Issues of a Domestic Nature (READ WARNING ON PAGE 1 BEFORE POSTING)

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,586
Reaction score
31,328
Points
148
I agree that they have every right to not want the protesters on their yard.

I also agree that the protesters shouldn't be intimidating people with threats of violence.

But... if we're going to be super technical about this, isn't it true that the road is likely not THEIR private property? The gate is likely not theirs. So, they don't have a right to tell others what they can and cannot do on it. That would fall on the owner of the property, which is likely the developer. Right?

By the way, is it possible that the poor little thin shitty waist-high metal gate was mangled by people fleeing to leave after the two people pointed guns at them? If that's the case, if I'm the developer or whoever owns the gate, I think it would be pretty easy to show that the two homeowners were responsible for the destruction of property. An ironic twist for sure.
I do this for a living, ie real estate....it is 100% private and their property. The developer owns nothing, they turn it over to the home owners, like a condo, the HOA owns the private road and the HOA is owned by the home owners.

It wasnt a waist high gate, it was taller and it was antique and valuable, but that part isnt the point...and no it was locked so the protesters broke it down and came in......and its legally the exact same if they broke down their door and broke in....it is 100% trespassing and violent and they have a right to protect their property including the street.

You are just making excuses because you dont want Ken and Barbie to be right... but in this case, Ken and Barbie are justified and in the right.
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
8,416
Points
113
The people in the crowd had guns, made threats of burning down the house, the people look like entitled white people I get it, heck they are entitled white people, but when 500 angry people smash down a gate, trespass on your property, and threaten you with violence, waiving a guy back at them is justified.
Honestly asking, is there evidence for the bolded? I haven't seen what you're referring to.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
7,855
Reaction score
12,414
Points
123
I do this for a living, ie real estate....it is 100% private and their property. The developer owns nothing, they turn it over to the home owners, like a condo, the HOA owns the private road and the HOA is owned by the home owners.

It wasnt a waist high gate, it was taller and it was antique and valuable, but that part isnt the point...and no it was locked so the protesters broke it down and came in......and its legally the exact same if they broke down their door and broke in....it is 100% trespassing and violent and they have a right to protect their property including the street.

You are just making excuses because you dont want Ken and Barbie to be right... but in this case, Ken and Barbie are justified and in the right.
Thanks for sharing. I'm not trying to make excuses--I genuinely want to understand. I have absolutely no legal background, and have never lived on a private street. To me, the drawbacks of losing city services far outweigh the benefits of a gate out front of your community.

Not like the specifics of the gate's dimensions matter, but your picture is at a weird angle that makes it look tiny. My mistake. Here's a better one I found:

1593546969965.png

These articles, from local news outlets, seems to disagree with nearly every claim of "Ken and Barbie"


The videos seem to show an unlocked gate. They seem to show a gate that was perfectly intact before "Ken and Barbie" started pointing guns at people and threatening them, which happens immediately as protesters enter the street. Maybe protesters broke it later? Maybe someone nefariously broke it for a nice PR shot? I don't know--and I haven't found a credible source who knows for certain either.

Also, I don't see any guns from the protesters. The theory at this time, is either that "Ken and Barbie" completely made that claim up, or that they mistook a shotgun mic for a weapon.

I guess this all is in support of your original point though--the media today makes it very difficult to ascertain the truth.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,586
Reaction score
31,328
Points
148
Honestly asking, is there evidence for the bolded? I haven't seen what you're referring to.
I saw one gun when looking through a bunch of pictures, but only one, they owners of the house were claiming multiple.

I have heard anywhere from 100-500, even 100 people is allot.

