Whenever the news posts about "White People With Guns" its usually scary or weird or monstrously stupid.

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,671
136
Yep. The McCloskeys are already gun nut heroes riding the lying Trump train.

“They were going to be beat up badly, and the house was going to be totally ransacked and probably burned down like they tried to burn down churches,” the president said.

Funny how none of the houses up the street were ransacked...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ch33zw1z

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
LOL. You called me out for not reading some google search of the law you posted and called me stupid, but you based all these posts on some percentage of knowledge you think you have and are using that as an excuse. Maybe read through the thread and see what information is there before call out others. I will never respond to you on this forum again. You seem to exemplify “stupid is as stupid does.” Keep fighting, soon no one will respond.

You post this shit like “intent” does not matter. If I hopped the fence to pick up some trash on your property and you shot me, you would think you were justified, but in reality if I was not “threatening” you, you just committed a much more serious crime. You cannot meet a trespasser with deadly force just for trespassing. The force you use must be justified even in your reruns of Castle Doctrine on Netflix.

Fight on dude.
You are dumb as a bag of rocks by all your posts. I looked at the the case as it has been presented by the DA as that is what matters. Could care less about any of the rest of the shit as none of that matters in a court of law and I don't care to argue with idiots here about opinions. Nothing fruitful comes out of the later ever.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
16,919
4,665
136
Yep. The McCloskeys are already gun nut heroes riding the lying Trump train.




Funny how none of the houses up the street were ransacked...
See...The McCloskeys saved their neighborhood !
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,825
2,006
136
Yep. The McCloskeys are already gun nut heroes riding the lying Trump train.




Funny how none of the houses up the street were ransacked...
That’s because the McCloskey’s were protecting everyone from the imaginary foe. I am surprised ANTIFA and George Soros has not been blamed yet. There is still time though.
 
Last edited:

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
30,001
16,973
136
WTF are you always so fucking racist for? Who gives a shit if the party has black people or not? Dude get that racist chip off your shoulder.

If another homeowner was throwing a party on the shared areas, they more than likely would have to notify all homeowners of it prior to taking place or other homeowners could call the cops or defend it. That is fairly typical. Seen it happen before where some dumbass in a community like that decided to have a block party on the street without notifying the whole neighborhood. Police came and broke it up. Just because you don't understand how laws work doesn't mean shit. Most communities like that have community by-laws which in many cases still have legal reprecussions if not upheld.
I didn't say the party was on the street. The party is inside the house of homeowner A but people have to walk down the street to get there. You said the streets are jointly owned by all the homeowners so which homeowner gets the final say on who is allowed to walk down that street.

My point is the streets are owned by the HOA and egress is public. There no other way it could exist.

Apartment complexes are private property buy anyone can drive down the street. I live in a townhouse which the development is private property but public street access is allowed. Same here.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
22,177
15,292
136
You are dumb as a bag of rocks by all your posts. I looked at the the case as it has been presented by the DA as that is what matters. Could care less about any of the rest of the shit as none of that matters in a court of law and I don't care to argue with idiots here about opinions. Nothing fruitful comes out of the later ever.
Just so I can give your comments the appropriate weight where did you receive your legal education? What states have you been admitted to the bar in?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
Just so I can give your comments the appropriate weight where did you receive your legal education? What states have you been admitted to the bar in?
I didn't do law school. My mother and other family members have. A criminal Justice degree is a precursor for that. It's what most cops have to have in most cities, politicians, security personell, and people like me that wanted certain jobs as software developers in certain security contracts back in the day. Are you this dense or what? Criminal justice degrees are done everywhere. I could take it further but have no desire at this point in my life to become a lawyer when I make more than most do.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
I didn't say the party was on the street. The party is inside the house of homeowner A but people have to walk down the street to get there. You said the streets are jointly owned by all the homeowners so which homeowner gets the final say on who is allowed to walk down that street.

My point is the streets are owned by the HOA and egress is public. There no other way it could exist.

Apartment complexes are private property buy anyone can drive down the street. I live in a townhouse which the development is private property but public street access is allowed. Same here.
Even if the party was at someone's house, I'm pretty sure they have to escort them, or in the communities I know of, register them with a pass with a gate guard. Neighborhoods like these are not your typical public areas and have their own way of doing things. Even if they are opening a house for the public, they will have to let neighbors know and get everyone to sign off on it. That is also fairly typical. That way people know if they see someone random at that time frame in the neighborhood, they know more than likely they were invited to be there. I am quite serious on this.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
21,141
17,794
136
I can see standing on your porch with a holstered piece, sipping an iced tea as people surge by, but menacing people and making threats is counter productive.

