EXCLUSIVE: President Trump Defends Armed McCloskey Family Against the Mob

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  115 comments

EXCLUSIVE: President Trump Defends Armed McCloskey Family Against the Mob
They were going to be beat up badly if they were lucky. If they were lucky. They were going be beat up badly and the house was going to be totally ransacked and probably burned down

EXCLUSIVE: President Trump Defends Armed McCloskey Family Against the Mob


Speaking during an exclusive interview with Townhall   Tuesday morning from the White House, President Trump defended St. Louis residents Mark and Patricia McCloskey after they fought for their lives and property against a trespassing mob.


"When you look at St. Louis, where two people, they came out. They were going to be beat up badly if they were lucky. If they were lucky. They were going be beat up badly and the house was going to be totally ransacked and probably burned down like they tried to burn down churches. And these people were standing there, never used it and they were legal, the weapons, and now I understand somebody local, they want to prosecute these people. It's a disgrace," Trump said. 

During an interview with Fox News Monday night, Mark McCloskey, a civil rights attorney, said he is bracing for an indictment after a search warrant was executed at his home over the weekend and his firearms were confiscated.

"I just held my ground, protected my house and I'm sitting here on television tonight instead of dead or putting out the smoldering embers of my home," he said. "The rumor is that we're going to be indicted shortly. Having said that, this is the same circuit attorney that released 35 of the protestors that torched and looted downtown St. Louis and now she wants to indict me."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/07/15/exclusive-president-trump-n2572468


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

There is no bottom or end to Trump's irresponsibility. 

He talks in the same manner a listener calling in to Alex Jones radio show would. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  author  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

By the way, the reporter was very irresponsible in not pushing back against Trumps language, but then again she's a Trump lackey named Katie Pavlich so what do you expect? 

Pavlich : President Trump defended St. Louis residents Mark and Patricia McCloskey after they fought for their lives and property against a trespassing mob.

Pure hogwash. No one "fought for their lives against a "mob" "

Completely dishonest far right media. 

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1  Kavika   replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago

What a load of shit that comment by Pavlich is....Typical though.

 
 
 
Kavika
3  Kavika     4 weeks ago
 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Kavika @3    4 weeks ago

On the other side of that coin, strangers are offering to replace any firearms confiscated by LE.

 
 
 
devangelical
4  devangelical    4 weeks ago

funny how in some states if somebody points a gun in your direction, you can legally drop them and walk...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
4.1  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  devangelical @4    4 weeks ago
funny how in some states if somebody points a gun in your direction, you can legally drop them and walk...

somebody not a member of LEO that points a gun at you likely should be considered a threat, how one reacts is entirely up to the individual and what the laws of the jurisdiction states one can legally do.

Another thing to keep in mind ? and should be pointed out ? 

There are NO constitutionally or any other types of rights protected for anyone once they step on private property belonging to another.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4.1    4 weeks ago

They didn't step on their private property

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
4.1.2  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    4 weeks ago
They didn't step on their private property

That your assuming 

I don't live in a gated community , But county records show that my actual property lines extend past the road that gets to my place , there is an easement for the property owners that live past my property to gain acsess to their property , legally if they are on the road they are still on my property covered by the easement . nothing stops me from putting in speed bumps/trenches or paving over the section on my property , Only thing I cannot do is cut off acsess to their property .

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4.1.2    4 weeks ago

That's "you're" and I'm assuming nothing.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  devangelical @4    4 weeks ago

Point one at me, you know I will legally drop them and then go by the old saying...."Better to be judged by 12 people in court than to be carried by those same 12 people to a big hole in the ground."

 
 
 
Ronin2
7  Ronin2    4 weeks ago

They have a right to defend their lives and property, period. From the article.

Missouri has a "stand your ground" law which does not require a person to retreat from a threat. The state also has a  castle doctrine law  which, "allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your 'castle'...this legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances."  

