America on Fire

centurion

Well-Known Member
Cager
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
462
I was around the riot in 98 and I’m currently a gun owner, so I can speak from personal experience on this.

If I were in their situation, I would not be waving and pointing guns round. Crowds have the tendency to turn hostile and dangerous for the smallest provocations. If I were truly afraid of my well being, I would have stayed in the house and watched, with guns nearby but out of sight. The best defense against an unruly mob is invisibility; I’m safe as long as I don’t attract any attention.

Based on other videos that have surfaced and the couple’s history, I’m convinced that they were motivated by anger and indignation rather than fear. How dare “these people” trespass on the neighborhood, even when they don’t trespass on the couple’s private property. Karen was walking halfway up the front lawn toward the protesters, with a pistol pointing at them. That’s not a behavior of somebody fearing for her life, that’s an attempt at intimidation. If they were truly afraid because some of the protesters were armed (as they claimed), they would have put a wall between them and the crowd.

Gee, there are people with guns on the street. Since we fear for our lives, let’s walk up to them and point our guns at them. That would surely make us safer.

If you read the article, the McCloskeys have filed a lawsuit claiming ownership of the piece of neighborhood land between the streets. I think they were attempting to bolster their claim to that narrow strip by defending it from trespassers. It’s all about money and their ego.
Most would probably do what you say (being in house), but have on mind that David Dorn was shot dead in St Louis couple of days ago before the event when he was inside the building, so such news could augment any fear to be inside the building. However, their action was not the smartest to do.

Karen looks like she is not trained in weapons, and during the investigation, they declared that the pistol was inoperable, maybe a lawyer's trick to abolish her for pointing firearm to the protesters.

With a couple of hundred people outside I think it is not likely that the motive is arrogance-you can see that on their faces that they are gone crazy of fear. If it was a dozen people, maybe yes, but 2-3 hundred, I doubt, especially if you do not know the intentions of the protesters. Enough to have 2-3 short-tempered persons and the situation could escalate.

All their personal characteristics are probably true.
 

Nimbus

Well-Known Member
Charter Member
Cager
Joined
Jul 17, 2016
Messages
1,226
Most would probably do what you say (being in house), but have on mind that David Dorn was shot dead in St Louis couple of days ago before the event when he was inside the building, so such news could augment any fear to be inside the building. However, their action was not the smartest to do.

Karen looks like she is not trained in weapons, and during the investigation, they declared that the pistol was inoperable, maybe a lawyer's trick to abolish her for pointing firearm to the protesters.

With a couple of hundred people outside I think it is not likely that the motive is arrogance-you can see that on their faces that they are gone crazy of fear. If it was a dozen people, maybe yes, but 2-3 hundred, I doubt, especially if you do not know the intentions of the protesters. Enough to have 2-3 short-tempered persons and the situation could escalate.

All their personal characteristics are probably true.
Previously you implied that only people who have seen riots and have guns can understand the McCloskey’s position. I am one of those people, and their action doesn’t fit their narrative of fear. I have seen much larger and more destructive crowds, so in theory I should be more fearful and more understanding, but I fail to see their logic.

The McCloskeys do have a history of driving neighbors off at gunpoint, when said neighbors were trying to cut through the triangle of land they claimed as theirs. Their action is consistent with the behavior of a bully.


But now the matter has been further politicized by the Republican governor of Missouri and by Trump himself. There’s enough gray area around the case to give the couple the benefit of the doubt. Ironically this is the crux of the matter: when black people act in a questionable manner the worst assumption is applied, but when white people do the same they get the benefit of the doubt.
 

centurion

Well-Known Member
Cager
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
462
Previously you implied that only people who have seen riots and have guns can understand the McCloskey’s position. I am one of those people, and their action doesn’t fit their narrative of fear. I have seen much larger and more destructive crowds, so in theory I should be more fearful and more understanding, but I fail to see their logic.

The McCloskeys do have a history of driving neighbors off at gunpoint, when said neighbors were trying to cut through the triangle of land they claimed as theirs. Their action is consistent with the behavior of a bully.


But now the matter has been further politicized by the Republican governor of Missouri and by Trump himself. There’s enough gray area around the case to give the couple the benefit of the doubt. Ironically this is the crux of the matter: when black people act in a questionable manner the worst assumption is applied, but when white people do the same they get the benefit of the doubt.
Agree in most of the points, but bullying 300 people is not smart, or logical-In 200-300 people and statistically, there is a couple of % that could be dangerous, It is not same to bully a neighbour and to bully mass of people. Somebody can be aggressive in fear as well, as I think they were, agree to disagree.

