Charges filed against St. Louis couple who brandished guns at protesters

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  perrie-halpern  •  3 weeks ago  •  218 comments

By:   Doha Madani

Charges filed against St. Louis couple who brandished guns at protesters
Mark and Patricia McCloskey were charged in connection to video of them brandishing firearms at Black Lives Matter protesters outside their St. Louis home.

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

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
MAGA
1  MAGA    3 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  MAGA @1    3 weeks ago

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!  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  MAGA @1    3 weeks ago
It’s ok because the state AG said the couple was well within Missouri’s castle and stand your ground laws

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?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    3 weeks ago
it is okay to point weapons at anyone, as long as you're on your own property, even if the person/people are not?

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".

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

Jim, Jim, Jim.

How dare you inject reason into the debate?

Tsk, tsk, my man, Tsk, tsk!

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.3  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

Plus it is private property, all of it!  the minute the people walked through the gate they were trespassing. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.4  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    3 weeks ago
Video showed no threat toward the home owners, so how does "stand your ground" laws apply with no threat being made?

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
Why do you suppose those people didn't put foot on their property?

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.

The guns obviously were a deterrent in this case.

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.

You know that old "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

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".

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.6  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.3    3 weeks ago
Plus it is private property, all of it!  the minute the people walked through the gate they were trespassing.

It did not belong to the couple.  You understand that right??? 

Actual property owner never requested the protesters leave.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.4    3 weeks ago
IMHO the problem with video is it can be started or stopped at any point during a confrontation. as well as be edited later 

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?????

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.6    3 weeks ago
Actual property owner never requested the protesters leave.

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.

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.2.9  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.6    3 weeks ago
It did not belong to the couple.  You understand that right??? 

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.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.10  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.7    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  loki12 @1.2.11    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif Basically what I was saying. The property owners also own the street. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.8    3 weeks ago
WTF do you mean by that? It's a neighborhood probably with an HOA that all of the residents pay to maintain.

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?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.9    3 weeks ago
I didn't say it did.  They still could have felt threatened. People can shoot from the street.

You didn't say ANYTHING.  Loki did, unless you are commenting under multiple accounts.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.16  Ozzwald  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.10    3 weeks ago
believe none of what you hear and only about half of what you see.

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

Not an argument , just a statement that comes from personal experience.

Yeah, sure.  Can't find any actual facts, so the best you can do is "claim" Anecdotal evidence.

So not a cop out

Yes, it is.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.17  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.13    3 weeks ago

And now there is proof!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.18  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.12    3 weeks ago
It actually did belong to them you are wrong here are the property lines, they go to the middle of the street because they own the road!!!!!!!! 

OMG!!!!  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif   Zillow is your evidence?  Based on how they decided to draw lines on a map???  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

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!

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.19  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.18    3 weeks ago

I provided proof, prove you wrong, you have offered literally nothing but opinion. .......ooops, just saw this,

And reality has a well-known liberal bias. - Stephen Colbert

Anybody who get their talking points from a low functioning moron comedian.........I guess we are done. unless you can factually dispute the official property lines.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.20  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.18    3 weeks ago
trespassing

People who know what they are talking about understand easements.........Do you want me to explain them to you?

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.21  loki12  replied to  loki12 @1.2.20    3 weeks ago

I'm going to leave this right here, for the person who has offered nothing to back up his argument.

The state of Missouri allows homeowners to use lethal force to defend themselves from an intruder on their property under the  Castle Doctrine.   But many legal experts believe that that the doctrine doesn’t apply beyond the homeowner’s property line, even if the homeowner technically co-owns the street  beyond  that line. 

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/06/29/meet-the-mccloskeys-private-places-lead-to-spatial-anti-blackness-in-st-louis/

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.2.22  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.18    3 weeks ago
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?

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.23  Kathleen  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.18    3 weeks ago

That's how I found my house and bought it. Real estate agents use them too.  

Gated communities have rules and you have to have permission to enter. That's why there is a gate, right?  You break down the gate, you are breaking the law. Very simple. It does not matter who owns what, the neighborhood as a whole was off limits to them. Period.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.24  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.19    3 weeks ago
I provided proof, prove you wrong, you have offered literally nothing but opinion

Zillow is you idea of "PROOF"? 

16963716497_37a9756a59_b.jpg

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.25  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.20    3 weeks ago

People who know what they are talking about understand easements.........Do you want me to explain them to you?

