Couple Gets Doxxed for Defending Their Property

a reply to: Krakatoa

Would you save a man who was choking to death on the other side of a gated no trespassing area?
Or would you let the choking man die?

a reply to: LordAhriman

I'm not gonna play this game either.

We are WAY too polarized.

Too many think about their rights and not about their responsibilities.

Today, right now, is the time for tactical and strategic patience.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Thanks I wondered as I had not seen that report of statues and destruction anywhere. They had to retract the article due to video evidence of no destruction of the couples property most likely. The fence did end up broken but the main group of people had walked through. They didn't tear it down.

This is not related to your post but I'm starting to see all these people here now stating, " but the protesters were armed! The couple had to do something!". Why was it a whole different story when it was armed protesters at the Michigan capital in regard to their right to get a haircut? Then all the posts were about "my right to protest with arms". Now it's a bad thing? What is the difference to you now?

originally posted by: spacedoubt
a reply to: Krakatoa

Would you save a man who was choking to death on the other side of a gated no trespassing area?
Or would you let the choking man die?

Life wasn't at risk until they busted through the gate... illegally... Trespassing... With guns...


...and masks... Which is a double whammy. You're prohibited to carry firearms while wearing a mask.

a reply to: frogs453
The Michigan Capitol Building is public property and state law there gives them the right to open carry
This was private property
If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you

a reply to: Nyiah

I don't condemn nor deny any right to defend oneself or their homes from invasion.

There are right and wrong answers in life and it's not all black and white. Lot's of gray areas to operate in.

I'm not saying they are wrong for wanting to respond to a potential threat. But from my perspective, I see an unstable situation unfolding with fear ruling the minds of people who should be thinking clearly because they are armed with a force multiplier and they have zero understanding of their tactical situation.

I want them to get training so that they aren't a danger to themselves and others.

The fence to enter 'Private Property'.



Those 'protesters' are pretty deep into the property.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Missouri allows open carry without a permit, so long as the firearm is not displayed in an angry or threatening manner. ... It is not a crime under Missouri law to openly carry a weapon into any place where concealed carry is prohibited, except for a church, school bus, school, or onto the grounds of a school function.
Link

a reply to: frogs453
It's against the law in all 50 states to possess a firearm in commission of a crime
Trespassing and threatening property owners are both crimes

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: StallionDuck

Thanks I wondered as I had not seen that report of statues and destruction anywhere. They had to retract the article due to video evidence of no destruction of the couples property most likely. The fence did end up broken but the main group of people had walked through. They didn't tear it down.

This is not related to your post but I'm starting to see all these people here now stating, " but the protesters were armed! The couple had to do something!". Why was it a whole different story when it was armed protesters at the Michigan capital in regard to their right to get a haircut? Then all the posts were about "my right to protest with arms". Now it's a bad thing? What is the difference to you now?

Protesting in public with weapons is just stupid, in my opinion. Even if it's protesting gun rights. Lots of dumb can happen. but... For me.. The difference is, the protesters with or without weapons (there really isn't a point in that alone) damaged and trespassed on private property where the gun laws allow you to take someone out on your own lawn. Some states, you have to be in the home. This is where knowing your local laws would be helpful and very smart.

The main part to take from this is what laws govern that place. period

The couple said they were in fear for their lives.
The couple saw protesters carrying what liberals would call "assault weapons".
The couple stood on their property demanding that those protesters stay off.

Doesn't matter where they were going.

Doesn't matter if they were let in or if they busted through the gate.

Doesn't matter why they were there.

laws were being broke, people were in fear for their lives, gun laws allowed them to retaliate. Lucky for the stupid people protesting... no one got themselves killed. Could have... and nothing could have legally been done against the lawyers because the laws said it was ok. They followed the law - protesters did not. It's that cut and dry.


But yeah... Bring guns to a protest, there is a certain law that applies and it's called Murphy, not State, not federal... Murphy.

a reply to: StallionDuck

They are trespassing BECAUSE life is at risk.
Many of them. Beaten, choked, shot.
They are on that property to save lots of lives.

I think the mask/gun rule is not in effect right now.

a reply to: frogs453

You do understand that when they broke the gate, it's the same as if they kicked in your door?

The couples mishandling of the situation is irrelevant to the fact that the protesters, ceased to be protesters and became criminals the moment they invaded private property.

Comparing this to the other is a bit disingenuous. Are you OK with people invading other peoples property, even your own? People are reacting to that in a hyperbolic way for obvious reasons.

Yes, that couple need some training, but their reason for doing it was lawful and obvious. If they get into trouble, it will because of politics, not them breaking any law. May as well live in Cuba, where the law is what the person in power says it is.

a reply to: LordAhriman

I am not trigger happy! I pray that I never have to draw
on anyone.

Even msn is reporting that the couple were threatened:

Albert Watkins, an attorney for the McCloskeys, said that the couple felt threatened after “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.”

The McCloskeys’ Renaissance palazzo mansion is valued at $1.15 million, according to city records. The couple are attorneys who work together in a law office that has now been boarded up due to threats they’ve received since the incident.

You can be sympathetic to racial causes, but, for gawd's sake, use some common sense and put yourself in this couple's shoes.

How many videos do you need to see of thugs shoving some 92-yr. old to the ground or setting fire to an old lady's business?

Some of these "protesters" are nothing more than criminal thugs looking for some excuse they can use to enact violence because that is what they are, violent criminals.

Patience is wearing thin for many who supported and sympathized with the protesters, but now, we are seeing mixed in with them are sadistic violent haters that just want to kill, maim, or tear something down.

A. These protesters broke into a gated community, making it private property.

B. The woman gun owner clearly does not have proper training.

C. What do you think would have happened if the home owners were unarmed?

Personally I think that violent protestors should be met with the threat of deadly force when they break into private property. Period.

a reply to: projectvxn

I wanted to be sure of one thing,you are on my
cookie list,right?