Trump defends armed St Louis couple

it is a universal right to protect yourself and what's yours.
this is always the first right aggresors try to deprive their victims of, . .then they remove the right to complain about it.
this is precisely what we are experiencing in u.s.a. and everywhere, . .
who is the perpetrator? when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people, . .etc. great words, . .time has come to exercise them. now or never more again.

But, but, according to some shills here Trump authorized the DOJ to use the red flag laws to take our guns./Sar

Glad to see he's saying something about it. They didn't break any laws. They need some training but they didn't do anything wrong by protecting themselves and their property.

fuck yeh.

wouldn't they just need to provide evidence that the protesters had bad intentions?

I don't see any difference between this or ol'lady shooting her 44 magnum at a burglar is her house.

Justin Trump Clark has about 30 minutes to call me before the Crips do a drive by on his worthless ass.

Really?

True. But the couple were libtards without proper training

In a public place no.
In your home to criminals tresspassing on your property threatening violence at you, sure as fuck it's your right

Yes, and these laws are retarded. Merely taking it out without pointing it is considered brandishing..... so let's not allow people to judge the situation ... force them to either submit or kill someone.

The problem is not with what the couple did, it's with the laws that make it illegal for a gun owner to make the call on whether to force deescalation or kill.

bs, point and shoot. bingo.

Tic tock

Illegal to point guns at trespassers?

They should have opened fire and taken down a few. We need to get the race war started so we can finally deal with the inner city problem.

Technically he didnt, he stood with his gun ready but parallel to them. She was pointing her's so may be charged. Their best bet is to show just cause for their behaviour, recent trend of antifa and BLM rampaging mobs. When the latest mob came through the side gate onto their private property. Reasonable fear of attack etc from a legal perspective which led to their actions. Ultimately its bread and circuses by the DA, cheap head line grabbing against the 'wicked rich people'.

Omg someone doesn't distinguish between intimidation IN PUBLIC and self defence IN PRIVATE!


So it's illegal to 'intimidate' criminals tresspassing and threatening on your property?
Well then you definitely can't shoot them,

Jeeezus!

You are correct. Plus they came onto private property the second they broke the gate, so there is a legal argument to be made that they feared for their life based solely on that.
Also, from what I saw, the wife was the only one who pointed a weapon at anyone.

Here in Florida the people invading their property would get shot and nothing would be done about it other than holes being dug to bury them.

Last Edited by Xeven on 07/15/2020 09:05 AM

This dude said the cops didn't want to take his weapons, but they were just following orders. He respects them.

That's my understanding as well, and I am in Missouri. We have some of the most aggressive firearm protection laws in this state, including castle law, constitutional carry, etc.

I understand one should not brandish a weapon. However, this is a bit different as their private gate was smashed and individuals came on to their private property, threatening them. Legally, I would think that gate being smashed was akin to your front door being bashed in and intruders entering your abode with force.

You guys should read up on this couple a bit. They are a couple of lawyers that have a history of swindling people out of property. They had a duty to retreat in this instance, but think that everything in that subdivision belongs to them.

CASTLE DOCTRINE - you ABSOLUTELY can use deadly force in Missouri when invaders are on your property.

If they are armed and they were and I feared for my life I sure do. Ask Zimmerman.

well, they were going to shoot them, but they changed their mind.

Normally I'd agree but not this time, they broke into private property. Owner can do whatever he needs to get rid of them if he felt threatened.

I hope he takes it to a jury.

5*!

good..they should have started shooting

Exactly, went from fear to not sure and back and forth.

Yea they were. They broke the gate to their PRIVATE street. They owned it.

Go look at the pictures on twitter you can see where the mob broke down the gate that was clearly marked PRIVATE property to get up to the house.

Incorrect. They damaged property on the couple's private property. Not sure how to embed images..

[link to bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com (secure)]

My understanding of Castle Doctrine in most states is that it only applies to WITHIN your four walls, and inside of your vehicle. At least thats what the CCW instructor told us. I have always wondered if this is accurate, but there is such differing info online (imagine that)