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.26  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.21    3 weeks ago
The state of Missouri allows homeowners to use lethal force to defend themselves from an intruder on their property under the  Castle Doctrine.

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.27  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.22    3 weeks ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.28  Ozzwald  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.23    3 weeks ago
Gated communities have rules and you have to have permission to enter.

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.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.29  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.27    3 weeks ago

You’re wrong and have offered nothing! 

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.30  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.28    3 weeks ago

The protesters were worthless bags of human excrement who the homeowners should have flushed. Period! They have no value! And should be treated as such.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.31  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.27    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.32  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.16    3 weeks ago
An obvious Trump supporter.
How can I be a trumpster if I didn't vote for him? or are you using a rather broad brush because I disagree with you?
Can't find any actual facts, so the best you can do is "claim" Anecdotal evidence
 well when i bought my property i did go down to the county office to look up what my actual property lines are and  to verify the easements , on top of that i had to go to the reservation office to see who exactly was responsable for the dirt road maint . 
 turns out the property owners are responsible for the road maint on the sections that run through their properties . and the county plat shows that my property lines extend across the road to the ajoining property that is fenced off, and that the easement states I can do whatever I choose to with the road on my property , EXCEPT deny acsess to the legal property owner to my north.
Those are the legal facts of the matter in my case that I base my statement on. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.33  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.18    3 weeks ago

I suggest you research who owns what before you make claims about ownership. HOA's do own common ground if they didn't turn it over to the city/county for maintenance. Each member of the HOA has ownership which is why you can be assessed for maintenance and why they purchase liability coverage, because the HOA can be sued for claims on the common ground. By reviewing the City of St Louis Assessors Office(NOT ZILLOW) the property lines go to the middle of the street.

http://dynamic.stlouis-mo.gov/citydata/newdesign/

click on parcel data

enter: Portland Pl

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.34  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.28    3 weeks ago
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.

So many assumptions one doesn't even know where to start.

So, in light of your constant drivel to demand shit, prove yours.

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.2.35  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.27    3 weeks ago

There are public and private easements.  Do you see no trespassing signs on public sidewalks?  

Now you are just being obtuse.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.36  Kathleen  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.28    3 weeks ago

You are being silly... along with some other comments on here....

Next thing you will be claiming that the gates were wide open.... jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.37  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.31    3 weeks ago
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.

Easement is a legal term, you cannot change the definition to support your argument.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.38  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.33    3 weeks ago
I suggest you research who owns what before you make claims about ownership. HOA's do own common ground if they didn't turn it over to the city/county for maintenance.

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.39  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.34    3 weeks ago
So many assumptions one doesn't even know where to start.

Exactly!  Glad my examples shed some light on it.

You have no idea how much I was hoping someone would point that out....

So, in light of your constant drivel to demand shit, prove yours.

Why should I have to prove mine, but nobody else has to prove theirs?  Hypocritical a little????

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.40  Ozzwald  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.36    3 weeks ago
Next thing you will be claiming that the gates were wide open.

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?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

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.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.41  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.37    3 weeks ago
Easement is a legal term, you cannot change the definition to support your argument. 
neither can you , because not all easements are public acsess.

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.42  Ozzwald  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.41    3 weeks ago
neither can you , because not all easements are public acsess.

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!!!!!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.43  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.42    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.44  Ozzwald  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.43    3 weeks ago
And you have yet to prove it

I wasn't the one who claimed it was, you seemed confused on how these arguments work.  You don't prove a negative.

Just because there is a road there , doesn't mean you or the general public can use it .

Why are you continuing this amazingly stupid claim?

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.

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. 

  • Even if the road is part of an easement (really doesn't matter).
  • Even if they entered the gated community illegally (no evidence that they did).
  • Even if every far fetched claim made in this thread is true (it all isn't).

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

 
 
 
Suz
1.2.45  Suz  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.6    3 weeks ago
It did not belong to the couple.  You understand that right???  Actual property owner never requested the protesters leave.

Doesn't matter.  Even if they're renting, they have every right to keep people off the property and out of their home.   

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.46  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.44    3 weeks ago
The homeowners did not have the legal right to point guns at the peaceful protesters! 

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.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.47  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Suz @1.2.45    3 weeks ago
Doesn't matter.  Even if they're renting, they have every right to keep people off the property and out of their home.   

