1511 pts ยท March 1, 2015
Fucking poetic.
Honestly I am at that point I just hope it gets progressively worse in a cavalcade of unbelievable bullshit at this point.
So, theoretically, if the armed one in the mob aimed at them, they're still not on legal grounds to aim under this castle law? Real Q.
You don't have to be on the property to pose a threat. The video just has to show person B was not a threat, which none has surfaced yet.
If there is a large, loud, angry mob infiltrating a private residence, it would stand to reason you'd be on guard. They're not trained, tho.
Not disagreeing here on that, I am saying unless they have evidence to that claim, it's just... circular defense by that point.
Problem is, even removing the statue wouldn't be enough, entire cities are founded by these types of people. And one cannot simply rename it
Which is true, again, unless you can credibly prove it was at innocent people, the ball is in their court.
Stating that as it's going to be a he-said/she-said argument. The defense gets circular here since the vids can't confirm either way.
But do we know who they aimed it at? Many who were marching were also armed, that can be used as their defense. Cause one can't confirm.
-> their property. I will say they are poorly trained in guns, as any 2A can see, but I am willing to bet St. Luis laws are on their side.
But the thing is, brandishing their weapons in their declaration of defense, cause some WERE approaching their property, they can defend ->
This would suggest many who had guns standing in front of their businesses during riots were also breaking laws.
Oh of course, there is no vid that suggests looting, so that claim is brash if anything.
Honestly this is the only real reasonable counter argument. Sure I can doubt the legitimacy, but what am I out if I wear a mask regardless?
Good luck trying to find a primary colored ten year old for a voice this day and age.
"Oval office," sure but... *gestures at entire DC*
It's why they stood on their property, which was well within that right since the private laws were already ignored.
Can we confirm the house was inherently targeted though? It IS one of the first houses next to the gate and the owners DID immediately resp
You simply cannot go onto someone's property and call it peaceful and leave it at that, property laws don't function like that.
The video does show many more than a few dozen, and some of those protestors were also armed. As for escalation, the mob did trespass.
No video shows that intent, but with how mobs work, it could have happened. It's moot now, cause it didn't.
That whole area is private property, though, streets and all. Google doesn't even get street views.
I mean, technically true. Who here actually watches Nascar?
As one with a garden during this pandemic, I photosynthesize with this photo... cause as hell my 'matoes don't plan to.
Trust me, I know. I may not like some of the extreme ideas of Bernie, but his voting base was present and the DNC did him dirty.
Fucking poetic.
Honestly I am at that point I just hope it gets progressively worse in a cavalcade of unbelievable bullshit at this point.
So, theoretically, if the armed one in the mob aimed at them, they're still not on legal grounds to aim under this castle law? Real Q.
You don't have to be on the property to pose a threat. The video just has to show person B was not a threat, which none has surfaced yet.
If there is a large, loud, angry mob infiltrating a private residence, it would stand to reason you'd be on guard. They're not trained, tho.
Not disagreeing here on that, I am saying unless they have evidence to that claim, it's just... circular defense by that point.
Problem is, even removing the statue wouldn't be enough, entire cities are founded by these types of people. And one cannot simply rename it
Which is true, again, unless you can credibly prove it was at innocent people, the ball is in their court.
Stating that as it's going to be a he-said/she-said argument. The defense gets circular here since the vids can't confirm either way.
But do we know who they aimed it at? Many who were marching were also armed, that can be used as their defense. Cause one can't confirm.
-> their property. I will say they are poorly trained in guns, as any 2A can see, but I am willing to bet St. Luis laws are on their side.
But the thing is, brandishing their weapons in their declaration of defense, cause some WERE approaching their property, they can defend ->
This would suggest many who had guns standing in front of their businesses during riots were also breaking laws.
Oh of course, there is no vid that suggests looting, so that claim is brash if anything.
Honestly this is the only real reasonable counter argument. Sure I can doubt the legitimacy, but what am I out if I wear a mask regardless?
Good luck trying to find a primary colored ten year old for a voice this day and age.
"Oval office," sure but... *gestures at entire DC*
It's why they stood on their property, which was well within that right since the private laws were already ignored.
Can we confirm the house was inherently targeted though? It IS one of the first houses next to the gate and the owners DID immediately resp
You simply cannot go onto someone's property and call it peaceful and leave it at that, property laws don't function like that.
The video does show many more than a few dozen, and some of those protestors were also armed. As for escalation, the mob did trespass.
No video shows that intent, but with how mobs work, it could have happened. It's moot now, cause it didn't.
That whole area is private property, though, streets and all. Google doesn't even get street views.
I mean, technically true. Who here actually watches Nascar?
As one with a garden during this pandemic, I photosynthesize with this photo... cause as hell my 'matoes don't plan to.
Trust me, I know. I may not like some of the extreme ideas of Bernie, but his voting base was present and the DNC did him dirty.