Charges filed against St. Louis couple who brandished guns at protesters
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A husband and wife caught on video brandishing firearms at Black Lives Matter protesters outside their St. Louis home were charged with a felony Monday.
Mark and Patricia McCloskey were each charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner, according to a statement and documents from her office. The couple forfeited their weapons to police earlier this month after a warrant was issued.
The decision to file charges came after an investigation into the June 28 confrontation by St. Louis police, Gardner said in a statement Monday.
"It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in nonviolent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis," Gardner said.
Her office said it is willing to recommend a diversion program for the couple, a deal that avoids a court trial and conviction record often offered for first-time offenders of certain non-violent crimes.
"I believe this would serve as a fair resolution to this matter," Gardner said in her statement. "We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation will not be tolerated."
Attorney Joel Schwartz, who is defending the couple, said in a statement to NBC News on Monday that he feels "unequivocally" that no crime was committed.
"I, along with my clients, support the First Amendment right of every citizen to have their voice and opinion heard," Schwartz said in his statement. "This right, however, must be balanced with the Second Amendment and Missouri law, which entitle each of us to protect our home and family from potential threats."
Protesters entered the affluent St. Louis neighborhood of West Central End through a gate that opened onto Portland Place, according to the criminal complaint Monday. Protesters were then confronted by the McCloskeys, who stood on their property with a semi-automatic rifle and handgun.
A statement released on behalf of the couple after video of the incident circulated on social media said the McCloskeys were "in fear of imminent harm."
Police have said that the McCloskeys told officers during an interview that the protesters were yelling obscenities and threats of harm as they broke into the neighborhood.
Daniel Shular, a freelance photojournalist who was at the protest, disputed the account. Schular said he didn't see anyone breaking into the neighborhood and recalled seeing protesters simply strolling through an open gate.
"I kind of turned around to take some pictures of people coming through the gate, then I turned back around and by then he had his long gun in his hand," Shular told NBC News at the time. "And the woman came out with a pistol and started pointing it with her finger on the trigger at everybody."
The Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a brief Monday seeking to dismiss the charges against the couple based on Castle Doctrine law, according to a release from his office. The brief states that citizens have the right to use firearms "to defend one's person, family, home and property" and the law authorizes them to use firearms to deter assailants.
"This provides broad rights to Missourians who are protecting their property and lives from those who wish to do them harm," Schmitt said in a news release. "Despite this, Circuit Attorney Gardner filed charges against the McCloskeys, who, according to published reports, were defending their property and safety."
Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said in an interview with "Marc Cox Morning Show" on 97.1 FM on Saturday that he'd consider a pardon for the couple if they were convicted of a crime from the incident.
We will not allow law-abiding citizens to be targeted for exercising their constitutional rights. https://t.co/6t5dUxdVgp — Mike Parson (@mikeparson) July 18, 2020
Parson told the interviewers that the couple had a right to protect themselves and that Gardner was making the situation "more political" with possible charges. When asked whether he could pardon the couple upon a conviction, Parson said that he expected he would.
"Right now, that's what I feel," Parson said. "You don't know until you hear all the facts and all that, but right now, if this is all about going after them because they did a lawful act, then yeah. If that scenario kept, then I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail."
Tags
Who is online
91 visitors
The "non-violent" protestors had already torn down the gate and entered what is legally considered private property. This case is going nowhere except as evidence of Abuse of Power against the CA.
The only thing they got really is poor weapons handling. I'm sure that's what they'll hang their hat on.
Which i hope goes nowhere except maybe some mandatory gun handling training.
Have to agree with that. From what I saw in the limited video, the woman definitely had no training whatsoever concerning firearms. The guy wasn't much better. Not that I'm against them defending their bank building, I mean house, but the way they handled their weapons was piss poor. They are an argument for gun training before being allowed to own one.
I would say at about the 300 yard mark , there would be a sign that read ,"if you can read this , you are in range and on private property".
300 yards inside private property is 3 football fields worth of distance to reconsider ones actions , and realize there are no , absolutely no constitutionally protected rights of any kind on private property.
LOL, no, I was just pointing out that it looked like a bank, not a house. What it looked like makes no difference.
If the troublemakers were not where they had no right to be then this would not have happened
I am sure she would love to avoid a trial that will make her look dumber than she already does. If I am the couple I let it go to court and then sue her, and the city, for damages. The only one that needs a diversion program is her.
Non violent protesters- the left have been drinking their own Kool-aid for far too long.
