2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

ohnonotgmail

Eric Cartman wrote: »

riots in the city, the people who appear to look the same as the people responsible for the riots show up en masse and access a private road. I don't for one second blame that couple for feeling incredibly intimidated.

so you admit that the gate wasn't damaged when they produced firearms? can we at least try and get some way to the truth. the people who they pointed guns at were not threatening them. and i am curious what you mean by

the people who appear to look the same as the people responsible for the riots

do you mean they are mostly black or you using some other criteria to compare them?

Akesh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they opened the gate. not difficult to understand. I presume you are going to pretend again that something else happened and there are definitely links out there that prove what you say and then later come back to say you cant find them.

https://twitter.com/alexiszotos/status/1277607426934616065

Are you suggesting they destroyed it themselves? There is no suggestion that the people holding open the gate are the people in question who caused the damage anyway so that video proves absolutely nothing, although I suspect that may be lost on you.

Eric Cartman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you admit that the gate wasn't damaged when they produced firearms? can we at least try and get some way to the truth. the people who they pointed guns at were not threatening them. and i am curious what you mean by

do you mean they are mostly black or you using some other criteria to compare them?

I only asked how they got onto the private road, I never said they damaged the gate.
Just because there isn't an effective barrier doesn't mean you have the right to enter private land.

I mean they are holding placards, have scarves and bandanas over their faces and they have placards/flags with anti police / anti capitalist slogans. If you lined up the rioters next to these protestors (some of whom may also be rioters) there would be no way to separate them visually.

Carfacemandog

Eric Cartman wrote: »

riots in the city, the people who appear to look the same as the people responsible for the riots show up en masse and access a private road. I don't for one second blame that couple for feeling incredibly intimidated.

'Appear to look the same' - in what way? I see peaceful protesters chanting and playing the drums. The person in the expensive suit right at the start that just walks by with zero issues appears to be a resident there (it's not what people wear to protest, and they are not participating/interacting), they don't seem threatened even remotely.

And how come you've had nothing to say on the fake news you were spreading earlier re Susan B. Anthony?

ohnonotgmail

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I only asked how they got onto the private road, I never said they damaged the gate.
Just because there isn't an effective barrier doesn't mean you have the right to enter private land.

I mean they are holding placards, have scarves and bandanas over their faces and they have placards/flags with anti police / anti capitalist slogans. If you lined up the rioters next to these protestors (some of whom may also be rioters) there would be no way to separate them visually.

very easy way to separate. by how they behave. the protesters presented no threat to them. the guns appear a few seconds after they walk through the gates. are you trying to say that pointing guns at the protesters with your finger on the trigger is a proportionate response?

Carfacemandog

Akesh wrote: »

Are you suggesting they destroyed it themselves? There is no suggestion that the people holding open the gate are the people in question who caused the damage anyway so that video proves absolutely nothing, although I suspect that may be lost on you.

There was zero damage to the gate when the Mccloskeys pulled out their guns.

Hence, the claim the Mccloskeys pulled out their guns because they were terrified due to "rioting" in their neighbourhood and damage to the gate is utterly false.

Quin_Dub

Eric Cartman wrote: »

riots in the city, the people who appear to look the same as the people responsible for the riots show up en masse and access a private road. I don't for one second blame that couple for feeling incredibly intimidated.

What was it that made them "appear" to look the same I wonder?

Also - It's not actually a private road. It's a public street that residents have put a gate on.

They have absolutely ZERO legal basis to deny people access to the street - Their property , yes but not the street and at no point did anyone step on their property.

Akesh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they opened the gate. not difficult to understand. I presume you are going to pretend again that something else happened and there are definitely links out there that prove what you say and then later come back to say you cant find them.

