Police arrest a protester, who was demanding the criminal indictment of a white police officer who shot dead an unarmed black teenager in August, after she was among others blocking traffic outside the Ferguson Police Station in Missouri November 20, 2014. REUTERS/Adrees Latif

The U.K. Daily Mail is a lurid tabloid… but they do have the tendency to print those more controversial news stories that the American mainstream media refuses to cover, including the sickening revelation that some of the agitators in the St. Louis area who are awaiting the grand jury decision into the shooting death of Michael Brown are threatening to rape the wives and murder the children of police officers, according to an officer’s wife.

Protesters in Ferguson have been threatening to rape the wives of front line police and kill their children during the latest clashes, the wife of one officer has claimed.

The unnamed woman said that her husband has been ‘screamed at’ as he faced off with the angry crowds amid heightened tensions in the suburb of St Louis, Missouri.

She told Fox 2 News that they threatened a home invasion in an apparent attempt to provoke the officers.

The wife claimed the protesters said: ‘We’re going to go to your house. ‘We`re going to rape your wives then we`re going to kill them and we`re going to kill your children’.

These terrorist threats were made by a mob that has created what can only be described as a cultish mythology around the August incident, in which 6’3″, 292 lbs,  strong-arm robbery suspect Michael Brown attacked Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson in his vehicle, and was shot in a struggle over the officer’s gun.

Protesters shout towards police as they demand the criminal indictment of a white police officer who shot dead an unarmed black teenager in August, outside the Ferguson Police Station in Missouri November 20, 2014. REUTERS/Adrees Latif

After the in-vehicle shooting in which two shots were fired and Brown was struck once at contact distance, Brown then attempted to flee, and what happened next is the subject of fierce debate.

Some witnesses claim that Officer Wilson then shot Brown in the back, and then “murdered” him as Brown had his hands raised to surrender. Forensics have proven that all shots that hit Brown, without exception, came from the front, suggesting that these eyewitness accounts are suspect, at best.

Other witnesses have claimed from day one that Brown ignored Officer Wilson’s commands, and was advancing on Officer Wilson, perhaps intent on attacking him again, when the officer fired at him, eventually dropping Brown with a final, fatal head shot fired from within ten yards.

Brown supporters have created absurd parodies of both two men, where Brown is a near messianic martyr who was “murdered” for simply walking in the street, and Officer Wilson is a bloodthirsty monster who was out to murder Brown simply because he was black.

Reality, of course, lies somewhere in the middle.

Some of dozens of activists, wearing masks, block traffic while protesting the shooting of Michael Brown, outside the Ferguson Police Station in Missouri, November 19, 2014. REUTERS/Adrees Latif

While it is perfectly acceptable for protesters to make their feelings known about the shooting, threatening officers and their families goes far beyond the boundaries of acceptable protest. Death threats and threats of sexual assault are not acceptable forms of protest.

These are acts of terrorism, plain and simple.

In this heavily charged environment, with increasingly provocative rhetoric from radicals threatening crime and violence if a grand jury does not agree to lynch a police officer as the mob demands, it is important to remember that every American has an inalienable right to self-defense.

Citizens may use firearms to defend themselves against raging mobs if these agitators become a credible threat to human lives.

Sadly, the vast majority of peaceful protesters who simply want their voices heard and their displeasure known are having their lives put at risk thanks to these violent radicals (including communists, militant anarchists, racial superiority groups, and opportunistic criminals) who appear to have the intent of turning protests into riots, and if they can, may launch ambushes reminiscent of guerrilla war.

Residents in the St. Louis area have armed themselves for their defense, as is their natural right. Others around the nation are doing the same.

We continue to hope that cooler heads prevail, and that any protests that result from the grand jury’s decision are peaceful.

If they are not peaceful, those who have elected to become violent criminals have only themselves to blame if they force their fellow citizens to defend themselves.