Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Missouri lawyer couple who brandished an AR-15 and a handgun at protesters now say the protesters broke down their mansion gate and claim they were 'in fear of our lives' and were told they 'would be killed'   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

3916 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jun 2020 at 9:30 PM (6 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



359 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
5 days ago  

Alphax: They were under no threat.  They were the threat.


In your opinion.
If hundreds of people show up on your mansion's lawn shouting "eat the rich" then you might quickly change that opinion.

We just had a shooting at a protest in Kentucky where one of the protesters turned a gun on his own.  We've had regular shootouts at the CHOP, the last of which sounds more like an execution than an accident. Stories of "peaceful" mobs going nuts and torching buildings are quite common.

These two might have been financially backing the protests. That doesn't mean they're unaware of what happens in them.
 
5 days ago  

way south: In your opinion.
If hundreds of people show up on your mansion's lawn shouting "eat the rich" then you might quickly change that opinion.


Well, I'm not a coward.
 
5 days ago  

Uncontrolled_Jibe: yohohogreengiant: Jake Havechek: They're both lawyers.  They lie for a living and get well paid for it.

Gotta wonder if this was Phelps westboro kind of trolling, but I'm tired and can't really see the angle for that.

Nah, they're rich, white, privileged, and eager to show off their firearm accessories. I hope we have a future that will replay these images and collectively shiat on these two's memory

So, a future where they would have been killed?


No, they weren't killed or even assaulted. Just stop it with that shiat. In this timeline these privileged entitled farks got to point their firearms at unarmed protestors, knowing all the time that they were going to get away with it.

I want them to live their long privileged lives and see these images of them and their self righteous gun toting bullshiat shat on by the public at large. So far so good. They've been elevated to memehood.

Also. Having organized and protested myself, the first and lasting realization a protestor who engages in civil disobedience makes, is that they will be subjected to the law, often prosecuted beyond reason, and if you're Black, your life quite possibly forfeit if a cop should decide to take it, with no recourse and often with the cop walking without even a disciplining.

Read the last sentence. That's where those protestors were when Ken and Karen, full knowing that they were never going to be prosecuted decided to drunkenly point their firearms at them from their front yard.
 
5 days ago  

way south: Alphax: They were under no threat.  They were the threat.

In your opinion.
If hundreds of people show up on your mansion's lawn shouting "eat the rich" then you might quickly change that opinion.

We just had a shooting at a protest in Kentucky where one of the protesters turned a gun on his own.  We've had regular shootouts at the CHOP, the last of which sounds more like an execution than an accident. Stories of "peaceful" mobs going nuts and torching buildings are quite common.

These two might have been financially backing the protests. That doesn't mean they're unaware of what happens in them.


Except they were never on their lawn and never shouting "eat the rich," AND the two of them lied about the crowd smashing the gate, as the footage shows them going through it undamaged.
 
5 days ago  

cyberspacedout: I'm no metallurgical expert, but I think it would take a concerted effort to do this kind of damage to a wrought-iron gate:


You definitely don't have much experience with bending wrought iron or steel (we don't know what the material is).
 
5 days ago  

way south: If hundreds of people show up on your mansion's lawn shouting "eat the rich" then you might quickly change that opinion.


If hundreds of people show up on my lawn shouting "eat the rich" then my two guns with what? 20 bullets between them? 30? I'm not an ammosexual, so not only don't I know how many rounds those guns might hold, I can't be arsed enough to care. Anyway, if there's hundreds of folks trying to eat me, then my few bullets ain't gonna take me off the menu.

Of course, since I'm not a blithering idiot, I wouldn't have been out there in the first place, waving my Tactical Penis Compensator around in what I might imagine to be a both threatening and masculine manner. Since I'm not a total pants-wetting pussy who cringes at the sight of anyone darker than a paper grocery sack, the last thing I would have done would be to go to the panic room, open the gun safe, get the guns, load them, and then trot outside barefoot in capri pants. Instead, I'd have grabbed some bottled water (not the San P. in the glass bottles, but the Deer Park I stole from the law office to give to the cleaning staff and the "ethnic" grandkids when they visit), and a blanket, and headed out to the lawn. Slap the blanket down on the grass, put the water bottles out for the protestors to take, and then point at the nearest two and say, "Hey. You and you, why don't you sit down here with me and tell me what it is you're protesting about." The only frightening thing about the protestors is all those phones they're holding. You know, a lot of people don't know it, but those things can take video and upload it instantly to the internet, thus turning an incompetent gun waver with bad trigger discipline into an instant figure of worldwide ridicule. But no, there I am talking to the protestors and listening to them and HOLY shiat, WHAT DID I JUST DO? THAT'S RIGHT, MOTHERFARKER, I JUST GOT SOME SWEET FREE PUBLICITY. I'm now a farking pillar of the community. A hero. Look at that rich white motherfarker there, talking to the protestors and hearing them out, why can't we all be like him? Hey is he a lawyer? Shiat, I'm going to use his services next time I'm in trouble. Fark, I'd hand out business cards too.

But Johnny Package and Muffy Imeasy there...I guess that was too hard for them to figure out.
 
