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
99 visitors
It’s ok because the state AG said the couple was well within Missouri’s castle and stand your ground laws not to mention the 2nd amendment and was immediately moving to get the court to bar these and any future such charges for cases like this and the governor said that if need be he will pardon them and said that law and order and the rule of law will prevail in Missouri. That DA is nothing more than a Soros tool.
The first sentence of the NBC article tells us all we need to know. "A husband and wife caught on video brandishing firearms" - those are the exact words St. Louis Circuit Attorney and sister to the protesters, Kimberly Gardner used to describe the event!
So the AG believes it is okay to point weapons at anyone, as long as you're on your own property, even if the person/people are not?
Video showed no threat toward the home owners, so how does "stand your ground" laws apply with no threat being made?
Perhaps you may be under thinking this. Why do you suppose those people didn't put foot on their property? I would say that they actually had some sense. The guns obviously were a deterrent in this case. You know that old "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
Jim, Jim, Jim.
How dare you inject reason into the debate?
Tsk, tsk, my man, Tsk, tsk!
IMHO the problem with video is it can be started or stopped at any point during a confrontation. as well as be edited later .
All it takes is a single knucklehead to say or do the wrong thing off camera and it NOT be caught on film and things escalate telling an entirely different story.
Okay, so you admit the protesters were not on the couple's property.
Next you are claiming that it is okay for you to point guns at anyone anywhere near your property to make sure they stay off it? Is that your claim?
So the guy in this article , did not commit any crime then? Or this lady? Since they are both just trying to keep people off their property.
So again, you are fine with standing on the edge of your front lawn and pointing a gun at anyone that walks down the public sidewalk.
Missouri law defines felony unlawful use of a weapon as when a person “exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.”
In other words, "an ounce of prevention is worth committing a felony".
It did not belong to the couple. You understand that right???
Actual property owner never requested the protesters leave.
Cop out!!!
"Well gee, just because it didn't show it, and there were no reports to police about violence, and nobody witnessed any violence, doesn't prove that somewhere someone didn't commit violence".
Is that really your argument?????
WTF do you mean by that? It's a neighborhood probably with an HOA that all of the residents pay to maintain. Soooooooo what do you mean "actual property owner"? They all would own their own and the ALL would own the street and the gate.
Please 'splain.
I didn't say it did. They still could have felt threatened. People can shoot from the street.
There was sign at the gate that stated PRIVATE STREET NO TRESSPASSING.
You do not have to ask trespassers to leave if there is a sign posted. The sign is the warning They violated the law as soon as the mob went pass that sign.
believe none of what you hear and only about half of what you see.
Is that really your argument?????
Not an argument , just a statement that comes from personal experience.
So not a cop out
It just doesnt agree with your narrative.
HOA is for maintenance, does not reflect toward ownership of communal areas. HOA does not "own" the property, and unless the HOA came out and requested the protesters to leave, your argument is worthless. AND, even if they did request the protesters to leave, that did not bestow the right to point guns at them.
Did I explain it simply enough?
You didn't say ANYTHING. Loki did, unless you are commenting under multiple accounts.
An obvious Trump supporter.
Trump to veterans: Don’t believe what you’re reading or seeing
And reality has a well-known liberal bias. - Stephen Colbert
Yeah, sure. Can't find any actual facts, so the best you can do is "claim" Anecdotal evidence.
Yes, it is.
OMG!!!!
Zillow is your evidence? Based on how they decided to draw lines on a map??? 
If you want to claim that, show official documentation that shows that that specific couple owns half the street, and that every other home owner in the neighborhood is trespassing each and every time they drive to their own houses!
Not if they have written permission to use the private street which is an easement as loki and Jim have been patiently trying to explain to you.
The protesters where the ones breaking the law.
How many of them where arrested....mmm?
Zillow is you idea of "PROOF"?
An easement is a nonpossessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it.
Yes, please explain to me a home owners right to point a gun at someone walking down the street in front of their house. FYI, easement does not include that street, unless you would like to provide specific evidence that the home owner also owns that part of the street.
