Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

It was private property and the protesters had to break a gate to get onto the private street leading by that residence.  Everyone in that crowd was criminally trespassing.

 

I would have preferred they kept their weapons out of sight until it became clear they would need them to defend their homes.  Those two were so incompetent with their firearms handling they were as likely to kill themselves or someone in the crowd with no intention of attacking their property as not.  Bad-ass is not the term that comes to mind.

Only the house is private property, the street and the sidewalk are maintained by the city and are thus public property.  So long as they didn't actually walk onto the front yard of the house, which they clearly didn't, they're not trespassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Twilight said:

Only the house is private property, the street and the sidewalk are maintained by the city and are thus public property.  So long as they didn't actually walk onto the front yard of the house, which they clearly didn't, they're not trespassing.

 

It was a gated community and my understanding is the road was private and there was a sign posted to that effect.

 

I'll see if I can find the post...

 

Not the one I was looking for, but here you go.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/couple-points-guns-at-protesters-marching-to-st-louis-mayor-s-home-to-demand-resignation/article_9edc57ed-c307-583f-9226-a44ba6ac9c03.html

 

You can see the private street sign on this one.  It was not a public road.

 

Quote from article: 

The McCloskeys had been at home and heard a loud commotion coming from the street; they went to investigate and saw “a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street’ signs,” police said. 

“The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims,” police said. “When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.”

 

image.png.aa1d01f1c89b4bdaa23e24b2aa02d681.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

*Shameless vilification of black people*

If it's a private road then they're scamming money from the city of St Louis because the zoning law says said roads are being maintained by the city of St Louis.  If they city's maintaining it then it's public property plain and simple but there I go being logical rather then mindlessly swallowing whatever story de jour they're using to vilify the black people being threatened by the gun wielding idjits.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's a private street.  But the bigger question is, why did the mayor feel the need to dox a bunch of pro-reform activists, and why were all the public roads to her residence closed at the time?

 

Also, Ken & Karen here could not present a better illustration of white privilege--waving their guns around in front of their McMansion, freaking out because OMG BLACK PEOPLE ON THE STREET.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Man said:

Also, Ken & Karen here could not present a better illustration of white privilege--waving their guns around in front of their McMansion, freaking out because OMG BLACK PEOPLE ON THE STREET.

 

The fact that Ken & Karen didn't get shot by police is a pretty good illustration of white privilege in and of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Twilight said:
3 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

*Shameless vilification of black people*

If it's a private road then they're scamming money from the city of St Louis because the zoning law says said roads are being maintained by the city of St Louis.  If they city's maintaining it then it's public property plain and simple but there I go being logical rather then mindlessly swallowing whatever story de jour they're using to vilify the black people being threatened by the gun wielding idjits.  

 

Firstly, I said nothing about race whatsoever.  That is a completely disingenuous misrepresentation of what I said.  I didn't even voice an opinion on the situation only clarified the facts - to the degree I understand them - from news articles.  The one I used has a 92.5 rating on Newsguard so that's pretty solid.

 

Also, if you read the article I linked earlier you'd know:

1-  Police consider it a criminal trespass and 4th degree assault through intimidation by the protesters.

2-  The crowd of protesters was mixed-race.

3-  One lawyer quoted in the article thinks the home-owners haven't broken any laws.

4-  The circuit attorney for Missouri is looking to see if there's an opportunity to press charges on the homeowners because they didn't like guns being pointed at the protesters and thought it might be a suppression of 1st Amendment rights.

 

 

The lawyer for Mr. and Mrs. We-Need-Firearms-Training said:

 

“Their entire practice tenure as counsel (has) been addressing the needs of the downtrodden, for whom the fight for civil rights is necessary,” Watkins said. “My clients, as melanin-deficient human beings, are completely respectful of the message Black Lives Matter needs to get out, especially to whites … (but) two individuals exhibited such force and violence destroying a century-plus old wrought iron gate, ripping and twisting the wrought iron that was connected to a rock foundation, and then proceeded to charge at and toward and speak threateningly to Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey.”

