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

[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.

[Logosone]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

nonsense

Not not nonsense, it says it right here:

 

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

 

Why would the marchers say they did not draw their weapons if they had no weapons?

 

The fact that the marchers say they did not draw their weapons clearly implies that they admit they carried weapons. They just claim they did not draw them.

 

If they had not had any weapons they would have said they had no weapons not "no-one on their side drew a weapon".

 

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, 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

Maybe they didn't draw because they didn't have them? So no, no 'clear implication' there.

[Logosone]

15 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.

No, it would actually be a political re-action against the clear political prosecution which Kim Gardner is embarking on to solicit funds and get re-election votes on the back of a couple who faced a violet mob who trespassed, which was armed, whose avowed aim was to intimidate the mayor of St. Louis in her private home and to get her to resign.

 

If the governor has to pardon anyone it would be because the prosecution was political and should never have taken place.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Logosone

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

No, it would actually be a political re-action against the clear political prosecution which Kim Gardner is embarking on to solicit funds and get re-election votes on the back of a couple who faced a violet mob who trespassed, which was armed, whose avowed aim was to intimidate the mayor of St. Louis in her private home and to get her to resign.

 

If the governor has to pardon anyone it would be because the prosecution was political and should never have taken place.

 

 

If he has to pardon they'll have been convicted. So the prosecution has been deemed justified by a court of law.

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Calling out a BLATANT prevarication, dripping with RACIST overtones should not be agaisnt forum rules.

 

You sound like a truly despicable person.

 

 

 

 

That is  personal insult that is extremely offensive. I see you have to resort to personal insults yet again.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No, it would actually be a political re-action against the clear political prosecution which Kim Gardner is embarking on to solicit funds and get re-election votes on the back of a couple who faced a violet mob who trespassed, which was armed, whose avowed aim was to intimidate the mayor of St. Louis in her private home and to get her to resign.

 

If the governor has to pardon anyone it would be because the prosecution was political and should never have taken place.

 

 

Or perhaps the pardon would be political.

[Andy from Kent]

On 8/25/2020 at 11:27 AM, transam said:

Why, were the neighbours shot at in the past....?  ????

 

OK Trans,   Where did you read the neighbors were shot at?

Would  you clarify your post pleasse?

[Andy from Kent]

47 minutes ago, Redline said:

The blue states are far more wealthy, educated, healthy, cleaner ????

that’s supposed to be scary?

get guns off the streets, and much of the violence will stop-along with the “war on drugs”, which is a failure 

No no no.   The USA needs more guns in the hands of ultra right wing conservatives  so these kind of people, whoever they are,  can be eradicated as soon as possible.      Just ask Mr.  riclig.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, Logosone said:

faced a violet mob who trespassed, which was armed, whose avowed aim was to intimidate the mayor of St. Louis in her private home and to get her to resign.

 

The marchers near this couple's home were not violent toward them. If any of them were armed (and some may have been), they didn't publicly brandish or threaten anyone there, unlike the white couple did. They weren't trespassing and they weren't on private property.

 

As for their intended protest later against the mayor, has absolutely no relevance to the gun brandishing episode by this couple.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, Logosone said:

If the governor has to pardon anyone it would be because the prosecution was political and should never have taken place.

 

Trump has pardoned all varieties of criminals who deserved to be convicted and were, under the laws of the land, including some serving soldiers who were prosecuted by their own military for improper killings of foreign civilians. Trump and other Republicans these days use the pardon process to excuse legitimate criminal conduct by their friends and ideological allies.

 

[Logosone]

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

The marchers near this couple's home were not violent toward them. If any of them were armed (and some may have been), they didn't publicly brandish or threaten anyone there, unlike the white couple did. They weren't trespassing and they weren't on private property.

 

As for their intended protest later against the mayor, has absolutely no relevance to the gun brandishing episode by this couple.

 

They certainly were violent, here you can see how they violently demolished the gate that protected the private housing development before they trespassed. And they were not just violent, they were breaking the law committing vandalism, scrawling graffiti on the road and intimidating Lyda Krewson in her private home.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-st-louis-rioters-threatened-couple-guns-attorney

 

Most legal analysts agree that the protesters were trespassing when they entered Portland Place.

 

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

 

A large mob that ransacks private property, tears a gate off its hinges and shows it is intent on breaking the law, actually breaks the law and shouts at the home owners "We will be revisiting" is not threatening. Obviously it is. You're just wrong.

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Trump has pardoned all varieties of criminals who deserved to be convicted and were, under the laws of the land, including some serving soldiers who were prosecuted by their own military for improper killings of foreign civilians. Trump and other Republicans these days use the pardon process to excuse legitimate criminal conduct by their friends and ideological allies.

 

Yes, like bank robber Jon Ponder:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/us/politics/trump-jon-ponder-pardon.html

[Bluespunk]

27 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Not not nonsense, it says it right here:

 

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

 

Why would the marchers say they did not draw their weapons if they had no weapons?