The "mob" weren't protesting, they were rioting. They were trespassing on private property. They were the only criminals in this incident.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @7    4 weeks ago

President* Trump said, and I quote, " They were going to be beat up badly if they were lucky. If they were lucky. They were going be beat up badly and the house was going to be totally ransacked and probably burned down"

You do understand that he was lying don't you? No one in the march went on their property or threatened them. 

I would agree that they were frightened. But they were not attacked and they did not fight for their lives and their property. All lies. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
7.1.1  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    4 weeks ago
They were going to be beat up badly if they were lucky. If they were lucky. They were going be beat up badly and the house was going to be totally ransacked and probably burned down"

And that quote is from the gentleman who had his firearm confiscated by the police and who is now subject to the investigation , so trump is simply repeating what he was told and what the VICTIM has stated all along he was told during the initial confrontation with the mob that was trespassing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

"they were going to be beat up badly"

what is the basis for Trump, or anyone else, making this declarative statement? 

how about

"the house was going to be totally ransacked and probably burned down "   

You think it's ok for Trump to throw out these declarative statements with no evidence or basis? 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
7.1.3  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.2    4 weeks ago

John , the couples statements haven't changed about the incident , they claim to have been accosted while on their own property by individuals that criminally gained acsess to an area with threats of physical and real violence being directed at them 

 the situation escalated when the couple decided to take measures because of the threats made towards them . would they have been beaten and assaulted if they did not arm themselves ? no one can prove what would have happened either way but the threat was implied and made to the satisfaction of the home owner to take legally sanctioned measures .

In view of how some of these "protests " have degenerated to rioting, the likelihood that the house was likely in danger of arson and looting , is not exactly a far stretch since the protesters had already committed crimes of trespass and if the couple are telling the truth had already assaulted and likely would have been battered if not armed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.1.3    4 weeks ago

The "threat" that the homeowner perceived was that a group of protesters entered the gated community in which he and his wife live. 

I know of no threat that was DIRECTED at this couple. They brought out their guns as the group was approaching the street on which they live. Barring evidence that the group tried to go on his property or in some way threaten the couple specifically, its hard to imagine what the basis is for anyone saying "they fought for their lives" , in fact even if someone had put a toe on their property or shouted something nasty at them it would be hard to imagine what the basis would be for saying "they fought for their lives". 

The fact is Trump badly exaggerated their predicament in order to incite his base and cast the protesters in what is in all likelihood a light they did not deserve. 

He's supposed to be the president, not a wacko on a call in radio show. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
7.1.5  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.4    4 weeks ago

John we can always do what we always do anyway , agree to disagree , we definitely have different views and opinions on many matters , I would have done the same thing as the couple in arming myself , though in a slightly different manner , I would have brought out the lawn chair , and popcorn and sweet tea and leaned the 12 Ga against the table in a very visible manner and not responded to any questions or taunts IF thrown. just let whatever is rattling around inside a persons head do its job.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.1.5    4 weeks ago

Like I said two or three times on this seed, this discussion was not created to rehash whether or not they had a right to brandish guns.  

The article is about what Trump said yesterday, and what the townhall reporter wrote,  "they fought for their lives" .  There is simply no truth to that. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
7.1.7  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    4 weeks ago
You do understand that he was lying don't you? No one in the march went on their property or threatened them. 

How in the fuck do you know that?????????? You have no idea what was in the minds of the people trespassing it was private property! 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.8  author  JohnRussell  replied to  gooseisgone @7.1.7    4 weeks ago

Show us some evidence that any marcher went onto the property of this couple. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.8    4 weeks ago
"Show us some evidence that any marcher went onto the property of this couple."

