Couple who pointed guns at protesters tell Republican convention that suburbs in peril

[simple1]

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

ell done, great post. Clearly visible how one of the BLM protestors is pointing a gun at the couple

It's a video camera with mike.

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Shame it is a camera and the 'barrel' is a mic......doh!

It doesn't matter,  many of the BLM mob were in fact armed.

 

 

[NanLaew]

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

7 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

That is a video camera live streaming, quick, you still have time to edit/delete your post

It's obviously a gun disguised as a video camera.

 

That's how underhand these leftists are.

 

Shocking.

If they banned guns and they were less prevalent, maybe the lesser educated wouldn't confuse them with pistol grip microphones. Then again, with so many guns out there, how can you possibly make such a fundamental error?

 

 

Y'all need some ammo and kevlar with that?

[transam]

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Do you really think facing with weapons, a group passing by, was a good idea? Isn't that surprising they were verbally threatened is it, in fact, IMO, an act of gross stupidity by the couple. I'll make the observation from the photo you provided there were a few protesters facing the crowd, one assumes in an endeavour to deescalate tension - have to wait the outcome of the Court proceeding on felony weapons charges for facts to emerge; people were videoing the incident.

Facing the crowd to "De-escalate the tension"...........................????........Sure they are...????

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Politics

Sorry, you don't understand. If no crime has been committed, as repeatedly claimed by some posters, there will not be a conviction. Now one of the posters also claims they will be pardoned, but how can there be a pardon if according to the law no crime has been committed.

 

Only possible explanation for a pardon is a crime has been committed, so the posters claiming 'no crime has been committed' are wrong.

 

You can't have it both ways.

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It doesn't matter,  many of the BLM mob were in fact armed.

 

 

If that is the case can you show a link that actually reflects the  reality of this claim, a link to any of these protestors who was arrested or charged as such will suffice.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It doesn't matter,  many of the BLM mob were in fact armed.

Bad deflection attempt after having been caught out.

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

If they banned guns and they were less prevalent, maybe the lesser educated wouldn't confuse them with pistol grip microphones. Then again, with so many guns out there, how can you possibly make such a fundamental error?

 

 

Y'all need some ammo and kevlar with that?

That still looks suspiciously like a gun. I would ask  for a proper investigation of this device, just in case ANTIFA are now disguising their weapons in an underhand way as microphones.

 

One could certainly see how the McCloskeys' could mistake that dangerous looking device for a gun. It looks very similar.

 

Imagine someone points that at you in the street. 

[simple1]

Just now, transam said:

Facing the crowd to "De-escalate the tension"...........................????........Sure they are...????

Body language in the photo of one of them is why I made the assumption. We will see, as I posted...

 

have to wait the outcome of the Court proceeding on felony weapons charges for facts to emerge; people were videoing the incident.

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Sorry, you don't understand. If no crime has been committed, as repeatedly claimed by some posters, there will not be a conviction. Now one of the posters also claims they will be pardoned, but how can there be a pardon if according to the law no crime has been committed.

 

Only possible explanation for a pardon is a crime has been committed, so the posters claiming 'no crime has been committed' are wrong.

 

You can't have it both ways.

If the governor pardons them after conviction of a crime, as has said they will, that is indeed politics.

 

So I am not wrong, you are.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Bluespunk

[NanLaew]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

9 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Shame it is a camera and the 'barrel' is a mic......doh!

It doesn't matter,  many of the BLM mob were in fact armed.

The riots elsewhere did see armed antagonists but according to reports, NONE of the BLM group that got the McCloskey's all riled up were armed.

 

Do you want another shovel?

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

If that is the case can you show a link that actually reflects the  reality of this claim, a link to any of these protestors who was arrested or charged as such will suffice.

Very happy to:

 

"The McCloskeys would later tell police that the protesters were armed. Marchers say no-one on their side drew a weapon. The state of Missouri does allow the open carrying of firearms, as long as it is not done in a threatening manner.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184

 

If even the protestors admit that noone drew their weapon, that implies they did have weapons.