Pointing a loaded weapon at people with your finger on the trigger when you are not under threat? (Sorry, I don't believe their side of the story). That should net you a fine, jail time, and the inability to legally own firearms from that point on. Fuck your feelings. You are officially too much of a dumbshit to be trusted with firearms.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,671
136
I can see standing on your porch with a holstered piece, sipping an iced tea as people surge by, but menacing people and making threats is counter productive.

Pointing a loaded weapon at people with your finger on the trigger when you are not under threat? (Sorry, I don't believe their side of the story). That should net you a fine, jail time, and the inability to legally own firearms from that point on. Fuck your feelings. You are officially too much of a dumbshit to be trusted with firearms.
Why? All the other people along the route knew it wasn't about them. The protesters are on a mission to fuck with the Mayor. Enjoy your privilege. Smile & wave, let it go on by. The McCloskeys saw it as their ticket to national celebrity & the gun nut hall of Heroes. The governor & the president have both defended them, as has one of our more dishonest posters. Maybe Trump will put 'em on stage at the convention, huh?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
I can see standing on your porch with a holstered piece, sipping an iced tea as people surge by, but menacing people and making threats is counter productive.

Pointing a loaded weapon at people with your finger on the trigger when you are not under threat? (Sorry, I don't believe their side of the story). That should net you a fine, jail time, and the inability to legally own firearms from that point on. Fuck your feelings. You are officially too much of a dumbshit to be trusted with firearms.
I can respect an opinion like yours on this matter in this stance as long as it remains opinion. This couple did many things with firearms i would fine "wrong" personally even if not legally. I am all for mandatory gun training for every in America in the school system like there used to be. Learn some of the basics for our 2nd Amendment right.

As far as legality for their actions, it is fine. No one was shot, and no one was hurt except feelings of people on forums like this. Could care less. I'm usually pretty apathetic in scenarios like this with my opinion when no laws were broken and no one was hurt.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
7,446
1,192
126
I was able to confirm that the homeowners own the property where the sidewalk and street are located. St. Louis has an interesting history concerning some of the older gated communities like Portland Place. They are called “private places.” Here are the links that explain it. You can see the lot lines in the last link. This resolves the question of whether the property was theirs or the HOAs.

From what I've read these people are a pair of assholes. I would speculate they are core Trump supporters and will probably receive the Medal of Freedom from Trump. If they are convicted of a crime Trump will either commute their sentence or pardon them.


Private Places

Lawful or unlawful use of a weapon? A case for both.


 
Mar 11, 2004
21,859
4,051
126
Just so I can give your comments the appropriate weight where did you receive your legal education? What states have you been admitted to the bar in?
He stayed at a Holiday Inn one time. Probably then sued them for emotional duress after they didn't provide a gun for safety. It left him so emotionally scarred he was forced to buy an assault rifle from Dick's and then sue them for the emotional trauma of ruining his X-mas. Ralphie got his Red Ryder, but poor him didn't.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
35,054
14,140
146
I can respect an opinion like yours on this matter in this stance as long as it remains opinion. This couple did many things with firearms i would fine "wrong" personally even if not legally. I am all for mandatory gun training for every in America in the school system like there used to be. Learn some of the basics for our 2nd Amendment right.

As far as legality for their actions, it is fine. No one was shot, and no one was hurt except feelings of people on forums like this. Could care less. I'm usually pretty apathetic in scenarios like this with my opinion when no laws were broken and no one was hurt.
Would mandatory training require a section on not pointing a gun a things you don't intend to shoot?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
Would mandatory training require a section on not pointing a gun a things you don't intend to shoot?
Of course, but not shooting at something you are pointing at doesn't mean you don't intend to shoot. In the same situation as the two above, I certainly would be pointing at the very least, if not shooting. We have use of force defense laws in most of the country for a reason. Very few places left with a duty to retreat laws. Duty to retreat laws make it impossible for anyone to ever defend themselves and which is why they've mostly been abolished.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
He stayed at a Holiday Inn one time. Probably then sued them for emotional duress after they didn't provide a gun for safety. It left him so emotionally scarred he was forced to buy an assault rifle from Dick's and then sue them for the emotional trauma of ruining his X-mas. Ralphie got his Red Ryder, but poor him didn't.
You never fail to prove how much of a dipshit you are. Yep, I sued a retail chain store that broke a contractual agreement after I paid in full for an item that they failed to deliver on. I won that suit easily. The item in question doesn't matter. But I understand you have a phobia of people following laws and able to defend themselves be that in their homes or a court. I also know how racist you are too. Have you graduated from your parents basement yet?
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
35,054
14,140
146
Of course, but not shooting at something you are pointing at doesn't mean you don't intend to shoot. In the same situation as the two above, I certainly would be pointing at the very least, if not shooting. We have use of force defense laws in most of the country for a reason. Very few places left with a duty to retreat laws. Duty to retreat laws make it impossible for anyone to ever defend themselves and which is why they've mostly been abolished.
So you're saying they intended to shoot the protestors on the street

Btw, you claimed earlier this was my anecdotal teaching, lol.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
21,141
17,794
136
Nice little run down on brandishing a weapon, for any interested. This is something every gun owner should know by default.

