I can't even imagine someone unironically saying "white power" or "white love" today, yet somehow it's acceptable for niggers to do the same.
But that's not racism, because they changed the definition of racism to include any expression of racial pride by a white person and to exclude any prejudice against white people.
Oh Christ, I should have read that better.
It talks about the couple "who pointed guns at protestors walking past their house", while neglecting to mention that the mob of "protestors" broke through an iron gate to storm their private property.
How can you read this shit? It's blatant propaganda.
>>3581355>>>I can't even imagine someone unironically saying "white power">>president literally retweets his supporters shouting "white power">b-b-but other things
okay, here we go
>while neglecting to mention that the mob of "protestors" broke through an iron gate to storm their private property.
reporters tend to "neglect" things that never happenedhttps://twitter.com/Ohun_Ashe/status/1277742108984647686
>How can you read this shit? It's blatant propaganda.
Reality has a well-documented liberal bias.
I'm sorry, I really need to stop giving you the benefit of the doubt before I post, so I don't have to delete my post and correct it with just how retarded you are.
I'm saying your source is so dishonest I'm just going to assume the whole thing is made up.
And then I thought you were making a point about dishonest right wing reporter, but no the tweet is just proof of exactly what I said: a bunch of protestors walking through a broken gate on the private property with the owner yelling at them to leave and them ignoring him.
The media made it sound like he approached them on public land and started waving guns in their faces.
>>3581374>a bunch of protestors walking through a broken gate
It's open, not broken. Get your eyes checked.
but enough of your deflection, and back to your original point>>I can't even imagine someone unironically saying "white power">president literally retweets his supporters shouting "white power"
Cool. I have a great Idea :
Give both groups all a shitton of free guns!
Also : The first jews where and am nothing but lazy bumfuck terrorist however the first original Christians are Black and in Ethiopia :https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/keepers-of-the-lost-ark-179998820/
why should I care
It's already "opened" by the time a crowd has already entered and the homeowner has had time to fetch his gun to yell away the rioters destroying his property.
A mob of people barge in to gated private property, and your source neglects this vital information. Only a mouth breathing retard would take this outlet at it's word after that. Why should I give them to give an unbiased interpretation of the fucking weather, let alone anything the president says or does.
Can you verify the president knew the full contents of the tweet, has he confirmed it?
Weird how it isn't broken after the protestors have entered.
>Only a mouth breathing retard would take this outlet at it's word after that.
Yeah, who am I to believe, you or my lying eyes?
>Can you verify the president
retweeting one of his supporters shouting "white power"? yes. Maybe you should ponder whether he was just "ironically" being racist.
It was broken after they left, showing they had no qualms with causing property damage. Whether it was broken before or after, it shows the homeowners were right to defend their property.
How do you prove he intended to retweet "white power"? I don't even take it as fact that he made the retweet, given the credibility of your source.
Also, is or is not <RACE> power a racist statement?
>>3581346>I can't even imagine someone unironically saying "white power" or "white love" today, yet somehow it's acceptable for niggers to do the same.
that's because whites are the oppressors. They have
the power. They choose to use it to hurt people not like them. That is why it's bad when they say it.
Here, let me translate it to conservative for you:
Imagine that a British soldier went up to George Washington before the war of independence and yelled "British Power! British love!" it would be bad because at the time, the British had all the power and were oppressing the Americans.
If George had said, "American Love! American Power!" it wouldn't have been bad because he was not the oppressor in that situation.
See how it works?
>>3581355>while neglecting to mention that the mob of "protestors" broke through an iron gate to storm their private property.
No they didn't. The protestors were walking down a sidewalk on the way to the home of a politician they were going to protest and the home owners went into white-panic because a black was near their house.
So yes it's racist, but white people deserve it?
You know, when slavery ended, black slaves were literally given their own country because the racists back then thought the blacks would be incapable of integrating. Go look up how Liberia is doing these days. Go live there if you find "white" America too oppressive.