[NanLaew]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

That still looks suspiciously like a gun. I would ask  for a proper investigation of this device, just in case ANTIFA are now disguising their weapons in an underhand way as microphones.

 

One could certainly see how the McCloskeys' could mistake that dangerous looking device for a gun. It looks very similar.

 

Imagine someone points that at you in the street. 

I see you DO still need a shovel.

 

There's a BOGOF special on them at Thai Watsadu right now.

 

Knock yourself out (and get your eyes tested).

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

That still looks suspiciously like a gun. I would ask  for a proper investigation of this device, just in case ANTIFA are now disguising their weapons in an underhand way as microphones.

 

One could certainly see how the McCloskeys' could mistake that dangerous looking device for a gun. It looks very similar.

 

Imagine someone points that at you in the street. 

Sure they felt threatened by it, that's why they are pointing their guns away from this threat. ROFL.

 

Doubling down, again.

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Very happy to:

 

"The McCloskeys would later tell police that the protesters were armed. Marchers say no-one on their side drew a weapon. The state of Missouri does allow the open carrying of firearms, as long as it is not done in a threatening manner.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184

 

If even the protestors admit that noone drew their weapon, that implies they did have weapons.

Where does it say in that report the protestors were armed? Apart from the armed lawyers claim...

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

If the governor pardons them after conviction of a crime, as has said they will, that is indeed politics.

 

So I am not wrong, you are.

Firstly the people who turned a private residential development into politics were the BLM mob who tore down a gate and trespassed on private proverty, with the intent of harrassing and intimidating Lyda Krewson.

 

Secondly the person who then mounted a plainly political prosecution was Kim Gardner, who used the incident to solicit funds for her re-election campaign.

 

So this incident was politicised long before the governor made clear he will pardon the couple, and the state's AG made clear the prosecution should never have happened.

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

If the governor pardons them after conviction of a crime, as has said they will, that is indeed politics.

 

So I am not wrong, you are.

In that case they have been convicted, so a crime has been committed. Again, if no crime has been committed there will be no pardon.

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Where does it say in that report the protestors were armed? Apart from the armed lawyers claim...

If marchers say noone drew their weapons obviously that implies they had weapons.

 

The marchers themselves admitted it.

[NanLaew]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Very happy to:

 

"The McCloskeys would later tell police that the protesters were armed. Marchers say no-one on their side drew a weapon. The state of Missouri does allow the open carrying of firearms, as long as it is not done in a threatening manner.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184

 

If even the protestors admit that noone drew their weapon, that implies they did have weapons.

Thanks for the insight on Missouri law. So some BLM protestors had their legal sidearms holstered? Maybe because the McCloskey's were waving their's around (including an assault rifle), that's why they got rightfully charged?

 

Keep digging. It's appreciated.

[Bluespunk]

Just now, stevenl said:

In that case they have been convicted, so a crime has been committed. Again, if no crime has been committed there will be no pardon.

That wasn't the point i was making. My point is that the governors statement he will pardon them if they are convicted is clearly a political action.

[mikebike]

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Here's why mike, because Kim Gardner is using the incident to further her political ambitions. Even BEFORE the couple were charged Kim Gardner used the incident in a Black Lives Matter style solicitation for her political funds.

 

Kim Gardner is black, and her constituency is largely black, so she is trying to secure votes and funds by going after the old white couple who pointed guns at the BLM heroes. That is why they were charged with a crime.

 

Not because they committed a crime, but because Kim Gardner is using the incident for her own political purposes.

 

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/mccloskeys-attorney-files-motion-to-disqualify-circuit-attorney-gardner-from-case/63-8fedfaf7-2dab-4d2e-8521-f80064c17f61

 

 

So, nothing other than your opinion.

 

Use all the political obfuscation you like, what they did IS a chargeable offence, political expediency or not.