5 days ago  

WelldeadLink: (we don't know what the material is)


Probably enameled monkey metal sold to rich dipshiats as "Hand crafted, fire-forged metal, wrought into traditional old-world designs by top masters," sand-cast in India, sold for a 5,000% markup and installed with a couple 50-cent lag bolts.
 
5 days ago  
Just want to point out that that appears to be a real Colt AR15, not some bushmaster pos

No point, just want the gun
 
5 days ago  

I_told_you_so: This is one of those two wrongs situations. Protesters are not entitled to go on private property and threaten residents just by their numbers, and the home owners shouldn't be brandishing firearms. I can't necessarily fault the home owners.


You sound like the kind of person who sees both sides of both sides and makes fence sitting into a lifelong hobby.
 
5 days ago  
The two of them pointed loaded fire arms at anyone passing. Anyone. Assault is making someone fear for their safety. Raising an arm to strike someone is "assault." (Battery is following through on your assault.) Assault with a deadly weapon is a separate crime. Terroristic Threatening is also a crime. They were not threatened by anyone in the crowd that passed.

I was on a jury in which a man was charged with terroristic threatening because he pointed his rifle at his ex-wife and daughter and threatened to shoot them in order to get them off his front porch. That his ex-wife and daughter were haranguing him did not mitigate the crime.
 
5 days ago  

way south: Apparently they were pro-blm lefties that supported these marches.
Up until the mob came for them. It's probably safe to assume they don't support it as much now.

[Fark user image image 850x478]


Also, they're not "pro-blm lefties".  That screenshot supposedly showing that they donate to ActBlue was a lie pushed by (surprise, surprise) some Turning Point USA tool.  It's a screenshot of some guy in Michigan who works for a hospital and just so happens to have the same name.

Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark user imageView Full Size



In reality, they're....are you sitting down for this?  They're Trumphumpers.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
5 days ago  

mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: They are INSIDE a gated community.

NO THEY ARE NOT.  This neighborhood is HISTORIC and not gated.  There's a gate blocking one street entrance, but the actual access street that the residents use is ungated and the streets are, according to public zoning, public thoroughfares.

mindset zero: The housing management company that runs the gated community maintains the streets.

Then why is the city repaving them?  Evidence that contradicts everything you're saying has already been posted in the thread.  Please make with some proof of your claims or STFU.

Mock26: I am not defending the couple in the least big.

Oh I know.  I was just trying to be helpful.

https://www.stlmag.com/history/archite​cture/private-streets-of-st-louis/


That link doesn't say what you think it does.  These streets are closed to automobile traffic like many others in St. Louis. It is NOT A GATED COMMUNITY.  The homeowners DO NOT own the streets or sidewalks.  Their gate is just a more posh version of a Schoemehl pot.

assets.bwbx.ioView Full Size


You can stubbornly insist over and over on your idiotic generalizations, but it won't make you right. The fact is, the assholes in TFA did not have the legal standing to do what they did, and since these closed streets have been hotly contested for a number of reasons for a long time, they may have inadvertently brought their own gates down for good.
 
5 days ago  

A'isha P.: way south: Apparently they were pro-blm lefties that supported these marches.
Up until the mob came for them. It's probably safe to assume they don't support it as much now.

[Fark user image image 850x478]

Also, they're not "pro-blm lefties".  That screenshot supposedly showing that they donate to ActBlue was a lie pushed by (surprise, surprise) some Turning Point USA tool.  It's a screenshot of some guy in Michigan who works for a hospital and just so happens to have the same name.

[Fark user image 425x188]

[Fark user image 425x331]


In reality, they're....are you sitting down for this?  They're Trumphumpers.

[Fark user image 425x257]


Good for them.  Nice to see them giving that much support.
 
5 days ago  

vrax: NephilimNexus: outside their $1.5million mansion in to a well-to-do St. Louis neighborhood.

Police said Monday that the McCloskeys would not be charged

The American justice system in a nutshell, folks.

Holy shiat!  I cannot believe that place is so cheap.  If you moved that here to Palo Alto it would be like $10-20m.


True.  But I'm also pretty sure most houses that size in St. Louis have vast tracts of land or are on a golf course.  Tiny market for that house.
 
5 days ago  

Z-clipped: mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: They are INSIDE a gated community.

NO THEY ARE NOT.  This neighborhood is HISTORIC and not gated.  There's a gate blocking one street entrance, but the actual access street that the residents use is ungated and the streets are, according to public zoning, public thoroughfares.

mindset zero: The housing management company that runs the gated community maintains the streets.

Then why is the city repaving them?  Evidence that contradicts everything you're saying has already been posted in the thread.  Please make with some proof of your claims or STFU.

Mock26: I am not defending the couple in the least big.

Oh I know.  I was just trying to be helpful.

https://www.stlmag.com/history/archite​cture/private-streets-of-st-louis/

That link doesn't say what you think it does.  These streets are closed to automobile traffic like many others in St. Louis. It is NOT A GATED COMMUNITY.  The homeowners DO NOT own the streets or sidewalks.  Their gate is just a more posh version of a Schoemehl pot.

[assets.bwbx.io image 850x637]

You can stubbornly insist over and over on your idiotic generalizations, but it won't make you right. The fact is, the assholes in TFA did not have the legal standing to do what they did, and since these closed streets have been hotly contested for a number of reasons for a long time, they may have inadvertently brought their own gates down for good.


