anotherlimey

But in the UK you'd also be in trouble for owning an unreasonably sharp banana.

They could have just avoided trespassing, and a potentially deadly encounter, but no. Common sense isn't so common.

Scamp

We should probably start slut-shaming her, right?

I haven't looked in that great detail to be quite honest.
If someone was walking across my garden as part of a protest, I'd probably stay inside, or perhaps go outside and talk to some people and ask them nicely to carry on but watch the flowers. I wouldn't ever, ever, consider waving a lethal weapon in their direction.

macliam

Tripe.... the use of justifiable force is acceptable in the UK as in the USA, but it is true that the casual carrying of weapons is prohibited. It's just the difference between "active" and "passive" defence - active defence seems closer to offence and the threat of lethal force moreso. In most states, a criminal trespass to land is defined by statute and constitutes a misdemeanor, therefore an armed response is as justifiable as threatening someone with a knife for littering. Equally, if the property is open to access, then a claim of trespass can be argued regardless of signage - just as posting a "beware of the dog" sign doesn't absolve the owner from responsibility.

Common sense would seem to say, don't think that threatening a crowd with a gun will calm the situation..... but I think this was more about making a statement than any protection. Excusing the action suggests acceptance of that statement.

anotherlimey

Common sense says don't put yourself at risk of an encounter the owner will be justified shooting you for.

You think, other people think differently and they are just as right as you.

paulry

I don't think the resident lunatics will pay any attention to these inconvenient truths but this bloke has raised some really relevant points regarding the way in which the extremist left views black murders and racism.


6m 45s to 8m 46sec:
10m 27sec to 12m 6sec:

scrubbedexpat0105

I'm still confused about all this, but you sound clued up on these things so maybe you can help me out. (Please tick the most appropriate answer)

If I have to travel through rural America and know that I might have to ask directions, is it best to put on:
o A suit
o A bulletproof vest
o Full-blown riot gear

If I'm in America in my apartment and a bunch of armed guys in plain clothes burst in, do I:
o Shoot them
o Respectfully ask to see their warrant

If I'm in America in my own mcmansion/starter castle and I see some folks moving down the private road outside, do I shoot them if they are (multiple answers possible):
o Serfs
o Joggers
o Japanese tourists
o Plainclothed cops

If I'm in America and I come home to find my apartment door open, and I go inside and find an intruder, do I shoot him/her?
o Always
o Only if the intruder is male
o Only if the intruder is black
o Only if the intruder is male AND black
o Only on the third Tuesday of every month
o Only after checking that it's actually my own apartment

anotherlimey

You need another option - answers vary by State.

macliam

Pray suggest the justification - as posted earlier "In most states, a criminal trespass to land is defined by statute and constitutes a misdemeanor" so actions against trespassers are normally subject to laws of self-defence. If the trespasser has not broken into the property and is not directly threatening either the property or its owner, then the owner has no justification to shoot and can be prosecuted if he does so, as even a proven act of trespass does not deprive the perpetrator of rights. The act of waving firearms at a crowd appears far more about making a statement than any claim to legal rights - and by justifying the action you are supporting that message. I do not suggest that all people think as I do, but then, I'm not the one making false claims.

anotherlimey

You can just read the tweet thread posted earlier where they refer to the Missouri law.

Eta: I'll make it easy for you: https://www.kmov.com/news/experts-examine-whether-it-was-legal-for-st-louis-couple-to-point-guns-at-protesters/article_ef18bb82-ba77-11ea-8432-2b81e9df592a.html

"making false claims"... lol

kimilseung

Thats exactly what they were doing, Walking down a street. just a very particular bit of street.

macliam

I'm not interested in tweets - here's the legal advice for Missouri - https://www.uslawshield.com/unwanted-guests-missouri/
I quote "Keep in mind that the force you use against the trespasser must be that which an ordinary and prudent person would consider reasonable. In many situations it simply involves calling the police. There are situations in which drawing or pointing your firearm may be a reasonable use of force, but I advise that you never draw or point your firearm unless you need to use deadly force, which means that there must be an imminent threat of deadly force against you."

Does this look like the owners are threatened? -

anotherlimey

No, you're not interested in anything contrary to your opinion: https://www.kmov.com/news/experts-ex...1e9df592a.html

paulry

It absolutely does fit



That's cultural marxism in action


A very cleverly put together slogan (Black Lives Matter) for the organisation name + undisputable outrage at the murder of a black man + a stated agenda seasoned with "black lives matter" lip service + funding in the form of donations from both well meaning and sinister forces = an effective Trojan horse organisation

Good question but I can tell you now it's not BLM - they havent done one thing to improve the lot of black people and caused a great deal of harm instead with their demands to defund the police - which has caused even more suffering and black deaths than before - which incidently BLM are silent about.

No. I'm showing that BLM is not the messiah that many seem to think it is and it doesn't represent black lives - or if it is it's failing them miserably, and not uplifting or improving their lives at all.

So what are you doing to help then?

Back then it was predominantly blacks fighting very legitinately for their rights. Today its a trojan horse organanisation with mostly white membership and comprising a mixture of people who know very well what it's goals really are, and others who think the organisation is good and virtuous but which the behaviours and "what we believe" page is anything but virtuous.

Nope. I would like to see traditional family values re-established that encourages mum + dad led families. More jobs. Reductions to grievence + dependency culture. Promotion of personal responsibility and shared identities rather than divided ones. Schemes that are put in place to help people help themselves such as education and business incubation grants. Also a roll back of extremist influences in the mainstream press and institutions - especially educational ones. And a heap of other good things besides.

What things of substance would you like to see?

paulry

kimilseung

For those on the wrong side of history, for the conservatives, its always "back then" was good to protest, was acceptable to protest, but not now, now is good, now everything is good, lucky to be born in a time of post-protest, the only time in history when protest is not needed. Its always good to ask yourself who would you have been at particular points of history. If you object now,you would have objected then, if you accept now, you would have accepted then.Its what it means to be conservative.That they look back at times when conservatism lost, is a good indicator that they are wrong. conservatives think every fight that they lost, that it was right that they lost, except the present one, they are sure that if they lose this one, this last one, then for sure the sky will fall.