A sidewalk is an easement, not a street. Technically sidewalks cut through your front yard, which is why you are required to maintain it and shovel in case of snow. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SHOVEL THE STREET.
You're grabbing at straws to try and maintain your claim, trouble is they are imaginary straws.
You want to prove me wrong? Go out to the edge of your front yard, and point your gun at everyone that is walking by on the sidewalk, and every car that is driving by on the road. Post your mug shot when done.
Are you totally insane? Before they have the legal right to DEFEND THEMSELVES, they must be under threat of violence. Videos and witnesses show no such threat. No police reports of threats were made, other than the home owners threatening the protesters.
Apparently you do not understand what an easement is. You do not need written permission to use an easement (i.e. sidewalk). Jim and Loki, apparently do not understand what an easement is either, and neither have shown that THE STREET EVEN IS AN EASEMENT. They are just making it up because they have no facts to present.
So, one of the other home owners was a protester, or one of the other residents opened the gate so they could get in.
You're making an assumption with no evidence to back it up. If they were trespassing, where is the police report accusing them of such? Why didn't the home owners call the police because they were trespassing, instead of threatening peaceful protesters with guns?
Also, no one broke down the gate, they opened it because it was unlocked or someone with a key opened it for them.
The streets are only an easement in the fact that all the residents use them to access their individual properties NOT for through traffic or any other unauthorized access. Last time. It is a private neighborhood and, like the one I live in, the residents are responsible for the streets and pay to maintain them and the sidewalks. Being a private neighborhood, cities do not, at least here, maintain them and it is up to the residents who, by the way, also carry an HOA insurance policy for liability purposes to contract things like that and landscaping done. It is their property with extra emphasis on the lots where they have their homes.
There are public and private easements. Do you see no trespassing signs on public sidewalks?
Now you are just being obtuse.
Easement is a legal term, you cannot change the definition to support your argument.
HOA has nothing to do with it, since the HOA took no part in this incident. The HOA would have had the right to have the police remove the protesters, however, as I stated, the HOA took no action in this incident.
Exactly! Glad my examples shed some light on it.
You have no idea how much I was hoping someone would point that out....
Why should I have to prove mine, but nobody else has to prove theirs? Hypocritical a little????
You have evidence they weren't? Are you claiming that nobody , in a gated community, has ever left the gate open by accident or laziness because they didn't want to carry the key everywhere?
Note: I have 3 within a mile of my house, so I KNOW you're wrong! 1 of them doesn't even have a lock on their West side gate.
I do not think anyone IS trying to change the definition at all , but simply stating there are different types of easement and right of way contracts that they are made up with .
a public easement would be one that the general public are entitled to use , and can legally use , a communal easement or right of way applies simply to the agreeing property owners meaning it applies to the adjacent property owners their guests and agents ( employees) , a municipal easement or right of way would cover such places such as gas , water or power lines . not acessable to the public but acessable to verified municipal or employees/ representatives of those different departments.
I have two I deal with that were in place before I bought the property, one for the road in and out , and one for power and gas , neither is public .
now that's not hard to understand now is it ?
the question is, is how do these easements apply to this situation.
YOU HAVE YET TO PROVE THE STREET IS AN EASEMENT!!!!!
Even if it is, it does not give anyone the right to point guns at someone utilizing that easement!!!!!
And you have yet to prove it isn't or that it is a public acsess easement , and that it is open to public travel.
Just because there is a road there , doesn't mean you or the general public can use it .
And your argument is going to hinge on were the protesters legally where they could be , if not , they done fucked up and didn't do their due diligence or homework.
I wasn't the one who claimed it was, you seemed confused on how these arguments work. You don't prove a negative.
Why are you continuing this amazingly stupid claim?
Wow! Just wow! You are trying to limit my argument to 1 teeny tiny part, that in the long run doesn't effect the true argument.
The homeowners did not have the legal right to point guns at the peaceful protesters! You have a problem with this, take it up with Loki.
1.2.21 loki12
That's the argument your going with correct?