Here save you some time.

St. Louis City Counselor Julian K. Bush affirmed that Portland, as well as several other streets in the West End, are indeed private.

"They are owned by the property owners, and the owners pay for them, the street repairs and maintenance," Bush said Monday.

Can I borrow that Gary meme?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.stlt​o​day.com/news/local/columns/joe-hollema​n/portland-place-where-couple-pointed-​guns-at-protesters-has-long-been-home-​to-wealthy-st/article_1764a072-9403-5b​1a-a452-ba5609608d56.amp.html
 
5 days ago  
Untrained idiots like that should not be allowed to own guns. They would have been kicked from any range that I have been on.
 
5 days ago  

capt_sensible: Untrained idiots like that should not be allowed to own guns. They would have been kicked from any range that I have been on.


I will agree with that. At one point he pointed to muzzle of his rifle in front of his own wife.
 
5 days ago  

mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: They are INSIDE a gated community.

NO THEY ARE NOT.  This neighborhood is HISTORIC and not gated.  There's a gate blocking one street entrance, but the actual access street that the residents use is ungated and the streets are, according to public zoning, public thoroughfares.

mindset zero: The housing management company that runs the gated community maintains the streets.

Then why is the city repaving them?  Evidence that contradicts everything you're saying has already been posted in the thread.  Please make with some proof of your claims or STFU.

Mock26: I am not defending the couple in the least big.

Oh I know.  I was just trying to be helpful.

https://www.stlmag.com/history/archite​cture/private-streets-of-st-louis/

That link doesn't say what you think it does.  These streets are closed to automobile traffic like many others in St. Louis. It is NOT A GATED COMMUNITY.  The homeowners DO NOT own the streets or sidewalks.  Their gate is just a more posh version of a Schoemehl pot.

[assets.bwbx.io image 850x637]

You can stubbornly insist over and over on your idiotic generalizations, but it won't make you right. The fact is, the assholes in TFA did not have the legal standing to do what they did, and since these closed streets have been hotly contested for a number of reasons for a long time, they may have inadvertently brought their own gates down for good.

Here save you some time.

St. Louis City Counselor Julian K. Bush affirmed that Portland, as well as several other streets in the West End, are indeed private.

"They are owned by the property owners, and the owners pay for them, the street repairs and maintenance," Bush said Monday.

Can I borrow that Gary meme?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.stlto​day.com/news/local/columns/joe-hollema​n/portland-place-where-couple-pointed-​guns-at-protesters-has-long-been-home-​to-wealthy-st/article_1764a072-9403-5b​1a-a452-ba5609608d56.amp.html


That's not what the public records for Portland Place show.  It is both public and private.

Fark user imageView Full Size



In the public access section, the "restricted" box is marked, not the "no public access" box.

Fark user image

The note on the records shows that the specified restrictions are only on through vehicular traffic, and say nothing about pedestrian traffic.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
5 days ago  
I think they're confused, we're saying they SHOULD be killed.
 
5 days ago  

A'isha P.: mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: They are INSIDE a gated community.

NO THEY ARE NOT.  This neighborhood is HISTORIC and not gated.  There's a gate blocking one street entrance, but the actual access street that the residents use is ungated and the streets are, according to public zoning, public thoroughfares.

mindset zero: The housing management company that runs the gated community maintains the streets.

Then why is the city repaving them?  Evidence that contradicts everything you're saying has already been posted in the thread.  Please make with some proof of your claims or STFU.

Mock26: I am not defending the couple in the least big.

Oh I know.  I was just trying to be helpful.

https://www.stlmag.com/history/archite​cture/private-streets-of-st-louis/

That link doesn't say what you think it does.  These streets are closed to automobile traffic like many others in St. Louis. It is NOT A GATED COMMUNITY.  The homeowners DO NOT own the streets or sidewalks.  Their gate is just a more posh version of a Schoemehl pot.

[assets.bwbx.io image 850x637]

You can stubbornly insist over and over on your idiotic generalizations, but it won't make you right. The fact is, the assholes in TFA did not have the legal standing to do what they did, and since these closed streets have been hotly contested for a number of reasons for a long time, they may have inadvertently brought their own gates down for good.

Here save you some time.

St. Louis City Counselor Julian K. Bush affirmed that Portland, as well as several other streets in the West End, are indeed private.

"They are owned by the property owners, and the owners pay for them, the street repairs and maintenance," Bush said Monday.

Can I borrow that Gary meme?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.stlto​day.com/news/local/columns/joe-hollema​n/portland-place-where-couple-pointed-​guns-at-protesters-has-long-been-home-​to-wealthy-st/article_1764a072-9403-5b​1a-a452-ba5609608d56.amp.html

T ...


That document is not authoritative as to who owns the property or whether it's public or private.  It is a nomination form for the area to be added to the Register of Historic Places.
 
5 days ago  

A'isha P.: mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: They are INSIDE a gated community.

NO THEY ARE NOT.  This neighborhood is HISTORIC and not gated.  There's a gate blocking one street entrance, but the actual access street that the residents use is ungated and the streets are, according to public zoning, public thoroughfares.

mindset zero: The housing management company that runs the gated community maintains the streets.