 

 

Yeah, that's a real quote from their lawyer.  Who refers to their own clients as melanin-deficient human beings??

 

2 hours ago, Old Man said:

Also, Ken & Karen here could not present a better illustration of white privilege--waving their guns around in front of their McMansion, freaking out because OMG BLACK PEOPLE ON THE STREET.

 

See lawyer quote above.  Also, mixed race group of protesters.  And, I completely agree with you about the Mayor.  Doxxing people on video who disagree with you is pretty messed up in the current climate.

 

Maybe I'm old fashioned or tempered by living in very diverse cities for most of my life, but I didn't see a couple pulling their guns out because "OMG BLACK (and white) PEOPLE ON THE STREET".  I saw an old, rich, white couple who have no knowledge of firearms safety whatsoever pulling their guns out when a crowd broke through the gate right outside their home and came towards their house - on private property.

 

Rather than assume they're racist I'll wait for some follow-up investigations.  The reality is - none of us know.  Maybe they are and maybe they aren't, but my psychic powers don't exist.

 

image.thumb.png.e22c188a1a5edc64db488b5a5c32dafc.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pariah said:

 

The fact that Ken & Karen didn't get shot by police is a pretty good illustration of white privilege in and of itself.

Though if they'd opened fire themselves, I imagine there's a pretty good chance they'd have ended up shooting each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

It was private property and the protesters had to break a gate to get onto the private street leading by that residence.  Everyone in that crowd was criminally trespassing.

 

Okay, but think of what Mayor Krewson did.  By giving the names and addresses of people who suggested that she defund the police, she ensured that they could not feel safe and their homes and neighborhoods.  Instead they have to worry about reprisal to themselves and family members.  They have to worry no knock warrants and "routine" traffic stops that magically lead to drugs being found in their vehicles.  Nor is this intimidation limited to those that she mentioned in her Facebook video, it extends to those who suggested she defund or clamp down on the police that she didn't mention by name.  They have to worry that their names and addresses have been passed on to law enforcement by some private communication.

 

All this, she did secure in the belief that while she could make people lay awake in fear in their own homes that, she herself had nothing to fear at night.  At the end of each day she would go home to her safe, affluent gated community.  As the song says, hurting others while she can't feel pain. Well, now she knows that her fortress isn't impregnable and playing the bully might not be the best of ideas. If her neighbors now look at her with side eyes and wish that she would move and take all of her drama with her, so much the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ranxerox said:

Okay, but think of what Mayor Krewson did.  By giving the names and addresses of people who suggested that she defund the police, she ensured that they could not feel safe and their homes and neighborhoods.  Instead they have to worry about reprisal to themselves and family members.  They have to worry no knock warrants and "routine" traffic stops that magically lead to drugs being found in their vehicles.

 

I couldn't possibly agree with you more.  The Mayor was negligent in a way that should be criminal.  Utterly disgusting behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So,  I've been thinking about what I would  have done in that couple's shoes. I've landed on: I'd pull out a couple of folding tables, set them up near the sidewalk, and lay out some refreshments for the protestors. Really, screw that mayor.

 

On the flip side, if I experienced any spillover onto my property (which means near my family), I would act to squelch it.

 

And the couple in the pics needs to have their guns removed until they prove they can handle them safely. They also need brandishing charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

And the couple in the pics needs to have their guns removed until they prove they can handle them safely. They also need brandishing charges.

 

I could realistically see the wife getting charged for that.  The husband shows he's not skilled with a firearm, but he didn't have his finger on the trigger and he wasn't pointing it at anyone.

 

The wife on the other hand was finger-on-trigger and waving the pistol around like a magic wand.  She also advanced on the protesters while the husband did not.  If she gets charged it wouldn't be a surprise.