 

The fact that the marchers say they did not draw their weapons clearly implies that they admit they carried weapons. They just claim they did not draw them.

 

If they had not had any weapons they would have said they had no weapons not "no-one on their side drew a weapon".

 

I read the article and nowhere does it state the protestors were armed.

 

You can wish that to be the case all you want, but you have zero evidence that it is true.

[Bluespunk]

24 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No, it would actually be a political re-action against the clear political prosecution which Kim Gardner is embarking on to solicit funds and get re-election votes on the back of a couple who faced a violet mob who trespassed, which was armed, whose avowed aim was to intimidate the mayor of St. Louis in her private home and to get her to resign.

 

If the governor has to pardon anyone it would be because the prosecution was political and should never have taken place.

 

 

Yeah, sure, that's what is going on

 

Deary, deary me...

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, Logosone said:

They certainly were violent, here you can see how they violently demolished the gate that protected the private housing development before they trespassed. And they were not just violent, they were breaking the law committing vandalism, scrawling graffiti on the road and intimidating Lyda Krewson in her private home.

 

The police investigation didn't support what you're claiming, nor did local reports from the scene. That's why the gun toting couple are being prosecuted, rightfully so.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Andy from Kent]

Hopefully if this matter goes to trial they're be hours of CCTV in this exclusive community to shed some light on the truth.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Andy from Kent

[Logosone]

53 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

The police investigation didn't support what you're claiming, nor did local reports from the scene. That's why the gun toting couple are being prosecuted, rightfully so.

 

 

 

A couple of things:

 

The McCloskeys are being prosecuted because Kim Gardner decided to do so. Because she is using the incident to solicit funds and get votes for her re-election. The Attorney General of Missouri has written to ask that Kim Gardner's prosecution be dropped and the handling of this prosecution is being investigated. The Governor has made clear that in case of a conviction the couple will be pardoned.

 

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

 

The protestors have admitted there were weapons:

 

"At that time I didn't [see weapons in the crowd at the McCloskey home] but afterwards I did see one gun once everyone made it to the mayor's house. I saw at least one person with a semi-automatic rifle," he said. "That's not super out of the ordinary for the protests here. Most of the handguns are concealed because in Missouri you don't need a permit to conceal-carry. "

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/couple-recorded-pulling-weapons-protesters-outside-their-st-louis-home-n1232400

 

Of course they are lying through their teeth, going out of their way to claim that oh no at the McCloskeys there were no guns at all, but at Lyda Krewson's house there was a gun. Obviously if there was a gun at Lyda Krewson's house there was one at the McCloskeys's place as well. Remember that the McCloskeys themselves said they armed themselves after they saw that some protesters were armed, that's evidence in itself.

 

The gate is clearly ripped off in a violent way and that was done by the protestors.

 

The BLM mob came to intimidate, to bully, to threaten, granted their target was Lyda Krewson but they were the ones who used violence. They were armed. They broke the law. 

 

And yet that BLM mob is not prosecuted, not a single one, whereas a couple who were the victim of ground invasion by a violent mob and whose life was threatened and yet exercised great restraint by not firing their guns, they are the ones being prosecuted.

 

This is a political farce and Trump was right to highlight this.

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Logosone

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, Logosone said:

And yet that BLM mob is not prosecuted, not a single one, whereas a couple who were the victim of ground invasion by a violent mob and whose life was threatened and yet exercised great restraint by not firing their guns, they are the ones being prosecuted.

 

You're seriously deluded.

 

The marchers/protesters had no beef whatsoever with this gun nut couple. They were simply heading down the street and sidewalk toward their intended protest site re the mayor. The only thing that escalated the situation was this couple coming outside to brandish their weapons and threaten the crowd. There's zero evidence that any of the protesters brandished or used any weapons. Nor were they on this couple's property.  They simply would have walked right past... had these two gun nuts not decided to create a confrontation.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

You're seriously deluded.

 

No, you are deluded, like these BLM protestors who think it's okay to intimidate a politician in her private home, while bringing guns.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, Logosone said:

No, you are deluded, like these BLM protestors who think it's okay to intimidate a politician in her private home, while bringing guns.

 And that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the confrontation created by the gun nut couple who should have just stayed in their own home and let the crowd go marching on past.

 

BTW, AFAIK, re the marchers, it's perfectly legal for ordinary citizens to openly carry handguns in Wisconsin, even without a license. It's only concealed carry that requires a license there.  And the guy nut couple aren't being prosecuted for having guns in public, but for brandishing/threatening others with them.

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[kingdong]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

By all means prosecute all individuals who committed crimes.

 

But real crimes please, non of this made up nonsense of ‘looting’. 

aren,t the poice supposed to uphold law and order and protect law abiding citizens? however they obviously can,t be every where at once so the right of self defence is enshrined in most civalised countries law,not much consolation to know the mob who murdered you may be prosecuted at a later date.

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 And that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the confrontation created by the gun nut couple who should have just stayed in their own home and let the crowd go marching on past.

