Bob F submitted this idea :
On 8/7/2020 7:55 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/07/2020 07:22 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
rbowman wrote :
On 08/07/2020 03:58 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-08-07 13:27, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/7/2020 8:11 AM, Snag wrote:
On 8/6/2020 9:25 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/6/2020 6:46 PM, Muggles wrote:
Ed Pawlowski Wrote in message:r
On 8/6/2020 2:24 PM, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote: This is yet
another reason why I will NEVER EVER vote for a democrat.*
They're stupid and evil!
https://fellowamericandaily.com/bust...faced-blm-mob/


Half agree.* She should not have* used the case in a
political campaign.Should they be charged?* Not sure, Castle
doctrine may or may not apply since it was outside and no specific
threat made. I'll let the judge figure out the technicalities of
it. Possibly a brandishing charge?Pop them one at a time as they
come through the door and it is easy to figure out.

....

No specific threat?

They were a mob of people who broke onto private property.


They did not break into their property.* Big difference in the
castle law.* They should have stayed inside the door.

** One of the "demonstrators" is on video saying that he broke the
gate . Once they came thru that broken gate they were fair game .
Several hundred people come pouring onto my property making threats
I'm opening fire .

Get the whole story.* They broke a community gate, not their private
property.* They were going down the street.

Trespassing on a private road


So? Call 911.

They'll send an army of social workers to de-escalate the situation.

Probably, but you've established that you've reached out to the authorities
in good faith. In many jurisdictions, and most certainly in that one, the
deck is stacked in favor of the rioters, antifa, blm, whatever you want to
call them. Dot the i's, cross the t's, and try to get a convincing video so
if things go south it won't be you doing 30 years like that dummy at
Charlottesville.

The hypothetical 'you' may need to both defend yourself against legal
charges and the civil suits brought by the assholes from SPLC.


Again, they were protestors, not rioters. Protesting is a constitutionally
protected right.

They should be more careful not to break gates then, protestors don't
have the right to damage property.

On 8/7/2020 9:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/7/2020 6:51 PM, Snag wrote:
On 8/7/2020 3:27 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/7/2020 8:11 AM, Snag wrote:
On 8/6/2020 9:25 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/6/2020 6:46 PM, Muggles wrote:
Ed Pawlowski Wrote in message:r
On 8/6/2020 2:24 PM, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote: This is yet
another reason why I will NEVER EVER vote for a democrat.Â*
They're stupid and evil!
https://fellowamericandaily.com/bust...faced-blm-mob/
Half agree.Â* She should not haveÂ* used the case in a
political campaign.Should they be charged?Â* Not sure, Castle
doctrine may or may not apply since it was outside and no
specific threat made. I'll let the judge figure out the
technicalities of it. Possibly a brandishing charge?Pop them one
at a time as they come through the door and it is easy to figure
out.

....

No specific threat?

They were a mob of people who broke onto private property.


They did not break into their property.Â* Big difference in the
castle law.Â* They should have stayed inside the door.

Â*Â* One of the "demonstrators" is on video saying that he broke the
gate . Once they came thru that broken gate they were fair game .
Several hundred people come pouring onto my property making threats
I'm opening fire .

Get the whole story.Â* They broke a community gate, not their private
property.Â* They were going down the street.

Â*Â* I've seen video of the "protesters" on the McCloskeys' lawn . Moot
point anyway , that street is also private property , owned by the
homeowners in that gated community - and they are property owners ,
making that also their property . Any way you cut it Ed , they felt
that their lives were threatened and they acted appropriately and
within the law . Kim Gardner is totally outside the law with her
attempts to charge and punish them .

Totally agree she was looking for votes.

Laws can get fine line at times.Â*Â*Â*Â* Stand outside with gun in holder,
rifle at your side.Â* Point the gun and you drastically change the
circumstances.