Then why is the city repaving them?  Evidence that contradicts everything you're saying has already been posted in the thread.  Please make with some proof of your claims or STFU.

Mock26: I am not defending the couple in the least big.

Oh I know.  I was just trying to be helpful.

https://www.stlmag.com/history/archite​cture/private-streets-of-st-louis/

That link doesn't say what you think it does.  These streets are closed to automobile traffic like many others in St. Louis. It is NOT A GATED COMMUNITY.  The homeowners DO NOT own the streets or sidewalks.  Their gate is just a more posh version of a Schoemehl pot.

[assets.bwbx.io image 850x637]

You can stubbornly insist over and over on your idiotic generalizations, but it won't make you right. The fact is, the assholes in TFA did not have the legal standing to do what they did, and since these closed streets have been hotly contested for a number of reasons for a long time, they may have inadvertently brought their own gates down for good.

Here save you some time.

St. Louis City Counselor Julian K. Bush affirmed that Portland, as well as several other streets in the West End, are indeed private.

"They are owned by the property owners, and the owners pay for them, the street repairs and maintenance," Bush said Monday.

Can I borrow that Gary meme?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.stlto​day.com/news/local/columns/joe-hollema​n/portland-place-where-couple-pointed-​guns-at-protesters-has-long-been-home-​to-wealthy-st/article_1764a072-9403-5b​1a-a452-ba5609608d56.amp.html

That's not what the public records for Portland Place show.  It is both public and private.

[Fark user image image 425x318]


In the public access section, the "restricted" box is marked, not the "no public access" box.

[Fark user image image 425x91]

The note on the records shows that the specified restrictions are only on through vehicular traffic, and say nothing about pedestrian traffic.

[Fark user image image 425x147]


You see that x marked private.
 
5 days ago  

mindset zero: n the public access section, the "restricted" box is marked, not the "no public access" box.

[Fark user image image 425x91]

The note on the records shows that the specified restrictions are only on through vehicular traffic, and say nothing about pedestrian traffic.

[Fark user image image 425x147]


You see that x marked private.


It's actually not relevant to the point they think they're making.  It's a nomination form to be added to the Register of Historical Places.
 
5 days ago  

mindset zero: A'isha P.: mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: They are INSIDE a gated community.

NO THEY ARE NOT.  This neighborhood is HISTORIC and not gated.  There's a gate blocking one street entrance, but the actual access street that the residents use is ungated and the streets are, according to public zoning, public thoroughfares.

mindset zero: The housing management company that runs the gated community maintains the streets.

Then why is the city repaving them?  Evidence that contradicts everything you're saying has already been posted in the thread.  Please make with some proof of your claims or STFU.

Mock26: I am not defending the couple in the least big.

Oh I know.  I was just trying to be helpful.

https://www.stlmag.com/history/archite​cture/private-streets-of-st-louis/

That link doesn't say what you think it does.  These streets are closed to automobile traffic like many others in St. Louis. It is NOT A GATED COMMUNITY.  The homeowners DO NOT own the streets or sidewalks.  Their gate is just a more posh version of a Schoemehl pot.

[assets.bwbx.io image 850x637]

You can stubbornly insist over and over on your idiotic generalizations, but it won't make you right. The fact is, the assholes in TFA did not have the legal standing to do what they did, and since these closed streets have been hotly contested for a number of reasons for a long time, they may have inadvertently brought their own gates down for good.

Here save you some time.

St. Louis City Counselor Julian K. Bush affirmed that Portland, as well as several other streets in the West End, are indeed private.

"They are owned by the property owners, and the owners pay for them, the street repairs and maintenance," Bush said Monday.

Can I borrow that Gary meme?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.stlto​day.com/news/local/columns/joe-hollema​n/portland-place-where-couple-pointed-​guns-at-protesters-has-long-been-home-​to-wealthy-st/article_1764a072-9403-5b​1a-a452-ba5609608d56.amp.html

That's not what the public records for Portland Place show.  It is both public and private.

[Fark user image image 425x318]


In the public access section, the "restricted" box is marked, not the "no public access" box.

[Fark user image image 425x91]

The note on the records shows that the specified restrictions are only on through vehicular traffic, and say nothing about pedestrian traffic.

[Fark user image image 425x147]

You see that x marked private.


Which refers to the ownership of the structures, which is why the x next to Occupied in the same section is also marked.

If Portland Place is both publicly and privately owned, as described in the record, and the houses are privately owned, as marked in the record, guess what that leaves to be publicly owned?
 
5 days ago  

A'isha P.: mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: They are INSIDE a gated community.

NO THEY ARE NOT.  This neighborhood is HISTORIC and not gated.  There's a gate blocking one street entrance, but the actual access street that the residents use is ungated and the streets are, according to public zoning, public thoroughfares.

mindset zero: The housing management company that runs the gated community maintains the streets.

Then why is the city repaving them?  Evidence that contradicts everything you're saying has already been posted in the thread.  Please make with some proof of your claims or STFU.

Mock26: I am not defending the couple in the least big.

