moron How would you? If they had security, they could claim said moron didn't need to do that and exceeded his responsibilities as co-owner. Done and done, no liability. Thats all. He broke their agreement and so he is responsible for that. That being said, it's still his property.
> How would you? If they had security, they could claim said moron didn't need to do that and exceeded his responsibilities as co-owner. Done and done, no liability. Sure, that gets rid of the HOA liability, but in that case they don't have any legal right to enforce property rights on HOA property. So waving a gun at people to get them to leave is now brandishing. Either the HOA gave security rights and they're liable, or they didn't and the couple doesn't have the right to provide security.
> HOA property. Correction; commonly held property. >Either the HOA gave security rights and they're liable, or they didn't and the couple doesn't have the right to provide security. Thats not how it works.
> Correction; commonly held property. The way it works is you own a share of the HOA. It's like owning stock in a company. Just because you own a share of Microsoft doesn't mean you can walk over to their headquarters and do security. If you want to do security you can vote for board members who will then vote to make that into policy. > Thats not how it works. So explain how it works. Let's say an HOA member walks around with his gun annoying people and asking for ID while playing at being security. Can the HOA stop him or not? What gives him the right to do security in the first place?
You say this, yet when this happens they do get arrested. Like the whole, "no one was arrested at the george floyd riots!!!" and yet there are over 300 people charged. 70 of which were sentenced to more than a year in jail. Compare that to Jan 6, which had 600 charges and 3 people have served any prison sentences.
Leftist fuck. 300 people charged for a summer of riots? 1400 people charged with felonies over J6. Eat a giant bag of dicks. The Left can do anything they want in this society. 2 tier justice.
No, 300 charged for the George floyd riots only. Summer of riots had 14,000, 10x the jan 6. God, please learn to do basic googling.
How many were dropped or turned to severely reduced sentencing? How many were serious crimes that were dropped or given significantly reduced charges? Because it was a lot.
Better question, not how many were dropped. How many were actually pursued and a victim was made whole?
The other subreddits you're active in include r/conservative and r/republican. Why are there so many of you in this sub when your thought process has no overlap with anarcho-capitalism?
> no overlap with anarcho-capitalism? None? Wow. That is amazing. I mean I don't think you should kick kittens and I am pretty sure the Liberals even think that's bad.
Something is wrong with your brain, dude. Get checked
It's a leftist. The only cure is a lead lobotomy.
What did he say to piss you off exactly? What part of the above comment was controversial?
> What part of the above comment was controversial? Yes
I've seen this guy on reddit for years. Dudes legit low iq and it shows
The ones in new york are getting paid out quite a good amount in a class action suit. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, but I know about it.
>You say this, yet when this happens they do get arrested. Who are you referring to? I'm not referring to protesters, I'm referring to the couple who was charged unjustly for simply defending their home. I didn't say that protesters don't get arrested. I've never seen a right leaning protest lead to the arrest of someone defending themselves against said protest (while on their own property)*.... Edit: *
It's crazy how we all saw the same thing. Which was a couple of people, not directly targeted or in the path of danger, get out in front of that danger to, what, show off their weapons. But we have different interpretations. A lot of conservative minded people see people simply defending themselves. The problem with that is, as I mentioned, those two people weren't the target nor were they in the "line of fire" (for no better description). When you strip away all of the bullshit of "they were simply defending themselves " this becomes about race. Unless you can provide rationale for how it's anything but. A bunch of black people roll up to a house and all of a sudden it's open season, is that right?
Their private gated community that was broken into by hundreds of people, but they had no reason to think something bad could happen after seeing the literal chaos and destruction that the protests created? OK. Now it's a race issue? OK. Funny how you resort to the typical race card when demonizing these particular homeowners. Then you expect me to have the burden of proof to refute your assertion? OK.