Angry gatherings threaten, the police say 500 and yes they threatened and investigating the mob for assault but probably not best to use the police report as evidence in these times, so trying to avoid that. But ofcourse they were not polite, why do you think the homeowners grabbed guns, because they thought this was fun? They were absolutely threatened and assaulted, they broke down a gate meant to keep people out of their private property.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,586
Reaction score
31,328
Points
148
Thanks for sharing. I'm not trying to make excuses--I genuinely want to understand. I have absolutely no legal background, and have never lived on a private street. To me, the drawbacks of losing city services far outweigh the benefits of a gate out front of your community.

Not like the specifics of the gate's dimensions matter, but your picture is at a weird angle that makes it look tiny. My mistake. Here's a better one I found:

View attachment 3758

These articles, from local news outlets, seems to disagree with nearly every claim of "Ken and Barbie"


The videos seem to show an unlocked gate. They seem to show a gate that was perfectly intact before "Ken and Barbie" started pointing guns at people and threatening them, which happens immediately as protesters enter the street. Maybe protesters broke it later? Maybe someone nefariously broke it for a nice PR shot? I don't know--and I haven't found a credible source who knows for certain either.

Also, I don't see any guns from the protesters. The theory at this time, is either that "Ken and Barbie" completely made that claim up, or that they mistook a shotgun mic for a weapon.

I guess this all is in support of your original point though--the media today makes it very difficult to ascertain the truth.
My point is how little the local media and most of the national media is talking about the trespassing, and if the gate wasnt broken before, doesnt mean its legal. If your door is locked to your house, doesnt mean its legal for someone to enter.

But you are kind of proving my point, the slant on this from the local media is horrible. Ken and Barbie didnt fire their guns, they just didnt want to lose their property.

And how are they supposed to know the protesters werent going to get violent. If you remember i was very upset by the police station being burned by protestors. The protests are just, their actions in a few cases have not been. How is the home owners supposed to know the protesters wont start burning down their house thinking its the Mayors, they were angry enough to treaspass and break the law....not talking about the looters, but other protests have burnt down public buildings...sure the mayor's house is private residence, but its a public official...its not a big leap.

Why i keep saying you cant get violent, its tough, but have to stop destroying property...and once again, not the looting, that was non protesters mainly.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,586
Reaction score
31,328
Points
148
I hear ABC news has a good account, avoiding FOX on purpose.


They broke the gate before entering, 100's not just 100. They were telling them it was private property, the protesters didnt care. ABC News didnt find any armed protesters, i only found 1, and it looks like a gun...it was far away. But here is a statement i think clears it up...The owner of the house is an ACLU type lawyer, protects the rights of people.

"The peaceful protesters were not the subject of scorn or disdain by the McCloskeys," the statement reads. "To the contrary, they were expecting and supportive of the message of the protesters. The actions of violence, destruction of property and acts of threatening aggression by a few individuals commingling with the peaceful protesters, gave rise to trepidation and fear of imminent and grave harm.

"Both Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey acted lawfully on their property which sits on a private gated lane in the City of St. Louis," the statement reads. "Their actions were borne solely of fear and apprehension, the genesis of which was not race related. In fact, the agitators responsible for the trepidation were white."

The couple said they've held a "long-standing commitment to protecting the civil rights of clients victimized at the hands of law enforcement."

Albert S. Watkins, a lawyer for the couple, added, "The McCloskeys want to make sure no one thinks less of BLM, its message and the means it is employing to get its message out because of the actions of a few white individuals who tarnished a peaceful protest.”


I find it interesting their statements....like they said, they support the protest, but some white people got violent and made threats and thus they felt threatened....honestly i can see how as its a private residence with 100's of angry protesters
capable of doing anything.

They are supporters of the BLM movement and went out of their way to make sure people know that and want the movement to continue.
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
8,416
Points
113
I saw one gun when looking through a bunch of pictures, but only one, they owners of the house were claiming multiple.
Can you find the picture?

I have heard anywhere from 100-500, even 100 people is allot.