Oh I know.  I was just trying to be helpful.

https://www.stlmag.com/history/archite​cture/private-streets-of-st-louis/

That link doesn't say what you think it does.  These streets are closed to automobile traffic like many others in St. Louis. It is NOT A GATED COMMUNITY.  The homeowners DO NOT own the streets or sidewalks.  Their gate is just a more posh version of a Schoemehl pot.

[assets.bwbx.io image 850x637]

You can stubbornly insist over and over on your idiotic generalizations, but it won't make you right. The fact is, the assholes in TFA did not have the legal standing to do what they did, and since these closed streets have been hotly contested for a number of reasons for a long time, they may have inadvertently brought their own gates down for good.

Here save you some time.

St. Louis City Counselor Julian K. Bush affirmed that Portland, as well as several other streets in the West End, are indeed private.

"They are owned by the property owners, and the owners pay for them, the street repairs and maintenance," Bush said Monday.

Can I borrow that Gary meme?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.stlto​day.com/news/local/columns/joe-hollema​n/portland-place-where-couple-pointed-​guns-at-protesters-has-long-been-home-​to-wealthy-st/article_1764a072-9403-5b​1a-a452-ba5609608d56.amp.html

That's not what the public records for Portland Place show.  It is both public and private.

[Fark user image image 425x318]


In the public access section, the "restricted" box is marked, not the "no public access" box.

[Fark user image image 425x91]

The note on the records shows that the specified restrictions are only on through vehicular traffic, and say nothing about pedestrian traffic.

[Fark user image image 425x147]


What is a easement Alex.
 
5 days ago  

A'isha P.: Which refers to the ownership of the structures, which is why the x next to Occupied in the same section is also marked.

If Portland Place is both publicly and privately owned, as described in the record, and the houses are privately owned, as marked in the record, guess what that leaves to be publicly owned?


That is not the relevant record to determine these things.
 
5 days ago  

mindset zero: What is a easement Alex.


If you would describe a piece of property with an easement as having "multiple public and private" owners on a record document, I really hope you don't work in a records office someplace.
 
5 days ago  

A'isha P.: mindset zero: What is a easement Alex.

If you would describe a piece of property with an easement as having "multiple public and private" owners on a record document, I really hope you don't work in a records office someplace.


That "record document" isn't binding or authoritative the way you think is.
 
5 days ago  

Boo_Guy: I_told_you_so: This is one of those two wrongs situations. Protesters are not entitled to go on private property and threaten residents just by their numbers, and the home owners shouldn't be brandishing firearms. I can't necessarily fault the home owners.

The mayor lives in there and earlier in the day she doxxed people on live television, so I'm willing to cut them a little slack if they wanted to go let her know how they felt about that.


YOU'RE willing to cut them a little slack?  Who the hell are you?
 
5 days ago  

dstanley: Mock26: Z-clipped: dstanley: Mock26: WastrelWay: I guess the mainstream media will tell us this is fake.

[Fark user image image 850x686]

Here is footage from video of the actual protest:

[Fark user image image 850x477]

If you go to Google street view (intersection of Porland Place and Kingshighway Boulevard) you can see it is the same gate, the top image taken from behind the gate and looking at the North side of Pershing Place) and the bottom image looking in from outside the gate.

In the protest video that gate is in fact intact. And have you done any sort of work iron fencing or iron gates? That stuff is pretty darned strong. It would take significant force, such as with a sledgehammer, to basically bend a gate half like that. So, do you still think that the protesters broke the gate to get inside when in fact the gate was actually open? Or perhaps this pair of lawyers did it after the fact to make it look like the protesters were in fact "storming the Bastille"?

[Fark user image 422x750]

*snert*

So the street the protesters went through the gate to walk on was, in fact, a public street and not private property at all.

No. Mr. Snert pinned the wrong street.

I was just laughing at "Ken and Karen", not trying to pin anything.


My apologies. Long couple of days, mind fried, as evidence by the number of mistakes made in some of my  posts! 

Yeah, "Ken and Karen's" business tag is an epic troll. I hope they never figure it out.
 
5 days ago  

mindset zero: A'isha P.: mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: Z-clipped: mindset zero: They are INSIDE a gated community.

NO THEY ARE NOT.  This neighborhood is HISTORIC and not gated.  There's a gate blocking one street entrance, but the actual access street that the residents use is ungated and the streets are, according to public zoning, public thoroughfares.

mindset zero: The housing management company that runs the gated community maintains the streets.

Then why is the city repaving them?  Evidence that contradicts everything you're saying has already been posted in the thread.  Please make with some proof of your claims or STFU.

Mock26: I am not defending the couple in the least big.

Oh I know.  I was just trying to be helpful.

https://www.stlmag.com/history/archite​cture/private-streets-of-st-louis/

That link doesn't say what you think it does.  These streets are closed to automobile traffic like many others in St. Louis. It is NOT A GATED COMMUNITY.  The homeowners DO NOT own the streets or sidewalks.  Their gate is just a more posh version of a Schoemehl pot.

[assets.bwbx.io image 850x637]

You can stubbornly insist over and over on your idiotic generalizations, but it won't make you right. The fact is, the assholes in TFA did not have the legal standing to do what they did, and since these closed streets have been hotly contested for a number of reasons for a long time, they may have inadvertently brought their own gates down for good.

