The Face of the BLM Protest

[Charliesheen]

Hard to imagine a more clear example of an oblivious hypocrite. They were charged so they did it.

Moran.

[AnalHamster]

You gotta admit doing it on video then admitting it repeatedly doesn't help their case much.

[Antknot]

The "gentle giant" story didn't look good till all the facts were in either.

I'm sort of upset the "witness" that lied wasn't prosecuted, but not sure it was under oath.

[CaptQuint]

They are on video waving guns around you deluded stooge

From one point of view, with a limited time frame, not showing what led up to it.

How many times have you been burnt by jumping to a decision on limited info?
Let's count: 1. Russia, 2. Trayvon , 3. The "gentile giant" etc. ad nausium.

Well, they are on video committing a felony. Yet the protesters are guilty of breaking a gate that is not on video.

You assume they committed a felony, because the MSM told you they did. I don't know all the facts. But past experience with this kind of situation causes me to wonder what facts aren't in evidence. The "gentle giant" bullshit being prime among them.

I assume they committed a felony, BECAUSE THEY WERE CHARGED WITH A CLASS E FELONY.

Guilty till proven innocent? How Napoleonic of you.

I want the case to go to a Grand Jury, you want the charges dropped, how fascistically of you.

[Antknot]

From one point of view, with a limited time frame, not showing what led up to it.

How many times have you been burnt by jumping to a decision on limited info?
Let's count: 1. Russia, 2. Trayvon , 3. The "gentile giant" etc. ad nausium.

Well, they are on video committing a felony. Yet the protesters are guilty of breaking a gate that is not on video.

You assume they committed a felony, because the MSM told you they did. I don't know all the facts. But past experience with this kind of situation causes me to wonder what facts aren't in evidence. The "gentle giant" bullshit being prime among them.

I assume they committed a felony, BECAUSE THEY WERE CHARGED WITH A CLASS E FELONY.

Guilty till proven innocent? How Napoleonic of you.

I want the case to go to a Grand Jury, you want the charges dropped, how fascistically of you.

Damn, now you're a fortune teller. I haven't made up my mind yet because of the lack of all the facts.

[Animal]

that case is going absolutely no where. everyone knows it. its 100% political on both sides and neither side is even trying to hide it. Every penny spent on this could just as easily been flushed straight down the toilet.

that couple was obviously doing this stunt on purpose. no one acts like they did in front of their house and for them to say they were fearing for their lives isn't even remotely believable. and for the protesters to say they were just peaceful demonstrators is equally as stupid. But this couple is obviously getting exactly whatever they set out for (and I don't know what it was, but it damn sure had to do with being on TV and in the news). they are fucking lawyers for christ's sake. you don't think they knew what they were doing?

this guy is probably one of those lawyers that advertises on late night tv asking if you were injured by a company vehicle. or if anyone in your family got cancer and ever used talcum powder.

[CaptQuint]

This is an in depth article about Mark and Patricia McCloskey. It's rather long and I'm sure the ones here supporting them will not read it.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... dd287.html

[CaptQuint]

Well, they are on video committing a felony. Yet the protesters are guilty of breaking a gate that is not on video.

You assume they committed a felony, because the MSM told you they did. I don't know all the facts. But past experience with this kind of situation causes me to wonder what facts aren't in evidence. The "gentle giant" bullshit being prime among them.

I assume they committed a felony, BECAUSE THEY WERE CHARGED WITH A CLASS E FELONY.

Guilty till proven innocent? How Napoleonic of you.

I want the case to go to a Grand Jury, you want the charges dropped, how fascistically of you.

Damn, now you're a fortune teller. I haven't made up my mind yet because of the lack of all the facts.

I want the case to go to a Grand Jury, you want the charges dropped, how fascistically of you.

[Antknot]

I think I broke CQ. He's skipping like a warped record.

[CaptQuint]

I think I broke CQ. He's skipping like a warped record.

You just ignore my responses, so I'm trying to make you read.

[Antknot]

I think I broke CQ. He's skipping like a warped record.

You just ignore my responses, so I'm trying to make you read.

Yep, definitely broke. You claim I want charges dropped, I don’t know yet if they should be. I do not think this can be fairly decided with what has been published in the MSM.

[AnalHamster]

I think I broke CQ. He's skipping like a warped record.

You just ignore my responses, so I'm trying to make you read.

Yep, definitely broke. You claim I want charges dropped, I don’t know yet if they should be. I do not think this can be fairly decided with what has been published in the MSM.