Angry gatherings threaten, the police say 500 and yes they threatened and investigating the mob for assault but probably not best to use the police report as evidence in these times, so trying to avoid that. But ofcourse they were not polite, why do you think the homeowners grabbed guns, because they thought this was fun? They were absolutely threatened and assaulted, they broke down a gate meant to keep people out of their private property.
Is there evidence beyond what the couple, their lawyer, or the cops are saying? There were lots of photos and pictures, were people really threatening them or to burn their house down? Like, it just feels weird to critique the media for spinning things against this couple (because they waved guns at people in the street) when you may be spinning things without wholly accurate facts.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,586
Reaction score
31,328
Points
148
Can you find the picture?



Is there evidence beyond what the couple, their lawyer, or the cops are saying? There were lots of photos and pictures, were people really threatening them or to burn their house down? Like, it just feels weird to critique the media for spinning things against this couple (because they waved guns at people in the street) when you may be spinning things without wholly accurate facts.
I added to my text a statement from the couple who are ACLU lawyers...basically outside the witnesses are their any witnesses? No, but they are BLM movement supporters, said the violence cam from white supporters, and are trying to make it clear they still support BLM and dont want this to distract from it...there really is no reason to not believe them.

But if you want to think that 100's of people breaking down a fence, then marching on your private property didnt have some people shouting bad things didnt happen you can do that.

Just because the cause is just, doesnt mean all the actions of the protesters were justified or not violent at some level. The more i dig, the more interesting this is getting as it turns out they were supporters and even support removing the mayor.
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
8,416
Points
113
I added to my text a statement from the couple who are ACLU lawyers...basically outside the witnesses are their any witnesses? No, but they are BLM movement supporters, said the violence cam from white supporters, and are trying to make it clear they still support BLM and dont want this to distract from it...there really is no reason to not believe them.

But if you want to think that 100's of people breaking down a fence, then marching on your private property didnt have some people shouting bad things didnt happen you can do that.

Just because the cause is just, doesnt mean all the actions of the protesters were justified or not violent at some level. The more i dig, the more interesting this is getting as it turns out they were supporters and even support removing the mayor.
Their politics are irrelevant and they were caught on camera waving guns at people, they have every reason to lie. Sidenote: Do they work for the ACLU?

I'm not saying that it's beyond reason that a protestor could have threatened them, I'm just asking for evidence of that. If we are going to call out media spin, let's have the facts.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
7,855
Reaction score
12,414
Points
123
My point is how little the local media and most of the national media is talking about the trespassing, and if the gate wasnt broken before, doesnt mean its legal. If your door is locked to your house, doesnt mean its legal for someone to enter.

But you are kind of proving my point, the slant on this from the local media is horrible. Ken and Barbie didnt fire their guns, they just didnt want to lose their property.

And how are they supposed to know the protesters werent going to get violent. If you remember i was very upset by the police station being burned by protestors. The protests are just, their actions in a few cases have not been. How is the home owners supposed to know the protesters wont start burning down their house thinking its the Mayors, they were angry enough to treaspass and break the law....not talking about the looters, but other protests have burnt down public buildings...sure the mayor's house is private residence, but its a public official...its not a big leap.

Why i keep saying you cant get violent, its tough, but have to stop destroying property...and once again, not the looting, that was non protesters mainly.
I'm sorry. You don't get to act out because "I didn't know they wouldn't get violent." That's not cause.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
7,855
Reaction score
12,414
Points
123
I hear ABC news has a good account, avoiding FOX on purpose.


They broke the gate before entering, 100's not just 100. They were telling them it was private property, the protesters didnt care. ABC News didnt find any armed protesters, i only found 1, and it looks like a gun...it was far away. But here is a statement i think clears it up...The owner of the house is an ACLU type lawyer, protects the rights of people.

"The peaceful protesters were not the subject of scorn or disdain by the McCloskeys," the statement reads. "To the contrary, they were expecting and supportive of the message of the protesters. The actions of violence, destruction of property and acts of threatening aggression by a few individuals commingling with the peaceful protesters, gave rise to trepidation and fear of imminent and grave harm.

