Rants, Raves and Opinions AKA "The Octagon"

**Twisted69** · 08-01-22 15:58

Originally Posted by DNut [View Original Post]

The reason the court ruled the way that it did was, despite a large group of people walking past their house, there wasn't any proof that they or their property were in any danger. They (the couple) went out and brandished their weapons despite that no one was on their property, no was was destroying their property, no one was coming up to their door, and there was no evidence that they were in any danger. By all accounts people were just walking past them. They (the couple) pointed weapons at people who, by all evidence, were just walking past. Any threat that they perceived wasn't because of any overt action directed at them or their property. As the judge stated in his ruling, people walking past your house does not give you the right to threaten them.

Self-defense only applies if there is an imminent threat. There wasn't. They may say they felt threatened, but without that overt act directed at them, there was none. Thus, the court ruled, that they (the couple) were guilty.

Dnut, I totally respect you as a highly regarded senor member who has contributed a ton of info. At this moment I respectfully disagree with this post content.

First, after searching I found that the house this couple lives in was built for Anna Busch of the Anheiser Busch family, the streets were built privately and are maintained privately, hence the entire gated section is all private property. In other words walking on their street is trespassing!

Second, the court did not rule in the case, there was a misdemeanor plea agreement. They are both attorneys. They were pardoned by the governor several months later.

Third, which some may see as coincidence and others as a contributing part of the saga, the city prosecutor was just the first black elected to that office in 2019.

Fourth, the trespassers had charges dropped to not further escalate racial tensions because of the time frame of all the George Floyd protests.

I was going to add all the links but, what the hell it only took 5 minutes to find.

**GoCats1** · 08-01-22 15:13

Originally Posted by DNut [View Original Post]

The reason the court ruled the way that it did was, despite a large group of people walking past their house, there wasn't any proof that they or their property were in any danger. They (the couple) went out and brandished their weapons despite that no one was on their property, no was was destroying their property, no one was coming up to their door, and there was no evidence that they were in any danger. By all accounts people were just walking past them. They (the couple) pointed weapons at people who, by all evidence, were just walking past. Any threat that they perceived wasn't because of any overt action directed at them or their property. As the judge stated in his ruling, people walking past your house does not give you the right to threaten them.

Self-defense only applies if there is an imminent threat. There wasn't. They may say they felt threatened, but without that overt act directed at them, there was none. Thus, the court ruled, that they (the couple) were guilty.

Correct! The property owners should have stayed in their residence and had firearms at the ready, just in case. There is nothing unreasonable and unlawful about that. IF there was an imminent threat such as someone kicking in their door, then that is a different story. Hopefully, they would have recorded the imminent threat while it was happening for evidence later on. By them coming outside and actually brandishing (and aiming) their guns, they were in the wrong. That situation could have turned very bad very quickly!

I am a lawful and common sense gun owner and I cringed when I saw that video. The property owners, by their own actions, made it easy for the liberal media to use that clip as gun control / white supremacy / etc fodder.

**SimonPieMan** · 08-01-22 09:04

Originally Posted by RogerOver [View Original Post]

If she aimed that gun at me, I'd have pulled mine out and shot her. They were on the fucking sidewalk.

Hopefully this is more clear.

**D Nut** · 07-31-22 23:07

Originally Posted by Twisted69 [View Original Post]

Number of problems here; what is your definition of like levels of threat? Almost all use of deadly force is used when you deem your life at risk! If I see your point your saying that ten people versus one means you have to fist fight all ten? No! Common sense should lead you to truth. Now was it right to pull out heavy artillery as they went by no, but I'm sure because of other issues that happened throughout the city they didn't want their property getting fucked up. It only takes one instigator to gets things to tip over the edge. That's the main reason crowd control used to be a big thing, to keep things at a minimum. Now it's like we will put up fences etc, but after that fuck it.

None of the trespassers were convicted because of fear of further racial tensions escalating.

Next issue I'm sure you know since you posted but if the gated community is private with its own paid for maintenance then the entire property is private property, but based on your statement means you know that the city performs all street maintenance like potholes, snow removal etc. I'm not in the know of those facts, but I do know 99% of truly gated communities are all private that's what they pay for!

The reason the court ruled the way that it did was, despite a large group of people walking past their house, there wasn't any proof that they or their property were in any danger. They (the couple) went out and brandished their weapons despite that no one was on their property, no was was destroying their property, no one was coming up to their door, and there was no evidence that they were in any danger. By all accounts people were just walking past them. They (the couple) pointed weapons at people who, by all evidence, were just walking past. Any threat that they perceived wasn't because of any overt action directed at them or their property. As the judge stated in his ruling, people walking past your house does not give you the right to threaten them.

Self-defense only applies if there is an imminent threat. There wasn't. They may say they felt threatened, but without that overt act directed at them, there was none. Thus, the court ruled, that they (the couple) were guilty.

**Twisted69** · 07-31-22 21:59

Originally Posted by BengalMan [View Original Post]

Unarmed people cut through a "gated" community. Big deal. Normal procedure is they are asked to leave. They get fined if they don't.

I've been through "gated" communities up here in northern Cinci and never once has anyone said a thing. Course, I'm not black. And the remedy is certainly not pointing guns, AR or not, at someone.

There is a thing in the law about defending yourself and it has to do with like levels of threats. Clearly, a group was trespassing and broke the law, and another group used excessive levels of response and they broke the law. That's it.