Letting someone know you are armed – whether it’s resting a hand on your pistol grip or sweeping back your shirt to let the other person know you’re armed – can and will be construed as a threat. And once it’s safely in that arena, you can be prosecuted in both civil and criminal court.

Pointing a loaded gun at someone with your finger on the trigger is something that gets people shot all the time. If you think a prosecutor is going to side step that in a court setting because the gun didn't go off you are in for a big, rather unpleasant surprise. The legal definition of brandishing varies by state, but it's generally something you can only get away with if your life is in immediate danger. And we know from the video and pics that was not the case.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,051
10,587
136
Too many Rambo movies, huh?
Stupid libtard! The 2a totally gives you the right to shoot at unarmed persons who aren't even posing a credible threat!

WTF. I support the 2a and own guns, but that poster is about as stupid dishonest and hypocritical as they come. Such 2a rights he claims, if they existed, would either result in a wild west scenario with a complete breakdown of law and order, or would be completely one-sided and used as a means for one group to claim their 'rights' allow them to infringe upon the rights of other groups. And for some reason I am super-confident that what that poster and the McCloskeys are pushing for is the latter.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
21,141
17,794
136
This McCloskey guy is on Fox so much you'd think he was running for office.

He saw what happened with Stephen Willeford and wanted to taste that kind of fame too. He'll grab a gun and do what's right! Pretty sick how that guy has been damn near deified by the NRA crowd, you'd think he singlehandedly prevented all those deaths in Sutherland Springs, instead of him of showing up as the shooter was leaving. Guy is now some kind of hero to certain people. Now McCloskey wants to be a hero, and Faux Noise is only too happy to oblige.

He probably will run for office, watch.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
Nice little run down on brandishing a weapon, for any interested. This is something every gun owner should know by default.

Letting someone know you are armed – whether it’s resting a hand on your pistol grip or sweeping back your shirt to let the other person know you’re armed – can and will be construed as a threat. And once it’s safely in that arena, you can be prosecuted in both civil and criminal court.

Pointing a loaded gun at someone with your finger on the trigger is something that gets people shot all the time. If you think a prosecutor is going to side step that in a court setting because the gun didn't go off you are in for a big, rather unpleasant surprise. The legal definition of brandishing varies by state, but it's generally something you can only get away with if your life is in immediate danger. And we know from the video and pics that was not the case.

No, it doesn't have to be life in immediate danger with castle doctrine laws which Missouri has. THIS is where you and other posters keep getting it wrong. Castle Doctrine allows for use of lethal force to defend PROPERTY as well as life. Someone breaking into your house to steal your valuables, but not "harm" you can still be legally shot. Why? Because the laws for castle doctrine don't try to go into minutia bullshit of trying to define every little action in a situation for what may or may not be an imminent threat. It is obvious that someone is in a place the legally shouldn't be and knew they weren't suppose to be there. That is why castle doctrine allows for any actions by property right owners to defend their property up to and including lethal force. Brandishing or Exhibiting a firearm is a legal use of force within castle doctrine laws. Technically warning shots are also legal as well, and are easier to defend in court in cases of castle doctrine laws (much easier) than when it comes to self defense laws only. While legal though in self defense situations, it can give ammo to an over zealous prosecutor to inject that by firing a warning shot you didn't think it was completely life threatening in that self defense situation. Every so often, the prosecutors win that, but it isn't as often as one may think. The real problem with warning shots, is it may not discourage the person and instead encourage them to actually kill you before you can decide to fire something more than a warning shot. It just isn't worth it.

SCOTUS has already ruled the mere carrying of a firearm can't be legally deemed as a threat or brandishing. Period.
 
Last edited:

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
So you're saying they intended to shoot the protestors on the street

Btw, you claimed earlier this was my anecdotal teaching, lol.
If they are smart about it in court, their defense is that they were using an escalation of force that could include up to lethal force if needed to defend their property from the mob. That they stopped at where they did because they felt it stopped the mob without having to go further with their use of force.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY