So much for the "Castle Doctrine"

[George K]

Remember that couple who, on their private property, in a gated community (also private property) faced off with the rioters while brandishing firearms (which they never discharged?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-warrant-served-on-st-louis-couple-who-defended-private-property-guns-confiscated-report-says

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner, a Democrat, claimed that the McCloskey’s defending their private property was a “violent assault” and that authorities “will use the full power of Missouri law to hold people accountable.”

[George K]

Oh, the rioters in Missouri who were arrested?

No prosecution:

[Mik]

This is utter nonsense.

[Horace]

Anybody not down with the woke mob should realize that they should consider themselves to be an underground movement, and be careful what rights they exercise in public.

[Catseye3]

@Horace Wouldn't that be giving in? Is this not an era where the non-woke should boldly go?

[George K]

The warrant was to seize the weapons, not to arrest the couple, I should add.

[George K]

@George-K said in So much for the "Castle Doctrine":

The warrant was to seize the weapons, not to arrest the couple, I should add.

#molotovcocktaillivesmattertoo

[Horace]

@Catseye3 said in So much for the "Castle Doctrine":

@Horace Wouldn't that be giving in? Is this not an era where the non-woke should boldly go?

If anybody feels the need to prove something about themselves by standing up for their socially condemned principles in a completely useless manner, they are free to do so. Meanwhile, you'll find me at home.

[Catseye3]

@Horace said in So much for the "Castle Doctrine":

Meanwhile, you'll find me at home.

Until they come for you, anyway.

[Loki]

The article is so fucking helpful. It doesn’t say why the rifle was seized. What is the legal violation?

Another stupid piece where you have to look elsewhere if you want the relevant facts.

[Jolly]

Its in St. Louis, the Democrat enclave of Missouri. I don't see it sticking.

BTW, my nephew asked me the other day if I wanted a silencer. Whadya think, one for a .22 or one for a 9mm?

[Catseye3]

@Jolly said in So much for the "Castle Doctrine":

Whadya think, one for a .22 or one for a 9mm?

Wot the heck, get 'em both.

[Jolly]

@Catseye3 said in So much for the "Castle Doctrine":

@Jolly said in So much for the "Castle Doctrine":

Whadya think, one for a .22 or one for a 9mm?

Wot the heck, get 'em both.

$$$.

The 9 will give you more range and power, but it's louder, even if I load some 147g subsonic loads. And, it would be for a pistol, not a rifle.

OTOH, I can put a can on a .22 rifle, shoot CB's and it will be no louder than a mouse fart. I could drop a bullet in your ear from 40 yards and you'd never hear it.

[Catseye3]

@Jolly said in So much for the "Castle Doctrine":

I could drop a bullet in your ear from 40 yards and you'd never hear it.

I'd find a way to still be pissed off about it, though.

[Larry]

Not for long.....

[Friday]

I would go with the one that works, although it would be harder to go all ninja with a rifle.

[Rainman]

@Catseye3 said in So much for the "Castle Doctrine":

@Jolly said in So much for the "Castle Doctrine":

I could drop a bullet in your ear from 40 yards and you'd never hear it.

I'd find a way to still be pissed off about it, though.

[George K]

The McCloskeys were pardoned this week.

Rep. Cori Bush is unhappy.

Just a reminder from 6 weeks ago:

[Jolly]

Right decision.

They should never have been charged.

[Aqua Letifer]

What does “and that it wasn’t torn it down to attack my family” mean? Isn't that guy a lawyer?