And you do understand why racism is wrong, right? It's because it's an immutable characteristic. You do not choose it, and you can not change it. Judging people by their race denies them the right to self-associate, to be judged as individuals on their own merit. Contrast to that we have national identity, something you can change. People don't (or shouldn't) come to America to be a Britain in America, they come to America to be American, to self-associate with Americans, to take on the nation identity of an American.
Anyone can be an American. The first step is not stop isolating yourself and adopt the fucking culture.
Are you trying to look stupid to troll or are you actually that stupid? I am genuinely curious.
Well someone fucked up that gate. Whoever did that should have to pay for it.
>>3581386>best to stick to attacking the elderly and children instead.
BLM protestors shoot and kill 8 year old child in Atlanta. The car the child was riding in passed a parking lot of a previously burned out Wendys where the 'peaceful' protesters were still occupying.
Well done, that child will never be racist now.
It wasn't the protestors. Video proves it. It also proves they were not on his property.
He probably damaged the gate himself. Look at it, it's solid metal. He probably had to use power tools.
It was private property, as evidenced by the fucking gate.
Yes, I'm sure the guys protecting their private property broke their own gate. I'm sure it wasn't the mob invading it.
>>3581398>BLM protestors shoot and kill 8 year old child in Atlanta.
Funny how you leave out the fact that she drove around the barricades set up to protect the protestors from white people doing hit and runs like they have been doing since the start of the protests.
This is another case of people getting hurt because they drive their car in places where they clearly are not supposed to drive their car.
It was unfortunate but it was ultimately her own fault. Don't drive through barricades. Something bad will probably happen. It seems like a simple concept.
It's almost like we have laws, police, traffic laws, and civilization to prevent this shit.
People who protest by blocking traffic deserve to be hit by cars, though.
>>3581404>People who protest by blocking traffic deserve to be hit by cars, though.
We'll remember that next time you have a right-wing rally.
3B is being dishonest here. The barricades were illegally set up by the BLM thugs that are trespassing. When the car stopped at the barrier in what is a public thoroughfare, they lit up the car and the child.
3B is absolutely disgusting trying to excuse the murder of a child.
I know you're just trolling, but just for the record, she was a black child who was shot and killed while sitting in a car in a parking lot across the street from the protest.https://www.ajc.com/news/reaction-the-shooting-death-year-old-secoriea-turner/W5LsV3zv89r2rHERpapfIN/
Whoever killed Secoriea Turner should be apprehended and tried by a jury of their peers.
This is not THEIR personal property - It's not like the protesters broke their personly owned gate and were walking through their yard. It is, however a 'private street'. A gated community of sorts.
Is right at the entrance
I stand by that. Right of left, get the fuck off the street. You don't have a right to block my movement on a whim.>>3581416
Regardless, the protestors had zero right to be there. The homeowners have the right to be there and defend it at the behest of the property owners, and until I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume they have that authorization.
Except your wrong because, as usual, you never bothered to do any research on what actually happened. She turned OFF the main road and drove into a blocked off parking lot where a group of armed men shot up her car.
We don't know anything about the people who shot up the car.
Won't be on a fucking freeway, that's for damn sure.
The award for number one role models for getting arrested goes to, black people again.
Pulling up random shit on Google is not an argument when you ignore all context of that information. Private property is private property. The sign only verifies this fact. The mere presence of a street doesn't suddenly make it public access unless they explicitly grant the public access to use their street, if for example they desire traffic police to patrol and enforce on that street, which as that sign shows: they don't.
Problem is that the people that pulled the guns on the protestors don't own the property where the protestors were marching.
That's irrelevant. The relevant part is that the protestors did not own it, and nor was it public.
nah, it's entirely relevant when the snowflakes lied to the police that the protestors broke down "their gate" (not their gate, and it wasn't broken down) and trespassed on their property (not their property) to justify brandishing their weapons (illegally)
I've already addressed these arguments, retard. >>3581392
>>3581471>don't own the property
Learn what a common area is in real estate law. It is owned collectively by the tenets of the private neighborhood.
who's to say the property "owners" (not actually the owners of that property) didn't damage the gate themselves? they've already been caught lying before.>>3581481>Learn >tenets
Tenants, yes. Where's your counter argument? Where's your evidence? Do you have anything other than speculation?