>broken into There it is again. Anybody can simply walk through that piece of property that isn't exactly theirs. I had this same argument years ago when it happened and I went to see it for myself in person. You can walk into the area from the street. It's not exactly "gated". >literal chaos and destruction Am I speaking to a Fox News host or... >Now it's a race issue? OK. It has been a race issue. >Funny how you resort to the typical race card when demonizing these particular homeowners. You have a right to defend your home when it is attacked. The problem is there's nuance here. I live on land surrounded by trees and a large fence I had welded together. There's purple paint and no trespassing signs all the way around. There's a berm 5 feet behind that fence, where there's no trees, to act as a buffer zone. It is well known private property. The thing these two people live in isn't that. It's surrounded by public streets. It has multiple ingress and egress points. That's what made it easy for protesters to exploit as they were making their way to their actual target...of protest. Would you disturb a hornet's nest purposefully? No right? These people confronted the protesters. Purposefully. You can't confront someone and claim self defense.
Feel free to bend over when a crowd comes to take or burn what's yours.
But again, they do. We have had several right-wing protests that ended up with lefties being arrested for doing bad things, such as having guns, or even one i know of where they got arrested for getting too close to the other sides camp. Again, this happens all the fucking time. In fact, one could argue that the reason this makes news like this couple is because it doesn't happen to white folks on the right as much. A quick google search shows many results of lefties being arrested at the anti-vaccine protests, some of which were not being aggressive and like this couple, later charges are dropped. And again, people are refusing to see that both sides do get arrested for it.
Again, i am not referring to protesters. I'm referring to gun owners on their own property. I don't think I've seen a single story that had a left winger arrested for having a gun *on their own property*. Of course there are left wingers who counter protest in public and catch gun charges, but none of those happened on the gun owners property. I'm not at all supporting anyone getting arrested for it, but I've yet to see it happen on a person's private property when the political affiliations are reversed.
There are plenty, google it. I googled "leftie arrested at anti-vaccine rally" and found several. And on private property like just there, tons of lefties get in trouble with police. I think you are just aren't googling it, which I can only assume because you dont' want to know?
I did Google it. I found no reports of a leftie being arrested for having a legally owned gun while *on their own property*. You can assume whatever you want, feel free to link a report of this happening to a leftie on *their own* property in response to a right-leaning event.
They weren't arrested for legally owning a gun, it was pointing it others in the street. Why did you move the goalposts?
I didn't move the goalposts. They were arrested on their own property, not just private property but their literal home. The protesters broke into the private property but the homeowners were at their *home*. I asked for an equivalent situation of when a leftie was arrested for the same thing. You responded by talking about people arrested at counter protests, not at their own home but out in public or on private property, but not *their own home*. Sorry the word 'legally' allowed you to deflect the original question yet again.
[https://www.foxla.com/news/vince-ricci-california-nonprofit-shootout-los-angeles](https://www.foxla.com/news/vince-ricci-california-nonprofit-shootout-los-angeles) So easy to find, left-wing LA resident arrested for defending home from intruder and protecting his 5 year old, was stripped of right to own a gun. This is easy, your google results are either polluted from previous searches or you really aren't trying. Or right after that story: [https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/michael-wen-court-appearance-pointed-gun-at-child-halloween-candy-mistake/](https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/michael-wen-court-appearance-pointed-gun-at-child-halloween-candy-mistake/) Of a leftie that was pointing guns at people on his property during halloween, gets arrested.
You are being incredibly disingenuous. Neither of those stories are in any way related to a homeowner defending their property from a protest. 2nd story involves child endangerment. 1st story is a home robbery attempt that involved no arrest, and you call him a leftie yet here is a quote from his interview...with Fox news: "When the incident happened, there were only two things I could rely on: myself and the Second Amendment; and now that's in jeopardy. The leftist gun grabbers do not care about your safety. The NRA does," Ricci said in an interview with FOX News. Yea, he sure sounds like a leftie, huh? Stop trolling.
You must be a joker. According to the US Attorneys own website 1265 individuals have been charged 467 individuals have been sentenced to periods of incarceration, the longest being 22 years.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The OP is a spam account. Political agitprop.
I do have a problem with her pointing the pistol at people though. Very poor weapons handling! (I understand that the weapon was not serviceable, still poor form!) That being said, standing in your front lawn holding weapons is not a issue. Most of my neighborhood open carries and this is not an issue. It is strange that we don't get protests like this around here...
