BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

biko

Foxtrol wrote: »

Walking or protesting on to a private street doesn't give everyone that lives on the street the right to indiscriminately point their guns at or shoot you.

Not sure why you added shoot here, that didn't happen during the incident.

Instead we have a bunch of people breaking down a gate into a gated community.
The couple that live close to the gate have heard/seen TV of rioters breaking and entering premises downtown in droves.
When the protesters are outside I think they can safely assume it will be a repeat of B&E and they used the Stand Your Ground law in place in Missouri.
Missourians have no duty to retreat in your home before using or threatening the use of deadly force to protect or defend yourself or another person.


Video of the confrontation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8k_e1E3Xc0

ELM327

Foxtrol wrote: »

Walking or protesting on to a private street doesn't give everyone that lives on the street the right to indiscriminately point their guns at or shoot you.

It is pretty simple and likely why the couple's story keeps changing and doesn't align with video evidence.

In a private street (gated) coupled with a good stand your ground law, it does.

Foxtrol

biko wrote: »

Not sure why you added shoot here, that didn't happen during the incident.

Instead we have a bunch of people breaking down a gate into a gated community.
The couple that live close to the gate have heard/seen TV of rioters breaking and entering premises downtown in droves.
When the protesters are outside I think they can safely assume it will be a repeat of B&E and they used the Stand Your Ground law in place in Missouri.
Missourians have no duty to retreat in your home before using or threatening the use of deadly force to protect or defend yourself or another person.

Video of the confrontation

It isn't clear cut as you want it to be. Purely trespassing doesn't give you that right to point your gun at people, especially in this case when they aren't trespassing on the couple's property.

There has to be a threat and that is why I believe the couple's story has changed to now include verbal threats to their life, which there is no evidence of on any video.

They definitely could get off due to the type of laws that are basically racist in how they are written, giving leeway to 'scared' white folk to do what they want, but it is right that they are charged and should be convicted.

Here's an opinion from a local law professor:

The Castle Doctrine allows residents to use deadly force against intruders based on the notion that your home is "your castle."

But Ammann said a key is the manner in which the guns are handled.

“Those protections would not allow you to aim a gun unless there was some threat that someone was coming towards them or attempting to get inside their house,” he explained.

Foxtrol

ELM327 wrote: »

In a private street (gated) coupled with a good stand your ground law, it does.

The couple don't own the street.

BloodBath

But they are on their property. Not the street which has been clearly pointed out to you in the pictures and video provided.

The crap you are posting is embarrassing.

Overheal

Foxtrol wrote: »

The couple don't own the street.

It being a private street they would in fact be part of the pool of residents that pay for its upkeep. So, technically, they do own it..

Foxtrol

BloodBath wrote: »

But they are on their property. Not the street which has been clearly pointed out to you in the pictures and video provided.

The crap you are posting is embarrassing.

The protesters aren't on their property though. I haven't even seen the couple claiming that.

You cant stand on your own property and point your gun at anyone you want.

Foxtrol

Overheal wrote: »

It being a private street they would in fact be part of the pool of residents that pay for its upkeep. So, technically, they do own it..

But from all I've read that isn't enough for the private street to fall under their 'castle', what other posters are claiming.

DelaneyIn

Police say they are treating the 'White Lives Matter' slogan painted on to a hill in Bedworth park as a hate crime.

Warwickshire Police said the incident at the Miners Welfare Park has also been logged as criminal damage and the force is carrying out "patrols for reassurance".

The huge letters were daubed on to the hill next to the football pitch on Saturday (June 27) and, as reported in our Coventry newsletter, a video has circulated on social media appearing to show someone dressed in a Ku Klux Klan-style hood stood next to where the 'White Lives Matter' words were painted.

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/police-treating-white-lives-matter-18506632

As always, United Kingdom adopts every bit of wonderful madness that comes to life in the land of its former colony.

Overheal

Foxtrol wrote: »

But from all I've read that isn't enough for the private street to fall under their 'castle', what other posters are claiming.

Another great reason to let court handle it.

Foxtrol

Overheal wrote: »

Another great reason to let court handle it.

Let the court handle it is all fine and good but the problem there, and bringing it somewhat back on topic, is that the type of laws in question are a good example of ones written in a way that protesters have complained about.

When you use vague terms like 'threat' it leaves open ground for 'scared' white people or cops to do what they want against black people and get away with it.

Overheal

Foxtrol wrote: »

Let the court handle it is all fine and good but the problem there, and bringing it somewhat back on topic, is that the type of laws in question are a good example of ones written in a way that protesters have complained about.

When you use vague terms like 'threat' it leaves open ground for 'scared' white people or cops to do what they want against black people and get away with it.

The same laws went toward protecting the Ahmaud Arberys access to justice posthumously. I'm not seeing anything onerous about private road/property laws here and they may very well have a castle doctrine case, so, let the courts figure it out based on the law and jurisprudence.