One of them threatened peaceful protesters with a loaded ready to fire assault weapon, the other threatened peaceful protesters with a disabled but capable of being made ready to fire semi-automatic pistol. That's the crime, and they do not deny it. They offer a defense to the crime they admit committing, which was they were ascawed by the sawy bwack people.

[Antknot]

I think I broke CQ. He's skipping like a warped record.

You just ignore my responses, so I'm trying to make you read.

Yep, definitely broke. You claim I want charges dropped, I don’t know yet if they should be. I do not think this can be fairly decided with what has been published in the MSM.

One of them threatened peaceful protesters with a loaded ready to fire assault weapon, the other threatened peaceful protesters with a disabled but capable of being made ready to fire semi-automatic pistol. That's the crime, and they do not deny it. They offer a defense to the crime they admit committing, which was they were ascawed by the sawy bwack people.

Info so far is rifle was semiauto do not an assault rifle MSM lie.

Were they peacefull? Or were they on their property?

Capable of being made able to fire? Technically true, however the time it would take and any tools needed to do it make that an idiotic point to bring up.

“That’s the crime ...” - That whole section reflects your acceptance of the MSM’s telling knowing full well that the recent history of stories like this is the MSM doesn’t have the whole story at best and I’d pushing s false one at worst. Me I’ll wait till all the facts are in.

[AnalHamster]

I think I broke CQ. He's skipping like a warped record.

You just ignore my responses, so I'm trying to make you read.

Yep, definitely broke. You claim I want charges dropped, I don’t know yet if they should be. I do not think this can be fairly decided with what has been published in the MSM.

One of them threatened peaceful protesters with a loaded ready to fire assault weapon, the other threatened peaceful protesters with a disabled but capable of being made ready to fire semi-automatic pistol. That's the crime, and they do not deny it. They offer a defense to the crime they admit committing, which was they were ascawed by the sawy bwack people.

Info so far is rifle was semiauto do not an assault rifle MSM lie.

Were they peacefull? Or were they on their property?

Capable of being made able to fire? Technically true, however the time it would take and any tools needed to do it make that an idiotic point to bring up.

“That’s the crime ...” - That whole section reflects your acceptance of the MSM’s telling knowing full well that the recent history of stories like this is the MSM doesn’t have the whole story at best and I’d pushing s false one at worst. Me I’ll wait till all the facts are in.

Assault weapon, look it up dimwit. Takes time to load too, it doesn't matter to the charge if the gun is not loaded.

It is as a statement of fact, the crime. You are confusing a defense to a crime with whether the crime occurred at all. These are not political or arguable statements, I am just relating to you the meaning of words.

[Antknot]

I think I broke CQ. He's skipping like a warped record.

You just ignore my responses, so I'm trying to make you read.

Yep, definitely broke. You claim I want charges dropped, I don’t know yet if they should be. I do not think this can be fairly decided with what has been published in the MSM.

One of them threatened peaceful protesters with a loaded ready to fire assault weapon, the other threatened peaceful protesters with a disabled but capable of being made ready to fire semi-automatic pistol. That's the crime, and they do not deny it. They offer a defense to the crime they admit committing, which was they were ascawed by the sawy bwack people.

Info so far is rifle was semiauto do not an assault rifle MSM lie.

Were they peacefull? Or were they on their property?

Capable of being made able to fire? Technically true, however the time it would take and any tools needed to do it make that an idiotic point to bring up.

“That’s the crime ...” - That whole section reflects your acceptance of the MSM’s telling knowing full well that the recent history of stories like this is the MSM doesn’t have the whole story at best and I’d pushing s false one at worst. Me I’ll wait till all the facts are in.

Assault weapon, look it up dimwit. Takes time to load too, it doesn't matter to the charge if the gun is not loaded.

It is as a statement of fact, the crime. You are confusing a defense to a crime with whether the crime occurred at all. These are not political or arguable statements, I am just relating to you the meaning of words.

From Google

as·sault ri·fle
noun
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

Please note it did not say semiautomatic.

[AnalHamster]

You just ignore my responses, so I'm trying to make you read.

Yep, definitely broke. You claim I want charges dropped, I don’t know yet if they should be. I do not think this can be fairly decided with what has been published in the MSM.

One of them threatened peaceful protesters with a loaded ready to fire assault weapon, the other threatened peaceful protesters with a disabled but capable of being made ready to fire semi-automatic pistol. That's the crime, and they do not deny it. They offer a defense to the crime they admit committing, which was they were ascawed by the sawy bwack people.