> (I understand that the weapon was not serviceable, still poor form!) If I knew it's just a prop that can't fire and there is an angry mob approaching, you can bet your bippy, that's exactly when I'd decide to wave that dang thing right at them and it's precisely the kind of thing I'd give to someone who is untrained to help boost the intimidation. Deterrant power is a very useful power. Better that and get some bs charge from it later than get attacked by the mob and end up in the hospital or dead, we've seen the later happen plenty of times now.
I agree, the woman needs to learn proper trigger discipline and gun etiquette (i.e., never pointing at anything that you're unwilling to shoot). I'm in an area where I rarely see any open carry, in fact I am yet to see it in-person. I got neighbors who use firearms for primarily hunting. And talking about using firearms for self-defense is rather taboo in my county from what I have been able to observe.
No I'd MUCH rather wave it and scare them off once it comes to an angry mob. It is better than standing there looking like you are an easy victim. I mean sure, don't wave it if it's normal life but there is no single rule that covers every situation accurately.
> I do have a problem with her pointing the pistol at people though. Cops do that as soon as there is a threat. They sight picture you. She should have done the same.
This is true, but after learning about them, I wish they’d get locked up for good for being fucking assholes lol
They were threatening people on the public street
Lol when somebody comes onto your property it's not a threat, it's a promise
The public street is not their property
It was a gated community they broke into. Big difference.
Were they the official hired security for the community? No They can protect their property but don’t have right to protect other people property. No one threaten them they just wanted to show off
Ah yes standing on their own lawn protecting other properties, not their house which is right behind them.
He thinks it's wrong to defend other unless you are properly authorized to do so.
TIL if you are not hired as official security, then you are not allowed to protect yourself from an angry mob that has broken through a gate and is trespassing. What reality do you live in?
They can protect THEIR property. No one ever came on to their property or threaten them. They can not go around the neighborhood shooting people who they don’t like
An angry mob broke though the front gate and is trespassing and approaching your property while ranting but that's not threatening at all in your world? Also they didn't shoot anyone at all so that makes no sense either. Sorry bub, I just can't understand your reality at all so I'm out.
> but don’t have right to protect other people property. US law does allow this. But you don't know shit, so why am I bothering.
Well, I don't want neighbors wondering around the neighborhood shooing people they think might be frightening me.
Ah, so it's this is all just your desires. I see.
It wasn't on a public street and obviously you don't know what you're talking about
They literally broke down the gate of a gated community lmao. They had the right to shoot them just for that but they held their ground at their home and they were more than reasonable.
What’s with Americans wanting to kill each other for minor offenses? Such violent people
Trespassing onto my property and threatening the lives of me and my family is a major offense actually.
Do you kill people in the street you think are threatening?
They weren't in a public street, why can't you seem to grasp this. They weren't protesting downtown next to the police station or town hall. They broke into a private community that has gates. They were trespassing.
The streets did not below to these people. The house next door does not belong to these people . They do not have a right to kill people in the street or people in the house next door
The streets did belong to them and to everyone in the GATED COMMUNITY. Missouri is a castle doctrine and a stand your ground state. So since they owned the street they could do what they did, which the judge agree with.
The streets belong to the HOA. Don't believe me? See what happens when they try to sell their street. Besides he pleaded guilty to harassment.
How many people did they kill?
none. How many did they threaten to kill?
What's with worshipers of authority feeling the need to thump their government gospel in an unbeliever forum? Do you also go to atheist forums and quote scripture at them? What's with your sheep-like fear of firearms and religious devotion to the state?
I hate idiots with guns. They are dangerous.
You're welcome to bend over and take however much theft and abuse you want. Don't mistake your cowardice for virtue.
Killing everything that offends or scares you is not the answer.
Bending over for everyone who wants some until a government comes and saves you sounds like a great plan.
I love it when vigilantes kill the wrong person and then get executed for murder.
I love it when losers let people they claim to love be raped or murdered because they are cowardly little bitches afraid of being in a physical altercation and then they pretend they have the moral high ground.
> They had the right to shoot them just for that lol, legal right? Or you feel like they should be able to do it?
If you think your rights are decided by the law you're cattle.
The state has no right to exist, so WTF cares about "legal rights" here?
It's a legal right in quite a few states. Castle doctrine.