Cant say I know anything about the MO bar assoc. but pretty sure once felony charges were brought their lic to practice law would have been suspended until the matter was concluded .
This story is essentially theater. The governor of Missouri has said he will pardon the McCloskey's if they are convicted of anything.
That said, from what I am seeing they probably are guilty of trying to intimidate peaceful protesters. I think they went for their guns the instant they saw protesters coming through the gate and had them visible to the protesters before any protester said one word to them. I think this will be shown to be the fact in court.
Here are some other observations from a Washington Post story yesterday.
In a purely objective sense, a prosecution of these two seems warranted. They threatened people that were not threatening them. But obviously this is a case that will go nowhere in terms of punishment, and since the prosecutor got the benefit of a national news story about it and many people will see the two as guilty, the best course of action might be to let the matter die on the vine.
You don't know that they were peaceful. The gate was broken. Does that sound peaceful to you?
And you've got the cart before the horse. The "peaceful" protestors were already trespassing. Trespassing is against the law. The property owners called the police, the police wouldn't respond so they very legally tried to protect their own property.
The day that becomes illegal in the US all bets are off. It will be anarchy. Just like Chicago everywhere.
"video obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch shows that the gate to Portland Place was open when the protesters arrived. "
What happened was as soon as they saw protesters enter the area, they went and got their guns and made them visible to the protesters. They did that BEFORE any threat was made to them ( and evidently no threat was ever made to them or their property).
If the law says that the the brandishment of a weapon must be done only as a response to an actual threat then they will be convicted. No one threatened them.
The truth of the matter is these two are "entitled" rich people who didnt want common urban trash getting near their nice stuff. "Near" in this case means the street that passes by their five story mansion.
Are you in the habit of walking through an open gate onto private property? Do you trash an open gate when you walk through it?
It still doesn't add up John. Even IF the gate was already open.
You don't know that any more than i do.
Time will tell. All i really care is that the real truth comes out.
IMO, the city will very be lucky if they don't get their pants sued off over this ......
What so many on the left seem ignorant of or choose to ignore is the fact that those said "peaceful" protesters were themselves allegedly armed. If I saw a group of people armed coming to my house, I'd break out mine in return as well.
Since when do peaceful protesters walk around armed, especially on private property?
I read a article that mistakenly said the protesters were armed. I was wrong, my apologies.
Let's see it John...............................
"video obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch shows that the gate to Portland Place was open when the protesters arrived. "
[removed]
Nope. Tried. Now, you made the claim. Please prove it with the video of the gate prior. It's up to you.
Thanks in advance..........................
And you and others were shown there were two gates. One on either side of the road entry.
Now please see your way out of this as I asked John where he got his information not you what you dreamed about last night............................
Thanks
That said, from what I am seeing they probably are guilty of trying to intimidate peaceful protesters. I think they went for their guns the instant they saw protesters coming through the gate and had them visible to the protesters before any protester said one word to them.
The moment they came through the gate in a threatening manner, they were trespassing upon private property. This situation escalated from allegedly peaceful to one of threatening the couple upon their own property.
The videos that we have seen all show the protesters marching peacefully ON THE STREET and not setting foot on the mansion property.
You cant just make shit up Greg. How about you get off your ass and find some evidence that supports your belief that the protesters threatend the couple or their mansion.
There is clearly a sign posted at the gate that says PRIVATE STREET NO TRESSPASSING. Mobs who ignore the law and damage property are a threat...not peaceful. Peaceful would have been standing outside the gate on public property.
Did you fail to see the high lighted part of the sentence where YOU said they came through the gate!
As soon as they passed the gate the protesters broke the law. Apparently they need to get back to college and take a remedial reading course.
Problem with that argument is the property lines from another post here show that the mansion property does in fact go across the street, so even though on the road , they were still on private property. which they were informed and seems not to be believed.
If the people had followed the road to the left and not the right , they would not have been on the couples private property, but someone elses .
Well I do understand easements for fellow property owners , since I live on such a dirt road , that easement does not extend to the general public though, no gates or signage required here, but generally if someone comes down the road they are generally visiting the neighbors above me or are very lost .
Just because there is a paved road , doesn't mean just anyone can acsess it .
They didn't even have to break any gate , to be guilty of trespass, private or communal , and since it was out of municipal jurisdiction , it still makes it trespass , which they were informed .
LOL well that entirely depends on the agreements I have with my immediate neighbors .
devil is in the details as they say.