ExMachina1000

Woman asks for a Maga 2020 sign written on a street since BLM is also written. City quietly removed BLM sign rather than paint a maga 2020 sign.

The woman is taking the city to court.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/07/19/redwood-city-street-mural-blm-trump-maga/

Overheal

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Woman asks for a Maga 2020 sign written on a street since BLM is also written. City quietly removed BLM sign rather than paint a maga 2020 sign.

The woman is taking the city to court.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/07/19/redwood-city-street-mural-blm-trump-maga/

I'm not sure I would have handled it the way they did, but that is a reasonable way while directly avoiding litigation, which she seems to want anyway. My contention with that would be MAGA is a registered servicemark of the Trump presidential campaign, and it would be electioneering. "Black Lives Matter" is not election speech and doesn't support a particular candidate. Basically, the city approving a campaign slogan to be painted as a mural on a street would amount to using the powers of their office for electioneering, which afaik is unlawful. I'd find the case more compelling for her if she was trying to get "All Lives Matter" etc. painted on the same street.

Foxtrol

Overheal wrote: »

The same laws went toward protecting the Ahmaud Arberys access to justice posthumously. I'm not seeing anything onerous about private road/property laws here and they may very well have a castle doctrine case, so, let the courts figure it out based on the law and jurisprudence.

Arbery's killers were only charged after months and intense public pressure after the the local DA/cops released a video that they believed showed the men shouldn't be charged.

That case is also a poor comparison as Arbery was defending himself from an actual attack, in this case, and many other attacks on black men by civilians and cops, they aren't defending themselves from attack, instead a vague 'perceived' threat.

Hannibal36

Foxtrol wrote: »

Let the court handle it is all fine and good but the problem there, and bringing it somewhat back on topic, is that the type of laws in question are a good example of ones written in a way that protesters have complained about.

When you use vague terms like 'threat' it leaves open ground for 'scared' white people or cops to do what they want against black people and get away with it.

You seem to have watched too much Mississippi burning you think White people are waiting in mobs dying to string up black people,White people just want equal treatment.

The "scared white people" you speak of generally are the braver white people its you and your circle who are the scared white people and will lay down their children's futures rather than dare be thought of as any kind of racist.You are coming up in this thread with some kind of legal argument about why a White person shouldn't defend himself against an angry mob that are trespassing.

There is legal terms and laws made out but some laws do not need writing,which is self defence and defence of your property and loved ones from intruders.

Its very possible you might go to jail if you are White and defend yourself in this current climate,but you are always morally right to defend yourself and your loved ones if someone intrudes on your property.If you take their life that is on them every single time,mature people know this,only soft middle class people think you should stop and question your intruders upbringing before you decide to defend your own life and that of your families.

Overheal

The couple never went to jail. They were enrolled in a pre-trial intervention program, their weapons were confiscated via warrant.

Foxtrol

Hannibal36 wrote: »

The "scared white people" you speak of generally the braver white people its you and your circle who are the scared white people and will lay down their children's futures rather than dare be thought of as any kind of racist.You are coming up in this thread with some kind of legal argument about why a White person shouldn't defend himself against an angry mob that are trespassing.

There is legal terms and laws made out but some laws do not need writing,which is self defence and defence of your property and loved ones from intruders.

Its very possible you might go to jail if you are White and defend yourself in this current climate,but you are always morally right to defend yourself and your loved ones if someone intrudes on your property.If you take their life that is on them every single time,mature people know this,only soft middle class people think you should stop and question your intruders upbringing before you decide to defend your own life and that of your families.

I'm all for people defending their property against actual intruders, these nutjobs were indiscriminately aggressively pointing their guns at people that hadn't crossed their property line and were carrying no weapons. There is a difference.

From your post it is pretty obvious that you are petrified. There really isn't that much to be afraid of out there.

Chris_Heilong

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Woman asks for a Maga 2020 sign written on a street since BLM is also written. City quietly removed BLM sign rather than paint a maga 2020 sign.

The woman is taking the city to court.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/07/19/redwood-city-street-mural-blm-trump-maga/

The excuse for having the BLM painted was the that street was a public forum, So the woman asked for MAGA 2020 to be painted, They quickly removed the BLM sign as it would show everyone the truth of how partisan the cities administration if they refused her.

Foxtrol

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The excuse for having the BLM painted was the that street was a public forum, So the woman asked for MAGA 2020 to be painted, They quickly removed the BLM sign as it would show everyone the truth of how partisan the cities administration if they refused her.

Unlike many cities that painted it, here they clearly hadn't thought through the process of approving it.

Under public forum approach, the woman should have been able to get MAGA 2020 painted, then someone else could have gotten BIDEN 2020 painted, then someone else could have gotten EPSTEIN WAS MURDERED painted and so on and so on until the streets have nothing but messages.