They won't because they can't.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.8    4 weeks ago

simple fact is the protesters shouldn't have been there to begin with

 it is a private, gated community for a reason.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
7.1.11  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.6    4 weeks ago

your welcome to your opinion , I am of a different opinion and will not comment further since it wont fit the narrative you desire.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
7.1.12  Dean Moriarty  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.8    4 weeks ago

John when I lived on a private road the road was private property and was in the deeds for the lots. The road was probably private property. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.13  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.1.11    4 weeks ago

I understand you can't defend what Trump said, no one could.  And the same for the reporter.  But I would rather people respond to the topic. The topic was never intended to be whether or not the couple had a legal or moral right to show guns to the protesters. That was all discussed on other seeds when it happened. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.4    4 weeks ago

shouldn't we give deference to the people who said they felt threatened, like we are supposed to do when someone says they feel a certain way about names or statues?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
7.1.15  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.13    4 weeks ago
I understand you can't defend what Trump said,

Why should I ? I didn't vote for him in the first place . he owns his own words.

Simple fact is he is likely stating his opinion based on which narrative HE believes to be true . Just as you are .

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.16  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.1.15    4 weeks ago
he is likely stating his opinion based on which narrative HE believes 

What narrative of this exists that demonstrates that the house would have been burned down and the couple would have been beaten up (or worse) ? 

He might just as well say he believes he can jump off the top of Trump Tower and flap his arms and fly.  That would have the same connection to reality as his comment about the St Louis couple does. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
7.1.17  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.8    4 weeks ago

256

This is the gate to the "private" street that they live on.  

 
 
 
gooseisgone
7.1.18  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.9    4 weeks ago
They won't because they can't

256

Oh...really!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
7.1.19  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.16    4 weeks ago

John , you have already deemed that narrative off topic , and requested  to focus on trump and the reporter , I will simply honor your wishes since its your seed , I have nothing else to say.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
7.1.20  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.13    4 weeks ago
The topic was never intended to be whether or not the couple had a legal or moral right to show guns

from your post.

"I just held my ground, protected my house and I'm sitting here on television tonight instead of dead or putting out the smoldering embers of my home," he said. 

Well why did you put this in your post?

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @7.1.18    4 weeks ago

"Oh...really!"

REALLY!

That was never shown until AFTER the peaceful protesters were gone.

I know that Bonnie and Clyde broke the gate AFTER THE FACT.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.1.22  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.21    4 weeks ago
I know that Bonnie and Clyde broke the gate AFTER THE FACT.

Prove it please. And before your usual "I don't have to prove shit to you" narrative, please remember your all too frequent "You made the claim. You have to back it up". And at this moment, there are, according to the bottom of the page, 31 visitors right now observing comments.

Thanks

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
7.1.23  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.1.3    4 weeks ago

they claim

"It is not what you know but what you can prove in court."  (The Devil's Advocate)

 
 
 
gooseisgone
7.1.24  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.21    4 weeks ago
That was never shown until AFTER the peaceful protesters were gone.

I live here they showed it the day that it happened. This is what it looked like before.

256

 
 
 
Ronin2
7.1.25  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.21    4 weeks ago

Peaceful protesters respect the law and don't trespass on private property.

 
 
 
evilgenius
7.2  evilgenius  replied to  Ronin2 @7    4 weeks ago
...this legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances.

I admit I haven't looked too closely into this particular event. The little I've heard about it has been mostly bs on both sides so I'm not at all certain what is true and what is isn't. One account has the protesters ripping down a gate and another says the couple are complete assholes. If all that was happening was protesters walking down the sidewalk then the couple is in the wrong. If the protesters were trespassing on the couple's property (the gated community street does not count) then the couple is in the right.

I support whomever is in the right here. Americans have a right to protest and a right to protect our life and property I support both ideals as long as one doesn't infringe on the other.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  evilgenius @7.2    4 weeks ago

I am sure the couple were worried about their five story mansion, which looks more like a museum than a house. They were afraid that someone in the "mob" would touch their nice stuff. We all get that. But I dont think there is any evidence the marchers came on their property or did anything "mob" like.  Why is Trump saying that they were going to be beaten up if they didnt show their weapons and that showing their weapons prevented their house from being burned to the ground ?     And the conservative reporter says the couple had to "fight for their lives". These are just lies. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.1    4 weeks ago

simple fact--conventially ignored--is that this was a gated community and if you dont live there. you have no business there.

they were not invited guests

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
7.2.3  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  evilgenius @7.2    4 weeks ago
(the gated community street does not count)

actually , legally yes it does count because it is not an open thouroughfare for general public travel , it is treated as an easement for acsess to other property owners to acsess their properties  it is still considered private property not acssable to the general public without permission.

