- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Prosecutor investigating St Louis gun toting couple feels targeted
Posted on 7/15/20 at 11:55 am to Boston911
Posted on 7/15/20 at 11:55 am to Boston911
quote:
Ahhh I see now, looked up her picture,,,,she’s “racist”! If they can claim it, I can too
Google "Kim Gardner St Louis" and show me a picture where shes actually next to a white person
1
Posted on 7/15/20 at 11:56 am to Eighteen
quote:
really wish an unarmed mob would storm and chant outside of her house just to see how she reacts and how the media covers the story
How do we know the mob was unarmed?
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:00 pm to Mizz-SEC
quote:
one of whom was brandishing an AK-47 about ten feet behind her.
Obviously you don't understand the term brandishing. "Brandishing" is pointing a firearm at somebody without legal cause. It's technically aggravated assault. Carrying in the "low ready" like the man in the gif shows is not brandishing.
However, this, by letter of the law, is.
Now that doesn't mean I think the charges are valid or will stick eventually, but if you are a gun owner it's your responsibility to know what you can and cannot do with a firearm.
Colion Noir does a great job of breaking it down on Youtube.
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:03 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Obviously you don't understand the term brandishing. "Brandishing" is pointing a firearm at somebody without legal cause
Obviously you don't understand about thugs being on your private property uninvited and defending your property and self from potential harm.
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:03 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Obviously you don't understand the term brandishing. "Brandishing" is pointing a firearm at somebody without legal cause. It's technically aggravated assault.
Does this count?
quote:
Colion Noir
dude has great Youtube content
This post was edited on 7/15/20 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:04 pm to DomincDecoco
quote:
Does this count?
No. It's just a picture.
I hate to shatter your ego, but this ain't the first time I've had a gun pointed at me.
(FWIW Pulp Fiction is one of my top 5 movies and I've always thought that the epic scene could have been been even more epic if he'd included the word "today" at the end of it.)
This post was edited on 7/15/20 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:14 pm to YouAre8Up
quote:
Obviously you don't understand about thugs being on your private property uninvited and defending your property and self from potential harm.
No, I understand it 100%. But I also know what I LEGALLY can and cannot do.
You still can't point a gun at someone unless they are physically threatening your life (or somebody else's) where death or severe bodily injury is imminent. It's the law. The line between justifiably drawing a gun in defense of one's self and brandishing is a thin one. It's a responsible gun owners DUTY to know that where that line is. This lady did not. I feel bad for her, but had she simply held the gun and pointed it at the ground (until attacked) she would have been OK.
ETA: Here's the statue from the State of Missouri.
quote:
1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121 , if he or she knowingly:
.
.
.
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; ?
Her actions that day clearly rise to this level of understanding.
This post was edited on 7/15/20 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:16 pm to DomincDecoco
By the letter and intent of the law, she is wrong and knows it. But the urge to make a 'political' response was just too strong for her to overcome.
This is not the first time she has made decisions based on her beliefs and not by the law.
The (I believe it was) the state Attorney General is not happy with her as well, from the interview that I heard.
Hopefully, she will be removed from her position, and then, I won't be surprised if she is sued by the homeowners.
This is not the first time she has made decisions based on her beliefs and not by the law.
The (I believe it was) the state Attorney General is not happy with her as well, from the interview that I heard.
Hopefully, she will be removed from her position, and then, I won't be surprised if she is sued by the homeowners.
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:18 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
unless they are physically threatening your life
The WERE being threatened. Plenty of audio evidence.
Yes, their gun handling needs some refinement, but they broke no laws.
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:19 pm to DomincDecoco
quote:
should the prosecutor make such aggressive "guilty without due process" as she has.
If they are pressing charges I’m fine with it. They aren’t the part that’s supposed to be unbiased. Prosecutors can think someone is guilty, in fact they have to to bring charges.
She also didn’t say in her statement that the couple was guilty (at least not in the part quoted) just that they will not tolerate that crime.
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:21 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
No, I understand it 100%. But I also know what I LEGALLY can and cannot do.
You still can't point a gun at someone unless they are physically threatening your life (or somebody else's) where death or severe bodily injury is imminent. It's the law. The line between justifiably drawing a gun in defense of one's self and brandishing is a thin one. It's a responsible gun owners DUTY to know that where that line is. This lady did not. I feel bad for her, but had she simply held the gun and pointed it at the ground (until attacked) she would have been OK.
I may have missed it, but I haven’t seen video of protesters and/or their actions. Did any have weapons? Did any present actions toward the couple? There was already destructive violence demonstrated with the distraction of the gate.
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:24 pm to WonderWartHawg
quote:
The WERE being threatened. Plenty of audio evidence.
I don't disagree, but you cannot act on simple verbal threats with physical force. Had the protesters had a weapon or had they used physical force in some way the actions could be justified.
I also agree with this post of yours 100%.
quote:
By the letter and intent of the law, she is wrong and knows it. But the urge to make a 'political' response was just too strong for her to overcome.
This post was edited on 7/15/20 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:27 pm to DomincDecoco
As if the BLM crowd would read that directive and go, “oooooooo, we scared now.”
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:30 pm to Lonnie Utah
Wouldn’t the destruction of the gate to enter the neighborhood constitute as an established physical threat?
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:34 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
but you cannot act on simple verbal threats with physical force.
I’m not trying to be obtuse, but how do you classify holding a gun as using physical force? Seems like it’s countering a threat of physical force with another threat of physical force
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:38 pm to Ross
quote:
I’m not trying to be obtuse, but how do you classify holding a gun as using physical force?
HOLDING a gun is Ok. POINTING a gun at someone is not. That's what draws the distinction in the eyes of the law.
It's why the Husband's actions are ok but the Wife's are not.
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:52 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
She also didn’t say in her statement that the couple was guilty (at least not in the part quoted) just that they will not tolerate that crime.
The only crime committed was by the trespassers destroying property and entering onto private property. Where are the charges for that?
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:54 pm to DomincDecoco
This is the leftist pattern.
Leftist aggressively threatens and/or lies about non-woke target.
Non-woke target and others defend themselves from the Leftist's lies and threats.
Leftist claims they were attacked by Non-woke target.
Exact same scenario going on between an NYT "reporter" and a silicon valley venture capitalist. She told a bunch of lies about a CEO and got called out it. Now the 'reporter" is claiming people are attacking her for being female.
F*ckem.
Leftist aggressively threatens and/or lies about non-woke target.
Non-woke target and others defend themselves from the Leftist's lies and threats.
Leftist claims they were attacked by Non-woke target.
Exact same scenario going on between an NYT "reporter" and a silicon valley venture capitalist. She told a bunch of lies about a CEO and got called out it. Now the 'reporter" is claiming people are attacking her for being female.
F*ckem.
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:56 pm to DomincDecoco
They clearly utilized their 2nd Amendment rights to confront a bunch of trespassers. 1st Amendment doesn’t cover breaking into private property and threatening people.
Posted on 7/15/20 at 1:19 pm to DomincDecoco
Yeah, okay.
YOU are the only oppressor in this conversation, "Madam Prosecutor"....
YOU are the only oppressor in this conversation, "Madam Prosecutor"....
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News