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

[Tamara]

LOL at the comments in the vein of "the other side wants us to eat our own".

The McCloskeys ain't "our own". Get that through your thick heads. They've voted to take your guns away in every election they could, but let them run around on their lawn with a panic-bought musket and a Bryco probably bought as a courtroom prop from the time he sued a gun company and gun forum conservatives come rushing to their defense in pavlovian glee.

Yeah, McCloskey owns a gun. He ain't my own. You want him, you can have him.

[peterb]

Confused as to why the condition of the other houses comes into play? They were not protecting the other houses.

Well, a comment was made that they “protected their property pretty effectively”. If you’re judging the actions by the outcome, so did all the rest of the property owners on the street who did nothing.

Homeowners #1: display firearms, group walks past

Homeowners #2 - #20(?): don’t display firearms, group walks past.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Still waiting for some people to answer exactly what they would have done if they were the owners of that mansion.

Also, would you go on Tucker Carlson and Chris Cuomo to compare the incident to the storming of the Bastille? Recall, that storming was a motion of insurrection against French Royal tyranny, supported by the upper classes who lived in stone mansions? Bad analogy.

Let me know, instead of vague statements of support. At p-f, we usually are specific to behavior.

[shane45]

LOL at the comments in the vein of "the other side wants us to eat our own".

The McCloskeys ain't "our own". Get that through your thick heads. They've voted to take your guns away in every election they could, but let them run around on their lawn with a panic-bought musket and a Bryco probably bought as a courtroom prop from the time he sued a gun company and gun forum conservatives come rushing to their defense in pavlovian glee.

Yeah, McCloskey owns a gun. He ain't my own. You want him, you can have him.

I dont agree with this characterization. Indeed they arent "my people" just like Brian Aiken wasnt "my people". They did a lot wrong! But at the end of the day it doesnt matter what kind of people they are. Its the base argument they have come to represent. If the base argument is sound, then it is important.

I think the tribe here has a confidence we would have handled it better. But think about the panic for someone that has no clue, who has watched week after week of endless news cycle of protests turned violent and or were simple opportunistic criminality running dzunder the banner of protest. Add in the message of your on your own.
Now lets give a single benefit of the doubt that the threats made to kill them and their dog and burn the house are true. As ive said, do things to panic joe citizen and you will get panic reactions that, in my opinion, the results are the responsibility of those causing panic.

What if they stood outside and never pointed weapons but stood at the ready and no words were exchanged other then the clear visual message of dont do anything wrong here!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What if they stood outside and never pointed weapons but stood at the ready and no words were exchanged other then the clear visual message of dont do anything wrong here!

Cover and concealment. When I decided to own firearms for their potential use to defend myself and mine, I decided to learn how to use them and not make decisions based on panic. They certainly had the funds and the supposed intellect to come up to speed.

I'll make the point, I made before - if the group was armed and wanted to do them in, they would have lasted two seconds.

I've yet to take a class oriented for civilians that had me stand at the ready in front of possible armed opponents. I might have a touch of sympathy until they decided to do the TV tour. Shut up, have a lawyer release a well thought out statement if need be. Don't mention the Bastille!

"We regret that this incident occurred. We were in fear of our lives at the time and took what we thought was appropriate action. We have supported the goals of minorities in fighting violations of their civil rights. Please contact our sleaze bag lawyer for any communications."

[shane45]

I really dont watch news so i cant speak to the pr campaign. Training is an agreed upon point. Reality is most dont have it. We will never know if they detered or incited but as noted the body language of the crowd at least implies deterrence occured. If we shined the spectrum of this analysis to the Korean rooftop shop owners are we arriving at the same conclusions?

[EPF]

LOL at the comments in the vein of "the other side wants us to eat our own".

The McCloskeys ain't "our own". Get that through your thick heads. They've voted to take your guns away in every election they could, but let them run around on their lawn with a panic-bought musket and a Bryco probably bought as a courtroom prop from the time he sued a gun company and gun forum conservatives come rushing to their defense in pavlovian glee.

Yeah, McCloskey owns a gun. He ain't my own. You want him, you can have him.

Agree on everything you say, changes nothing.

IMO the reason that these people get the benefit of the doubt, including from me, is that I don’t see protesting AT individual citizens in the same light as I see protesting against ideas in general public places.

Once you decide to bring the mob in to intimidate random individual citizens, I’m with the citizens. Double that if those citizens had nothing to do with your complaint.

If your outside a families home screaming and chanting your are doing this for intimidation, period. When you enter clearly marked private property for the purpose of intimidating the people who live there, I give the benefit of the doubt to the people who live there. Their reaction was amateurish. I wouldn’t expect 99% of people to do better.

I don’t change my support for people’s rights just because they don’t share my political ideals. If you want to dole out rights based on people’s beliefs have at it.

[BehindBlueI's]

Agree on everything you say, changes nothing.

IMO the reason that these people get the benefit of the doubt, including from me, is that I don’t see protesting AT individual citizens in the same light as I see protesting against ideas in general public places.

Once you decide to bring the mob in to intimidate random individual citizens, I’m with the citizens. Double that if those citizens had nothing to do with your complaint.

If your outside a families home screaming and chanting your are doing this for intimidation, period. When you enter clearly marked private property for the purpose of intimidating the people who live there, I give the benefit of the doubt to the people who live there. Their reaction was amateurish. I wouldn’t expect 99% of people to do better.

I don’t change my support for people’s rights just because they don’t share my political ideals. If you want to dole out rights based on people’s beliefs have at it.

The lawn lawyers weren't the target. They just lived on the path to the mayor's house. Was there some indication that, other then being loud, they were actually attempting to intimidate random individual citizens?

[EPF]

The lawn lawyers weren't the target. They just lived on the path to the mayor's house. Was there some indication that, other then being loud, they were actually attempting to intimidate random individual citizens?

Whether they intended to target the “lawn lawyers” or not, that is exactly what they did. The private road does not lead to the mayors house. Does incompetence=innocence? It was clearly marked and gated. Should the homeowners have assumed “oops, this is just an innocent mistake I’m not scared of the mob”?

When an angry mob shows up on your private property in front of your home you ,as a trained individual, may be able to make good decisions, but I don’t believe most citizens have that same level of clarity under pressure.

Being overcome with fear at that scenario doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

[BehindBlueI's]

Whether they intended to target the “lawn lawyers” or not, that is exactly what they did. The private road does not lead to the mayors house. Does incompetence=innocence? It was clearly marked and gated. Should the homeowners have assumed “oops, this is just an innocent mistake I’m not scared of the mob”?

When an angry mob shows up on your private property in front of your home you ,as a trained individual, may be able to make good decisions, but I don’t believe most citizens have that same level of clarity under pressure.

Being overcome with fear at that scenario doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

I don't think it takes much training to see if they are stopping and bothering your stuff or walking past your stuff. But yes, they should seek training and do better. I think that, other than a few who have deemed any criticism of their actions to be political in nature, everyone agrees with that. Even Shrek's you should feel bad video that was supposed to chasten the nitpickers nitpicked that point.

Were they scared or were they in monkey brain and posturing to protect their territory? Based on their facial expressions, posture, and actions do you think they were scared? Overcome with fear?

But let's just get answers to these simple questions:

1) Did their actions make them more or less safe?

2) Would you have done, or recommend others do, the same?