If I point a gun at you , better start running because the next thing
I'll do is pull the trigger . I agree that they should not have pointed
the guns at the crowd ... just those in the crowd that were pointing
guns at them . On a side note , those pointing lasers at people need to
be shot . Only problem is that someone else in the crowd will grab the
laser if you do and there goes your self-defense claim . Unless you just
happen to have clear video of the incident ...
--
Snag

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 22:43:11 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/7/2020 10:23 PM, Bob F wrote:
On 8/7/2020 7:55 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/07/2020 07:22 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
rbowman wrote :
On 08/07/2020 03:58 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-08-07 13:27, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/7/2020 8:11 AM, Snag wrote:
On 8/6/2020 9:25 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/6/2020 6:46 PM, Muggles wrote:
Ed Pawlowski Wrote in message:r
On 8/6/2020 2:24 PM, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote: This is yet
another reason why I will NEVER EVER vote for a democrat.*
They're stupid and evil!
https://fellowamericandaily.com/bust...faced-blm-mob/


Half agree.* She should not have* used the case in a
political campaign.Should they be charged?* Not sure, Castle
doctrine may or may not apply since it was outside and no
specific
threat made. I'll let the judge figure out the technicalities of
it. Possibly a brandishing charge?Pop them one at a time as they
come through the door and it is easy to figure out.

....

No specific threat?

They were a mob of people who broke onto private property.


They did not break into their property.* Big difference in the
castle law.* They should have stayed inside the door.

** One of the "demonstrators" is on video saying that he broke the
gate . Once they came thru that broken gate they were fair game .
Several hundred people come pouring onto my property making threats
I'm opening fire .

Get the whole story.* They broke a community gate, not their private
property.* They were going down the street.

Trespassing on a private road


So? Call 911.

They'll send an army of social workers to de-escalate the situation.

Probably, but you've established that you've reached out to the
authorities in good faith. In many jurisdictions, and most certainly
in that one, the deck is stacked in favor of the rioters, antifa, blm,
whatever you want to call them. Dot the i's, cross the t's, and try to
get a convincing video so if things go south it won't be you doing 30
years like that dummy at Charlottesville.

The hypothetical 'you' may need to both defend yourself against legal
charges and the civil suits brought by the assholes from SPLC.


Again, they were protestors, not rioters. Protesting is a
constitutionally protected right.


Not on private property.

From what I saw, it wasn't private property. It was simply a gated
community.

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 21:27:41 -0700, T wrote:

On 2020-08-07 18:58, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/7/2020 5:58 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-08-07 13:27, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/7/2020 8:11 AM, Snag wrote:
On 8/6/2020 9:25 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/6/2020 6:46 PM, Muggles wrote:
Ed Pawlowski Wrote in message:r
On 8/6/2020 2:24 PM, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote: This is yet
another reason why I will NEVER EVER vote for a democrat.*
They're stupid and evil!
https://fellowamericandaily.com/bust...faced-blm-mob/
Half agree.* She should not have* used the case in a
political campaign.Should they be charged?* Not sure, Castle
doctrine may or may not apply since it was outside and no
specific threat made. I'll let the judge figure out the
technicalities of it. Possibly a brandishing charge?Pop them one
at a time as they come through the door and it is easy to figure
out.

....

No specific threat?

They were a mob of people who broke onto private property.


They did not break into their property.* Big difference in the
castle law.* They should have stayed inside the door.

** One of the "demonstrators" is on video saying that he broke the
gate . Once they came thru that broken gate they were fair game .
Several hundred people come pouring onto my property making threats
I'm opening fire .

Get the whole story.* They broke a community gate, not their private
property.* They were going down the street.

Trespassing on a private road

You don't get to shoot trespassers walking down the road.

When they are armed and threatening to kill you you do

If they were trying to arm themselves, big signs with big letters don't
seem like a particularly good choice of weapon. Sounds like something from
a Monty Python bit.

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 21:32:34 -0700, T wrote:

On 2020-08-07 18:22, Bob F wrote:
On 8/7/2020 4:16 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-08-07 15:51, Snag wrote:
On 8/7/2020 3:27 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/7/2020 8:11 AM, Snag wrote:
On 8/6/2020 9:25 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/6/2020 6:46 PM, Muggles wrote:
Ed Pawlowski Wrote in message:r
On 8/6/2020 2:24 PM, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote: This is yet
another reason why I will NEVER EVER vote for a democrat.*
They're stupid and evil!
https://fellowamericandaily.com/bust...faced-blm-mob/
Half agree.* She should not have* used the case in a
political campaign.Should they be charged?* Not sure, Castle
doctrine may or may not apply since it was outside and no
specific threat made. I'll let the judge figure out the
technicalities of it. Possibly a brandishing charge?Pop them one
at a time as they come through the door and it is easy to figure
out.

