this is a felony.

captainmorgan

captainmorgan

Well-Known Member
Harvest76 said:
I'll add: can you imagine being so privileged and detached from "average" societal problems, that seeing a bunch of people of color marching past your palace frightens you so much you threaten their lives? How absolutely sad for them.
Click to expand...
Right wingers are terrified of everything, people of color,gay people,Muslims,environmentalists, you name it, especially feminists lol and they shit their pants over it, just like their coward hero bunkerboy.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Samwell Seed Well said:
They were on property that the entire neighborhood is responsible for and in which they are the closest lot.

The law that you need to worry about in their defense is the castle doctrine which in Missouri is petty broad and vague... they dont have to prove the protesters were aggressing...all they have to prove is that the defendants felt reasonable fear.

" reasonable..." comes up a lot in definitions the of castle doctrine for Missouri... gonna be a toss up depending on jury or judge
Click to expand...
Is this what happens when people mix hormones with guns? They lose all sense of context and detach from reality? Are you fantasizing about killing people and citing "castle doctrine"?

This is what the prosecutor said:

"It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in nonviolent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis," Gardner said in a statement.

Please note that there was no mention of castle doctrine, instead he talked about the situation. The description of the crowd was "peaceful". This is objective and describes the protest pretty well.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
father nature said:
I thought you meant the violent scum of the life "protesters" in Portland....please continue

Oh, and we need more of these people standing up to the shithead arsonist destroying this country. Come near my house and expect the same....as it should be
Click to expand...
Rose City Antifa was originally founded to protect the people of Portland from their fascist police force. Their struggle is succeeding. Defund the police is just days away from taking shape in the form of legislation. So, suck it.

Lulz at your "come at me bruh", flourish. Nobody cares about your hovel. Just don't kill anybody just because you were scared, old white man.
 
Samwell Seed Well

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Is this what happens when people mix hormones with guns? They lose all sense of context and detach from reality? Are you fantasizing about killing people and citing "castle doctrine"?

This is what the prosecutor said:

"It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in nonviolent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis," Gardner said in a statement.

Please note that there was no mention of castle doctrine, instead he talked about the situation. The description of the crowd was "peaceful". This is objective and describes the protest pretty well.
Click to expand...
Show me on the doll, where i said anything you are inferring...
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
The protesters were peaceful. Gun owners need to learn to not point loaded guns at people for no good reason.
Click to expand...
Since the protesters invaded property that wasn't theirs, you'd be okay if I pranced around in a bigfoot suit in your living room protesting for hirsute equality with a sign that said "hairy beavers matter" as long as I was "peaceful" ?
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Maybe. The court costs are a good start at punishment, though. Regardless what happens, the message is, don't point guns at people for no good reason. Is this too much to ask?
Click to expand...
They would be charged and convicted here of dangerous use of a firearm even if they had a restricted weapon licence. Those fuckers should never be able to own a gun ..... ever!!! There was no danger to them selves and god forbid one of their hedges got tore out..... fucking imbeciles......that’s the mindset and the problem.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Budley Doright said:
They would be charged and convicted here of dangerous use of a firearm even if they had a restricted weapon licence. Those fuckers should never be able to own a gun ..... ever!!! There was no danger to them selves and god forbid one of their hedges got tore out..... fucking imbeciles......that’s the mindset and the problem.
Click to expand...
What a civilized answer.

So much better than the mindless 2A guy who jumps from pictures of a fat woman pointing their gun at a black man to "castle doctrine". Because, after all, black people don't belong in their neighborhood unless they are mowing the lawn.
 
Samwell Seed Well

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Just stop it with the gaslighting. You made up a story that is true in your own mind.

Show me where the prosecutor mentions the castle doctrine?
Click to expand...
Castle doctrine would be the defense argument... the prosecuter works for the state to...prosecute the defendants...wtf do you even think you are saying
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Samwell Seed Well said:
You have got to be kidding me....im gaslighting...ok yall have fun clutching pearls
Click to expand...
Yep, you are gaslighting.

Show me where the prosecutor said anything about "castle doctrine" that you used in a fantasy about killing those protesters. I can understand why you want to deny talking about it. What you said is clearly written in the posts above. By the way, in case you don't know, that's what gaslighting is. Gaslighting is outright lying by somebody to deny doing something that people saw them doing. Narcissists like Trump are famous for that.

Be honest. Do you think those protesters should have been shot and killed? Because of castle doctrine?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Samwell Seed Well said:
Castle doctrine would be the defense argument... the prosecuter works for the state to...prosecute the defendants...wtf do you even think you are saying
Click to expand...
What the prosecutor said:

"It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in nonviolent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis," Gardner said in a statement.

What I saw in the video matched what the prosecutor said. Just because a person owns a gun doesn't give them the right to menace people with it for no good reason. Objectively -- where is the threat to that couple?
 
farmingfisherman

farmingfisherman

Well-Known Member
If you point a gun at someone you ought to understand that you are likely the one that could get shot. Waving, pointing or even brandishing a firearm is considered a reckless act and can mean felony charges.. First thing they teach you in a concealed weapons class is the firearm is the last line of defense. Those people are clueless and I hope they lose their 2 amendment rights forever.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
farmingfisherman said:
If you point a gun at someone you ought to understand that you are likely the one that could get shot. Waving, pointing or even brandishing a firearm is considered a reckless act and can mean felony charges.. First thing they teach you in a concealed weapons class is the firearm is the last line of defense. Those people are clueless and I hope they lose their 2 amendment rights forever.
Click to expand...
So they should have shot the trespassers then or made them a sandwich ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top