America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,723 comments
  • 1,604,491 views
Who has the facts at the moment?

If the couple were within the law then why is the city investigating the incident?

Whoops... tree'd.
 
Hey I’m not saying they have the best weapons handling I’ve seen or that I completely agree with their lawyers statement.
Also don’t believe any of us have all the “facts.”
Just saying everyone jumps on 🤬 to soon.
I’m pretty sure if you’re on your own property in the US you have every right to have a firearm in hand. Other than the obvious cities with no gun laws.
Castle doctrine is in effect in MO as well.
 
dlshearon
Hey I’m not saying they have the best weapons handling I’ve seen or that I completely agree with their lawyers statement.
Also don’t believe any of us have all the “facts.”
Just saying everyone jumps on 🤬 to soon.
I’m pretty sure if you’re on your own property in the US you have every right to have a firearm in hand. Other than the obvious cities with no gun laws.
Castle doctrine is in effect in MO as well.
Click to expand...

The way I understand the Castle Doctrine from the classes I've taken is that there must be some sort of forceable entry and the intruder must be acting unlawfully. The property's occupants also can't have provoked the person or persons from coming onto their property either. Going by the videos, there wasn't a forceable entry into those particular people's property nor were they acting unlawfully. They also, seemingly, provoked the protesters into coming onto, or near, their property. I have to imagine those people's firearm training was in how to shoot a gun and not a CCW or CFP class.

If the protesters had come onto the property and started banging on the door or throwing objects at the house, then yes, the Castle Doctrine would absolutely be in effect. But the way it looks, their home nor their personal safety wasn't in any imminent danger.

From what's known right now, the protesters weren't even targeting those people's home either. I believe they were going to the mayor's home, unless that's changed (which it might've).
 
Joey D
The way I understand the Castle Doctrine from the classes I've taken is that there must be some sort of forceable entry and the intruder must be acting unlawfully. The property's occupants also can't have provoked the person or persons from coming onto their property either. Going by the videos, there wasn't a forceable entry into those particular people's property nor were they acting unlawfully. They also, seemingly, provoked the protesters into coming onto, or near, their property. I have to imagine those people's firearm training was in how to shoot a gun and not a CCW or CFP class.

If the protesters had come onto the property and started banging on the door or throwing objects at the house, then yes, the Castle Doctrine would absolutely be in effect. But the way it looks, their home nor their personal safety wasn't in any imminent danger.

From what's known right now, the protesters weren't even targeting those people's home either. I believe they were going to the mayor's home, unless that's changed (which it might've).
Click to expand...

Right, sitting in a lawn chair pointing a gun at cars that pass by is not exactly "Castle Doctrine".*

*I know this is not literally what they did
 
Last edited:
dlshearon
Locked and posted gates don’t mean anything I guess.
Click to expand...

It does mean something. Some of the protesters were saying that the gates were open (I imagine the chains were added after).

5efa1fb92abf9.image.jpg


Doesn't look horribly smashed to bits. It's a gated community, not individual property. They were basically walking on a road in a gated community where the gate was something that could be pushed open. They took that route because the public route was sealed off (which is questionable in its own right).

You can't just start pointing guns at people for walking down the street, even in a gated community. You should call the police and have them come investigate unless you're actually in danger. Coming out of the house to confront those people was the wrong thing to do, and pointing guns at them demonstrated a lack of respect for the firearm and the people those firearms were being pointed at.
 
Last edited:
I guess it depends upon how well the McCloskey's story holds up in court but I can't help thinking that if someone threatens to burn down your dog then a video enabled cellphone would make a much better weapon and/or deterrent than an unsafe firearm.
 
UKMikey
I guess it depends upon how well the McCloskey's story holds up in court but I can't help thinking that if someone threatens to burn down your dog then a video enabled cellphone would make a much better weapon and/or deterrent than an unsafe firearm.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and I personally have done this (cellphone video) to someone yelling obscenities at my property. It's way better than a gun for this kind of circumstance.

Edit:

To be clear, I don't just mean it's better from the perspective of not endangering the protesters, it's better for the homeowners as well. They put their own lives in far greater danger coming OUT of their home and escalating the situation.
 
Danoff
Indeed, and I personally have done this (cellphone video) to someone yelling obscenities at my property. It's way better than a gun for this kind of circumstance.

Edit:

To be clear, I don't just mean it's better from the perspective of not endangering the protesters, it's better for the homeowners as well. They put their own lives in far greater danger coming OUT of their home and escalating the situation.
Click to expand...
It'd certainly be more effective when it came to corroborating their story in court. Which makes me wonder, where is the security camera footage from the event?
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
It sounds like money talks when it comes to campaigning. I don't have the money to get past the NYT paywall but have discovered from this Hill article that McGrath raised over twelve times Booker's budget.
Click to expand...
Yep. It all boils down to this. Booker's campaign was 100% grassroots, therefore it was mostly individual donors. McGrath's campaign was the complete opposite (like most other campaigns) in which she was almost wholly funded by the usual dark money SuperPACs. The sooner Americans realize that politicians, especially Democrat politicians, that take billionaire and corporate money are working in the interests of billionaires and corporations much before the average American, the sooner the progressive movement will win. It's happening, but very slowly. Mondaire Jones and Jamaal Bowman, two grassroots, progressive candidates, ousted two moderate establishment Dems last week in the NY primary, so that's a start. Being that Kentucky is one of the most ideologically right leaning states in the nation, it's honestly admirable that Booker did so well, as upset as I may be that he ended up losing.
 