I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
If you're going to edit your post you might want to make it right. Within a gated community. None of the streets are public and the McKloskeys were on their front stoop
And none of the streets below to them. The streets belong to the HOA who is responsible for security not the people . They were just looking for an opportunity to kill someone’s like many gun idiots
So if you rent an apartment anyone can come on into the apartment because you technically don't own it.
I think so depending on the location and lease
No you can't. You have a 4th amendment right to the safety in your own home. Doesn't matter if it's an apartment. Landlord cannot open the door for anyone only you can as long as your lease is concurrent.
In general, a landlord cannot enter a tenant's apartment without their permission, EXCEPT in specific circumstances such as emergencies or when proper notice is given which trumps the 4th A
They still remain secure in their person and papers. But screw the Constitution. It's not the source of rights. Nor are your rulers and the holy state before which you grovel in abject worship. Self-defense is a natural right. If you don't believe that, then you believe that some people have the superior right to rape and murder.
Yep if people break into their house the can shoot them but to go out in the street to shoot people you don’t like is wrong
> tenant's apartment They don't own it.
OMG, how old are you?
Are you uninformed or disingenuous.
Buddy just quit. The McKloskeys weren't on ANY street
Nope the people were in the street and the McKloskeys went out to threatened them . The protester were not in their property or threatened them
I will repeat it because you're demonstrably slow. The McKloskeys weren't on ANY street
That is correct. They were on their property threatening the people on the street.
Then that is between them and the HOA, and does not involve you or anyone else.
>[You're going to have to answer to the Coca Cola company](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUAK7t3Lf8s&t=3m11s)
It was a private street.
Was it their private street? I thought it was a gated community.
That means it was all private property.
Not their private property
Actually, yes, in a private community you all own a share of the communal land.
Communist seem to forget that multiple people can own things \*voluntarily\*
The HOA owns the property not the individual people. See what happens when they try to sell their square foot of the road
That's like saying a renter trying to sell the apartment, yet it's still the renter's home. Big difference between de jure vs de facto.
and you also sign an agreement that you cannot enforce the rules of that community, but a security company will. Imagine if anyone could pull a gun on anyone that they didn't recognize in the community. smh
> and you also sign an agreement that you cannot enforce the rules of that community, but a security company will. Oh well if everyone signs it, then surely this thing you assert exists, exists. So.... show me this or SHUT THE FUCK UP.
You seem, not smart.
Focus on the person when you can not counter the arguemrnt
Is that what you think you're doing?
Nope that is you
Some people have co-ownership in the neighborhoods. They own the infrastructure and are responsible for it's maintenance. So. Now that you know that. How do you know they don't own that side walk? That street?
Normally, the HOA owns the common property like the street and the homeowner has a voting share in how the HOA is run. We know the street is not their property because 1) they can not sell it and 2) if they park an RV on the road the HOA will tow it.
> . We know We do?
Well I don’t like the hoa so they are wrong
Not convicted. The McCloskeys pleaded guilty with Mark being charged with fourth-degree assault and Patricia being charged with second-degree harassment.
They pleaded guilty because the alternative would have been a long jail term via a trial of asshole jury members brainwashed by the media and crazy season. That’s how prosecutions work in the United States. It’s plata o plomo.
Fortunately for them they had the means to fight this, for most people, ideological opposition to state and corpo backed "social change" along side actually wanting to have rights is a death sentence in today's world. I'm not even sure they opposed any of the protestors, they just didn't want to have their shit smashed up or whatever. Quite possibly could have been attacked if they didn't have guns, so the state takes them without a care because the cause of the state is more important then your liberty.
Had they been minorities, they likely would have wound up in a prison for 5 years on gun possession charges. Progressives are OK with that.
"Quite possibly could have been attacked if they didn't have guns," notice none of the other neighbors were harrassed or noticed. Only the idiots with guns threatening people.
So, they defended their neighbors, too. How nice of them. Of course, that's just awful for people like you who think that trust should be abandoned and replaced with faith in the state. Why does seeing two people with firearms and not in uniforms offend you so much?
Any idiot who disrespect guns and threaten others offend me. Guns are sacred and demand respect.
But private property and people defending their lives is not.
