Right, that's the point I'm making. The gate was still intact as the first group of protesters went through. The couple (at least the guy) was already armed at that point, as can clearly be seen in the video *before* the cut (still at 0:48 -
holding rifle).
Anyway, I don't see a point in continuing this conversation. Those who want to push a specific agenda generally don't let facts stand in their way.
You are asserting that McCloskey KNEW that the protesters DID NOT break the gate when he fetched his rifle.
So questions that need answers:
Could he see the condition of the gate from his house? Its hard to tell, but the house doesn't appear to be entirely visible from the gate, which implies that the gate might not be visible from the house.
Was the gate closed?
Was the gate locked?
Was the gate simply opened, or was a lock broken?
When was the gate broken?
The video starts after the protesters had already trespassed. It doesn't answer any of those questions, and isn't credible evidence anyway.
But the protesters WERE trespassing on private property.
But speaking of pushing agendas,
While the protesters were trespassing on a private street, it was clear they were marching directly down the street and sidewalk to the mayor's house, while yelling chants demanding the mayor resign. I would argue that no reasonable person would be in fear for their life in that situation.
You have deemed only yourself as being qualified to define a 'reasonable person'
You have anointed yourself as the adjudicator of all fact.
You base your facts on unauthenticated evidence.
You characterize those who disagrees with your 'facts' are either liars or stupid.