....

No specific threat?

They were a mob of people who broke onto private property.


They did not break into their property.* Big difference in the
castle law.* They should have stayed inside the door.

** One of the "demonstrators" is on video saying that he broke the
gate . Once they came thru that broken gate they were fair game .
Several hundred people come pouring onto my property making threats
I'm opening fire .

Get the whole story.* They broke a community gate, not their private
property.* They were going down the street.

** I've seen video of the "protesters" on the McCloskeys' lawn . Moot
point anyway , that street is also private property , owned by the
homeowners in that gated community - and they are property owners ,
making that also their property . Any way you cut it Ed , they felt
that their lives were threatened and they acted appropriately and
within the law . Kim Gardner is totally outside the law with her
attempts to charge and punish them .


No fooling.

The one thing that has surprised me over all this
lawlessness is the absolute restraint shown by the
victims of it.* I would have thought bullets would
have flown by now


I'm sure you would have been happy to murder a few dozen people.
Fortunately for themselves, the McCloskeys showed more restraint than
you want to.

When someone is threatening you or someone else with
deadly force you get to use deadly force in defense

That sounds shaky. I don't think I'll be taking legal advice from you.

Tell me, what was the deadly force used by all those
children your side murders every year? You clearly
believe the strong get to butcher the weak.

You mean like they did in your bible?

On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 13:46:55 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

FLUSH another load of pathetic senile blather

....and nothing's left!

On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 07:48:36 -0500, Snag wrote:

On 8/7/2020 9:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/7/2020 6:51 PM, Snag wrote:
On 8/7/2020 3:27 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/7/2020 8:11 AM, Snag wrote:
On 8/6/2020 9:25 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/6/2020 6:46 PM, Muggles wrote:
Ed Pawlowski Wrote in message:r
On 8/6/2020 2:24 PM, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote: This is yet
another reason why I will NEVER EVER vote for a democrat.*
They're stupid and evil!
https://fellowamericandaily.com/bust...faced-blm-mob/
Half agree.* She should not have* used the case in a
political campaign.Should they be charged?* Not sure, Castle
doctrine may or may not apply since it was outside and no
specific threat made. I'll let the judge figure out the
technicalities of it. Possibly a brandishing charge?Pop them one
at a time as they come through the door and it is easy to figure
out.

....

No specific threat?

They were a mob of people who broke onto private property.


They did not break into their property.* Big difference in the
castle law.* They should have stayed inside the door.

** One of the "demonstrators" is on video saying that he broke the
gate . Once they came thru that broken gate they were fair game .
Several hundred people come pouring onto my property making threats
I'm opening fire .

Get the whole story.* They broke a community gate, not their private
property.* They were going down the street.

** I've seen video of the "protesters" on the McCloskeys' lawn . Moot
point anyway , that street is also private property , owned by the
homeowners in that gated community - and they are property owners ,
making that also their property . Any way you cut it Ed , they felt
that their lives were threatened and they acted appropriately and
within the law . Kim Gardner is totally outside the law with her
attempts to charge and punish them .

Totally agree she was looking for votes.

Laws can get fine line at times.**** Stand outside with gun in holder,
rifle at your side.* Point the gun and you drastically change the
circumstances.

If I point a gun at you , better start running because the next thing
I'll do is pull the trigger . I agree that they should not have pointed
the guns at the crowd ...

Got it. Don't point guns at a crowd.

just those in the crowd that were pointing guns at them .

Wait, what? Now it's OK to point guns at a crowd??

On a side note , those pointing lasers at people need to
be shot . Only problem is that someone else in the crowd will grab the
laser if you do and there goes your self-defense claim . Unless you just
happen to have clear video of the incident ...

I assume this refers to people pointing lasers at aircraft as they approach
to land. I agree, that's very dangerous.