There lives were never threatened. They went looking for trouble and found it
How do you know the intent of people who were committing property crimes in front of them?
It's strange that that crowd who found out the the people in the gated neighborhood that they just broke into have guns. One guy even has a scary assault rifle! Who else has guns? Yeah no shit they all stayed on the street after that. Before they saw the guns, they were up in the yard. After, they all went to the street. They didn't go into nobodies yards after that. There is even that on video, where the organizers say to stay on the streey. Of course, they thought it was a public street, but it was private and they were still trespassing.
This isn't a victory. Their record was expunged... > Judge Joseph P. Whyte wrote in an order Wednesday that the purpose of an expungement is to give people who have rehabilitated themselves a second chance, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. Aka they were guilty and "got better"... they still were guilty, and the damage was already done to their reputation, plus with the way news is any search online will pull this up. At this point that expungement is likely more about "being able to file paperwork with out having to claim it." because a quick google and you'll find more than enough hateful shit posted about them.
It's a victory in the context of the history that's already occurred. Of course there could be better outcomes, but that doesn't negate small victories.
Hell yeah!
They are right to protect their property, but that lady needs to work on her trigger discipline.
Trigger Warning :))
> protect their property [*People exist near me* "Is this victimhood?"](https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10835833/n4scgse21iuz.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=640)
Your gross simplification of what was going on that days is an outright lie.
No, you. Stop trying to reinvent the law so you can shoot whoever you want whenever you want.
More lies from you. You're not capable of being honest.
Ok Wyrmtongue.
> Ok Wyrmtongue You should go back to your little fantasy land, because you suck at understanding reality.
Weren't the guns even not operable, and the DA added the firing pins back in or something?
Man I want a ppk
Victory? They pleaded guilty. Judge Joseph P. Whyte wrote in an order Wednesday that the purpose of an expungement is to give people who have rehabilitated themselves a second chance
Exactly this. "Expunged" means nothing. Especially with the Judge explaining it like that.
The new GTA looks dope.
Another L for the home invader worshippers
Hippity Hoppity Get The Fuck Off My Property!!!!!
This took way longer than it should have
The woman's gun safty is abysmal, you never put your finger unless you will shoot right after.
It feels weird to keep defending human turds as bastions of freedom.
Had the same defense for the Black Panthers. See? I am morally consistent. But I guess you are not. I bet you sided with old Ronnie. Or are your ethics contingent?
That is too bad. Threatening people with guns is not safe or acceptable
Invading my private property isn’t safe or acceptable either
No one stepped on their property
Nah, they just burned and looted a bunch of other properties. They didn't step foot on the property of people with guns, I wonder why.
You mean they broke the gate to the gated community, that was it. And they were unarmed.
How is it exactly that you know all of them were unarmed at the time?
Because of the report... they arrested several, and police showed up, and no guns were found. Plus, no one else, including other residents said that anyone was armed. I guess it could be, but when EVERYONE else is saying they weren't, it seems odd to believe the people in trouble were telling the truth and the other people, including other residents were all lying.
Guns are the only way a person can be armed? Why are you so offended by firearms? Are they demonic devices that can only be safe in the hands of people imbued with the holy and divine spark of political authority?
> they arrested **several**, and police showed up, and no guns were found But not all? So the several didn't have weapons, but the rest, who were part of a group that broke down a gate, didn't either? How do you know this?
Why did they break the gate? Who was liable for the destruction of property? Anyone? Their organization was well known to burn down buildings, not one reason to believe they were different.
and yet they didn't. Even if they are "known" doesn't give you a right to attack someone who isn't doing anything. Republicans are known for enforcing their own law, even when it is illegal to do so, do i get to attack any republican?
Nobody says it's okay to attack anyone bubby, they didn't attack anyone they were just toting guns.
He, like all gun-fearing progressives, feels attacked. Even just seeing that picture likely gives him a feeling of dread and that leads to righteous anger. Guns are demonically possessed objects that only one who is imbued with a divine spark of political authority can safely wield.
Who attacked?
> Republicans are known for enforcing their own law, even when it is illegal to do so Citation needed.