 
 
 
evilgenius
7.2.4  evilgenius  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.2.3    4 weeks ago
legally yes it does count...

Trespassing I can understand. Castle doctrine I cannot without some other obvious (verifiable) evidence of violence. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
7.2.5  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  evilgenius @7.2.4    4 weeks ago
Trespassing I can understand. Castle doctrine I cannot without some other obvious (verifiable) evidence of violence. 

A lot of it depends on the state (jurisdiction actually) and how the statutes are written as well as how it is actually applied 

Some places the castle doctrine , because of the way the statutes are written can cover simple acts of theft or destruction of property, its a stretch but can and has been done, no violence involved simple non compliance with a property owners commands and edicts .

Where I live there is a stand your ground , and that applies anywhere I may happen to have a legal right to be , I have no duty to retreat. and that I think is to be applied on a case by case basis by the individual desiring to employ it .

 the castle doctrine here applies to ones dwelling and property against any perceived threat , not stated or actual threats again this is a place that you have a legal right to be but others do not unless you invite them., if one is told to leave , then its best to leave without saying a word .

The last one I like here is the "hold harmless clause of the statutes . that simply says if a person exersizes either of these statutes , and the person it was used against was breaking the law in any way, the person exersizing force , can not be sued civilly for their actions that cause injury or death.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
7.2.6  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.1    4 weeks ago
But I don't think there is any evidence the marchers came on their property or did anything "mob" like. 

You have no idea what property they were on, they already violated a private property so they were in fact breaking the law, unless you think if someone's door is unlocked you can just mosey into there home. Missouri is a stand your ground state, you have no duty to retreat. IMO they may be charged with brandishing a firearm to which they will respond that they felt threatened which will put it back on to the incompetent City Prosecutor to prove they didn't.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @7    4 weeks ago

"The "mob" weren't protesting, they were rioting. They were trespassing on private property. They were the only criminals in this incident."

There was no rioting going on there, look again.  Only peaceful protesters.  They didn't step on their McMansion property.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @7.3    4 weeks ago
Only peaceful protesters.

They broke down a fence.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.3.1    4 weeks ago

they had no right to be there. it is a gated community for its residents and guests. they were neither.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.3.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.3.1    4 weeks ago
They broke down a fence.

"In this video you can see protestors walk right through the gate. It’s not destroyed when they walk onto the street ."

"Once through the gate, the victims advised the group that they were on a private street and trespassing and told them to leave," the police statement said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/couple-recorded-pulling-weapons-protesters-outside-their-st-louis-home-n1232400

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.3.3    4 weeks ago
"They broke down a fence."

"In this video you can see protestors   walk right through the gate. It’s not destroyed when they walk onto the street   ."

"Once through the gate, the victims advised the group that they were on a private street and trespassing and told them to leave," the police statement said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/couple-recorded-pulling-weapons-protesters-outside-their-st-louis-home-n1232400

I believe Bonnie and Clyde broke the gate AFTER THE FACT to support their lies.  

There was absolutely no damage to the gate until AFTER THE FACT.  

No one ever supplied any evidence at the time of the peaceful protest that the gate was broken.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.3.1    4 weeks ago
"They broke down a fence."

No, they didn't.  

Bonnie and Clyde broke the gate AFTER the peaceful protesters were gone.  