That is why I quoted a somehow similar case, that would be a test for the legal system about the equal approach in the justice system. In the bellow case, that I repost, the threat was much more direct, though, but the actor acted in fear as well, Did he have other options, maybe yes, maybe now, but in that moment that was his estimate of the situation:

 

Nimbus

Well-Known Member
Charter Member
Cager
Joined
Jul 17, 2016
Messages
1,226
Agree in most of the points, but bullying 300 people is not smart, or logical-In 200-300 people and statistically, there is a couple of % that could be dangerous, It is not same to bully a neighbour and to bully mass of people. Somebody can be aggressive in fear as well, as I think they were, agree to disagree.
I think they lied when they claimed fear, just like they lied and filed frivolous lawsuits against their neighbors. The 300 people weren’t armed, there is no picture nor video supporting their claim that the protesters were armed. It’s very easy to feel comfortable against 300 unarmed people when you have a big rifle. Guards in prison do that all the time.

That is why I quoted a somehow similar case, that would be a test for the legal system about the equal approach in the justice system. In the bellow case, that I repost, the threat was much more direct, though, but the actor acted in fear as well, Did he have other options, maybe yes, maybe now, but in that moment that was his estimate of the situation:

Here’s a key fact: “...a final bullet entered through the truck’s back window, striking Hutcheson...”

It is tough to claim self defense against a car heading the other direction. This is similar to a claim of self defense when the alleged assailant is shot in the back. The claim would be more believable if the bullets entered through the windshield, or even a side window.
 

harryopal

Well-Known Member
Charter Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2016
Messages
865
It is not clear from the posted report if the pickup truck were approaching from the opposite direction or running parallel. Given that there had been alledged verbal abuse before the incident it would suggest the pickup had followed and was heading in the same direction

If the pickup truck were actively engaged in trying to run the Wilson car off the road then it may have been forward of the car so that a shot though the rear window would not be inconsistent with Wilson acting defensively. On the other hand if the pick up had moved ahead and was not actively engaged with the Wilson car that defence might be difficult to maintain, However, if the pickup was not obviously leaving the scene then Wilson may still have had reasonable justification for being in fear of his life and despite the shot passing through a rear window of the pick the "stand your ground" law might then apply.

It will be interesting to see how this develops even though given legal systems it may drag on for a year or more. Whatever the outcome it is apparent we live in a world where irrational hatreds of those who are different to ourselves are powerful negative forces in societies almost everywhere.
 

centurion

Well-Known Member
Cager
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
462
The perpetrators tried to stop his car, smaller ford, with a pick-up, overtaking him, or it looked like that to the man who shot in defence.

Of course, the perpetrators will claim that they wanted a "civilized discussion", or any other excuse, i.e. that he shot in rage.

@Nimbus
Ken and Karen's protester were not armed, but the couple did not know that-they saw a bunch of young healthy people, coming through the gate that they broke (at least like that looks on the photos), not kids with elderly. As well, in prisons, there is a brigade of trained guards, not 1 or 2.
Also, somebody could throw a rock, step on the veranda and shooting could start by the armed couple and at the end, the house would be burnt.
 

Nimbus

Well-Known Member
Charter Member
Cager
Joined
Jul 17, 2016
Messages
1,226
Masked federal officers have arrested people off the street, far from the courthouse, with no probable cause, and whisked them away in unmarked cars.

This is going to be a constitutional crisis.

 

ChrisTex

Well-Known Member
Charter Member
Cager
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
443
An interesting survey by Cato Institute about self-censorship:


Disclaimer: CI is a libertarian think thank
All you need to do is look at the 2016 election cycle and even heading into election day, most people had Hillary pegged to win.
 

Nimbus

Well-Known Member
Charter Member
Cager
Joined
Jul 17, 2016
Messages
1,226
A lot of Americans have views they’re afraid to share? You wouldn’t arrive at that conclusion if you’re on Facebook.

Partisan politics have no place at work. If you can’t contain your political opinion to yourself and begin to antagonize others, you’re creating a “hostile work environment” and should be fired for it.

Before anybody brings up the 1st amendment, that only protects people from censorship by the government. People themselves are free to react on speech by others, they’re free to not associate with persons they don’t agree with. The freedom of speech doesn’t trump the freedom of association.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Follow Us

Latest Expat Indo Articles

Latest Activity

New posts Latest threads

Latest Tweets by Expat Indo

Online Now

No members online now.

Forum Statistics

Threads
4,487
Messages
68,149
Members
1,855
Latest member
Henry001
Top Bottom