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.48  Tessylo  replied to  Suz @1.2.45    3 weeks ago

They weren't on their property and were not going to go in their home. . . . 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.49  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.44    3 weeks ago
Just because there is a road there , doesn't mean you or the general public can use it .
Why are you continuing this amazingly stupid claim?

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 .

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.50  Ozzwald  replied to  Suz @1.2.45    3 weeks ago
Doesn't matter.  Even if they're renting, they have every right to keep people off the property and out of their home.

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.51  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.50    3 weeks ago

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 . . . . 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.52  Kathleen  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.40    3 weeks ago

I lived in a gated community years ago, unless the rules have changed, you had to have permission to enter it.  They did not. So that settles that.

Tell me, why do you think there is a gate there?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.53  Ozzwald  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.46    3 weeks ago
That's the argument your going with correct?

Loki cited the law not me.  Don't like it?  Tough shit.

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.

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.

because there is no law that allows such on anothers private property public property yes its protected by law and the constitution .

Then why did no one request the cops remove them????

well it would seem that both stand your ground and castle doctrine says otherwise

Bullshit!

AND AGAIN!!! 

THEY MUST SHOW THEY WERE THREATENED BEFORE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!!!

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.

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.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.54  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.53    3 weeks ago
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

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.55  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.54    3 weeks ago

If we are going to go with that the States AG the highest law enforcement officer in the state has said they did nothing illegal and has asked the judge to dismiss, and he has ordered an investigation into the City attorney because none of the human bags of excrement have been charged for trespassing and vandalizing the property.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.56  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.53    3 weeks ago
Loki cited the law not me.

Show where I cited the law, If you are talking about 1.2.21, that is just some liberal douchebags opinion and not the opinion of the intelligent people. They were on private property! There is no management like you claimed if there is produce it.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.57  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.55    3 weeks ago
If we are going to go with that the States AG the highest law enforcement officer in the state has said they did nothing illegal and has asked the judge to dismiss

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.

he has ordered an investigation into the City attorney because none of the human bags of excrement have been charged for trespassing and vandalizing the property.

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.58  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.56    3 weeks ago
Show where I cited the law, If you are talking about 1.2.21, that is just some liberal douchebags opinion and not the opinion of the intelligent people.

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]

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.59  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.58    3 weeks ago
You posted it, you have to take ownership of the posting.

I did take ownership for posting it and told you exactly what it was, THE OPINION OF A LOW FUNCTIONING LIBERAL DOUCHEBAG, the point of the article was even that LOW FUNCTIONING LIBERAL DOUCHEBAG was smart enough to figure out it is a private street and said so several times in the article.  It's in the very first line,

Two white homeowners threatened the lives of Black Lives Mater protestors in on a (private street) in St. Louis yesterday, raising questions about anti-Black racism in pseudo-public space.

You are the one that claimed I posted the law, thanks for verifying that, that didn't happen. 

You made the claim the management company didn't ask them to leave. Back that up with a source, the name of the management company will do, or we will just assume you're wrong again.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.60  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.57    3 weeks ago
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.

No, a Prosecutor who had any integrity, unlike the loser in St. Louis wouldn't just let it go through court, It is misconduct to charge someone who hasn't committed a crime, the AG is trying to prevent this. Why should the family pay legal fees because the St. Louis prosecutor is an idiot?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.61  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.38    3 weeks ago
HOA has nothing to do with it,

You missed the point, they own part of the HOA, since they are property owners. The property the protestors where on is "private". Protestors have no right to be on private property in the State of Missouri

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.62  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.50    3 weeks ago
AGAIN!  Not their property, protesters were on the street, which at worst could be considered an easement.

It's "PRIVATE PROPERTY" what part of "PRIVATE" don't you understand. Easement has nothing to do with it, hell an easement exists on just about every property for utilities. You think that because the electric or gas company can be on an easement anyone can.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.63  Texan1211  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.61    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.64  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  loki12 @1.2.60    3 weeks ago

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 .

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.65  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.59    3 weeks ago
I did take ownership for posting it and told you exactly what it was, THE OPINION OF A LOW FUNCTIONING LIBERAL DOUCHEBAG, the point of the article was even that LOW FUNCTIONING LIBERAL DOUCHEBAG was smart enough to figure out it is a private street and said so several times in the article.

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????