Then please educate me where to find in either the law or within the constitution itself that even "peaceful protesters" have the right to do so on private property? property they have no legal right or standing to be on.
because there is no law that allows such on anothers private property public property yes its protected by law and the constitution .
well it would seem that both stand your ground and castle doctrine says otherwise and since they were on THEIR property , and the protesters were not , its not hard if the law is upheld to see how this will end . and since they were on private property they had every right to do whatever they felt nessisary to mitigate any alleged, perceived. , implied or actual threat.
Don't like that take it up with the voters of the state and the state legislature that approved said laws .
personally since im not a lawyer , I would be hesitant to hire you as one, or take your council in matters of the law.
yep that's correct , I gave my tenant the right to decide who is allowed on the property he rents just like it was his own. only one he cannot deny acsess to is myself. and I gave it to him in writing in the lease agreement.
They weren't on their property and were not going to go in their home. . . .
because it is true and has been legally upheld throughout the country , Now if you want to try and do otherwise out here on a private road , which I would not recommend, have at it
you remind me of the scene from that TV show Yellowstone when Dutton finds all those Asian tourists way to close to a bear, and he tells them they are on private property , and he points out what property he owns , they of course say they don't believe him and say so and say no one should own so much and not share . well a rifle shot in the air ( which I would NOT recommend so close to that type of bear) the Asian scurry to the bus getting caught up in the barbed wire fence , Dutton tells the old man caught in the fence that disbelieved he owned the land and demanded him to share , this is America , we don't share. parting shot is the bus hightailing down the highway and Dutton watching the bear from a safe distance .
AGAIN! Not their property, protesters were on the street, which at worst could be considered an easement.
Suz, this has been covered over and over in this thread.
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again
It's like beating your head against the wall . . . .
Loki cited the law not me. Don't like it? Tough shit.
Jesus! What is wrong with you? Show me where that street is private, THEN (if private) show me where the property management requested they leave.
Then why did no one request the cops remove them????
Bullshit!
AND AGAIN!!!
THEY MUST SHOW THEY WERE THREATENED BEFORE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!!!
Too bad it was all on video showing there was no threat. Imaginary threats do not count.
Guess what? The police agree with me since the homeowners were arrested.
The police did as they were directed by the St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner who brought the charges. What did you expect them to do? Just say no? Laughable are your reasons to "believe" because they were arrested. LOL
The fact that he is over riding the city attorney shows that he knows it violates the law, otherwise he would just let it go through court.
The problem with your claim, is that the police and city attorney cannot charge anyone for trespassing or vandalizing, if nobody affected reports trespassing or vandalizing to the police. No victim, no crime in this case.
You seem to like to assume crimes occurred, without providing any evidence of such.
You posted it, you have to take ownership of the posting. Don't like it? Post the actual law cited and show where it contradicts your first post. [removed]
some seem to think just because you have the right to peacefully assemble, then that means there are no restrictions on where you can do it.
we should feel sorry for those folks.
All the state AG did was file an amicus brief ( friend of the court ) suggesting that the charges be dropped and stated the relevant state laws that would support the dismissal.
Mo judges have the authority to take the brief under consideration , or dismiss and disregard the brief in its entirety.
The actual charges faced are felony unlawful use of a firearm, to me the prosecution has to prove this couple had no right to do anything as it unfolded around them . and that the act of arming themselves was in fact unlawful.
The couples likely defense will be The stand your ground law , in light of both local and national events having taken place up to that point on jun 28th.
A stand-your-ground law sometimes called "line in the sand " or "no duty to retreat" law establishes a right by which a person may defend one's self or others (right of self-defense) against threats or perceived threats, even to the point of applying lethal force, regardless of whether safely retreating from the situation might have been possible.
The judge will decide if the couple made a reasonable choice in arming themselves in view of events and if arming themselves was in fact unlawful or not.
Some things the judge will LIKELY take into consideration but doesn't have to are did at any time did the accused leave their own property during the confrontation.
Did the people confronted have any legal standing to be where they were when confronted.