That "broken fence" was actually a gate that was never shown to be broken until AFTER THE FACT.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.3.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.5    4 weeks ago

Well are you going to walk through the middle of protesters to go take a look at the gate while they are still entering and there were people with guns pulled (even though they both look as though they'd shit themselves if they did decide to shoot)? hahahaHAHAHA. Well sure you would. /s. And please remember the last time this came up that there were pictures posted of the entrance to the neighborhood and there are two gates, one on either side of the drive.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3.7  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.3.6    4 weeks ago

"And please remember the last time this came up that there were pictures posted of the entrance to the neighborhood and there are two gates, one on either side of the drive."

I do remember that nonsense and there was never any proof or evidence or video that ANY/EITHER gate was broken until AFTER THE FACT.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.3.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.7    4 weeks ago

So you want video/photo evidence AS it was being torn down? Again, please prove that "Bonnie and Clyde" did it after the fact. There is no evidence of that either.

Thanks.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.3.8    4 weeks ago

Again, you have offered no proof whatsoever that it was done until after the fact.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.3.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.9    4 weeks ago

Nor have you offered any proof that it was done after. Give up. You got caught.............again.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.3.11  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.3.8    4 weeks ago

you know if does6 even matter if they tore it down or not.

they shouldn't have entered as they had  no business even being there.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.3.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @7.3.11    4 weeks ago

Hell, open or not, as you say, they didn't belong there and had no reason to be there except their self appointed "freedom" to go hassle the mayor. Because they exist. And to those who say the protesters wielded no threat as they didn't step in the yard. I ask. Why would they be that stupid with guns on the scene? The guns may have been the deterrent that stopped them. But of that, like the couple damaging the fence, is all unfounded speculation and filling a narrative

 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3.13  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.3.10    4 weeks ago

Again, you have offered no proof whatsoever that it was done until after the fact.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.3.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.13    4 weeks ago

That was your assumption not mine. You said they did it after the fact. I asked you to prove it..............seems you can't.

Nor have you that it happened after. Again, "you made the claim, you have to back it up". Your words..............on just about every topic

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3.15  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.3.14    4 weeks ago

Again, you have offered no proof whatsoever that it was done until after the fact.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.3.16  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.3.14    4 weeks ago

whats really funny is that it simply doesn't matter if the gate was broken or not. trespassing is illegal.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
7.3.17  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.3.3    4 weeks ago

"The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims.

from the linked article .

more than enough to perceive an imminent threat of injury or worse in my view.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
8  Mark in Wyoming    4 weeks ago

I understand the "protesters " returned the following weekend to take issue with this couples actions  only to be met with about a half dozen private armed security.

 256

Interesting still from the incident of those "protesters".

 
 
 
JaneDoe
8.1  JaneDoe  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8    4 weeks ago

I saw that picture before. I wasn’t sure what he was pointing there. Is it a gun?

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JaneDoe @8.1    4 weeks ago

I think it is a microphone

 
 
 
JaneDoe
8.1.2  JaneDoe  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.1    4 weeks ago

I wasn’t sure. Hard to tell. I thought it might have been a selfie stick at first.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
8.1.3  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JaneDoe @8.1    4 weeks ago

I know for sure SHE is pointing one at the guy highlighted , would have to id  the guy and ask him what he was pointing at her.....

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JaneDoe @8.1    4 weeks ago
Is it a gun?

"At no time did I observe any of our people carrying weapons of any sort. At no time did any of our people rush at the occupants or even set foot on the property."

"There was never a threat to his property. There was never a threat to his home, and, had they not come out, the protesters would have continued on at a quick pace to get to the mayor's house."

Reverend Darryl Gray told 5 on Your Side's Morgan Young that the couple is lying. "It is blatant lies the cover their tracks,".