>>3581470>Private property is private property.>The presence of a street doesn't grant public access.
Actually, it does. All roads are public access. If someone wants to drive up and down your private street all day long there is not a God damn thing you can do about it. It's only when they step onto your lawn or in your house that you have rights.
Private land laws don't apply to roads or sidewalks and the fact you are arguing this well known legal fact that is universal across the entire united states, just shows how desperate you are to find ANY excuse to protect these rich, white, assholes.
You are a cuck of amazing proportions.
The land they want to get all shooty about isn't theirs in full or in part. It's owned by the Portland Place Trustees (iow, not them). They've even brought out guns before to threaten other residents
, claiming adverse possession (a.k.a. squatter's rights).https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/tony-messenger/messenger-this-wasn-t-the-first-time-the-mccloskeys-pulled-a-gun-to-protect-property/article_fc2a31b1-5f7b-55d5-83e3-8b3ca1211c7c.html
>Do you have anything other than speculation?
project a little less, hon
>>3581438>blocked off parking lot
parking lots are public access and you cant just ILLEGALLY block public areas for your personal benefit - nevermind your monstrous attempt to excuse the murder of a child.>>3581484
>All roads are public access
PRIVATE roads are not PUBLIC access. The street is privately owned. Your sense of entitlement does not grant you ownership or access. Good for those people trying to defend their neighborhood from those criminals.
By all the Elder Gods, you are stupid.
Hundreds of protesters returned Friday to the home of the couple who confronted demonstrators with firearms on June 28 in St. Louis, Missouri.
“Protesters marched along the busy public boulevard called Kingshighway, which intersects with Portland Place, a private street that is the site of the Renaissance palazzo-style home of Mark McCloskey, 61, and his 63-year-old wife, Patricia,” according to Yahoo! News.
The article continued:
Chanting protesters on Friday stopped at the gate just outside the McCloskeys’ home for about 15 minutes. The gate that closes the private street to non-residents and extra metal barriers blocked the entrance to Portland Place, where the protesters had walked earlier in the week on their way to the mayor’s home nearby.
Inside the gate, more than a dozen men in plain clothes walked the grounds and peered out from a second-floor balcony of the couple’s home. One protester briefly straddled an iron gate as if he was going to jump over, but did not. No one threw anything and no one behind the gates showed aggression. One man on the McCloskeys’ balcony clapped along with the chanting protesters.
However, it was not immediately known if the McCloskey’s were at home when the march took place.
Friday night, photojournalism major Jennifer Sarti shared video footage of the protesters marching outside the Portland Place neighborhood:
“If we don’t get no justice, then they don’t get no peace,” the group chanted.
During a protest on June 28, the McCloskey’s used an AR-15 and pistol to defend their home when demonstrators allegedly broke through a gate near the house.
“I was literally afraid that within seconds they would surmount the wall, and come into the house, kill us, burn the house down and everything that I had worked for and struggled for for the last 32 years,” Mark McCloskey later told Fox News’s Tucker Carlson.
“I saw it all going up in flames, and my life destroyed in an instant. And I did what I thought I had to do to protect my hearth, my home and my family,” he added.
Friday’s protest was reportedly organized by the group ExpectUs, a “grassroot organization based out of st.Louis fighting for justice,” its Twitter page read.
Why are these animals harassing elderly couples? They're like fucking monkeys posturing. Someone showed defiance, so they have to punish them.
Would have had to have been extremely specialist power tools.i have a few special toys from the makita line, like an sds max. I know the whole line. It looks more like a ram or a utility tractor, but if that were the case people would have been screaming back flag right with some sort of video by by standers.
I could see it be done with heavy hammers, just not faked with all the cameras around.
Most power tools that could put that kind of force behind them battery powered are shearing not ripping and lifting. There aren't any signs of the other type in any of the videos… just saying, as a former military and industrial worker.
No conveniently hidden power tool could do that.
The only thing I will say is there is no scrape line along where the prong is, confusing, but it's clearly an ornamental gate, so meh. Just playing devils advocate.