Being this would be a criminal trial if it proceeds the accused would have the right to a jury trial, in which the prosecutor would have to convince the entire jury to vote guilty and not just the judge like in a bench trial.
And the thing I do find most concerning of all is not that the president of the US has chimed in , or the governor has taken a stand , or that the state AG has weighed in .
What is more concerning to me is that a Mo congressperson has requested that AG Barr and the DOJ look into the matter for possable civil rights violations .
I see you're still not correcting your statement with the actual law. Why is that? Could it be that your original statement was correct and now you are too afraid to contradict yourself????
You haven't shown they never committed a crime, as charged. Not to mention that, by YOUR theory, nobody can be found innocent because the state AG would have blocked any charges going to court that people were not guilty of.
Or could the state AG be blocking proper charges and procedure for purely political reasons? You know like Barr interfered in Roger Stone's trial, against Barr's own attorney's wishes.
No they don't. Jesus you are trying to push nonsense.
They own the HOA about as much as you own your local law enforcement. They invest in it through fees, they have no ownership or control of it.
What part of, you cannot point a gun at someone simply walking past your private property do YOU not understand????
Some people do not understand that if there is a peaceful assembly, even on your front lawn, and you chose not to ask them to leave, they are being allowed to do so.
Why did you link a law that has nothing to do with this situation? Are you unable to contradict your own claim? Did you read your own link at all?
Your reply is a joke showing that you have nothing to dispute your earlier claim with.
that is just fucking ridiculous
have you ever in your life heard of trespassing??
AGAIN!!! NOT THEIR PROPERTY, AT MOST AN EASEMENT, BUT NOT THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY!!!!
Again, your sidewalk is also your personal property. Go outside and start pointing a gun at everyone that walks down your sidewalk. Post a picture of your mug shot.
That would be a criminal assault...
You haven't proven that, your claim is nothing but a sound out your ass until you prove it. In most private housing areas, the streets are owned by ALL RESIDENTS not just one. This is why you cannot forbid your neighbor from driving down the street if you get pissed at them.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS POINT?? OR DO YOU THINK YOU CAN BLOCK YOUR NEIGHBOR FROM DRIVING ON THE STREET IN YOUR GATED COMMUNITY?
The street is community access, which means anyone in the community can use it, or anyone visiting the community can use it, or anyone IN the community can authorize someone to use it. That is why friends and relatives can visit without first obtaining approval from everyone in the gated community.
It also means that one home cannot ban usage of that road all by themselves. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS???
What should they have done? They should have contacted the person in charge of the HOA, who could then request the removal of the protesters as the elected (or appointed) manager of the HOA and community.
it is hilarious ya'll are still worked up over this.
the couple will get off and the DA will look like an ass.
great job!!
lmao
EXACTLY! Thank you.
You're half right. The couple may get off. But the AG will look like an ass. And the couple may very easily be looking at dozens of civil suits due to their actions.
these are the things that will happen:
charges dropped, or
they beat the charge in court, or
they are found guilty and pardoned, or
plea deal(highly unlikely)
damn sure no jail time!!!
Do you mean the one that runs along that public street or the one that leads up to your house?
Oh I am sure they would like that , because then they have the names of people who were trespassing and could countersue for that offense. Right now they cant because they have no actual names and likely isn't worth their time.
Ding, ding, ding!!!!
We have a winner, folks!!!
Have you not been reading any of this thread? Your sidewalk is your property, that is why you have to shovel it when it snows. It is also an easement, which is why you cannot control who is allowed to walk on it.
I do not understand why you guys are so intent on trying to justify a blatantly illegal action. You cannot point guns at people because they are walking anywhere near you. Even if they are walking across your front yard, it is still illegal to point guns at people that are not threatening you.
2 problems with your claim.
Once again you are trying to straw man this. I never claimed it was illegal to carry a weapon on your property, your attempt to deflect is dishonest. I stated that it was illegal to POINT the gun, intentionally, at anyone.
I don't have to, if the homeowners are claiming they were threatened, it is up to them to prove it. No police report, no threats on camera, no evidence.
Yes they did and yes there is a police report.
So I'm sure you have a link to that.
I am sure I do.
Making shit up as he goes..
I was going to make her say "purdy please"...lol
Wait a minute--you mean there is actually a police report--despite the claims made by some?
Interesting.
Why do you think people would lie about that?
Doesn't fit into their neat little agenda of defending people who break the law and trespass?
Funny that people are so willing to ignore SOME violations of law because they support some "cause".
Hell, most of the ones supporting the riots are the same ones refusing to accept the very simple fact that the "protesters" were on private property and had no right to be there--despite the histrionics and hysteria perpetrated and advanced by some on the left.
Could be correct, but it also states that the group was going to the mayor's house, chanting her name. So much for "threatening" the home owner.
More credible than all the videos showing the incident?
Hundreds of protesters and they all knew that these homeowners would pull out guns, and all knew when to edit their videos, even when live streaming.
Yeah, that sounds likely.....
they were on private property.
I know that means nothing to you, but it still does to some
Likely matter to the judge as well , if it ever gets that far....
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.
They keep going on and on and on and on and on and on about that gate, it was open when the peaceful protesters walked through. No one has shown any evidence of that gate being broken UNTIL AFTER THE FACT.
My thoughts are that the McCloskey's broke the gate AFTER THE FACT and blamed it on the peaceful protesters.
Since when do peaceful protesters walk around armed, especially on private property?
"Since when do peaceful protesters walk around armed, especially on private property?"
The peaceful protesters weren't armed.
What are you talking about?
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..........................
There was video of the gate prior and it is open. XMDm9m whoever provided that video on another thread.
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
Which is NOT an invitation to trespass, as the "protesters" did.
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!
That’s just it, there was no public property. In neighborhoods with private streets the property of a home extended half way out into the streets adjacent to the house with a right of way so that others who lived there could pass through. So technically there was no public sidewalk or street for the protestors to be on. The Sidewalk and half of the street was legally their property.
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.
And what specific legal charges will be made against her in your scenario?
Pretending to be a licensed hand gun owner
Interesting.
What statute is that particular crime covered in under the Missouri criminal code?
Did you wake up on the other side of your sense of humor this morning?
Ok...maybe you don't think it's funny, but I do. It's a stupid joke!
Could not possibly agree with that more.
My crystal ball said you would say exactly that
Hey, I have no problem admitting when you get something right!
Of course, your crystal ball probably already told you that, too!
Actually, my crystal ball said "Texan will need the last word. Type one more comment and he will definitely have the last word. And also type I. Am. Done."
Probably need to polish that puppy up a little--seems pretty hazy!
But to satisfy you:
I. Am. Done.
You didn't read my comment correctly
Ah, yes.
Only you know what I read and know how I interpreted it.
Sorry, I keep forgetting about those super powers!
Want to tell me more?
My crystal ball told me to give you the last word, but you erred when you said my crystal ball needed polishing. Then my crystal ball told ME to type out I. Am. Done. Again you erred when you typed out those words.
So....one more try. You may have the last word.
I. Am. Done.
nope. Not at all.
You didn't type those words, and I didn't want you to be disappointed in your little crazy crystal ball. So I typed them for you. See now?
Gladly!
Wait for it, wait for it......here it comes....
The LAST word:
HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
Really?
Ever been arrested on any gun-related charges before this incident?
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.
"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."
Didn't you read the piece from the start - the dino mayor who doxed her constituents lived on that street and the peaceful protesters passed Bonnie and Clyde on the way.
The gate was not ripped down. The gate was wide open.
They weren't roving gangs of vandals.
They were peaceful protesters.
Many on the left seem all worked up over this.
What will your angst accomplish?
The couple will either:
Have the charges dropped
or
Beat the charges
or
be convicted and pardoned
or
Take a plea deal (doubtful).
Not a one of those possible outcomes will make ya'll happy, so why whine about it?
Some people just like the sound of their own whine
Apparently. . . .
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.