Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Club House' started by Mister Dave, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:46 PM.
He is acting alright, keeping the AR muzzle away from camera. Too bad he failed to keep the handgun out of his woman’s hands. Pointing it looks bad, especially the way she does it, like it’s Mace. The intent was good, the execution terrible.
Should have kept by their side,
Especially the woman, looks as if it’s her very first time w a pistol.
Half bent arm, waving it around, wrong!
Glad they stood up, should have looked and acted more professional doing it is all.
respect given for doing what is right, and protecting their property!
Would it not be brandishing a firearm, people have argued with me on this forum that if you draw a firearm use or its brandishing a firearm. If its serious enough to draw your firearm, no warnings, no warning shots.
Stuff is way out of hand these days, all it would have taken for that situation is for someone to light some fireworks & it would have gone bad real quick. Would I have had a gun on my property if there was a protest coming down my street?
You had better believe it, but wouldn't be one it would have been a bunch & with more buddies behind me. I would also have video running for proof in any court case that may happen.
It looks to me he was defending his property, they broke his gate & trespassed. If they threatened him or his wife they full rights to do what they did.
Here where I live if you threaten my life & have means to carry it out(carrying a gun, large stick, knife, any form of weapon) I have the right to defend myself & can shoot if I see the need.
Absolutely, they did have in hand and display their arms.
The only question is: was there lawful justification for doing so.
Which is all it comes down to. (That and politics of course. No telling, these days, as politically motivated the weak-kneed staffers are to kiss arse and pander, what side they'll fall on, irrespective of the law in a person's state. But that's a twisting of the law, not the law itself.)
IF in fact there was forcible violent entry onto the property, and IF there was a mob hurling death threats as they claim, you're darned right they had every justification for being concerned over threat to life and limb. Which is why in the U.S. the 2A exists: to protect our "property" (liberties, properties, lives) with the force deemed necessary to quash the threat.
In this case, if as reported, it appears perps busted the gate, threatened their murder, threatened to come back, yadda yadda yadda. Which would make any but a fool concerned over crippling injury or death, at their hands.
If, however, they staged the destruction of that gate (or it's not what it appears), or if there were no such threats at all that would lead a reasonable person to conclude their lives were at stake ... then that's where the courts come into play. Devil's in the details (Which media often gets wrong, and/or claimants on either side deliberately skew based on agenda to be served.)
But, IF as portrayed, that violent entry onto the property occurred, and a mob hurling insults and death threats was "advancing" on them, then it seems they had every lawful justification to halt that as necessary. (And if the alternative to allowing that mob to put hands on them could easily result in crippling injury or death, there's really only one alternative to that aside from sucking up and taking one for the Gipper.)
As i said people on the forum near had a fit when i suggested that some times drawing a gun (Brandishing) wound be enough to stop a attack. The reply's were if you are in enough danger to need to draw your firearm, then use it. You could go to jail for Brandishing, the argument would be you must not of feared a attack enough to justify drawing your firearm or you would have used it. PS There must be money in personal injury claims, judging by the house.
Alot depends on the state. Some states have a brandishing law, some dont.
No idea about the state this occured in.
That said, they would have been stupid NOT to have kept a angry crowd on THEIR property issuing threats at gun point.
Unless they have a libby lefty prosecutor in that county that law doesnt apply.
They were displaying weapons in a self defense situation to ward off a angry threatening mob. Using I might add commendable self control and not firing.
previously posted today...
MO revised statutes...
563.041. Use of physical force in defense of property
Since the idiot is an attorney, he has a fool for a client!
that the idiot is providing “his propagandized side of the story” in the public domain (social media blogs no less..lol) to sway their plight to keep from going to jail and losing his opportunity to practice law and to continue live in that exclusive rich neighbourhood!
Even w/nice humanistic touch of commenting they are staunch BLM supporters...
Gatoragn...you did hear about the two children who threw a witch in the oven? Yes a fairy tale but so is the attorney’s...a fairy tale cuz he’s not J.Q.Citizen per se and white, aristocratic, well connected and living in the same complex as the M A Y O R !!!
His fairy tale will have a happy ending!
An analogy... put the property owner as another ethnicity or same ethnicity but poor and not well connected...social blogs wouldn’t waste the bandwidth...
Stand your ground concepts “loosely” you do not have to retreat from your attacker!
nothing said in the concept (case law) bout the concept allows someone leaving a safe haven to accost a mob of trespassers!
So all the ones on this forum telling me never brandish a firearm, if you draw it use it were wrong. It was not maybe, in that situation, possibly depending on, it was never.
manta, VA brandishing is a punishable crime, NC GATTTOP (going armed to the terror of the public) punishable, numerous states have similar statutes which depend only on the irrationality of the LE who encounters the citizen showing their firearm!
Just saw him on Tucker Carlson. They do have a libby left prosecutor. One of the worst.
That said, he should be okay and IMO should counter-sue.
Pretty much. Just because you draw a gun doesnt mean the situation cant change and you dont have to fire.
This is where a laser might be useful. 2 border patrol agents were confronted by a mob of illegal aliens. They figured they had the agents out numbered and they could not shoot them all. One of the agents had a laser on his pistol. Everyone the laser touched broke and ran. It showed them they were the target and would be the one getting shot.
Drawing in self defense facing imminent danger is not brandishing. The word is usually applied when a weapon is displayed to threaten someone, which is a felony in my state and probably most if not all.
The woman was probably brandishing, as long as nobody had pointed at her first.
Maybe. but there is a HUGE disparity of force in the situation.
An angry mob threatening 2 people.
I dont see brandishing at all. Just alot of restraint on the homeowner's part.
Based on this video the homeowner is an idiot.
Before his property was threatened he left the safety of his home and confronted the mob. His wife walked out onto the lawn and specifically threatened the mob.
In the video you can see that they live in what appears to be a stone home with at least two upstairs balconies. Tactically he would have been better off not confronting the mob, taking position on one of the balconies and calling the cops.
Whether or not he's going to be charged will be a purely political decision.