"Both Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey acted lawfully on their property which sits on a private gated lane in the City of St. Louis," the statement reads. "Their actions were borne solely of fear and apprehension, the genesis of which was not race related. In fact, the agitators responsible for the trepidation were white."

The couple said they've held a "long-standing commitment to protecting the civil rights of clients victimized at the hands of law enforcement."

Albert S. Watkins, a lawyer for the couple, added, "The McCloskeys want to make sure no one thinks less of BLM, its message and the means it is employing to get its message out because of the actions of a few white individuals who tarnished a peaceful protest.”


I find it interesting their statements....like they said, they support the protest, but some white people got violent and made threats and thus they felt threatened....honestly i can see how as its a private residence with 100's of angry protesters
capable of doing anything.

They are supporters of the BLM movement and went out of their way to make sure people know that and want the movement to continue.
To me, that sounds like a very well-crafted statement from someone who's paid well to spin this really positively for them.

To me, their rhetoric in the videos does not line up with the words put out in this statement. But again, I think it's foolish to play the "guess what's in people's hearts" game.

Protesters destroying property is bad.

Protesters threatening people with violence is bad.

People threatening protesters with drawn weapons is bad.

Trespassing on a private road? Not something I'm willing to condemn.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,586
Reaction score
31,328
Points
148
To me, that sounds like a very well-crafted statement from someone who's paid well to spin this really positively for them.

To me, their rhetoric in the videos does not line up with the words put out in this statement. But again, I think it's foolish to play the "guess what's in people's hearts" game.

Protesters destroying property is bad.

Protesters threatening people with violence is bad.

People threatening protesters with drawn weapons is bad.

Trespassing on a private road? Not something I'm willing to condemn.
I guess we disagree on the trespassing part, but trespassing with 100's of people is very bad in my opinion. It is a criminal offense. The fact they broke a gate to do it means they literally are guilty of breaking and entering. Not sure how a B&E isn't bad except that it lines up with your idealism since it was in the name of the BLM movement.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,586
Reaction score
31,328
Points
148
I'm sorry. You don't get to act out because "I didn't know they wouldn't get violent." That's not cause.
They get to grab the guns because 100's of protesters were trespassing, ignoring a gate by breaking it down, and showed no signs of slowing down. If you were having dinner and someone broke into your house while having dinner, would you feel justified in grabbing a gun and pointing it at them to get out of your house and off your property?

Answer honestly...kids, dog, your house, broken into by 100's of people, backed into a corner, cant go anywhere...how would you feel?
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
7,855
Reaction score
12,414
Points
123
They get to grab the guns because 100's of protesters were trespassing, ignoring a gate by breaking it down, and showed no signs of slowing down. If you were having dinner and someone broke into your house while having dinner, would you feel justified in grabbing a gun and pointing it at them to get out of your house and off your property?

Answer honestly...kids, dog, your house, broken into by 100's of people, backed into a corner, cant go anywhere...how would you feel?
Why are you changing the scenario? If hundreds of people crammed into my house, yes, it would be a scary situation.

But that isn't what happened here.

Hundreds of people walked down the street. That isn't something that should affect people this way. The two were acting in a very unstable manner.

Did you see this video in the local news affiliate link?


Clearly, the gate was open and unharmed when these two drew guns on people walking by.

Not like the health of the gate matters.

Yes, you're right that I'm saying the value of protesting for social justice outweighs the technical illegality of trespassing on a street that isn't a public road. I believe laws exist so that we are able to enforce them to reduce harm and improve quality of life--not just to adhere strictly to them by the letter in any and all circumstances. Because the act of walking down a street creates no harm, I would have zero interest in seeing these people prosecuted. That goes for the act of public protest regardless of ideology.
 

September Through December Server Costs

Total amount
$1,200.00
Goal
$1,200.00
Donation ends:

Advertisement

Radio

Top