Here save you some time.

St. Louis City Counselor Julian K. Bush affirmed that Portland, as well as several other streets in the West End, are indeed private.

"They are owned by the property owners, and the owners pay for them, the street repairs and maintenance," Bush said Monday.

Can I borrow that Gary meme?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.stlto​day.com/news/local/columns/joe-hollema​n/portland-place-where-couple-pointed-​guns-at-protesters-has-long-been-home-​to-wealthy-st/article_1764a072-9403-5b​1a-a452-ba5609608d56. ...


Easement is exactly why these streets cannot be considered fully private, and why the Pointy McGunnersons had no right to enforce ownership of the street and sidewalk.  They are in the middle of an urban area.  They are served by city and federal services on those streets.  They don't have the right to assume the intentions of, or block, potential visitors from the other houses in the neighborhood, and they DEFINITELY don't have the right to point guns at people walking past their residence.

The stated legal intention behind preserving these blocked streets all over St. Louis was to block vehicular traffic, not to make neighborhoods completely inaccessible to all outsiders.  If one of these protesters decides to pursue the incident legally, you can bet that the limits to the "private" nature of these streets will be made very clear, regardless of what some City Counselor has claimed to the media.
 
5 days ago  

pedrop357: A'isha P.: mindset zero: What is a easement Alex.

If you would describe a piece of property with an easement as having "multiple public and private" owners on a record document, I really hope you don't work in a records office someplace.

That "record document" isn't binding or authoritative the way you think is.


Oh look, it's Fark's resident example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, here with more bald assertions of how he thinks the world is/ought to be.

Roses are red, violets are blue
Some people don't think it be like it is, but it do.
 
5 days ago  

lack of warmth: maxandgrinch: WastrelWay: I guess the mainstream media will tell us this is fake.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 850x686]
You know, you can stand on your front porch with a gun to warn off people if you want. If you have to fire the gun at them, that's different.

It would easier to PULL the gate to make it bend at a fulcrum, than to push it with minimal traction and the chance of goring yourself when the metal does bend?

Perhaps the gate was pulled on from the inside?  Security cameras must be around in a high end 'hood like that.

Since video shows protestors walking through the gate undamaged, I'm leaning towards the lawyer damaged the gate himself, and got his security footage pulled so it can't be used against him.  Because there's no way there's not a camera on that gate.  Since no footage has come forward showing protestors did the damage, I'm sticking with that till it does.


You assume way too much. What most likely happened was that protesters damaged the gate shortly after they were told to get out, that they were trespassing on private property.
 
5 days ago  

waxbeans: HoratioGates: You can't even give them credit for handling it well assuming they thought they were about to be murdered.  If the mob is descending on your house you break out some windows and fire from inside.

???
What
????
If you are going to shoot, shoot to kill. Can't do that with an obstructed view. You wait till you see the whites of their beady eyes.


You want cover.  You stay behind the walls and shoot.  That said, someone needs to take these people's guns away.  

How about a new rule... people can have guns but if they want to take them anywhere they can only carry them shoved deep up their own anuses.  It serves several purposes... it should get rid of assault weapons, it should discourage people who don't need a gun from carrying them, it should slow down how quickly people can grab their guns so hopefully their tempers will calm down a bit, it should create a lot of DNA on the gun if it becomes a criminal investigation, and it should make it harder for someone else to grab your gun.
 
5 days ago  

Z-clipped: pedrop357: A'isha P.: mindset zero: What is a easement Alex.

If you would describe a piece of property with an easement as having "multiple public and private" owners on a record document, I really hope you don't work in a records office someplace.

That "record document" isn't binding or authoritative the way you think is.

Oh look, it's Fark's resident example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, here with more bald assertions of how he thinks the world is/ought to be.

Roses are red, violets are blue
Some people don't think it be like it is, but it do.


I wonder if he got his degree here:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
5 days ago  

waxbeans: HoratioGates: You can't even give them credit for handling it well assuming they thought they were about to be murdered.  If the mob is descending on your house you break out some windows and fire from inside.

???
What
????
If you are going to shoot, shoot to kill. Can't do that with an obstructed view. You wait till you see the whites of their beady eyes.


Riiiiight, which is exactly why are military teaches soldiers to just stand out in the open when they fight and to never ever seek cover.

/Sarcasm
//Obviously
///Duh
 
5 days ago  

Mock26: Z-clipped: pedrop357: A'isha P.: mindset zero: What is a easement Alex.

If you would describe a piece of property with an easement as having "multiple public and private" owners on a record document, I really hope you don't work in a records office someplace.

That "record document" isn't binding or authoritative the way you think is.

Oh look, it's Fark's resident example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, here with more bald assertions of how he thinks the world is/ought to be.

Roses are red, violets are blue
Some people don't think it be like it is, but it do.

I wonder if he got his degree here:

[Fark user image 850x213]


If you two are done sucking each other's dicks, you'll see that that's not an official document from the local government, it's not from the tax assessor, recorder, any sort of surveying office or company, etc.  It's an application to be included in the National Register of Historic Places.
 