Another protest organizer, Ohun Ashe, also disputed the couple's narrative. They noted the protesters had walked through other neighborhoods and past businesses on their way to the mayor's house, but this was the only place where they were met with guns. "I don't think when they looked out on a crowd of people that they just saw humans, I think they saw stereotypes," she said.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/armed-protesters-shouting-threats-prompted-st-louis-couple-to-arm-themselves-police-sources-say/63-b34fa446-50e1-4617-965a-d199a533bcca

 
 
 
JaneDoe
8.1.5  JaneDoe  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.4    4 weeks ago

I only asked because I didn’t know. I in no way implied that any of the protesters were armed, only asked a question.

Hopefully the whole truth will come out in due time.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1.3    4 weeks ago
It wasn't a week later Mark and it wasn't a gun being pointed at the shyster lawyers.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  JaneDoe @8.1.5    4 weeks ago

"Hopefully the whole truth will come out in due time."

The whole truth is out there.  These were peaceful protesters who did not step on their property and who did not point guns at the shyster lawyers.  

'Nuff said.  

 
 
 
JaneDoe
8.1.8  JaneDoe  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.7    4 weeks ago
Nuff said.

Thanks anyway but I’d prefer not to take your word on anything. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  JaneDoe @8.1.8    4 weeks ago

"Thanks anyway but I’d prefer not to take your word on anything."

 Makes me no nevermind . . . . 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
8.1.10  gooseisgone  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.4    4 weeks ago
"At no time did I observe any of our people carrying weapons of any sort. At no time did any of our people rush at the occupants or even set foot on the property."

vs

“Once through the gate, the victims advised the group that they were on a private street and trespassing and told them to leave,” the police summary further states. “The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims. When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.”

Based on the couple’s account, police labeled the incident a case of trespassing and assault by intimidation, according to the incident summary. No other police reports were filed that night, a department spokesperson told Fox News.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-st-louis-rioters-threatened-couple-guns-attorney

Looks like he said she said, the court will have to sort it out.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @8.1.10    4 weeks ago

So the shysters' lawyer is a shyster lawyer also, and lying.

No protesters are going to court.

What are you talking about goose?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
8.1.12  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  gooseisgone @8.1.10    4 weeks ago
Looks like he said she said, the court will have to sort it out.

If it gets that far , the city attorney has already been rebuked by the gov and state AG, and whether or not a jury trial is requested . in which case the judge and the prosecuters hands are pretty much tied .

 
 
 
gooseisgone
8.1.13  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.11    4 weeks ago
So the shysters' lawyer is a shyster lawyer also, and lying.

and how exactly do you know this.

What are you talking about goose?

If they are charged.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
8.1.14  gooseisgone  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1.12    4 weeks ago
the city attorney has already been rebuked

The City Attorney is an incompetent POS. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
8.1.15  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  gooseisgone @8.1.14    4 weeks ago
The City Attorney is an incompetent POS.

I wouldn't know from first hand experience since that's not my geopgraphical location , I can say that she is not someone I would consider voting into political office or trust in a governmental position.

 
 
 
JBB
8.1.16  JBB  replied to  gooseisgone @8.1.14    4 weeks ago

The McCloskey's are sue happy assholes!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
8.1.17  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JBB @8.1.16    4 weeks ago

Im sure as personal injury attorneys they evaluate the cases they take carefully with an eye on if they can win the case or not .

Now if this city attorney whom I think is an elected official , actually charges the couple with something and fails to get a conviction , then the couple should likely sue the snot out of not only her , but the city as well for keeping her employed .

 
 
 
gooseisgone
8.1.18  gooseisgone  replied to  JBB @8.1.16    4 weeks ago
The McCloskey's are sue happy assholes!

I don't know anything about them are you talking about them personally or on behalf of their clients they are attorneys. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8    4 weeks ago
"I understand the "protesters " returned the following weekend to take issue with this couples actions  only to be met with about a half dozen private armed security.

 256

Interesting still from the incident of those "protesters".

No, you do not understand Mark.  

That is not a week later, that is at the same time.

The peaceful protesters did not point any guns at the shyster lawyers.  
 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
8.2.1  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Tessylo @8.2    4 weeks ago
Interesting still from the incident of those "protesters".