Peaceful protesters that tore down a gate (don't care if it was open or not) and entered private property illegally.
The left's definition of "non violent" and "peaceful" sucks.
Thing is the castle doctrine , and the stand your ground provisions of the law can stand alone separately and in conjunction to one another , meaning they can be used seperately or together .
Even with all the national media it will likely be difficult for any prosecutor to get a conviction since all those charged with have to say , not prove is they had a reasonable fear of violence being done to them that involved injury or death, the prosecutor would have to show that they in fact did not have that reasonable fear.
From what I have read and my understanding is that the felony charges brought carry a 5 year sentence if found guilty and convicted, It is also my understanding that the CA has stated they will be going for no time served , or fines to what I gather is an offer of a plea deal.
My MSN poll I get every day had 2 questions on this matter yesterday , and since this is largely a case being tried in the court of public opinion , the results to the questions , one being should the couple be charged , 56% said no , and where the couple within their right , 73% said they were , did not surprise me in the slightest.
Personally I think it will be interesting to see if this even really comes to trial given the governor has stated if convicted he will issue a pardon, nullifying any conviction, and It will also be interesting to see if the accused choose a jury trial and go the route of jury nullification of the prosecutor and the charges that appear to be politically motivated .
Simply my opinion and it will be very interesting to see how it plays out .
The defense rests, Your Honor.
That woman needs some serious weapons handling training. That's what they ought to indict her for.
Ha. She looks like if she would shoot the weapon she would hit herself in the face.
He looks like he's going to shoot her and she looks like she's watering the flowers
Letter from neighbors condemns Central West End couple
Irrelevant gossip.
I agree, that's what most of your comments are.
Cheers.
Who gives a fuck?
Seriously, the law is on the couples side- not those the entered the property illegally and were trespassing; nor the uniformed indignant neighbors.
The neighbors who actually live there and know the couple unlike you who does not live there or know a damn thing about them.
LOL, too funny. You know nothing about them at all yet you feel you're intelligent enough to call them uninformed..
And you know nothing about them and yet are apparently prepared to believe everything they say.
There's an old Robert Frost saying from a poem that applies here:
"Good fences make good neighbors"
That wasn't written because all neighbors automatically get along that's for sure.
Actually I do know something about one family that lives there. There old friends of ours.
There is also an old saying about making assumptions.
Cheers.
Hmmmm ... small world eh? Changes nothing though.
People are entitled to protect their property. Especially when the cops won't.
In a video that goes along with the article you linked, a news anchor says that in a previous incident one of the McCloskey's neighbors said that one of the couple pulled a gun on him and told the neighbor he had set foot on their property.
Apparently their neighbors have little use for these two and it is easy to see why that is the case.
Exactly, seems this couple has a bit of a problem with weapons.
Don't know but the lady sure needs lessons on how to hold a weapon.
If the police had been properly protecting the homeowners they would not needed to get their guns,
Ripping down the gate to a gated community isn't peaceful. And exactly what were those people protesting in a residential neighborhood?
Just because peaceful protests were taking place somewhere doesn't mean this couple brandished firearms at peaceful protesters. Roving gangs of vandals aren't protesters.
Factually, they did brandish firearms, so it's not like a criminal charge is completely unfathomable. However, they have a pretty good excuse, so I doubt they will get convicted. I expect they will argue that they were acting in the defense of themselves and/or others. The standard in Missouri - as it is in most places - is a subjective one. That is, if the jury finds the couple reasonably believed that they needed to defend themselves, then their actions were not unlawful.
Charges Filed BY A LEFTWING POLITICAL HACK Against St. Louis Couple Who Brandished Guns At Protesters And Have Nothing To Worry About.
I'm wondering about the pistol and why it was in the custody of their lawyer. I'm guessing that they were not legally in possession of it.
The gun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable when it arrived at the St. Louis police crime lab, but a member of Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's staff ordered crime lab experts to disassemble and reassemble it and wrote that it was “readily capable of lethal use” in charging documents filed Monday, 5 On Your Side has learned.
In Missouri, police and prosecutors must prove that a weapon is “readily” capable of lethal use when it is used in the type of crime with which the McCloskeys have been charged.
Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley ordered crime lab staff members to field strip the handgun and found it had been assembled incorrectly. Specifically, the firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin, which was backward, and made the gun incapable of firing, according to documents obtained by 5 On Your Side.
So in essence the prosecutor had tampered with evidence.