Info so far is rifle was semiauto do not an assault rifle MSM lie.

Were they peacefull? Or were they on their property?

Capable of being made able to fire? Technically true, however the time it would take and any tools needed to do it make that an idiotic point to bring up.

“That’s the crime ...” - That whole section reflects your acceptance of the MSM’s telling knowing full well that the recent history of stories like this is the MSM doesn’t have the whole story at best and I’d pushing s false one at worst. Me I’ll wait till all the facts are in.

Assault weapon, look it up dimwit. Takes time to load too, it doesn't matter to the charge if the gun is not loaded.

It is as a statement of fact, the crime. You are confusing a defense to a crime with whether the crime occurred at all. These are not political or arguable statements, I am just relating to you the meaning of words.

From Google

as·sault ri·fle
noun
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

Please note it did not say semiautomatic.

Assault WEAPON is the term I used. Do try to concentrate.

[Animal]

i think what confuse a lot of the girls like AH is that "AR" (in an AR-15) doesn't not stand for Assualt Rifle.

[AnalHamster]

i think what confuse a lot of the girls like AH is that "AR" (in an AR-15) doesn't not stand for Assualt Rifle.

I used the correct term, you fucking moron.

[necronomous]

This where we being to split hairs over semantics. You guys know AH means a semi auto. He knows it's not full auto. It doesn't matter what he calls it because his point isn't about semi vs auto. His point is they drew it on a crowd.

Here- AH, assault weapon or rifle is generally termed as fully auto. They had semi autos. There that's settled. And it doesn't matter because they could have had pistols and his argument would stand they pointed it at the crowd.

I think the argument lies in whether people believe the crowd trespassed and was not peaceful and the owners felt threatened or that they just came in, were peaceful and the owners went batshit nuts on the crowd.

Jesus fucking Christ you guys can't get your heads out of your asses for two seconds to actually talk. You guys always want to prove how right you think you are.

[B-Tender]

This where we being to split hairs over semantics. You guys know AH means a semi auto. He knows it's not full auto. It doesn't matter what he calls it because his point isn't about semi vs auto. His point is they drew it on a crowd.

Here- AH, assault weapon or rifle is generally termed as fully auto. They had semi autos. There that's settled. And it doesn't matter because they could have had pistols and his argument would stand they pointed it at the crowd.

I think the argument lies in whether people believe the crowd trespassed and was not peaceful and the owners felt threatened or that they just came in, were peaceful and the owners went batshit nuts on the crowd.

Jesus fucking Christ you guys can't get your heads out of your asses for two seconds to actually talk. You guys always want to prove how right you think you are.

[AnalHamster]

I really don't see what has all y'alls panties wadded. Assault weapon, it means a semi automatic rifle.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

An assault rifle would be capable of full auto. This is how your own laws define things, I'm not the one obsessing over it. Just pointing out what words mean, again.

[Animal]

I think the argument lies in whether people believe the crowd trespassed

If the crowd had to walk through a gate that had a lock on it (and I'm not arguing whether they tore down the gate, broke the lock, that the gate was already unlocked, etc.), wouldn't that be enough evidence for anyone that they had entered private property?

How long do you think the city would allow a gate with a lock on it to be placed on public property? So, if a person, even after seeing what limited information has been made available, can't connect those dots themselves, then they are trying too hard to be on one side of an issue and not see the other side. So, along with your statement that it really doesn't matter what category you place the names of any of the weapons the couple had, i would also say that you can definitively say that the protesters had entered private property.

[AnalHamster]

It was private property, but that doesn't change the legal jurisdiction. Crimes are still crimes.

[Animal]

It was private property, but that doesn't change the legal jurisdiction. Crimes are still crimes.

so it basically comes down to whether or not the "castle doctrine" or castle laws protect the McCluskey's or not. That is pretty much what they are betting on.

[Stapes]

It was private property, but that doesn't change the legal jurisdiction. Crimes are still crimes.

so it basically comes down to whether or not the "castle doctrine" or castle laws protect the McCluskey's or not. That is pretty much what they are betting on.

Protect them from what? Nobody was bothering them. They came out and escalated the situation. The marchers were on their way from Point A to Point B? Maybe they didn't know that it was a "private enclave". It is smack in the middle of the city. This is just a great example of "Wealthy privilege" along with "white privilege". The Mcloskeys sound like douche bags of the highest caliber. And sorry.....just because somebody walks through your property doesn't give you the right to threaten them with guns. People get arrested every day who pull that shit.