Imagine being so blinded by politics that you can say that bit in bold. You must have missed many BLM protesters rioting in cities across the US, including in St. Louis the city in question. :pac:

ohnonotgmail

Akesh wrote: »

Are you suggesting they destroyed it themselves? There is no suggestion that the people holding open the gate are the people in question who caused the damage anyway so that video proves absolutely nothing, although I suspect that may be lost on you.

i have no idea who destroyed it apart from it wasnt destroyed at the point that guns were produced. using the damage to justify the use of guns is completely arse about face.

ohnonotgmail

Akesh wrote: »

Imagine being so blinded by politics that you can say that bit in bold. You must have missed many BLM protesters rioting in cities across the US, including in St. Louis the city in question. :pac:

i was referring to erics posts from last night. apologies if that went over your head.

Akesh

Carfacemandog wrote: »

There was zero damage to the gate when the Mccloskeys pulled out their guns.

Hence, the claim the Mccloskeys pulled out their guns because they were terrified due to "rioting" in their neighbourhood and damage to the gate is utterly false.

Yes, they had nothing to be fearful of, not large groups illegally entering a private road in the context of BLM rioting across the US including St. Louis. The McCloskeys must have damaged the gate themselves, right?

No reason to be fearful? :pac:

ohnonotgmail

Akesh wrote: »

Yes, they had nothing to be fearful of, not large groups illegally entering a private road in the context of BLM rioting across the US including St. Louis. The McCloskeys must have damaged the gate themselves, right?

No reason to be fearful? :pac:

imagine being afraid of something that hadn't happened yet. and the road wasn't private. putting a gate across it doesn't make it private.

Timberrrrrrrr

Akesh wrote: »

Yes, they had nothing to be fearful of, not large groups illegally entering a private road in the context of BLM rioting across the US including St. Louis. The McCloskeys must have damaged the gate themselves, right?

No reason to be fearful? :pac:

Except it's been proven that this didn't happen, you can repeat it all you like but it doesn't make it any more truthful.

Eric Cartman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

imagine being afraid of something that hadn't happened yet. and the road wasn't private. putting a gate across it doesn't make it private.

Why do you think they came out with guns then ? What do you think was the logic in their heads that made them do that ?

Carfacemandog

So in summary:

1. Peaceful protesters pass through a gate while causing zero damage.

2. This gate leads from a public street, to a public street. Neither is on private property.

3. In response to peaceful protesters passing by their home, the Mccloskeys pull out guns and point them directly at said peaceful protesters.

4. Trump supporters clamor to claim they did it because the protesters were rioting - which they weren't. Then try to claim the protesters damaged the gate - they didn't. Then try to make out that the protesters were trespassing - which they also weren't. All the while supporting the couple that looked to escalate the situation into a potentially armed conflict because people had the audacity to walk by their house chanting.

Timberrrrrrrr

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why do you think they came out with guns then ? What do you think was the logic in their heads that made them do that ?

Uppity black people on their "private" Road, how dare they.

Quin_Dub

Akesh wrote: »

Yes, they had nothing to be fearful of, not large groups illegally entering a private road in the context of BLM rioting across the US including St. Louis. The McCloskeys must have damaged the gate themselves, right?

No reason to be fearful? :pac:

The McCloskeys defence is that they came out with guns because rioters broke down the gate and were attempting to access their property.

That is a lie - No Ifs, No Buts, No Maybes.

What happened to the gate after that is entirely secondary to the McCloskeys defence.

They lied about the reason they came out with guns - Missouri has "the Castle doctrine" in their laws which allows the use of force in defence of property. But as no one actually entered their property, that does not apply here.

And again - It's NOT a private road , the McCloskeys would just like it to be.

Eric Cartman

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Uppity black people on their "private" Road, how dare they.

Except some of those protestors are white...

I knew well it would be drilled down to a race thing, its always got to be about race with the left

Carfacemandog

Akesh wrote: »

Yes, they had nothing to be fearful of, not large groups illegally entering a private road in the context of BLM rioting across the US including St. Louis. The McCloskeys must have damaged the gate themselves, right?