GranTurNismo
A sad day for the progressive movement. Amy "trump isn't really that bad" McGrath wins the Kentucky primary by a narrow margin. Moscow Mitch must be relieved.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/politics/kentucky-senate-mcgrath-booker.html
Click to expand...

GranTurNismo
Yep. It all boils down to this. Booker's campaign was 100% grassroots, therefore it was mostly individual donors. McGrath's campaign was the complete opposite (like most other campaigns) in which she was almost wholly funded by the usual dark money SuperPACs. The sooner Americans realize that politicians, especially Democrat politicians, that take billionaire and corporate money are working in the interests of billionaires and corporations much before the average American, the sooner the progressive movement will win. It's happening, but very slowly. Mondaire Jones and Jamaal Bowman, two grassroots, progressive candidates, ousted two moderate establishment Dems last week in the NY primary, so that's a start. Being that Kentucky is one of the most ideologically right leaning states in the nation, it's honestly admirable that Booker did so well, as upset as I may be that he ended up losing.
Click to expand...
McGrath’s victory was not the result of “corporate” donors; it was voters. In my opinion, a moderate (like McGrath, for example) has a better shot against McConnell than Booker because I think that she is more likely to convince undecided swing voters than a ‘non-establishment’ (for lack of a better term) candidate like Booker. I don’t think I’m misinformed when I say that most voters aren’t looking for radical change; thus an ‘establishment’ (again, for lack of a better term) candidate is better off if you ask me.

That being said, there’s always third-party candidates, independents, and the write-in option. People shouldn’t be convincing themselves that they have to vote for either the Democrat or the Republican. I’d take anybody over Mitch though.

Jones and Bowman should also be very fortunate that they are in hard Democratic districts because of the reasons I talked about above.
 
FerrariF1GT
I don’t think I’m misinformed when I say that most voters aren’t looking for radical change; thus an ‘establishment’ (again, for lack of a better term) candidate is better off if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Eh, it depends. Old people (55 and over) are largely opposed to even a slight change. Middle aged people (35 to 55) can be a mixed bag, some support change more than others. Young people (18 to 34) are seething for change. Establishment politicians and centrism does not appeal to this demographic. They feel that change is urgent, both those on the Left and Right. That's the reason why both Trump and Bernie were immensely popular with young people while Biden, Cruz, Jeb Bush, and Hillary were not, and in turn were very popular with older voters. That's also why more and more young people are moving to the far-left (by American standards, at least) and the far-right (alt-right) than ever. Bernie promised change by making America more progressive, accepting tenets of democratic socialism, taking big money out of politics, ultimately leading America in the direction of Scandinavia. Trump (although history has proven that he's just an astroturfer) promised change by "draining the swamp" (removing corruption from DC), running the nation like a business, and building a massive border wall. The aforementioned establishment politicians didn't offer anything that seemed new or exciting, instead calling for minor tweaks to our existing system and making vague proposals. The truth is, young people don't want to wait. They feel that, regardless of their ideology, change is much needed. Of course, the problem with this is, young people don't show up to vote nearly as much as older voters do. So even if Bernie Sanders actually had more support than Biden in the 2020 election (which could be possible), Biden would still be the nominee because most of his supporters showed up to vote, while many of Bernie Bros did not. But I feel like this is starting to change. The political efficacy of millennials and Gen-Z'ers is higher than any other generations, and they are beginning to realize the power of voting, and how people in their own age group have been lacklustre when it comes to showing up at the polls. This same rationale could be applied to the Kentucky Primary. I'd argue that Booker definitely had more support than McGrath, but more of McGrath's voters showed up to the polls than those of Booker. And of course, it seems suspect that good ol' race-based voter suppression also played a role here.
 
Last edited:
Just wanted to let you guys know that I did successfully vote using a ballot that was mailed to me. Yesterday I filled it out and dropped it in the dropbox (took 2 seconds, didn't get out of my car), and I got an email saying that my ballot was accepted. I know a lot of folks were worried that my ballot would get stolen or forged. But rest assured, I got to vote. I voted in the Libertarian primary, so my vote lets the Libertarian party know which of their candidates I would prefer to lose in November. Very important. :)
 
Danoff
Just wanted to let you guys know that I did successfully vote using a ballot that was mailed to me. Yesterday I filled it out and dropped it in the dropbox (took 2 seconds, didn't get out of my car), and I got an email saying that my ballot was accepted. I know a lot of folks were worried that my ballot would get stolen or forged. But rest assured, I got to vote. I voted in the Libertarian primary, so my vote lets the Libertarian party know which of their candidates I would prefer to lose in November. Very important. :)
Click to expand...

FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY REPORTED
 
"It was like the storming of the Bastille..."
-- Mark McCloskey

:lol:

Eunos_Cosmo
I wish I knew why the west coast (Bay Area in particular if you think about the large Italian immigrant community) does not have any pizza variety of its own. At least not that I know of - am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I'm given to understand that California-style is indeed a thing, and that it involves putting things that don't belong on pizza on pizza.

*shrug*
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
435 436 437
Replies
13K
Views
552K
Sprite
Sprite
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
431 432 433
Replies
13K
Views
656K
S-car-Go
S-car-Go
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
636
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
6K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back