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.66  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.60    3 weeks ago
No, a Prosecutor who had any integrity, unlike the loser in St. Louis wouldn't just let it go through court, It is misconduct to charge someone who hasn't committed a crime

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.67  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.61    3 weeks ago
You missed the point, they own part of the HOA, since they are property owners.

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.68  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.62    3 weeks ago
It's "PRIVATE PROPERTY" what part of "PRIVATE" don't you understand.

What part of, you cannot point a gun at someone simply walking past your private property do YOU not understand????

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.69  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.63    3 weeks ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.70  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.65    3 weeks ago

I didn't reference a law, i said it was a private street and it is. Are you claiming that missouri doesn't have a castle doctrine? 

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=563.031  

That was their property, it is NOt a public street they are trespassors, Period the homeowners asked them to leave ans said they were in fear for their lives, that is all the requirements.

There is no Management   company like you erroneously claimed or you would post the link!

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.71  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.68    3 weeks ago
What part of, you cannot point a gun at someone simply walking past your private property do YOU not understand????

What part of not walking past but actually on private property are you having such a hard time with? There is NO public property there.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.72  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.68    3 weeks ago
simply walking past your private property

Jesus.......they were walking on private property look at the fucking plot for the City of St Louis Assessor.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.73  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.69    3 weeks ago
you chose not to ask them to leave, they are being allowed to do so.

You don't know Missouri Law. get a clue!

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.74  MUVA  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.69    3 weeks ago

When people come on your property or private road they are trespassing.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.75  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.70    3 weeks ago
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=563.031  

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.76  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.69    3 weeks ago

that is just fucking ridiculous

have you ever in your life heard of trespassing??

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.77  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.71    3 weeks ago
What part of not walking past but actually on private property are you having such a hard time with?

AGAIN!!!  NOT THEIR PROPERTY, AT MOST AN EASEMENT, BUT NOT THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY!!!!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.78  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.76    3 weeks ago

have you ever in your life heard of trespassing??

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.

 
 
 
JBB
1.2.79  JBB  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.78    3 weeks ago

That would be a criminal assault...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.80  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.72    3 weeks ago

Jesus.......they were walking on private property look at the fucking plot for the City of St Louis Assessor.

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.81  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.78    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.82  Ozzwald  replied to  JBB @1.2.79    3 weeks ago

That would be a criminal assault...

EXACTLY!  Thank you.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.83  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.81    3 weeks ago
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!!

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.84  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.83    3 weeks ago

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!!!

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.85  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.77    3 weeks ago

Again private road, Their property goes all the way to the center of the street. Why do you think there is a big gate?  You are wrong! prove it's public PERIOD!

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.86  loki12  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.81    3 weeks ago
the couple will get off and the DA will continue to look like an ass.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.87  loki12  replied to  JBB @1.2.79    3 weeks ago
That would be a criminal assault...

Site the code.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.88  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.78    3 weeks ago
Again, your sidewalk is also your personal property.

Try fencing the sidewalk off and then tell me it's private property, in fact the city maintains the sidewalks,  this was fenced because it is not public. 

 
 
 
GregTx
1.2.89  GregTx  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.78    3 weeks ago

Do you mean the one that runs along that public street or the one that leads up to your house?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.90  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.80    3 weeks ago
You haven't proven that, your claim

Have you looked at the property lines on Portland Pl vs other streets in St Louis 

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/data/address-search/

It also means that one home cannot ban usage of that road all by themselves. 

Never said they could.  The road and sidewalks are gated, you can't enter Portland Pl without authorization. The protester did not have authorization to be on the Private Property as you yourself noted above.( or  anyone IN the community can authorize someone to use it).  Which is wrong there is no right for a homeowner to grant "use" of the HOA property.   .  

They should have contacted the person in charge of the HOA

No........they should have contacted the police, which they did. When they were threatened they then obtained their firearms 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.91  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.83    3 weeks ago
And the couple may very easily be looking at dozens of civil suits due to their actions.

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.92  Texan1211  replied to  loki12 @1.2.86    3 weeks ago

Ding, ding, ding!!!!
We have a winner, folks!!!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.93  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.88    3 weeks ago
Try fencing the sidewalk off and then tell me it's private property, in fact the city maintains the sidewalks,  this was fenced because it is not public. 

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.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.94  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.93    3 weeks ago
it is still illegal to point guns at people that are not threatening you.

