Protests at a LEO's home.

[FNFAN]

Provocative? Certainly.

Threatening? I guess in the same way some people find threatening open carriers getting coffee at Starbucks.

A bad idea? Almost always.

But absent criminal activity, do people have the right to protest in public spaces around private residences? Absolutely.

But it was pointed out that in the state and city in which this happened, there are statutes prohibiting the behavior. So what are you trying to say?

[Shoresy]

Keep telling the wife I want 200 acres in TN. this is another reason why.
Hell I can put up a "dummy" house shortly off my "driveway" entrance, and the real/main house deep inside the property.

A fortune of bonus points if you dub it "Rock Ridge".

[RJ]

A fortune of bonus points if you dub it "Rock Ridge".

“Somebody’s gonna have to go back and get a shitload of dimes!”

[Rex G]

Rex-
I must admit to being a bit taken aback... perhaps you misunderstood my thoughts - perhaps I didn’t express them as clearly as I intended. Probably a little of both.
I was not trained to look for shootouts in the street, nor to engage in one I don’t have to, nor to lose one unnecessarily.
I was imagining the situation of the driver of the pickup truck, with people in front of him who were behaving as though they were preparing to shoot at him.
I think someone in that situation has 4 basic options:
1. Leave
2. De-escalate
3. Defend themselves
4. Get shot

These options are listed in my suggested hierarchy of preferred actions.
If in the truck, leaving (via reverse gear) could well be the preferred action.
If blocked in, it may be possible to engage with the “demonstrators” to indicate sympathy to their position (genuine or not).
Failing at the above options (if armed), may leave only the option of engagement in the kinetic sense.

What I was attempting to point out in the earlier post was that, unlike the recent Austin incident, shooting a gunman who’s presenting what appears to be an imminent threat still looks like a losing proposition, if there are several others on the scene. So my point was that multiple armed “demonstrators” change the calculation, making it even easier to intimidate people at will, without fear of consequence.
And if one (and only one) armed person threatened me, the solution is much more obvious than if 3 armed people did so.

Does that make more sense?

OK. I was simply pointing out that three people facing me, or any of us, with rifles, does not mean that my/our doom is inevitable. Planning, and thinking, can overcome numbers.

My perspective is/was that of a now-retired LEO, who killed two people in the line of duty. My name is listed on an anti-police website. I am a “shooter.” The incidents occurred in the Nineties, and only one was a shooting, but the internet never forgets. A search-able article in a nationally-prominent magazine cited my shooting incident as a symptom of the “mistakes of the past” made by police departments. My wife helped put people in prison, by being an investigator for the county M.E., and while such folks are not normally targeted, the potential perception that both of us are/were “public figures” might well make us seem to be all the more “fair game” to the leftistas. Thanks to the availability of so many things, on the internet, we are not difficult to find, so, it has occurred to us that armed uh, persons might try something bold. Multiple masked/hooded figures, with rifles at low ready, is not an unimaginable threat.

One can prevail against multiple opponents. Hey, I watched Quigley, Down Under. It is not hopeless.

[Navin Johnson]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe three people with rifles at low ready not allowing egress creates a situation of imminent bodily harm or death. pretty sure if that was my neighborhood I would be off safety and NOT at low ready.

The media really wants a shootout it will make such great headlines irregardless of the human toll.

as to these people going to public officials houses.....the liberal vermin politician that your average idiot in the city votes for is allowing this. Thus it's legal to do by being decriminalized because no one will press charges.

I hope this happens in a great state like Texas and it is dealt with properly then perhaps this s*** will stop.

The three video game experts with rifles would all be out of the contest before they could shoulder them.

The truly scary narrative is that every law enforcement official from cop on street to DA etc is now afraid to arrest or press charges or even engage with any African Americans. Thus the antifa terrorists have won. Even an individual citizen is f*****.

The other frightening things there seems to be a lack of police response to these types of events.

It would be nice to have the media held accountable for largely creating this stuff.

[JAD]

But absent criminal activity, do people have the right to protest in public spaces around private residences? Absolutely.

Can you cite case law to support that assertion?

[Beat Trash]

What would you charge them with? To be clear that's a question not criticism.

Not Blues, but in my state, I’d charge them with Aggravated Menacing.

[blues]

Not Blues, but in my state, I’d charge them with Aggravated Menacing.

Feel free, brother, now or anytime. State and local charges are not my domain...despite a passing familiarity. I didn't respond to his question because it is not in my state of residence and there are members far better equipped to speak to CO law.

[JohnO]

What would you charge them with? To be clear that's a question not criticism.

I would fully in support of a charge of: Oxygen Theft with a 15-25 year sentence. Additional charges incurring more time behind bars.

[BehindBlueI's]

Provocative? Certainly.

Threatening? I guess in the same way some people find threatening open carriers getting coffee at Starbucks.

A bad idea? Almost always.

But absent criminal activity, do people have the right to protest in public spaces around private residences? Absolutely.

You don't see a difference in walking around with a firearm and minding your own business vs holding a long gun at the low ready while targeting a specific individual for your ire? That's not protesting, that's intimidating. I don't find the argument that these are the same thing, or that the illegality of one affects the legality of the other, compelling.