Number of problems here; what is your definition of like levels of threat? Almost all use of deadly force is used when you deem your life at risk! If I see your point your saying that ten people versus one means you have to fist fight all ten? No! Common sense should lead you to truth. Now was it right to pull out heavy artillery as they went by no, but I'm sure because of other issues that happened throughout the city they didn't want their property getting fucked up. It only takes one instigator to gets things to tip over the edge. That's the main reason crowd control used to be a big thing, to keep things at a minimum. Now it's like we will put up fences etc, but after that fuck it.

None of the trespassers were convicted because of fear of further racial tensions escalating.

Next issue I'm sure you know since you posted but if the gated community is private with its own paid for maintenance then the entire property is private property, but based on your statement means you know that the city performs all street maintenance like potholes, snow removal etc. I'm not in the know of those facts, but I do know 99% of truly gated communities are all private that's what they pay for!

**RogerOver** · 07-31-22 19:36

Originally Posted by SimonPieMan [View Original Post]

Posting for a friend.

If she aimed that gun at me, I'd have pulled mine out and shot her. They were on the fucking sidewalk.

**MarkDean** · 07-31-22 18:03

Originally Posted by BengalMan [View Original Post]

This is a lie. The Protesters were not actually ON their property, merely passing through the "gated" community.

None of us have EVER passed through a "gated" community before, right?!

Feet off the curb and on the property is trespass.

**MarkDean** · 07-31-22 17:57

Originally Posted by BengalMan [View Original Post]

Unarmed people cut through a "gated" community. Big deal. Normal procedure is they are asked to leave. They get fined if they don't.

I've been through "gated" communities up here in northern Cinci and never once has anyone said a thing. Course, I'm not black. And the remedy is certainly not pointing guns, AR or not, at someone.

There is a thing in the law about defending yourself and it has to do with like levels of threats. Clearly, a group was trespassing and broke the law, and another group used excessive levels of response and they broke the law. That's it.

They were a obvious threat. And as you can see they were at that location to do just that. I feel that you are on my yard to cause trouble, trouble will fine you. One toe on the property is enough. You are either pregnant or you are not. Can't be just a little bit pregnant.

**BengalMan** · 07-31-22 16:09

Originally Posted by Chunks92 [View Original Post]

You tell me man, here is the footage, were they on their property or not? Because you are correct, that is the difference between crime and no crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EWJ7L6O91c

Unarmed people cut through a "gated" community. Big deal. Normal procedure is they are asked to leave. They get fined if they don't.

I've been through "gated" communities up here in northern Cinci and never once has anyone said a thing. Course, I'm not black. And the remedy is certainly not pointing guns, AR or not, at someone.

There is a thing in the law about defending yourself and it has to do with like levels of threats. Clearly, a group was trespassing and broke the law, and another group used excessive levels of response and they broke the law. That's it.

**Hooter12** · 07-31-22 14:49

Originally Posted by BengalMan [View Original Post]

This is a lie. The Protesters were not actually ON their property, merely passing through the "gated" community.

None of us have EVER passed through a "gated" community before, right?!

Not only were the protesters in fact on the property, they actually broke into a locked gate to get on the property. They weren't just "passing through".

**Chunks92** · 07-31-22 14:47

Originally Posted by BengalMan [View Original Post]

This is a lie. The Protesters were not actually ON their property, merely passing through the "gated" community.

None of us have EVER passed through a "gated" community before, right?!

You tell me man, here is the footage, were they on their property or not? Because you are correct, that is the difference between crime and no crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EWJ7L6O91c

**SimonPieMan** · 07-31-22 14:44

Originally Posted by BengalMan [View Original Post]

This is a lie. The Protesters were not actually ON their property, merely passing through the "gated" community.

None of us have EVER passed through a "gated" community before, right?!

Posting for a friend.

**WanderingAbout** · 07-31-22 14:09

Originally Posted by WanderingMong [View Original Post]

Pretty sure its illegal to publicly trade 'they' since lincon.

At least not until TheyDo and TheyA, which are private companies, go public.

**WanderingAbout** · 07-31-22 14:05

Originally Posted by BengalMan [View Original Post]

This is a lie. The Protesters were not actually ON their property, merely passing through the "gated" community. None of us have EVER passed through a "gated" community before, right?!

The protesters ultimate destination was the home of the mayor of St Louis, Lyda Krewson. The protesters opened a closed, large iron gate with "No Trespassing" and "Private Street" signs posted. The protesters walked peacefully down a 'Private' street / drive news reports stated. The protesters did not go onto anyone's property other proceed down that 'Private' street. Once the gate was opened, and the protested crossed the 'Private' property line past the "No Trespassing" and "Private Street" signs posted, they were on 'their' (the residents) 'Private' property as the 'Private' street is part of 'their' 'Private' community. Nine people were cited for trespassing by the police but not prosecuted due to fear of heightening racial tensions at the time.

**WanderingMong** · 07-31-22 09:18

Originally Posted by BengalMan [View Original Post]

I always forget about THEM! THEY are always lurking in the background, even though THEY are a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ. Every time I read something, there THEY are. I see THEM on Fox News all the time. A lot of my buddies are always talking about THEM, but THEY can never really name names, just that THEY are bad.

Pretty sure its illegal to publicly trade 'they' since lincon.