And the homeowners said they threatened them, so you are wrong again. you are legally allowed to carry your weapon in your front yard, Prove they didn't threaten the homeowner.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.95  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.94    3 weeks ago
And the homeowners said they threatened them, so you are wrong again.

2 problems with your claim.

  1. They never called the police to report these threats.
  2. The incident was recorded on multiple phones, no threats were shown on those recordings.
you are legally allowed to carry your weapon in your front yard

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.

Prove they didn't threaten the homeowner.

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.

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.2.96  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.95    3 weeks ago
They never called the police to report these threats.

Yes they did and yes there is a police report.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.97  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.96    3 weeks ago

So I'm sure you have a link to that.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.98  loki12  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.96    3 weeks ago
Yes they did and yes there is a police report.

Boom!!!!! He has gotten zero right on this.   But he is a huge defender of the human bags of excrement known as............... BoweL Movement

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.2.99  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.97    3 weeks ago

I am sure I do.

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.2.100  Sunshine  replied to  loki12 @1.2.98    3 weeks ago
He has gotten zero right on this

Making shit up as he goes..jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.101  loki12  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.97    3 weeks ago

The pair called the St. Louis Police Department shortly before 7:30 p.m. Sunday. They told arriving officers that they had heard a “commotion” and, upon investigating further, “observed a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street’ signs.” according to an incident summary provided to Fox News by the department.

https://fox6now.com/2020/06/29/attorney-armed-protesters-broke-iron-gate-threatened-st-louis-couple-before-they-drew-their-guns/

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.2.102  Sunshine  replied to  loki12 @1.2.101    3 weeks ago

https://www.dailywire.com/news/missouri-governor-says-pardon-likely-if-st-louis-homeowners-charged?itm_source=parsely-api

According to police reports, the McCloskeys told police that they heard a disturbance and saw “a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street’ signs.”

I was going to make her say "purdy please"...lol

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.103  Texan1211  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.102    3 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.104  loki12  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.103    3 weeks ago

And to think, The BoweL Movement losers violated a No Trespassing, Private property marked gate. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.105  Texan1211  replied to  loki12 @1.2.104    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.106  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.103    3 weeks ago
Wait a minute--you mean there is actually a police report--despite the claims made by some?

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.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.107  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.106    3 weeks ago

The homeowners said they were threatened and they are far more credible than the BoweL Movement criminals at this point. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.108  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.107    3 weeks ago
The homeowners said they were threatened and they are far more credible than the BoweL Movement criminals at this point.

More credible than all the videos showing the incident?

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.109  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.108    3 weeks ago

Do you think the BoweMovement group are going to post videos of them threatening the homeowners? I know you can't believe the fact that you have been proven wrong on every count. but now you are going to try to use the criminals didn't post videos of their crime as a defense?  They have no credibility or integrity, Why are you having such a hard time coming to grips with the fact they are bags of human excrement?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.110  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @1.2.109    3 weeks ago
Do you think the  B owe M ovement group are going to post videos of them threatening the homeowners?

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.....jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.111  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.106    3 weeks ago

they were on private property.

I know that means nothing to you, but it still does to some

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.112  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.111    3 weeks ago
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....

 
 
 
MUVA
2  MUVA    3 weeks ago

Coming to a city near you.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1  Sparty On  replied to  MUVA @2    3 weeks ago

Especially if Biden wins and/or the Dems take both houses.

It's gonna get really sporty if that happens

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
2.2  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  MUVA @2    3 weeks ago
Coming to a city near you

Sincerely doubt it , they don't have the cahones to take the act out into the country.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.1  Drakkonis  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.2    3 weeks ago

You are almost certainly mistaken. If the Dems get the White House and both houses in congress, we're pretty much done as a Constitutional America. They don't have that right now but, even so, people are losing their jobs simply because they express their opinion. What do you think will happen if the Dems get that kind of control? People will go to prison for not using someone's preferred pronoun. 

My guess is the first thing they will do is impeach several members of the SCOTUS and replace them with their picks. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.1    3 weeks ago
My guess is the first thing they will do is impeach several members of the SCOTUS and replace them with their picks. 

Nope.   "Hell yes, I'll take your guns" and a likely good attempt at doing so courtesy of Bitch Boy BETO being on the Hiden Biden team.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
2.2.3  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.1    3 weeks ago

Time shall tell.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3  Citizen Kane-473667    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.1.1  Drakkonis  replied to  Sparty On @3.1    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.2  loki12  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

The minute she pointed the gun at a protester she needed to pull the trigger, rule #1, never point your weapon at something you don’t intend to kill. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.1.3  gooseisgone  replied to  loki12 @3.1.2    3 weeks ago
never point your weapon at something you don’t intend to kill. 

