Survival and Emergency Preparedness

#1 - Private property where people live is NO place for a protest, even if it's peaceful. Period. #2 - Once they damaged property to gain illegal entry it ceased to be a protest and became a riot. Period. #3 - Rioting is a criminal activity and is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. The act of rioting can be met with force, including deadly force if applicable. Period.

I'm not a fan of their gun handling or lack of common sense, but they had every right to defend themselves and their property.
I don't care what or how noble your cause is, it doesn't supercede anyone else's rights.

Ronin.45 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:01 pm I'm not a fan of their gun handling or lack of common sense, but they had every right to defend themselves and their property.
I don't care what or how noble your cause is, it doesn't supercede anyone else's rights.

They definitely need firearms training. However, at least what they did worked against what was really overwhelming odds (reports were 200-500 people). It was great to see home owners defending life and property and it ending well. It could have really gone south.

As far as the rioters...that's what they were. Peaceful protest ends when the law is broken and people and property are in danger. I saw the aerial map and the mob was on a public street, broke down the iron gate and entered private property including the road. The media tried to spin it like the 'protestors' were simply marching down the street. Nope, it was all private property and they were all instantly criminals when they breached the iron gate and entered private property which they have ZERO right to be on.

It is however a bit disconcerting to see them entering neighborhoods that have nothing to do with any event in progress. That shows they are being emboldened which is not a good thing.

Aside from poor judgment and lack of gun handling skills, ironically they supposedly support BLM which is a marxist movement that does not believe in the private property of others.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... le-who-pu/

https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-fo ... d-marxist/

Wouldn't it be considered privilege to pull assault weapons on mostly peaceful protesters for trespassing on their so called private property?

I agree with the commentator's comments.

While legal, it is not wise to leave a safe place - your home - and expose yourself to attack. Someone in the crowd could have shot at the couple or simply thrown a rock at them.

In today's climate a person with a gun is guilty until proven innocent.

While Missouri has a stand your ground law, it might be debatable when you go outside to meet the protesters.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local ... %20to%20be.

The DA is political hack. Had multiple lawsuits filed against her for not following the law, dropping charges and refused to charge minor crimes that doesn't fit her agenda. Attacking the State General Attorney who is a Republican. She used an old law on the books that was setup to fight against the KKK and filed suit against the St. Louis Police Department because the department wouldn't do what she wanted.

They need to toss that DA out and get a real one that isn't driven by her own political agenda.

Bmyers wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:26 am The DA is political hack.

Yep, I saw them talk about her last night and heard some of her comments. A real POS.

aerynsun wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:24 pm While legal, it is not wise to leave a safe place - your home - and expose yourself to attack. Someone in the crowd could have shot at the couple or simply thrown a rock at them.

This is a tough one. I agree that the tactics were not the wisest. They were split up by quite a distance at one point. Had a group rushed her she might have gotten off a few shots but she had no barrier between her and them to slow them down. Going outside did expose them to attack from anyone armed in the crowd, be it firearm or as you mentioned brick. Being just inside a doorway would have been more defensible both from a tactical perspective as well as legal (even though standing your ground on your own property is legal). A primary concern would be someone lighting up a Molotov cocktail. While a thrown brick can be defined as throwing a deadly missile a Molotov cocktail brings it up several notches. Now they have demonstrated the ability and intent to burn your house with you in it. I would think shooting someone in the act of throwing such a device (or improvised explosive) would be justified even if they're in the middle of the street. I would think shooting into a group of individuals rushing your position could be argued to be justified as well? Yes, it would be spun out of proportion by the liberal media but most places you simply need to be in fear of great bodily harm and/or death and the attacker(s) demonstrating ability and intent.

xxo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:16 pm Aside from poor judgment and lack of gun handling skills, ironically they supposedly support BLM which is a marxist movement that does not believe in the private property of others.

I wonder if they're rethinking that position?

About 50 years ago, I was a grounds keeper for a restored mansion on one of the gated streets in St. Louis. There are a number of blocks like that as well as in Los angeles. The security was a joke and the symbolic guardhouse could be overrun in seconds. The residents lived in a liberal bubble.
This couple will be in denial and not change any opinions.

I think they are going to have some problems given that they now have the nut case prosecutor after them. And they don't really have that strong of a case for self defense, even to the extent of pointing loaded weapons at people. Yes it was their property and I am sure they felt threatened but the protesters were not violent, brandishing weapons or even focused on them (they were supposedly cutting through on the gated community road to the mayor's house). At that point they had not committed any crime except for possibly trespass. I don't know when the gate got smashed, but there is video showing the protesters entering through a undamaged gate that was apparently unlocked.