No, you do not understand Mark.  

That is not a week later, that is at the same time.

The peaceful protesters did not point any guns at the shyster lawyers. 

Thought it was pretty obvious that the still was from the initial incident .

I didn't state that the still or the followup "protest " was a week later , just that it was reported and I read that it happened the following weekend.

and every protester was strip-searched so it can be stated with 100% veracity that no weapons were present on that side ?

\lastly , never try and tell me what I understand , since I attempt to do the same for others , I can think for and decide for myself .

Off to the iggy bin with you,

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.2.1    4 weeks ago

"Thought it was pretty obvious that the still was from the initial incident .

I didn't state that the still or the followup "protest " was a week later , just that it was reported and I read that it happened the following weekend.

and every protester was strip-searched so it can be stated with 100% veracity that no weapons were present on that side ?

lastly , never try and tell me what I understand , since I attempt to do the same for others , I can think for and decide for myself .

Off to the iggy bin with you"

It wasn't obvious to me and you need to be more clear then . . . quite confusing . . . 

No weapons were pointed by the protesters at the shyster lawyers so I don't know why you are asking that foolish question. . . 

Whatever, you obviously didn't understand 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
8.2.3  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.2    4 weeks ago
every protester was strip-searched so it can be stated with 100% veracity that no weapons were present on that side 

Where did this come from????????????

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  gooseisgone @8.2.3    4 weeks ago

I have yet to see any reports where protesters were strip searched. hell, they weren't taken into custody., did the cops strip search them in public?

lmao

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @8.2.3    4 weeks ago

Here is Mark's original comment which you obviously didn't see ONE POST ABOVE YOUR RESPONSE

"Thought it was pretty obvious that the still was from the initial incident .

I didn't state that the still or the followup "protest " was a week later , just that it was reported and I read that it happened the following weekend.

and every protester was strip-searched so it can be stated with 100% veracity that no weapons were present on that side ?

\lastly , never try and tell me what I understand , since I attempt to do the same for others , I can think for and decide for myself .

Off to the iggy bin with you,"

NOW WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED TO HAVE EXPLAINED TO YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
8.2.6  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  gooseisgone @8.2.3    4 weeks ago

Goose , that came from me in the form of a question since all the protesters allies here are saying they did absolutely nothing wrong and were within their rights , and claiming there were no weapons in the crowd , Im sure the good clergy member quoted  or organizers searched all the participants each and every one of them and that the "march" to the mayors house was classified as a "Gun free zone"and absolutely no one had any weapon or anything that could be used or considered a weapon of any kind in their possession, on the protesters side , we should after all just take their word for it .(SARC)

 
 
 
gooseisgone
8.2.7  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.5    4 weeks ago
NOW WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED TO HAVE EXPLAINED TO YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN?

Oh, you just keep making up stuff that didn't happen and I'll just keep pointing it out again and again and again.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @8.2.7    4 weeks ago

Go for it . . . . obviously someone with too much time on their hands.

On that note, Toodles!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
8.2.9  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  gooseisgone @8.2.7    4 weeks ago

granpa always told me , " never wrestle the pig in its own wallow , they will drag you down into their own muck and mud , and usually the pig enjoys it "  grandpa was a wise man .

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.2.9    4 weeks ago

Very apropos.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9  It Is ME    4 weeks ago

"Gated PRIVATE Community" actually means something, to Normal Folks anyway !

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @9    4 weeks ago

Yes, we all know what kind of "gated communities" right wing fascists want to create. The kind where a government official can hide after publicly reading off names and addresses of those who disagreed with her or who called for change.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1    4 weeks ago
Yes, we all know what kind of "gated communities" right wing fascists want to create.

Again....and this is about Private ownership ........ " Gated  PRIVATE Community" actually means something, to Normal Folks anyway !

Jealous ?

The President..... Like most Presidents...... Have the right to defend "Individuals" in this country (Obama did it during the Beer Summit).