The fact that people think MAGA 2020 is some sort of comeback to BLM says it all about his supporters and why Trump's polling on race relations is in the toilet.

Tell me how

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The excuse for having the BLM painted was the that street was a public forum, So the woman asked for MAGA 2020 to be painted, They quickly removed the BLM sign as it would show everyone the truth of how partisan the cities administration if they refused her.

That's probably because the BLM movement is trying to help millions of people from being unfairly treated by a group who supposed to be there to protect people while MAGA 2020 phrase is in support of an individual*

* one who has failed to do their job during two recent and ongoing crises, wants to use unregulated authoritarian force against the citizens of the country and pardoned someone who had been convicted of lying under oath after threatening to flip on the person who then pardoned him

Chris_Heilong

Tell me how wrote: »

That's probably because the BLM movement is trying to help millions of people from being unfairly treated by a group who supposed to be there to protect people while MAGA 2020 phrase is in support of an individual*

* one who has failed to do their job during two recent and ongoing crises, wants to use unregulated authoritarian force against the citizens of the country and pardoned someone who had been convicted of lying under oath after threatening to flip on the person who then pardoned him

Why is your writing on the last paragraph really small? are you whispering?

ExMachina1000

Police killings up 30% this year. That's 30% more police that have been killed in the line of duty.

85 police officers are murdered on duty each year .

Foxtrol

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Police killings up 30% this year. That's 30% more police that have been killed in the line of duty.

85 police officers are murdered on duty each year .

And cops have killed 598 so far this year, including choking a man to death while he begged for his life and called out for his mother and a woman who was sleeping in bed in her own home.

The system isn't working for anyone right now.

Tell me how

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Why is your writing on the last paragraph really small? are you whispering?

Yes. Some people don't like Trump's behavior being highlighted, so I don't want to frighten them.

Do you think it worked?

Overheal

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes. Some people don't like Trump's behavior being highlighted, so I don't want to frighten them.

Do you think it worked?

Well, the size tag doesn’t apply changes on the touch site

Hannibal36

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'm all for people defending their property against actual intruders, these nutjobs were indiscriminately aggressively pointing their guns at people that hadn't crossed their property line and were carrying no weapons. There is a difference.

From your post it is pretty obvious that you are petrified. There really isn't that much to be afraid of out there.

Poor BLM protesters my god they had a weapon pointed at them,indiscriminately no less.

For middle class white people like you,who lived a sheltered life,it is time to understand some people suffer massive injustices in life,murders with no justice is rampant.Here we pretty much have surrendered all power on this island to gangs and there is a lot of people who get no return from the justice system here and worldwide.These people learn through experience the law is no protector and that you have to defend yourself.

If you want to believe i am petrified makes no difference to me,i am long past feeling after all i seen in the court system in this failing state of ours.I am trying to encourage White people like you to be braver and stop being walked on,but at the end of the day your children are going to suffer for your naivety,and if you get lucky enough to be blessed with grandchildren,it is only getting worse for them.

weldoninhio

2u2me wrote: »

I can't believe cops are allowed to just storm into someone's house like that without a warning.



Especially in the US where people regularly have guns in their own homes to protect themselves. If the police have a warrant to enter a residence surely they should make themselves known first.

What a crazy procedure. Anyone advocating to have this removed?

Put yourself in the cops shoes. You’re told to execute an arrest warrant on Robin Hood. It’s his third felony so he’s going away for life. He knows this. He’s a well known drug dealer, murderer, gang banger and addict who is extremely paranoid and trigger happy.

Would you rather 1) knock on the door, let him know you are there and allow him time to get his weapons or 2) storm the house, hopefully taking him by surprise and not get into a firefight?

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

That's probably because the BLM movement is trying to help millions of people from being unfairly treated by a group who supposed to be there to protect people while MAGA 2020 phrase is in support of an individual*

* one who has failed to do their job during two recent and ongoing crises, wants to use unregulated authoritarian force against the citizens of the country and pardoned someone who had been convicted of lying under oath after threatening to flip on the person who then pardoned him

Unfairly treated like record minority unemployment? Like tax breaks for companies to set up in the most poor and disadvantaged areas in America? Record amounts of money given to black colleges?

ExMachina1000

weldoninhio wrote: »

Put yourself in the cops shoes. You’re told to execute an arrest warrant on Robin Hood. It’s his third felony so he’s going away for life. He knows this. He’s a well known drug dealer, murderer, gang banger and addict who is extremely paranoid and trigger happy.

Would you rather 1) knock on the door, let him know you are there and allow him time to get his weapons or 2) storm the house, hopefully taking him by surprise and not get into a firefight?

Is this in relation to the two police officers ambushed and shot dead on the 11th of July?