'Keep moving!' Couple brandish an AR-15 and a handgun at protesters

[Tamara]

Then why make the statement that implies these homeowners overreacted because of how things used to be?

Both GyroF-16 and olstyn said it already.

All the homeowners did, with the clarity of hindsight, is draw attention to themselves. If the protesters were armed, like the McCloskeys claim they were, then Mr. and (especially) Mrs. McCloskey gave up every possible advantage for the power trip of running out onto their lawn and pointing guns at people like idiots.

We never would have even heard about this protest if it weren't for their overreaction. People would have gone and chanted hippie slogans at the mayor's house and gone home. The fact that not one other person in the community felt like it was worth the reaction of the McCloskeys is telling.

"Here’s the footage of what happened. The perfectly intact gate is held open as folks walk through. They immediately walk in the street, NEVER coming towards the McCloskey’s. Patricia and Mark ALREADY HAVE GUNS pointing and shouting to get the hell out before folks even got in. These folks are blatantly lying about what happened."

[blues]

Completely agree their tactics leave something to be desired. But we as gun owners should be supporting them and start pushing back on the media propaganda that says “protesters” can do whatever they want and it’s ok but anyone who stands up tho them is wrong.

I do support them...even if I think they made some errors in their approach.

And I'm COMPLETELY on board with confining the protesters to operating within the parameters allowed by the law. Had that been the case early on, maybe some of the events don't go as far out of control as they ended up.

[Hambo]

It's not trespassing if the gate is unlocked?
So if a group of people decide to take a short cut through my back yard on their way between the street and alley it's all cool?

I remember when the idea of responding to "a group of people decid[ing] to take a short cut through my back yard on their way between the street and alley" by charging onto your lawn with a carbine would have gotten you laughed out of most of the technical subforums on this board.

You remember that time, too.

Portland and the other street that parallel it are private streets, not public walkways. You may not care if 3-4 people cut through your yard, but I can't believe your butt wouldn't pucker if a group of 400 was walking toward the cottage.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

but I can't believe your butt wouldn't pucker if a group of 400 was walking toward the cottage.

My plan is to send out my wife, with a Taurus Judge to yell at them. Meanwhile, I will run away. Ok, I'm funny.

But what does your anal quakes have to do with the issue. 400 supposedly armed folks charging you?

Can we separate the political support of the couple as someway justifying their ill conceived actions? Seems we can't for some. Some are seeing this point.

[HCM]

Completely agree their tactics leave something to be desired. But we as gun owners should be supporting them and start pushing back on the media propaganda that says “protesters” can do whatever they want and it’s ok but anyone who stands up tho them is wrong.

This ^^^

The longer criminal activity (trespassing, property damage, blocking highways, assault etc) is tolerated and mis-categorized as first amendment protected activity aka "protesting" the more instances of regular people pushing back will occur whether that involves guns, cars etc.

Calling them protesters, or even "protesters" plays into the anarcho-communist narrative, promotes a cycle of escalation and diminishes legitimate protesters.

Stop calling them protesters, or even "protesters" rather call them what they are, rioters.

[Tamara]

Portland and the other street that parallel it are private streets, not public walkways. You may not care if 3-4 people cut through your yard, but I can't believe your butt wouldn't pucker if a group of 400 was walking toward the cottage.

First, if 400 people were walking past ("Past", not "Toward" is important here), I certainly wouldn't run out in the middle of the lawn to draw their attention.

Second, I doubt most people really grok the concept of a "private street". I'd lay even odds that better than two thirds of the people I question at random would think that the city still owns the streets in a gated community.

[MistWolf]

...Tamara leans left...

No, she leans forward. She has a good shooting stance.

[BehindBlueI's]

This incident continues to be a Rorschach test with narrative and counter-narrative flying.

I get it's private property, but unless they are agents of the entirety of the property it's not *their* private property. They would have no authority to issue a trespass order for the compound here, although perhaps there's some quirk of the law there that would allow it. Think of it like a mall. You own the Foot Locker. You can trespass someone from the Foot Locker but have no authority to trespass someone from the food court. The mall owner (and agents) can trespass someone from the entire property. Again, in my state, I can use deadly force to protect an intrusion on my curtilage. It's much less clear that I can do so to protect my neighbor's curtilage, especially of my own volition. I get they are lawyers, but my understanding is not criminal/self-defense lawyers. I also get lawyers are people and all people sometimes react emotionally rather than logically, so "they are lawyers and wouldn't do it if it was illegal" doesn't strike me as compelling.

I think we all understand that their social status, financial resources, and connections means they will be afforded more opportunities to defend themselves both against not being charged and defeating any charges that would be filed. Do you have the same? What's a jury of your peers look like in your area? I strongly suspect rural areas will be more friendly then suburban ones. You see the reactions of their neighbors. Maybe from fear, but let's be honest. It's a chance to virtue signal and some of them are probably True Believers (tm). You think the wealthy don't latch on to various social justice causes and believe in it? So what's a jury of *their* peers look like?

Despite what the media shows, most of the protests actually have been peaceful locally. Weeks of protests, two days of riots. The riots sucked, but that doesn't make every protest a riot and it doesn't make every misdemeanor suddenly deserving of lethal force. We *all* know, or should know, that each decision on use of force is legally based on the facts we know, or reasonably should know, at the time. What *other people* have done *in other places* at *other times* is useful for narrative building but as justification for a use of force? Can you shoot a 1%er off his bike as he rides past your house because of violence associated with OMG in other places? What if he walks through your backyard? Of course not. The only thing different here is the culture war aspect. Which is apparently why it's verboten to discuss a lack of tactical soundness beyond a Shrek-approved "not what I would have done" sort of statement. So why can't we discuss what a better tactic would have been? We do it with officer involved shootings, successful or not. There's a frequently discussed YouTube channel that's dedicated to discussion of citizen V criminal interactions for learning purposes. There's a book that several members of this forum contributed to (half off today, apparently) that has chapters contrasting successful vs unsuccessful self-defense cases. Why, other than whatever politics you want to throw at it, is this different?

[blues]

This ^^^

The longer criminal activity (trespassing, property damage, blocking highways, assault etc) is tolerated and mis-categorized as first amendment protected activity aka "protesting" the more instances of regular people pushing back will occur whether that involves guns, cars etc.

Calling them protesters, or even "protesters" plays into the anarcho-communist narrative, promotes a cycle of escalation and diminishes legitimate protesters.

Stop calling them protesters, or even "protesters" rather call them what they are, rioters.

But, the fact is that not all of them are rioters. We've seen that by even cursory study of the various events around the country. This makes the issue more difficult for everyone...police, participants, and innocent bystander.

So, we end up with the issue of not being able to abrogate the right to peaceful assembly, (and rightfully so), and then having it devolve into mayhem (instigated and enacted by some).

Fine line.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

HCM, you may be correct about tolerating outrageous behavior. However, what is the solution? The fine folk at Charlottesville or the St. Louis folks have their causes, which one can or cannot agree with.

But tell me where on the use of force continuum, the response should be? Tear gas, pepper spray, hands on? Lethal force - where do you see it being used in the current incidents?

One may recall, I quoted (or think I did), the idea of radicals (of the left and right) wanting a massacre to incense their constituencies for more support and more actions.

So should a homeowner in Charlottesville or St. Louis open fire? Should the police?

There quite a few historical incidents of demonstrators being fired upon that led to revolutions. There are lots of guns in this country. Police forces would lose a real battle targeted against them. It is usually the gun folk who proclaim that if the law to 'take' them, the law would lose the revolution.