Everyone IS NOT ....... The SAME ! jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif ?

To bad the "Left" doesn't seem to have a need for "Individuals". They are "Borg" ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1    4 weeks ago

that isn't why people like to live in gated communities. most do so for peace of mind, knowing that just anyone can't be walking around their neighborhood that they don't know. many gated communities actually have their own security.

apparently this one did not.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
9.1.3  gooseisgone  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1    4 weeks ago
publicly reading off names and addresses of those who disagreed with

I will assume you will call out people on the left when they dox someone, right. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10  author  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

I didn't seed this story to rehash whether or not the couple had the right to brandish weapons at the marchers.  I seeded it to point out the fantastical retelling of the story by president* Trump, and the dishonest reporting by the conservative writer Katie Pavlich.   Please address the stated topics. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
10.1  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @10    4 weeks ago

It's nice to know all the people here, that weren't there, that must have working crystal balls to know all of what really did happen.    So they can judge it.

This couples story is entirely believable to me and i bet if a jury gets seated for a trial, they will agree as well.

Frankly i'm impressed by how much restraint they had.   Someone walks on my property and threatens me or mine.   They won't walk off it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @10.1    4 weeks ago

By the logic you are using now, they could have mowed down protesters at will because they were "threatened" as soon as the group entered the gated community. 

Good luck with that defense had anyone been killed by these two. 

Their property begins with their lawn, not with the common street and sidewalk. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.1.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.1    4 weeks ago

That’s not the case on most private roads. Usually the road is covered in the deed and is private no different than the lot the house sits on and is often part of the lot. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.1    4 weeks ago

the protesters had no right to be in a gated, private community unless they lived there or were invited there.

 
 
 
Sparty On
10.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.1    4 weeks ago

Nice hyperbole John.  

Do you use that sort of talk when babies in your town are getting "mowed down" sitting in their strollers or high highchairs?

Peaceful protestors by definition don't threaten anyone.   Which means they wouldn't have been on private property without permission in the first place if they were "peaceful."

Nah, that the owners were threatened is entirely believable from what i saw of that group.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.4    4 weeks ago
Peaceful protestors by definition don't threaten anyone.   Which means they wouldn't have been on private property without permission in the first place if they were "peaceful."

That's just nonsense.  They wanted to protest at the mayor of St. Louis house.  To get to that house they HAD TO go into and through the gated community. The fact that they entered a gated community implicates nothing about the peacefulness of the march. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.5    4 weeks ago

you know, just because they wanted to do something doesn't give them the right to do it.

the didn't live there and weren't invited. they shouldn't have been there at all.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.1.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.4    4 weeks ago
high highchairs
Are those the Shaq highchairs?jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
10.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @10.1.7    4 weeks ago

Lol, yes that was worded rather poorly i suppose.

Hey, what do you expect from an Engineer and a former Marine?

You're lucky to get more than UGH!

 
 
 
Tacos!
11  Tacos!    4 weeks ago

These people might have gotten a little over-excited and panicked with their situation, but the notion that they should be prosecuted for their actions is even more extreme, and - imo - politically motivated.

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @11    4 weeks ago

of course it is politically motivated.

Let rioters out of jail to put someone defending their property in!

 
 
 
Texan1211
12  Texan1211    4 weeks ago

what part of private, gated community is so hard to understand? if you don't live there, you shouldn't be there.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
13  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

What's comical reading through this thread is the same people who demonize the rich white progressives for standing up to the mob would be in raptures about the couple if they had behaved the exact same way and faced down a mob of proud boys or something similar who also acted in the same exact way.  And if the couple had been black, they would be building statues to them. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
13.1  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @13    4 weeks ago

amen!

exactly right

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @13    4 weeks ago

Yep, like usual, the hypocrisy just drips off those folks.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Bob Nelson
Gsquared
Sparty On
Vic Eldred
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Ed-NavDoc


38 visitors