 

BTW, AFAIK, re the marchers, it's perfectly legal for ordinary citizens to openly carry handguns in Wisconsin, even without a license. It's only concealed carry that requires a license there.  And the guy nut couple aren't being prosecuted for having guns in public, but for brandishing/threatening others with them.

 

It has everything to do with the confrontation, that confrontation only happened because a disgruntled BLM cadre of activists was annoyed the mayor of St Louis had publicly disclosed their names and the fact they had demanded the police be defunded. They then called for this march on the private residence of the mayor, ostensibly to protest "racial injustice" but the real reason was to get the mayor to resign because she opposed defunding of the police and had publicised their names.

 

So none of this would have happend without the BLM protestors marching on the private residence of the mayor.

 

I note we have gone from "no there were no weapons at the protest" to "it's perfectly legal to carry weapons", lol.

 

Okay, well, I can guarantee you the law does not allow the carrying of handguns during illegal activity such as trespassing. 

 

But of course none of the BLM protesters are prosecuted because the person in charge in St Louis' main law office is a BLM apologist who sees BLM as a fantastic funds solicitation and votes gathering opportunity. 

 

[polpott]

9 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It has everything to do with the confrontation, that confrontation only happened because a disgruntled BLM cadre of activists was annoyed the mayor of St Louis had publicly disclosed their names and the fact they had demanded the police be defunded. They then called for this march on the private residence of the mayor, ostensibly to protest "racial injustice" but the real reason was to get the mayor to resign because she opposed defunding of the police and had publicised their names.

 

So none of this would have happend without the BLM protestors marching on the private residence of the mayor.

 

I note we have gone from "no there were no weapons at the protest" to "it's perfectly legal to carry weapons", lol.

 

Okay, well, I can guarantee you the law does not allow the carrying of handguns during illegal activity such as trespassing. 

 

But of course none of the BLM protesters are prosecuted because the person in charge in St Louis' main law office is a BLM apologist who sees BLM as a fantastic funds solicitation and votes gathering opportunity. 

 

Subsequent to their appearance on national TV, a bunch of "vigilanties" showed up and started shooting at protesters. Their blood is on the suburban couple and Trump's hands. 2nd amendment? Jeez what century do you guys live in.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by polpott

[kingdong]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nothing for you to be Grousing about them.

 

But you are correct about one thing, there is politicking at play.

 

The Trump campaign think it good politics and a vote catcher to invite two people to speak at their convention who’s only qualification to do so is they pointed guns at protestors.

perhaps the " trump campaign " wanted to give the victims the chance to put their side of the story on record especially in view of the current criminal anarchy currently sweeping america.

[Logosone]

6 minutes ago, polpott said:

Subsequent to their appearance on national TV, a bunch of "vigilanties" showed up and started shooting at protesters. Their blood is on the suburban couple and Trump's hands. 2nd amendment? Jeez what century do you guys live in.

 

 

Rather the opposite, someone shot and killed police during prolonged BLM inspired violence.

 

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/mayhem-4-police-officers-shot-during-long-night-of-violence-and-destruction-in-st-louis/article_87ac7e92-e6bf-59d9-8488-10c7fe462063.html

[polpott]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Rather the opposite, someone shot and killed police during prolonged BLM inspired violence.

 

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/mayhem-4-police-officers-shot-during-long-night-of-violence-and-destruction-in-st-louis/article_87ac7e92-e6bf-59d9-8488-10c7fe462063.html

Latest news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/26/jacob-blake-kenosha-police-protests/

 

Its all kicking off now. Who'd live in America?

Edited August 26, 2020 by polpott

[rcummings]

19 hours ago, Logosone said:

You're a little confused yourself. Citizens in Switzerland are not required to have guns. The old Cantonal rules where you had to have a gun in order to marry were only regional rules that applied in a certain Canton. Swiss gun law was reformed in 1999 to remove these Canton peculiarities. In addition you can not just walk around with a gun in public in Switzerland, you need a special permit for that where you have to show you have a reasonable need to carry a gun. Otherwise you won't get the permit to carry the gun in public.

 

In Switzerland too you need a permit to have a gun (though not certain rifles), though admittedly it is extremely easy to get it. However, in Switzerland too, not just Finland or Sweden, does the law require gun owners to have weapons locked up when not in use.

Well, not so much confused as out-of-date. Still, thanks for the correction. And your data does completely vitiate pattayaspotter's point.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Rather the opposite, someone shot and killed police during prolonged BLM inspired violence.

 

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/mayhem-4-police-officers-shot-during-long-night-of-violence-and-destruction-in-st-louis/article_87ac7e92-e6bf-59d9-8488-10c7fe462063.html

One event doesn't mean the poster you reacted to is incorrect.

[polpott]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

One event doesn't mean the poster you reacted to is incorrect.

I'm correct. Turn on your TV and watch the news.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/26/gunfire-kills-one-as-wisconsin-protests-over-shooting-of-black-man-turn-to-chaos.html

 

Now 2 dead one wounded. 3000 armed white vigilantes on the streets.