I agree, you don't point unless you are going to shoot. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.1.4  gooseisgone  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
Not that I'm against them defending their bank building, I mean house

Let's flip the script, how would you feel if this were a 400 acres ranch and protesters were walking up your driveway when they just burned a building in town. Would you be as critical in that situation.

I will say her trigger discipline sucked, if the gun was even loaded. If it was loaded I am surprised she didn't squeeze a shot off. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.1.5  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  gooseisgone @3.1.4    3 weeks ago
Let's flip the script, how would you feel if this were a 400 acres ranch and protesters were walking up your driveway when they just burned a building in town. Would you be as critical in that situation.

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.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.1.6  Drakkonis  replied to  gooseisgone @3.1.4    3 weeks ago
Let's flip the script, how would you feel if this were a 400 acres ranch and protesters were walking up your driveway when they just burned a building in town. Would you be as critical in that situation.

LOL, no, I was just pointing out that it looked like a bank, not a house. What it looked like makes no difference. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.1.7  gooseisgone  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.6    3 weeks ago
What it looked like makes no difference.

I agree, I was just pointing out if the same thing took place in a rural setting would it have been a big deal.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.1.8  gooseisgone  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.5    3 weeks ago

Not that I wasn't stating the obvious but, the gun was inoperable at the time of the incident. They used it as a prop in a court case. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/report-patricia-mccloskeys-handgun-inoperable-when-seized-by-police/ar-BB172pbL

 
 
 
charger 383
4  charger 383    3 weeks ago

If the troublemakers were not where they had no right to be then this would not have happened

 
 
 
Ronin2
5  Ronin2    3 weeks ago
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."

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.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
5.1  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Ronin2 @5    3 weeks ago

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 .

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

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.

"video obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch shows that the gate to Portland Place was open when the protesters arrived. "

" Moments after the march moved past his house,  Mark  McCloskey can be seen yelling at protesters and wielding a rifle. His wife soon joined him, and the couple moved from the front door to the lawn adjoining the street, with  Patricia   McCloskey  repeatedly pointing a small pistol at protesters."

" The McCloskeys and their supporters have said that the "castle doctrine" in Missouri law, and elsewhere, empowers a homeowner to stand their ground and use deadly force when threatened. But Harvard Law School Professor Ronald Sullivan Jr. said Friday that "the law is crystal clear in Missouri, that a reasonableness argument is necessary for a defendant to take advantage of the Castle doctrine."

" Sullivan said that despite the McCloskeys' claim that the entire Portland Place neighborhood was private property, and the protesters were immediately trespassing, "the castle doctrine would still be unavailable. The doctrine removes one's duty to retreat. But they could only use deadly force if they reasonably felt they were in imminent danger. Based on the video evidence, that's a very difficult argument to make," because the protesters were unarmed and did not move toward the McCloskey residence, Sullivan said."
 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
6.1.1  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 weeks ago
They threatened people that were not threatening them.

John, I didn't know you where there.  If you weren't there how on earth can make make this claim. 

many people will see the two as guilty

Guilty of what? Are you trying to say these people "were not" on private property? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.2  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 weeks ago
That said, from what I am seeing they probably are guilty of trying to intimidate peaceful protesters. 

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @6.2    3 weeks ago

"video obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch shows that the gate to Portland Place was open when the protesters arrived. "

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @6.2    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.1    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    3 weeks ago
No one threatened them. 

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 ......

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.2.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @6.2    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.1    3 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.2.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.6    3 weeks ago

Since when do peaceful protesters walk around armed, especially on private property?

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.2.7    3 weeks ago

"Since when do peaceful protesters walk around armed, especially on private property?"

The peaceful protesters weren't armed.

What are you talking about?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.2.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.8    3 weeks ago

I read a article that mistakenly said the protesters were armed. I was wrong, my apologies.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.2.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.1    3 weeks ago

Let's see it John...............................

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.10    3 weeks ago
"video obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch shows that the gate to Portland Place was open when the protesters arrived. "

"video obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch shows that the gate to Portland Place was open when the protesters arrived. "

[removed]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.2.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.11    3 weeks ago
video obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch shows that the gate to Portland Place was open when the protesters arrived

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..........................