5 days ago  

Z-clipped: Easement is exactly why these streets cannot be considered fully private, and why the Pointy McGunnersons had no right to enforce ownership of the street and sidewalk.  They are in the middle of an urban area.  They are served by city and federal services on those streets.  They don't have the right to assume the intentions of, or block, potential visitors from the other houses in the neighborhood, and they DEFINITELY don't have the right to point guns at people walking past their residence.

The stated legal intention behind preserving these blocked streets all over St. Louis was to block vehicular traffic, not to make neighborhoods completely inaccessible to all outsiders.  If one of these protesters decides to pursue the incident legally, you can bet that the limits to the "private" nature of these streets will be made very clear, regardless of what some City Counselor has claimed to the media.


There are many types of easements, and not all allow members of the public to traipse through.

Given the amount of attention focused on this case, I would have expected to see proof of an easement or other actual legal documents showing that this is either public property or open to the public at large.
 
5 days ago  
"'It's interesting to me that the very people that are asking the mayor to resign for doxxing people have now put all my information all over the web, all over the world. Is there some hypocrisy there? Maybe I'm missing something."
 
5 days ago  

WelldeadLink: "'It's interesting to me that the very people that are asking the mayor to resign for doxxing people have now put all my information all over the web, all over the world. Is there some hypocrisy there? Maybe I'm missing something."


They're following the Scientology play book - no bad tactics, only bad targets.
 
5 days ago  
I think in the near future, flashing one's opulence will become more of a risk than benefit.

Unless you're rich enough to afford security, perhaps you don't have to flaunt every buck you made.

Then go for those that can afford security- The Kardashians of the world needed to go a decade ago.
 
5 days ago  

scotchcrotch: I think in the near future, flashing one's opulence will become more of a risk than benefit.

Unless you're rich enough to afford security, perhaps you don't have to flaunt every buck you made.

Then go for those that can afford security- The Kardashians of the world needed to go a decade ago.


I don't think so comrade.  We're coming into the "fark around and find out" phase of things and more people than you realize are armed and not going to put up with too much more of this mob violence bullshiat.

Don't trespass, vandalize, rape, burn, loot, or murder and things will work out a lot better for you.
 
5 days ago  

pedrop357: scotchcrotch: I think in the near future, flashing one's opulence will become more of a risk than benefit.

Unless you're rich enough to afford security, perhaps you don't have to flaunt every buck you made.

Then go for those that can afford security- The Kardashians of the world needed to go a decade ago.

I don't think so comrade.  We're coming into the "fark around and find out" phase of things and more people than you realize are armed and not going to put up with too much more of this mob violence bullshiat.

Don't trespass, vandalize, rape, burn, loot, or murder and things will work out a lot better for you.


Ok, so then they'll shoot someone and go to trial for murdering a protester.

It'll be a huge story and whether they were in the right or not, their lived will be ruined.  They'll have to slip into anonymity and you can't exactly go incognito in a mansion.

That'll show'm!
 
5 days ago  

pedrop357: Mock26: Z-clipped: pedrop357: A'isha P.: mindset zero: What is a easement Alex.

If you would describe a piece of property with an easement as having "multiple public and private" owners on a record document, I really hope you don't work in a records office someplace.

That "record document" isn't binding or authoritative the way you think is.

Oh look, it's Fark's resident example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, here with more bald assertions of how he thinks the world is/ought to be.

Roses are red, violets are blue
Some people don't think it be like it is, but it do.

I wonder if he got his degree here:

[Fark user image 850x213]

If you two are done sucking each other's dicks, you'll see that that's not an official document from the local government, it's not from the tax assessor, recorder, any sort of surveying office or company, etc.  It's an application to be included in the National Register of Historic Places.


They seem pretty stubbornly invested in their point.  I'm fairly certain they will be along to triple down on their wrongness at any time.
 
5 days ago  

scotchcrotch: pedrop357: scotchcrotch: I think in the near future, flashing one's opulence will become more of a risk than benefit.

Unless you're rich enough to afford security, perhaps you don't have to flaunt every buck you made.

Then go for those that can afford security- The Kardashians of the world needed to go a decade ago.

I don't think so comrade.  We're coming into the "fark around and find out" phase of things and more people than you realize are armed and not going to put up with too much more of this mob violence bullshiat.

Don't trespass, vandalize, rape, burn, loot, or murder and things will work out a lot better for you.

Ok, so then they'll shoot someone and go to trial for murdering a protester.


If someone is doing any of the above, they're not a protester.  Threatening people will get you shot and you may not even be around to see if they face any consequences (they most likely will not).

It'll be a huge story and whether they were in the right or not, their lived will be ruined.  They'll have to slip into anonymity and you can't exactly go incognito in a mansion.

That'll show'm!


Doubtful.  It's not illegal to shoot someone who tries to hurt or kill you or burn your house down because you dare to "flaunt" your wealth.  If they live in a mansion, they can afford more guns and may be able to easily afford to hire security.
 
5 days ago  

pedrop357: scotchcrotch: pedrop357: scotchcrotch: I think in the near future, flashing one's opulence will become more of a risk than benefit.

Unless you're rich enough to afford security, perhaps you don't have to flaunt every buck you made.