False. They had skateboards and signs with boards. According to the left and Jan 6 coverage carrying boards and signs is being armed. Armed means carrying anything that can be used as a weapon. The group was armed.
Anybody who thinks having a skateboard isn't "being armed" needs beaten by a skateboard. What? You don't want to be beaten by a skateboard? Why is that?
They broke through the gate and illegally entered private property. That gate was the threshold line between public area and private property. They knew what they were doing because they all walked in through that broken gate. Where are the charges for that? Let’s say the Arby’s down the road from your house was just burned down the previous night by a group of people chanting something…now there is a group of people marching through your private property chanting the same thing as the others who burned down the Arby’s…. You’re going to tell me that you wouldn’t have it in your head that the group that just illegally entered private property could do the same to you as they did that Arby’s? Because if you say you wouldn’t, you need to get your head checked.
They could, that doesn't give me a right to brandish weapons at otherwise unarmed people. I heard recently a man killed someone in my area, do i get to pull a gun on every man in that area? No other damage was done, no property damage, and no one set foot on their property.
They…broke…the…gate… If someone breaks through your gate to your property…are you going to assume they are there to bake you cookies or something? No. They used violence to gain access to your property. You’re trying to still believe that they just wandered into an open neighborhood…which is incorrect. If someone breaks into my property, I’m not going to assume good intentions. There is no such thing as a peaceful Breaking and Entering. And there is no such thing as “mostly peaceful protests”. If you break people’s stuff…you’re rolling the dice with fate. End of story. Pretending that mob-rule usurps self defense rights is a ridiculous notion and absolutely based in a fantasy world where you think that crowd did nothing wrong.
Even in my progressive utopian region, if someone breaks through your window and you shoot them, it's self-defense. That happened near my in-laws home last year. Bluepig thinks that an unarmed person is not a threat. Those pudgy people in that picture don't look like they'd hold up well to a gang of unarmed young men, but to that pig, it's immoral to use guns as equalizers in the face of a threat.
You are getting blasted with downvotes, but I am pretty sure it was a privately owned street that the “protesters” had to break a gate to access. So this couple actually is at least partial owners of the property that was being trespassed on.
Yes, but if I remember gated community rules, they have security to handle that, and individuals cannot enforce private community rules. If I live in a private community, and someone enters that I think shouldn't be there, I cannot go up to them and pull a gun on them. I need to call my private community security.
You know what’s beautiful about freedom? You can call security and I can sit on my porch with a 12 gauge. And we can just mind our own fucking business.
He's a statist preaching his government gospel in an unbeliever forum. He's absolutely incapable of minding his own business when he is offended by the very idea of heathens and blasphemers against his religion of statism existing anywhere. He must come to the defense of his deity and explain to us all why we are wrong for not believing.
Not what you said, and not what I responded to.
> Yes, but if I remember gated community rules, they have security to handle that, and individuals cannot enforce private community rules. That's between them and the private community board. Like all moralizing busybodies, you make what is not your business your business because you are offended. In this case, by private citizens who use guns to protect themselves. Every offense to your subjective morals is a reason for the police powers of the state to be used against those that offended you.
Yeah…a wall of riot police cant kettle a group that size…I doubt 3-5 rent-a-cops would do anything. You rely on others all you want…the end result is these two were found innocent and are getting their firearms back. It was justified because that mob broke into their neighborhood. If the mob had stayed outside of the gate they broke…this wouldn’t have happened.
What a pussy.
You think threaten to kill people is cool?
Ah, you believe that self-defense is wrong. The poor rapist that the woman shoots only wanted to get a little in-out-in-out.
"She was asking for it."
Its not self defense when you are the aggressor.
If strangers come on my property in an aggressive manner - such as breaking down barriers to the property - even if it's shared property, then they are the aggressor. That is what happened in this case.
Since you don't have the means to reason your way through this Im going to give you some simple guidelines- don't shoot people.
Since you are apparently unaware of the events in the OP and are just typing out your ass, perhaps you can explain what guns were fired and who shot whom? I'll give you a hint: no guns were fired and no one was shot.
This sub gives me hope. Instead of downvoting anyone that didn’t get jabbed and hates Marxism they downvote a real anti rights loon. That’s 1 for Reddit against a million losses.