And I'm not saying by force mind you, they may have just never bothered locking the gate. Doesnt explain the damage, the riotors might just not have checked. Just trying to look at every angle. I support the ones defending their home full heartedly, but people have a tendency to o er exaggerate and I'm looking at minor details.
>>3581488>PRIVATE roads are not PUBLIC access.
You keep saying that but no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't change the law. Privately owned roads are public access. Who pays to keep the road paved doesn't change that you aren't allowed to stop people from driving on it.
If the law worked the way you think
it works, America would be a series of roads owned by people who set up toll booths that you have to feed coins to for the right to drive on it.
>>3581490>Someone showed defiance, so they have to punish them.
Exactly. And it worked.
Welcome to 2020.
>>3581484>>3581505>All roads are public access.
That is absolutely false and absurd. Again, the mere presence of a road does not grand you access to it. If I buy a plot of land with my own funds, and then pave a road on it with my own funds, no where do you have legal right to walk or drive on it without my permission. The city may not recognize it, so there won't be police patrolling it or other such benefits, but there is jack shit you as a member of the public can do about it.>owned by people who set up toll booths that you have to feed coins to for the right to drive on it
But toll roads and bridges literally exist and you do have to pay to access them. Why are you providing evidence against yourself?
How about an exercise. Try waltzing up to the front door of the White House and see how far you get. I assure it is paved with asphalt and concrete just as public roads are. What happens? You will be charged with trespassing and physically removed, if not outright blocked by…a gate. Where's your freedom then? You sound like a sovereign citizen. So far all you have done is cite a random Google search result taken out of context, because, yes, SOME roads are privately funded and publicly accessed. Where is this elusive universal law you are referring to that claims ALL stretches of pavement are de facto deemed for public use?>>3581485>iow, not them
That doesn't negate the law of a common area and the collective rights they already hold. They physically must utilize the surrounding shared area to access their individual property, therefore they share rights to that shared area. They're simply trying to exert exclusive rights to a small portion of that shared land, just as they already have exclusive rights to everything within the bounds of their yard. The case is still pending meaning the judge could still decide in their favor, so you cannot claim yet they don't have such exclusive rights, nor can we claim conclusively that they do. We'll see.>>3581493
The gate is visibly rusty, it would not take much force to break the welds.
>>3581507>That is absolutely false and absurd. Again, the mere presence of a road does not grand you access to it.
Yes, it does! Think about it, you moron! If you are someone who lives at the end of a road owned by someone who lives at the entrance to the road, should that person be allowed to make it illegal for you and your friends to travel too and from your house?
The definition of a "Private Street" that you seem to think is real is nonsense. It would never work and if you stop and think about it logically for one God damn second you would realize that.
You are being stupid. Stop.
Stop being stupid and think for yourself.
How do you imagine that the roads you imagine to be real would work?
You park in one of my driveways or drive one of my roads, and I'll have you arrested for trespassing and then sue you for unjustified enrichment by its use. I also do not want you getting your fool self injured on my road because of liability reasons."The most common types of private road are residential roads maintained by a homeowners association, housing co-op, or other group of individual homeowners, and industrial roads maintained by a corporation for access to an industrial facility.
Go into an industrial site and see what happens.
If you buy a house with no road access, that's your fault for being a retard, retard.
If you have a house with no road access because you are a retard and your neighbor builds a road on his own private property for his own private use, you are not entitled to use his road, retard.
Not that this ever actually happens because most people aren't as dumb as you and know to ensure their house will have road access, that they will at least have an agreement with a private road's owner if the roads are not public.
>>3581565>you are not entitled to use his road, retard
Not necessarily their road, but if accessing your property requires crossing someone else's they are, under common law, required to grant you some form of access.
>>3581557>You park in one of my driveways
I think this is your confusion. Drive ways lead exclusively to one property and yes, those are legally covered by trespassing laws.
Roads connect multiple properties so no one person or group of people can define who is allowed to travel on it.
It doesn't matter if you own the road or not, no one is allowed to restrict the freedom of other people traveling to other properties.