Then go for those that can afford security- The Kardashians of the world needed to go a decade ago.

I don't think so comrade.  We're coming into the "fark around and find out" phase of things and more people than you realize are armed and not going to put up with too much more of this mob violence bullshiat.

Don't trespass, vandalize, rape, burn, loot, or murder and things will work out a lot better for you.

Ok, so then they'll shoot someone and go to trial for murdering a protester.

If someone is doing any of the above, they're not a protester.  Threatening people will get you shot and you may not even be around to see if they face any consequences (they most likely will not).

It'll be a huge story and whether they were in the right or not, their lived will be ruined.  They'll have to slip into anonymity and you can't exactly go incognito in a mansion.

That'll show'm!

Doubtful.  It's not illegal to shoot someone who tries to hurt or kill you or burn your house down because you dare to "flaunt" your wealth.  If they live in a mansion, they can afford more guns and may be able to easily afford to hire security.


If you took a second to research Missouri law you'd realize you're wrong.

You cant use deadly force to protect property in MO.
 
5 days ago  

scotchcrotch: pedrop357: scotchcrotch: pedrop357: scotchcrotch: I think in the near future, flashing one's opulence will become more of a risk than benefit.

Unless you're rich enough to afford security, perhaps you don't have to flaunt every buck you made.

Then go for those that can afford security- The Kardashians of the world needed to go a decade ago.

I don't think so comrade.  We're coming into the "fark around and find out" phase of things and more people than you realize are armed and not going to put up with too much more of this mob violence bullshiat.

Don't trespass, vandalize, rape, burn, loot, or murder and things will work out a lot better for you.

Ok, so then they'll shoot someone and go to trial for murdering a protester.

If someone is doing any of the above, they're not a protester.  Threatening people will get you shot and you may not even be around to see if they face any consequences (they most likely will not).

It'll be a huge story and whether they were in the right or not, their lived will be ruined.  They'll have to slip into anonymity and you can't exactly go incognito in a mansion.

That'll show'm!

Doubtful.  It's not illegal to shoot someone who tries to hurt or kill you or burn your house down because you dare to "flaunt" your wealth.  If they live in a mansion, they can afford more guns and may be able to easily afford to hire security.

If you took a second to research Missouri law you'd realize you're wrong.

You cant use deadly force to protect property in MO.


I'd LOVE to see how the state would justify prosecuting someone for defending themselves from a mob of people trying to hurt them or burn their house down.  Regardless of the law, someone who has decided to attack me or burn my house down will be shot and I will take my chances with any prospective jury.
 
5 days ago  

pedrop357: scotchcrotch: pedrop357: scotchcrotch: pedrop357: scotchcrotch: I think in the near future, flashing one's opulence will become more of a risk than benefit.

Unless you're rich enough to afford security, perhaps you don't have to flaunt every buck you made.

Then go for those that can afford security- The Kardashians of the world needed to go a decade ago.

I don't think so comrade.  We're coming into the "fark around and find out" phase of things and more people than you realize are armed and not going to put up with too much more of this mob violence bullshiat.

Don't trespass, vandalize, rape, burn, loot, or murder and things will work out a lot better for you.

Ok, so then they'll shoot someone and go to trial for murdering a protester.

If someone is doing any of the above, they're not a protester.  Threatening people will get you shot and you may not even be around to see if they face any consequences (they most likely will not).

It'll be a huge story and whether they were in the right or not, their lived will be ruined.  They'll have to slip into anonymity and you can't exactly go incognito in a mansion.

That'll show'm!

Doubtful.  It's not illegal to shoot someone who tries to hurt or kill you or burn your house down because you dare to "flaunt" your wealth.  If they live in a mansion, they can afford more guns and may be able to easily afford to hire security.

If you took a second to research Missouri law you'd realize you're wrong.

You cant use deadly force to protect property in MO.

I'd LOVE to see how the state would justify prosecuting someone for defending themselves from a mob of people trying to hurt them or burn their house down.  Regardless of the law, someone who has decided to attack me or burn my house down will be shot and I will take my chances with any prospective jury.


I didn't see any video of protesters coming on their lawn, much less threaten to burn their house down.

The street was private property but not their property.
 
5 days ago  

scotchcrotch: I didn't see any video of protesters coming on their lawn, much less threaten to burn their house down.

The street was private property but not their property.


Funny, this started as you talking about people shouldn't flaunt their wealth and I responded to that broad comment with a similarly broad comment, now you want to come back to the original topic?
 
5 days ago  

pedrop357: scotchcrotch: I didn't see any video of protesters coming on their lawn, much less threaten to burn their house down.

The street was private property but not their property.

Funny, this started as you talking about people shouldn't flaunt their wealth and I responded to that broad comment with a similarly broad comment, now you want to come back to the original topic?


Focus.  Don't turn this into a debate over semantics.  Stay on course.

Focus my young Padwan.
 
5 days ago  

camaroash: Why were they wrong? I'm torn... ish. Their strategy was weird, but they managed to successfully fend off hostile entities. Don't be a dick. If you're a dick, say hello to my little friend.


Were Georgia O'Keeffe still alive, she'd do an enormous painting of you.
 
Displayed 50 of 359 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
X
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.