Scared rich people

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Pokit N

Gent of Good Intent
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
7,910
4,630
1,743
41
Lily Lake, IL
#23
I'm quite certain if they had not been home their house would have been looted. If they had been home but not armed they would have been beaten and THEN had their house looted. I'd recommend taking some classes on how to use those firearms but I think they served their purpose.

From Roof Top Koreans, to Store Front Sihks, now to Ken and Karen...its up to YOU to defend you and yours.
 
Last edited:

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
21,093
14,817
1,743
#26
That's interesting that the tweet makes it sound like they are investigating the homeowners.

0
Well on one side we have a bunch of protesters who may have crappy entry level jobs, or may not. On the other side we have a rich, well connected lawyer.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,217
4,117
743
#27
These people didn't build the house, they bought it and renovated it because it was in disrepair. The neighborhood is gated and the streets are not public property, thus the protesters were trespassing the moment they stepped through the gate. Breaking and entering by breaking the gate.
They were within their rights to go out and meet the group to try and get them to disperse.
Did they handle it correctly? No. Did they have horrible M.A.T. training? Yes.


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Apr 12, 2020
304
108
43
25
Stillwater
#29
It looks like the protesters are on their property. Based on very recent history of destruction of personal and public property and the fact that reports stated they already busted through the HOA gate... they might have looked silly, but not sure we can say not justified.
What am I missing?
I don’t think the protesters are on their property, but rather right up to the property line. Had the protesters just walked by and ignored those two then the gun wielders would look stupid. However the mob acted aggressively and hateful towards the two thus justifying their concern.
It starts after guns have already been pulled so we have no knowledge to what was happening before. Just because people acted a certain way when a gun was pointed at them doesn’t mean they were acting that way before.

Improper Brandishing a weapon is a crime for a reason, ppl will react to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
May 31, 2007
1,895
452
1,713
Edmond, OK
#31
It starts after guns have already been pulled so we have no knowledge to what was happening before. Just because people acted a certain way when a gun was pointed at them doesn’t mean they were acting that way before.

Improper Brandishing a weapon is a crime for a reason, ppl will react to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It doesn’t matter whether they acted that way before or after. Bottom line is they were being aggressive and hateful which in the final analysis makes it hard to say the couple didn’t have justification to have their arms out as a deterrent. Had the protesters walked by peacefully then the couple looks foolish. And the key word there is “improper”. If it’s a gated / private community as people are saying then I don’t believe anyone is in the wrong for brandishing a weapon as a homeowner. I guess we will see what the facts say.
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
9,018
6,025
1,743
Gondor
#32
If you're going to brandish a firearm like that, you better have your mind made up or at least look like you are prepared to use it. I have my doubts as to whether or not if rushed by the trespassers they ultimately would have had the guts to defend themselves with the weapons. My bet would be that some of the more criminal minded and fearless among the crowd would have shoved those guns where the sun don't shine, or worse. I only say that because they looked completely clueless handling them, and I doubt the trespassers were intimidated one iota.

If you haven't stopped the threat outside a 20 foot perimeter, each foot closer puts you that much more SOL.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,073
1,938
1,743
#35
It starts after guns have already been pulled so we have no knowledge to what was happening before. Just because people acted a certain way when a gun was pointed at them doesn’t mean they were acting that way before.

Improper Brandishing a weapon is a crime for a reason, ppl will react to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...ba6ac9c03.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

I dont dispute that more information is needed to really make an informed opinion. According to the homeowners the protesters broke through a lock iron gate to enter the private street. It was definitely a private road so the protesters would have no right to access the road and property.

I would not have brandished a weapon, and certainly a strong argument can be made the couple overreacted (IMO, the couple appeared to be kooks) , but we don’t know what happened prior.
But we do know that properties have been vandalized and destroyed by rioters. And these protesters already showed the didn’t care about breaking through an iron gate. As you can see on the photos, prett clear this was not a public street.
 

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
21,093
14,817
1,743
#36
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...ba6ac9c03.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

I dont dispute that more information is needed to really make an informed opinion. According to the homeowners the protesters broke through a lock iron gate to enter the private street. It was definitely a private road so the protesters would have no right to access the road and property.

I would not have brandished a weapon, and certainly a strong argument can be made the couple overreacted, but we don’t know what happened prior. IMO, the couple appeared to be kooks.
But we do know that properties have been vandalized and destroyed by rioters. And these protesters already showed the didn’t care about breaking through an iron gate. As you can see on the photos, prett clear this was not a public street.
The fact that they broke through the privacy gates does make it more intrusive. I also agree you don't bluff with a gun and these 2 had bluff written all over them.
 

GodsPeace

Joshua 1:9
Aug 20, 2004
30,642
9,844
1,743
41
Stillwater
#37
The fact that they broke through the privacy gates does make it more intrusive. I also agree you don't bluff with a gun and these 2 had bluff written all over them.
My grandfather(nicknamed Popeye), WWII & Korea Vet, always said that you never pull a gun unless you intend to use it. Any other use is only going to get you hurt.
 
Apr 12, 2020
304
108
43
25
Stillwater
#39
It starts after guns have already been pulled so we have no knowledge to what was happening before. Just because people acted a certain way when a gun was pointed at them doesn’t mean they were acting that way before.

Improper Brandishing a weapon is a crime for a reason, ppl will react to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It doesn’t matter whether they acted that way before or after. Bottom line is they were being aggressive and hateful which in the final analysis makes it hard to say the couple didn’t have justification to have their arms out as a deterrent. Had the protesters walked by peacefully then the couple looks foolish. And the key word there is “improper”. If it’s a gated / private community as people are saying then I don’t believe anyone is in the wrong for brandishing a weapon as a homeowner. I guess we will see what the facts say.
Actually, it does matter. You can’t instigate and then blame the other person’s reaction... hence Improper Brandishing of a Weapon being a crime.

You edited your comment to add the gated thing so I’ll tack onto mine too that I agree that could change the case. But now you’re going into HOA bylaws to figure out the arraignment between the city and the HOA to see if the street is public or private property. If the gate was open it’s a reasonable solution to assume that these ppl marching thought they were utilizing a public street (which it still might be), meaning that logically (maybe not legally) the homeowners still could of instigated it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Apr 12, 2020
304
108
43
25
Stillwater
#40
It starts after guns have already been pulled so we have no knowledge to what was happening before. Just because people acted a certain way when a gun was pointed at them doesn’t mean they were acting that way before.

Improper Brandishing a weapon is a crime for a reason, ppl will react to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...ba6ac9c03.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

I dont dispute that more information is needed to really make an informed opinion. According to the homeowners the protesters broke through a lock iron gate to enter the private street. It was definitely a private road so the protesters would have no right to access the road and property.

I would not have brandished a weapon, and certainly a strong argument can be made the couple overreacted (IMO, the couple appeared to be kooks) , but we don’t know what happened prior.
But we do know that properties have been vandalized and destroyed by rioters. And these protesters already showed the didn’t care about breaking through an iron gate. As you can see on the photos, prett clear this was not a public street.
No debate from me here on the breaking locks&gates issue. If you break stuff down then you can expect someone to defend themselves.

I do want to point out that you can’t assume past damages to property will mean anything here. While there’s all sorts of mitigating city ordinances that could be broken, these ppl are trying to utilize part of the first amendment and if it’s a public street then pending ordinances they have the right to gather (with a cause) there. Fear is not actually defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk