If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
we all know the answer.If this was a black couple and those were klansmen would this have been handled the same way?
Ya, but, nobody dares say it anymore, till we wake up one day(very soon)and find out this is the "new normal."we all know the answer.
No, you're just trying to minimize a mob doing thousands of dollars of damage to private property and terrorizing people
BTW....whats the address of the Mayor's home.......pretty sure its not on the same street
This is also a textbook example of how NOT to defend your property. Have your new gun owner friends watch this.
1) wife sweeps crowd
2) wife keeps finger on trigger.
3) husband has gun horizontal sweeping neighbors houses
4) husband sweeps wife
5) couple argues with mob - shut up and keep to yourself.
6) remain calm - be better than the people you are confronting.
Stick around , from what Iv'e seen so far it may not be even close before this thread is locked.WINNER! For the stupidest comment on the thread!
In the video the mob is ALREADY ON THEIR PROPERTY. The whole area is PRIVATE property, jointly owned by the homeowners. They bypassed a sign stating it was private to get to where they were.
Really? You're comparing an agitated mob - already known to be violent - to CONTRACTORS?Just so I know the rules, are all the members of a gated community required to give permission before a non-member enters the shared parts of the property? UPS? FedEx? Pool maintenance? Police? Guests? Plumbers? Taxis?
Really? You're comparing an agitated mob - already known to be violent - to CONTRACTORS?
You really don't get the concept of a private gated community, do you?Just so I know the rules, are all the members of a gated community required to give permission before a non-member enters the shared parts of the property? UPS? FedEx? Pool maintenance? Police? Guests? Plumbers? Taxis?
I think the answer is “no”.
Any member can invite anyone they want, right? If you and I were both part owners of a gated community, I could not tell your guests they were trespassing and force them to leave.
If you agree with that, no single member has the right, on his own, to declare someone who is on the shared part of the property a trespasser without checking with other members, or at least asking who the strangers are visiting.
It’s possible, although highly unlikely, that someone who lives on the street is sympathetic to the BLM cause and invited them to cut through. But the McCloskeys couldn’t have known if that was or wasn’t the case.
That’s why it’s absurd to claim the “private property” of the shared public areas is legally or morally identical to someone’s living room.
I’m not trying to minimize anything.
Just to be clear: are now saying that there is no difference between an act and its effect?
‘Cuz if so, that means when some moonbat freaks out because he sees a gun in a holster and feels threatened, that’s the same as the gun owner threatening the moonbat. (A premise I find absurd.)
Not on that street. They went through there because the other streets were blocked (by the police? I read it here)
There have been a number of people here over the years that either don't grasp the concept of private property or take issue with it.502 Lake AVE, Saint Louis, MO 63108
She lives several blocks away and her house is NOT on a private street.
View attachment 372378
Road closures DO NOT give these scumbags the right to trespass on private property.
unfortunately, milktree, your absurd premise is not so absurd in places like massachusetts.
You really don't get the concept of a private gated community, do you?
Try trespassing in one this week and see how that works out for you.
Just so I know the rules, are all the members of a gated community required to give permission before a non-member enters the shared parts of the property? UPS? FedEx? Pool maintenance? Police? Guests? Plumbers? Taxis?
I think the answer is “no”.
Any member can invite anyone they want, right? If you and I were both part owners of a gated community, I could not tell your guests they were trespassing and force them to leave.
If you agree with that, no single member has the right, on his own, to declare someone who is on the shared part of the property a trespasser without checking with other members, or at least asking who the strangers are visiting.
It’s possible, although highly unlikely, that someone who lives on the street is sympathetic to the BLM cause and invited them to cut through. But the McCloskeys couldn’t have known if that was or wasn’t the case.
That’s why it’s absurd to claim the “private property” of the shared public areas is legally or morally identical to someone’s living room.
Then no wonder you don't get it. Next time let me pick the private gated community for you to trespass in. Hint: It is not in Massachusetts. Then maybe you'll understand the concept a little better.I did last week. My wife and I went for a walk in one. We do it regularly (but not often).
Nobody cares. But we’re white, so maybe that’s why.
The term used most places is "Residents and invited Guests"
Just like you can't go swimming in the hotel's pool or hang out in their game room, or overnight park in their parking lot.
It's for residents ( people paying for a room) and their invited guests.
An angry mob doesn't qualify as either of them. They were not invited by anyone within the private property.....it was a spontanious trespass and no matter what their cause was/is they had no right to be their.
So at a glance you can't guess the difference in motive between a FedEx delivery driver passing your home and a rowdy several dozen who break through a gate and actively threaten you while carrying signs? And when they stop uninvited on your property, and then refuse when told to leave... that doesn't constitute trespassing?Just so I know the rules, are all the members of a gated community required to give permission before a non-member enters the shared parts of the property? UPS? FedEx? Pool maintenance? Police? Guests? Plumbers? Taxis?
I think the answer is “no”.
Any member can invite anyone they want, right? If you and I were both part owners of a gated community, I could not tell your guests they were trespassing and force them to leave.
If you agree with that, no single member has the right, on his own, to declare someone who is on the shared part of the property a trespasser without checking with other members, or at least asking who the strangers are visiting.
It’s possible, although highly unlikely, that someone who lives on the street is sympathetic to the BLM cause and invited them to cut through. But the McCloskeys couldn’t have known if that was or wasn’t the case.
That’s why it’s absurd to claim the “private property” of the shared public areas is legally or morally identical to someone’s living room.
Then no wonder you don't get it. Next time let me pick the private gated community for you to trespass in. Hint: It is not in Mssachusetts. Then maybe you'll understand the concept a little better.
The fact that you haven't been asked to leave, and arrested if you don't, doesn't mean you are not acting illegally by trespassing on private property. It just means you haven't been caught.I did last week. My wife and I went for a walk in one. We do it regularly (but not often).
Nobody cares. But we’re white, so maybe that’s why.
New here?So at a glance you can't guess the difference in motive between a FedEx delivery driver passing your home and a rowdy several dozen who break through a gate and actively threaten you while carrying signs? And when they stop uninvited on your property, and then refuse when told to leave... that doesn't constitute trespassing?
That's the most tortured false equivalence I've ever read on NES.
New here?
The fact that you haven't been asked to leave, and arrested if you don't, doesn't mean you are not acting illegally by trespassing on private property. It just means you haven't been caught.
Right.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the shared areas are NOT the same as the non-shared areas. Pretending they’re the same for political expediency is intellectually dishonest.
e.g. : someone using the pool is trespassing, someone breaking into a guest room is burglary; legally they’re quite different.
"Reasonable man" says otherwise. It's an armed mob, having already demonstrated a propensity to lawlessness - including violence - and having just broken the law in entering and trespassing, a reasonable man would fear for his life and thus be in a lawful position to defend himself.OK.
Nonetheless, I’m pretty sure shooting me would have been illegal.
You guys are all letting your opinions get ahead of yourselves. I know this is just a forum thread but still.
These people defended their home. They probably could've shot any one of these protesters. Who knows how violent it got or could've gotten. Fact is = it didn't get violent because they defended their homes with their legal weapons. As a person who is proud of the 2nd amendment, I'm proud of this outcome. Surprising that their gun was confiscated but this could absolutely be a legal protocol police take to ensure that these weapons used (even though they didn't shoot) are in fact legal to own/posses. If someone ever pulled a gun on me in public, for whatever reason, I'd be glad that the police ensure it's legal to own/possess for that person/anyone.
No charges were made. Therefore no rights violated. I'm sure they own other guns, and although it can be viewed as wrong their guns were taken away I'm sure the police wouldn't allow their lives to be endangered. I admit that portion of my reply MAY be uneducated/naive.
Firearms were seized without due process and all the nation knows they're unarmed. But no rights violated? You can't be serious.No charges were made. Therefore no rights violated.
You haven't seen any police stand down or refuse to respond a few hundred times around the nation in just the past month?I'm sure they own other guns, and although it can be viewed as wrong their guns were taken away I'm sure the police wouldn't allow their lives to be endangered. I admit that portion of my reply MAY be uneducated/naive.
Cute deflection. Answer the question.