Missouri's Gun Couple
Whitmer is trying to take the heat off for her bad decisions.
(Lawsuits and trials etc. aren´t fast)Yeah, no one should ever need 'gun rights' in this day and age for obvious reasons. And yep, this would be one of the reasons why I would wanna leave America behind permanently if I was born there instead of Finland.
Apparently they are now being taken to court. Unsure if a certain someone would give them a pardon or not.
How funny it is a country that is so prideful of freedom & guns are now arresting people for carrying guns to protect their own property. When the minorities did the same thing, nobody dares to bother. Smells almost like racism right here.
No, the protesters did not break down their gate. Video evidence shows the gate being opened carefully. Further, this "private road" is jointly owned property, not their own.
They were under no threat and had no right to do so.
Ah, you want to win by technicality, how funny it is you like the law when it's on your side. On the vid, you can see they went behind their fence line which they claimed ownership on. And to you, therefore, the couple were wrong to protect their property. How scummy it is to say people aren't allowed to protect what is theirs.
Apparently Missouri has a thing called "castle doctrine" which allows them to do what they are being charged on, with the grey area being the deadly force.
This incident started to look like a politically driven now. So you don't even own your front lawn, but if you have the right to be on there because you are under no duty to retreat from your residence, then you can protect it.
That's just ridiculous, you're saying they should have their properties damaged before they can protect their property. You're just saying you aren't supposed to protect your own property anymore.
The idiocy here is just astounding. But I suppose you don't have a property to protect if you think like that.
A private road is not a front lawn. They were not on their lawn and had no intention of going on it (they were heading to another house) until they started to threaten them with deadly force.
Not to mention just how ridiculous it is to threaten someone with death when they pose no threat to you.
Your statement makes you sound either you're innocent or heavily biased.
Your current advantage is that the law said the couple didn't own the land surrounded by their house fence. To the couple, it's their house because they live there & tend to the place. And with that castle doctrine, they can. With the news portraying protesters to be burning down neighbourhoods & even twitter posts showing protesters vandalizing buildings & neighbourhoods, oh & that court house the news conveniently painted as an "escalation". The couple were merely protecting what they seen to be theirs.
The most ridiculous person here would be the people who are saying you have no rights to the land within your house fence. Or maybe you personally never have a fenced house with a gate.