>>3581557>"The most common types of private road are…
Let's break these down one at a time so you idiots can grasp what to the rest of us is a very simple concept…
>residential roads maintained by a homeowner/group of homeowners…
Even though these roads are owned by the community and kept up by the community, the community still had no legal right to say you can't drive on it.
You THINK they do because gated communities exist but gated communities don't restrict your legal right to drive on the road with a law. They put a physical barrier between you and the road. It's the gate
that restricts your access, not the law. The gate
stops you because while it is legal to drive on the private road, it is not legal to destroy the gate.
If the law worked the way you imagine it does, there would be no need for the gate.
>industrial roads maintained by a corporation for access to an industrial facility.
I covered this in the previous post. Yes, it is legal to consider a road that leads exclusively to your property to be part of your private property so it falls under trespassing laws. These "Private roads" are little more than very long driveways, legally speaking.
Is that simple enough for you? Roads connect multiple properties and can't be restricted, only blocked.
Drives lead to only one property and can be counted as private property. Get it?
Yeah, we were all thinking it, but to just ascribe blame without proof is disingenuous at best.>>3581401
If you were out to build a narrative of harassment against you or to justify your own very strange, very paranoid actions, you definitely might destroy a gate. Hell, you guys paint this narrative fucking constantly when you talk about Rabbis spraypainting swastikas on synagogues.
>>3581622>If the law worked the way you imagine it does, there would be no need for the gate.
Yes there would. Law doesn't stop people from driving through an un-gated road.
>Even though these roads are owned by the community and kept up by the community, the community still had no legal right to say you can't drive on it.
Yes they do. The roads inside the gated community are entirely private and the city doesn't have the right to enforce traffic laws there. A private citizen hasn't got the right to put a gate or a barrier on a public road, so necessarily all the streets inside a gated community must be private, and the law that says anyone can drive there stops applying.
There are certain exceptions which allow the city/county to step in, depending on the state, such as when the size of the community grows beyond a certain number of property owners, or because a certain percentage of the owners request that the city starts enforcing traffic law within the community - but the community can usually still pick and choose which parts of the law apply.
It can be that the entire community belongs to a single property owner and everyone else are their tenants, in which case all the roads in the community lead exclusively to one property, and are indeed legally speaking "very long driveways" with or without the gate. The same thing happens when all the people in the community incorporate, and the corporation owns the entire community as a single entity. There's various legal ways to make it so that trespassing laws apply regardless.
Example:https://www.justanswer.com/topics-gated-community/>>I live in South Carolina in a gated community. Since we have a private internal road system, can this be considered private property and can we bar specific contractors from our premises?
>Your community would be under control of a homeowners’ association. Thus, the common property, which includes roads and land that does not legally belong to any one individual, would be considered private property and the HOA would regulate it. Therefore, they would have the right to restrict access to the premises.
>A gated community that consists of privately owned property, property that is common to the HOA, as well as private roads, does possess the rights to say who may visit the property. This is how it would work: Individual land owners can control who steps on to their private land unless they have give up any rights to this in the HOA by-laws, and the HOA can prevent specific persons from trespassing on the common property that belongs to the HOA.
>>3581555> If you are someone who lives at the end of a road owned by someone who lives at the entrance to the road, should that person be allowed to make it illegal for you and your friends to travel too and from your house?
It's not a question of "should", they already are allowed to deny your entrance through their property, because it's their property. You have to build a new road around them, or make a contract for the use of the road, or buy a stake in their property to become equal co-owners to the road.
I didn't realize the GOP was kidnapping people and forcing them to attend. Kidnapping and forcing people to addend your convention should be illegal. Where are the fucking cops to arrest these criminals?
>>3581679>The roads inside the gated community are entirely private and the city doesn't have the right to enforce traffic laws there.
You are delusional. The law doesn't stop at the gates of private property. You are living in some kind of libertarian fantasy world. I assure you, if you commit a crime inside your private community you'll go to prison just the same as outside the gates.
>all the people in the community incorporate, and the corporation owns the entire community as a single entity… and are indeed legally speaking "very long driveways"
This is true in very, very, rare cases where the entire area is owned by one group. Usually a criminal origination and the only people who live there MUST be part of the corporation.