 

Which is kind of crazy in a domino kind of way.  Had the Mayor not doxxed people the crowd wouldn't have come through there and the couple wouldn't have had their guns out at all.

 

We could be looking at a situation where the protesters get charged or the couple gets charged - or both - while the mayor walks away without incident despite having caused the whole situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ScottishFox said:

 

I could realistically see the wife getting charged for that.  The husband shows he's not skilled with a firearm, but he didn't have his finger on the trigger and he wasn't pointing it at anyone.

 

 

He was pointing his weapon at her. Gun nuts I know are like he's one pull away from not needing a divorce lawyer

CES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pattern Ghost said:

You don't have to point a weapon at someone to meet the requirements for brandishing in most places.

 

True, but I doubt they'd successfully convict on that given that the couple said they were threatened, called the police, and only pulled out the weapons after a person in the crowd said they were going to kill the family and their dog and burn the house down.

 

Not saying their version of events is necessarily true (or not true), but a jury needing to hit a threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt" seems unlikely.

 

7 minutes ago, csyphrett said:

Gun nuts I know are like he's one pull away from not needing a divorce lawyer

 

Yeah, the condemnation of the couples firearm handling is almost universal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2020 at 5:06 AM, ScottishFox said:

The lawyer for Mr. and Mrs. We-Need-Firearms-Training said:

 

“Their entire practice tenure as counsel (has) been addressing the needs of the downtrodden, for whom the fight for civil rights is necessary,” Watkins said. “My clients, as melanin-deficient human beings, are completely respectful of the message Black Lives Matter needs to get out, especially to whites … (but) two individuals exhibited such force and violence destroying a century-plus old wrought iron gate, ripping and twisting the wrought iron that was connected to a rock foundation, and then proceeded to charge at and toward and speak threateningly to Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey.”

 

 

Yeah, that's a real quote from their lawyer.  Who refers to their own clients as melanin-deficient human beings??

 

Someone who's trying to whip up and exploit white grievance?

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was looking this morning at preliminary results for our states primary elections yesterday. In the governor's race, incumbent Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox has a slight lead over former Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. I'm okay with either of those people as the Republican nominee, though I prefer the former. Former Utah state legislator Greg Hughes, who's basically a Trump sock puppet and an "open everything up NOW" plague enthusiast, is in third place with about 21% of the vote. The fact that one in five Republicans in my state apparently think he's the right person for the job concerns me.

 

In my US House district primary, it looks like former NFL player Burgess Owens is going to be the Republican nominee. I don't really know much about his platform, other than it involves blaming Democrats for everything that's wrong with the country and saying that if Black players kneel for the national anthem, he won't be watching the NFL. (For the record, Owens is Black.) Apparently this is what the Republicans in my district want. I expect I will be voting for incumbent Ben McAdams.

 

Which reminds me, now that the (closed) Republican primary is over, I've got to get online and change my party registration back....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Starlord said:

 

Well, if we handle it based on his approach, it will eventually disappear from humanity, anyway.  Probably not the way humanity would prefer, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the politics of OTHER Countries...

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/hong-kong-boris-johnson-pmqs-citizenship-uk-china-law-a4485601.html

 

40% of Hong Kong could get UK Citizenship? Wow. Is it okay to actually approve of something Boris is doing? I mean, I'm probably missing some ramifications, and I know there would be challenges (And the CCP will rattle sabers is not the least of them) but I have to admire the sheer testicular fortitude of the UK here esp if they pull it off. Mind you, if there ends up being a mass exodus from Hong Kong, I have to wonder where the HKers will end up living exactly. I suppose most would be comfy in urban areas like London.

 

Also, it's a big brain and wealth drain off China, or perhaps I'm wrong on that?

 

Oh And Australia is looking to protect Hong Kongers as well

 

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-02/australia-considering-offering-safe-haven-to-hong-kong-residents/12415482

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...