St Louis couple disarmed for the convenience of rioters.

Legal rifle seized from owners

Now the rioters can go back and kill them at leisure.

Disarming legal gun owners who are subject to numerous death threats is a disgrace. They have been charged with no crime, and the firearm in question is lawful in Missouri. So, why disarm them other than to pander to BLM?

27 thoughts on “St Louis couple disarmed for the convenience of rioters.

  1. Were the protesters trying to kill, or even hurt, anyone in that area? I understood that they were marching past the homes.

    Wouldn’t stepping outside and brandishing arms be an act of simple assault at the least?

    This incident seems similar to the one In which a two women, 1 Black with a daughter and a White woman in a van, had a parking lot dispute. The White woman pulled a gun and freaked out pointing it at the other person. Fortunately no one was hurt, and the gun owner was arrested later.

    And we wonder why we have so many gun deaths compared to other First World nations.

    Too many Quick Draw McGraws perhaps.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. The Politifact article is untrue. The couple did not meet the mob at the gate, they were on their front steps, and had been threatened with arson and murder before brandishing their firearms.

        This was not a public street, it was all private property. The mob’s First Amendment rights, which the prosecutor claims she is defending, ended at the gates they knocked down.

        But right now, they are still under death threats, and now unlawfully disarmed.

        Like

        1. Unfortunately, the video record only shows them confronting people on the fringes of their yard,… but hey, if you own a house like that one, it’s for sure you have a top line security system with HD CCTV and cloud backups of 16 different views with audio, and so they are bound to be able to present proof of their claims…. unless the police have them and are using them already.

          Never film yourself committing a crime… that’s strictly teen stuff.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. The “protestors” First Amendment rights ended at the gate. When they breached the gate and continued onto private property they became rioters.

            It is really no different than an angry mob breaking in your front door.

            Like

    1. Really? How many such deaths can you document? The vast majority of homicides are gang related. The number of unlawful uses by property owners defending their homes is infinitesimal.

      And no, Missouri has a castle doctrine law, and the rioters had breached an iron gate to invade private property, and many of the rioters were visibly armed. so the couple would have been justified in shooting anyone who pointed a firearm their way, or physically advanced on them.

      Even if they had been convicted, and they have not even been arrested, brandishing is a misdemeanor and would not justify disarming them.

      This is nothing but pandering to the mob and considering the numerous death threat directed at the couple, could been seen as aiding and abetting their murder should that result.

      There is no excuse for disarming a person who is in peril.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Death threats?

        Shoot, the mayors of some cities and the governor of Michigan among others have been getting death threats for the lockdowns.

        #LIBERATE from the president is totally responsible for that. But that was just fine with you.

        So the a Trump folks know all about death threats, they are good at it.

        Also, the article did NOT say they were met at the gate. It said they were met inside the gate. Which is where their house was. Big difference in the telling of the story.

        Let’s let the story play out to find out what really happened when the protesters were trying to demonstrate at the mayor’s house.

        You said they were rioters? Really? Or just marching? Were any of the marchers brandishing or pointing their weapons? Was the gate destroyed? Or just opened?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. The gate was destroyed. Marching on a public street is one thing, but there were no public streets inside the gate.

          But in any case, that is irrelevant to the fact that the rifle, the man’s means for self defense, was taken without legal justification.

          That is an abuse of power with possible tragic consequences and a violation of his rights. He has not been convicted or even charged with a crime, so what is the justification for disarming him when he is in peril?

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Perhaps you should direct this comment more to black on black gun violence where it is most prominent.

      These people lived in a posted, private, gated community. BLM was breaking the law by tearing down the gate and entering for starters. Due to all of the current BLM and Antifa mayhem, riots, burning, looting and destruction, these people had a legitimate reason for protecting themselves and their property. This is a major lawsuit in the making.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Antifa again? They have been mostly absent from the trouble spots. Virtually all the violent arrested folks have been freelance looters and groups from the right like bugaloo boys.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Really?

          Please cite an instance of violence by someone known to the Boogaloo boys. Not someone who after-the-fact self identified as affiliated, unless you want to accept the gang members and looters who co-opted the BLM protests as members of BLM.

          Like

          1. We went all around this the other day. Arrests and shootings that killed a security officer.

            If you want to interview those folks, please do so.

            I am done.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Well, are you done accusing a group of people of violence when there is no evidence that those criminals claiming to be members were known to anyone else in the movement?

            You can’t have it both ways.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Jesus, read the post from the other day. Those arrested were not left wing nuts. Don’t like Bugaloo, then call them whatever you want.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. They weren’t facts the first time and they still aren’t.

            You could just as easily call the gang violence that has broken out and killed so many, including children, under the cover of the BLM protests part of the BLM protest itself and it would be wrong in the same way.

            Like

    1. I did and people disagreed with me.

      Nothing new. Just differing opinions.

      It is interesting and a bit concerning that the protesters are armed, counter-protesters are armed, people confronting each other are pulling guns, #LIBERATE folks are armed…it’s like the Wild West in the movies.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Len, You repeatedly told us that the Civil War enthusiasts at Charlottesville should have abandoned their protest when the Nazis joined in. By that standard, should not BLM have gone home when rioters and looters showed up?
    Should they have have stayed on the public streets when that gate to private property was breached?

    Or does BLM get a pass when they are mixed with, and provide cover for, lawbreakers?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Ok. To sum. The Nazis were the vast majority of folks in Charlottesville.. Confederate buffs were a handful. Remember the scum that got the permits were the racists who formed “Unite the Right”.

      So would you tag along a Nazi rally to say hi to Lee”s horse?

      Hundreds of those lowlifes marched the night before with torches. Were Confederates in there chanting “Jews will not replace us”? If they did, then they are equally despicable.

      Do you see the difference? BLM were 99% and the rioters, looters and arsonists were tag alongs. Not the other way around.

      You say BLM provided “cover”. That is a terrible thing to say. As if they were complicit in a vast conspiracy nationwide to provide a distraction for looters.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Could it have been because the Mrs. in this instance has no idea how to safely handle a handgun? She had her finger ON the trigger, not outside the trigger guard, and was waving it around rather willy-nilly. I also, I believe I read where she was not a registered owner of the guns in question and has not been trained in safe handling. (Which seems pretty obvious).

    Don, you have talked about how gun owners, responsible ones, don’t “brandish” just by carrying. Well, the Mrs. appeared to be brandishing and ready to shoot people who were WALKING BY their house to protest at the Mayor’s residence.

    Trespassing citations could be issued to the protesters, but they really did nothing except protest peacefully at the Mayor’s house. In order to do so they had to go to his private neighborhood. Exercise of First Amendment rights?

    Like

    1. Their first amendment rights ended at the gate. There is no first amendment right for someone to force entry to your home to berate you.

      The right to defend your home in Missouri is not restricted to highly trained individuals, they have Castle Doctrine there.

      I agree that it would have been better to hold the firearms at what is often called ‘low ready’ pointed downward, safety off, finger out of trigger guard, so there is no danger of accidentally hurting someone, but you can hurt someone very quickly if need be.

      But they do not lose their rights because of poor technique, nor does the prosecutor gain the power to disarm them when they have committed no crime.

      Like

      1. Private street? I wonder if the tax payers of St. Louis are responsible for that “private” stretch?

        If it had been the mayor, where the protesters where going, then he would have been in the right if he felt threatened. These folks were walking by and would not have even stepped on the grass of the lawyers’ McMansion. They were not rampaging through the neighborhood, attacking all between point A and B; they were going to the mayor’s McMansion to have their voices heard.

        Is “Brandishing” a crime in Missouri?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s