But in the case of the crazy racist and his wife waving their guns at people, it wasn't the case. They lived next to the house where a government official was housed on land owned by the U.S. Government.
They were not in a co-op or a corporate entity, they were just white people being fucking nuts so again, your argument is invalid. They were on a private road that connected to publicly owned property so it was public access.
This big shindig has been canceled.
Are these people stupid or are they pretending?
If they lived under socialism, there would be no furries, no fursuits, no anything.
There would only be "Get your lazy ass to the factory comrade." Also "Pay your bachelor tax or crank out babies to be future workers for the glorious leader". Sounds like fun.
Given how leftists acted with the tiniest bit of unchecked power given to them during corona lockdown, it definitely sounds like they are still power-hungry psychotic bureaucrats.
>>>The roads inside the gated community are entirely private and the city doesn't have the right to enforce traffic laws there.
You are delusional. The law doesn't stop at the gates of private property. You are living in some kind of libertarian fantasy world. I assure you, if you commit a crime inside your private community you'll go to prison just the same as outside the gates.
"I assure you" that laws applied on public roads DON'T apply to private property. Please show me the police lined up citing all the Formula I drivers for speeding and reckless operation.
>>3581924>>the right to enforce traffic laws there>>the right to enforce traffic laws there>>TRAFFIC LAWS
Now this really varies state by state and country by country, but private roads are generally not subject to traffic laws unless they are specially designated as private roads with public access.
That's why you can drive a car with no license plates in the woods on dirt roads. If somebody decides to lay down some concrete or asphalt on his bumfuck nowhere private property, it doesn't magically turn into a public road.
There's a good chance a "gated community" does not fall under road open for public use, since it isn't.
>>3581924>You are delusional. The law doesn't stop at the gates of private property.
Yep, just the traffic laws. It's a private property, and beyond the gate you're trespassing.
>You are living in some kind of libertarian fantasy world. I assure you, if you commit a crime inside your private community you'll go to prison just the same as outside the gates.
Oh, hi 3B. I recognized it was you from the way you make things up and then argue against your own imagination.
>>3581698> your argument is invalid. They were on a private road that connected to publicly owned property so it was public access.
Private road = no public access. What part of "private" do you not understand?
As explained a number of times, just because a road connects to a public road does not give you the right to go there.
Capitalism doesn't have a goal, it has freedom for each individual to pursue his or her own ventures. It's not some centrally planned economy where you are assigned labour.
I know the concept of choosing to work for your own personal benefit and not having assigned/forced labour is a foreign concept to communists.
>>3581935>As explained a number of times, just because a road connects to a public road does not give you the right to go there.
You keep saying it, but it's still not true.
Fucking google it yourself if you don't believe me. You can't buy land with a road on it then become the dictator of who gets to drive on it. If someone else's property is attached to that land everyone has the right to drive on your road.
The ONLY time you get to control who drives on your property is when that road leads EXCLUSIVELY to your property. That's the difference between a road and a driveway. It doesn't matter if it's a long drive driveway, or a short driveway, what defines your legal right to control it is that it only leads exclusively to your property.
In this case - that was not true.
You're wrong. Accept it.
Licensed surveyor here. A few legal points.
>>You keep saying it, but it's still not true.
Yes, it is.
>>Fucking google it yourself if you don't believe me. >>You can't buy land with a road on it then become the dictator of who gets to drive on it.
The ONLY way people can legally use a road on your property is if YOU GRANT THEM THAT RIGHT. This is a legal process called granting an easement or right-of-way. It is almost always paid for, and has to be written into the property's deed and recorded. It doesn't just happen. If you buy property with a road on it, (or build one yourself) and there isn't a description of an easment for that road on the deed then YES, YOU ARE the dictator of who gets to use that road.
>>If someone else's property is attached to that land everyone has the right to drive on your road.
Nope, it's yours. no one has the right to use it or trespass on it unless you okay it, either with personal permission, or through a legally recorded, bought-and-paid-for documentation, which YOU agree with.