 

Relax, sit back and let it play out. Every charge levied by every DA in every district in the USA has a political component. Or weren't you aware of that?

 

As an aside, aren't gated communities antithetical to "land of the free and home of the brave". It seems that the peeps who live in them are neither free, nor brave.

[Logosone]

Just now, NanLaew said:

Thanks for the insight on Missouri law. So some BLM protestors had their legal sidearms holstered? Maybe because the McCloskey's were waving their's around (including an assault rifle), that's why they got rightfully charged?

 

Keep digging. It's appreciated.

Who goes tearing off gates of private housing developments clearly marked as private, whilst carrying weapons, then trespasses on private property, with the intention of intimidating the mayor in her private home? And scrawls graffiti on private property?

 

Those who broke the law. Those who first used violence and intimidation.

 

And that was not the McCloskeys.

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

If marchers say noone drew their weapons obviously that implies they had weapons.

 

The marchers themselves admitted it.

So you have nothing to back up your spurious claim.

[Chomper Higgot]

42 minutes ago, Logosone said:

St. Louis prosecutor used McCloskey case in campaign literature and should be dismissed, according to new motion

 

The President of the US is using the McCloskey’s in his campaign for re-election

while they are being prosecuted for a felony crime.

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

So, nothing other than your opinion.

 

Use all the political obfuscation you like, what they did IS a chargeable offence, political expediency or not.

 

Relax, sit back and let it play out. Every charge levied by every DA in every district in the USA has a political component. Or weren't you aware of that?

 

As an aside, aren't gated communities antithetical to "land of the free and home of the brave". It seems that the peeps who live in them are neither free, nor brave.

Not it's not just opinion, as you can see here, Kim Gardner used the prosecution to solicit funds. That's a fact. Not opinion.

 

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/mccloskeys-attorney-files-motion-to-disqualify-circuit-attorney-gardner-from-case/63-8fedfaf7-2dab-4d2e-8521-f80064c17f61

 

We'll have to see if what the McCloskeys did is in fact a chargeable offence. The Attorney General of Missouri disagrees with you and has asked that Kim Gardner's prosecution be struck off. Moreover a Senator has asked for an investigation into Kim Gardner's prosecution. The Governor himself has made clear he thinks the case should never have been brought. If the charge does go ahead, it is clear it is a travesty mounted purely for political gain by a politically ambitious Circuit Attorney.

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

That wasn't the point i was making. My point is that the governors statement he will pardon them if they are convicted is clearly a political action.

Yes, you were making a point while incorrectly interpreting my post.

 

Enough if this.

[Logosone]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

So you have nothing to back up your spurious claim.

You mean nothing apart from a BBC report which clearly states that the marchers themselves admit they did not draw their weapons, which clearly implies they had weapons.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184

[Bluespunk]

Just now, stevenl said:

Yes, you were making a point while incorrectly interpreting my post.

 

Enough if this.

I was stating my view, not yours.

[Bluespunk]

Just now, Logosone said:

You mean nothing apart from a BBC report which clearly states that the marchers themselves admit they did not draw their weapons, which clearly implies they had weapons.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184

nonsense

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Not it's not just opinion, as you can see here, Kim Gardner used the prosecution to solicit funds. That's a fact. Not opinion.

 

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/mccloskeys-attorney-files-motion-to-disqualify-circuit-attorney-gardner-from-case/63-8fedfaf7-2dab-4d2e-8521-f80064c17f61

 

We'll have to see if what the McCloskeys did is in fact a chargeable offence. The Attorney General of Missouri disagrees with you and has asked that Kim Gardner's prosecution be struck off. Moreover a Senator has asked for an investigation into Kim Gardner's prosecution. The Governor himself has made clear he thinks the case should never have been brought. If the charge does go ahead, it is clear it is a travesty mounted purely for political gain by a politically ambitious Circuit Attorney.

A motion from attorneys is an opinion. not fact. Your interpretation is again an opinion, not fact.