No reason to be fearful? :pac:

I don't know who damaged the gate, but it wasn't damaged when the Mccloskeys pulled guns out on these peaceful protesters - and its all in video. Also, their being on public property (which that road was) is not trespassing. And to think, you were accusing others of lying.

Feel free to keep digging, though.

ohnonotgmail

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why do you think they came out with guns then ? What do you think was the logic in their heads that made them do that ?

you're assuming it was logic. they seem like basically very angry people.

BattleCorp

I'd have done the same as the McCloskeys if I was in their shoes.

Timberrrrrrrr

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Except some of those protestors are white...

I knew well it would be drilled down to a race thing, its always got to be about race with the left

The fact is the protesters did nothing wrong.

And again, Just because I don't agree with you and point out that you are wrong does not make me "left".

Eric Cartman

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd have done the same as the McCloskeys if I was in their shoes.

absolutely 100% , those protests that turn into riots at a moments notice are intimidating as hell, thank god for the right to defend laws they had available to them.

Quin_Dub

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why do you think they came out with guns then ? What do you think was the logic in their heads that made them do that ?

Same logic that made him come out of his house and point a gun at a neighbour walking on a section of public green that he seems to believe is his.

The McCloskeys have filed at least two “quiet title” suits asserting squatter’s rights on land they’ve occupied openly and hostilely — their terms — and claimed as their own. In an ongoing suit against Portland Place trustees in 2017, the McCloskeys say they are entitled to a 1,143-square-foot triangle of lawn in front of property that is set aside as common ground in the neighborhood’s indenture.

It was that patch of green protesters saw when they filed through the gate. Mark McCloskey said in an affidavit that he has defended the patch before by pointing a gun at a neighbor who had tried to cut through it.

So , he'll point a gun at anyone on his "property" they don't even have to be black "rioters"

To quote Farmer Parmer from Viz

Timberrrrrrrr

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd have done the same as the McCloskeys if I was in their shoes.

do you often point a gun at people walking past your house?

Eric Cartman

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Same logic that made him come out of his house and point a gun at a neighbour walking on a section of public green that he seems to believe it his.



So , he'll point a gun at anyone on his "property" they don't even have to be black "rioters"

To quote Farmer Parmer from Viz

there we go so, its not a race thing, the guy is just mad for his 2nd amendment rights.

Timberrrrrrrr

Eric Cartman wrote: »

absolutely 100% , those protests that turn into riots at a moments notice are intimidating as hell, thank god for the right to defend laws they had available to them.

Why? What would have happened if they didn't have those rights? They pointed weapons at people peacefully passing by there house, seems like a scummy thing to do really.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

absolutely 100% , those protests that turn into riots at a moments notice are intimidating as hell, thank god for the right to defend laws they had available to them.

So far you haven't established these protesters were rioters. You just seem perpetually outraged more because of what the protests represents tbh. Don't remember you being so vocal when anti lockdown protesters showed up outside of a governor's residence with guns...

BattleCorp

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

do you often point a gun at people walking past your house?

Nope. I've never pointed any of my guns at a person. Ever.

But if I was over in the States, and in similar circumstances to the McCloskeys, I doubt I'd think twice about it if I felt my life or property was under threat.

You can't compare Ireland to the States because the BLM riots/protesting/looting/whatever you want to call it isn't happening here.

It also wasn't people just walking past the house, it was a protest. And there is plenty of evidence to show that many protests turned violent so you can't blame the McCloskey's for being scared.

Timberrrrrrrr

BattleCorp wrote: »

Nope. I've never pointed any of my guns at a person. Ever.

But if I was over in the States, and in similar circumstances to the McCloskeys, I doubt I'd think twice about it if I felt my life or property was under threat.

You can't compare Ireland to the States because the BLM riots/protesting/looting/whatever you want to call it isn't happening here.

What circumstances were they in? How was their life or property under threat?