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.12    3 weeks ago

There was video of the gate prior and it is open.  XMDm9m whoever provided that video on another thread.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.2.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.13    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.1    3 weeks ago

Which is NOT an invitation to trespass, as the "protesters" did.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @6.3    3 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.3.2  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @6.3.1    3 weeks ago
The videos that we have seen all show the protesters marching peacefully ON THE STREET and not setting foot on the mansion property. 

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.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.3.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @6.3.1    3 weeks ago

Did you fail to see the high lighted part of the sentence where YOU said they came through the gate!

 
 
 
MAGA
6.3.4  MAGA  replied to  Sunshine @6.3.2    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.3.5  Sunshine  replied to  MAGA @6.3.4    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.3.6  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JohnRussell @6.3.1    3 weeks ago
The videos that we have seen all show the protesters marching peacefully ON THE STREET and not setting foot on the mansion property. 

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 .

 
 
 
loki12
6.3.7  loki12  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.3.6    3 weeks ago

As you understand and people who live rural understand, Some streets are private, If it was a public road like some people who just can't seem to grasp basic facts think, they couldn't gate it off. Because it would be public! I can't close my road, but i can sure gate my driveway, which the roads dead ends into. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.3.8  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  loki12 @6.3.7    3 weeks ago

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 .

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.9  XDm9mm  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.3.6    3 weeks ago
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 .

Actually, the Missouri Attorney General noted earlier today that the "protesters" were actually trespassing on private property as the "road" is communal property and not municipal owned.   Local municipal property stopped at the gate the mob broke down.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.3.10  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.9    3 weeks ago

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 .

 
 
 
loki12
6.3.11  loki12  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.3.8    3 weeks ago

Exactly! But apparently if I want to go down your private road and vandalize your neighbors house there is nothing you can do about it in some people’s minds.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.12  XDm9mm  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.3.10    3 weeks ago
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 .

True.   Which is why the state Attorney General is stepping in and asking the court to dismiss the charges as the homeowners were well withing their rights per Missouri law.   Hell, he even went so far as to not it was a political prosecution from a DA with a history of political persecution cases 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.3.13  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  loki12 @6.3.11    3 weeks ago

LOL well that entirely depends on the agreements I have with my immediate neighbors .

devil is in the details as they say.

 
 
 
loki12
6.3.14  loki12  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.3.13    3 weeks ago

Well played! The devil is in the details indeed.

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.4  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.5  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 weeks ago

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 .

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.6  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 weeks ago
I think they went for their guns the instant they saw protesters coming through the gate and had them visible to the protesters

The defense rests, Your Honor.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7  Trout Giggles    3 weeks ago

That woman needs some serious weapons handling training. That's what they ought to indict her for.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @7    3 weeks ago
That woman needs some serious weapons handling training.That'swhat they ought to indict her for.

And what specific legal charges will be made against her in your scenario?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    3 weeks ago

Pretending to be a licensed hand gun owner

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

Interesting.

What statute is that particular crime covered in under the Missouri criminal code?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.2    3 weeks ago

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!

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.3    3 weeks ago
It's a stupidjoke!

Could not possibly agree with that more.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.4    3 weeks ago
Could not possibly agree with that more.

My crystal ball said you would say exactly that

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.5    3 weeks ago
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!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    3 weeks ago

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."

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.7    3 weeks ago

Probably need to polish that puppy up a little--seems pretty hazy!

But to satisfy you:

I. Am. Done.

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.8    3 weeks ago

You didn't read my comment correctly

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.9    3 weeks ago
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?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.10    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.11    3 weeks ago
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.

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?

So....one more try. You may have the last word.

Gladly!

I. Am. Done.

Wait for it, wait for it......here it comes....

The LAST word:

HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Ender
7.2  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @7    3 weeks ago

Ha.  She looks like if she would shoot the weapon she would hit herself in the face.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @7.2    3 weeks ago

He looks like he's going to shoot her and she looks like she's watering the flowers

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Kavika @8    3 weeks ago

Irrelevant gossip.

 
 
 
Kavika
8.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Greg Jones @8.1    3 weeks ago
Irrelevant gossip.

I agree, that's what most of your comments are.

Cheers.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @8.1.1    3 weeks ago
"Irrelevant gossip."
"I agree, that's what most of your comments are.

Cheers."

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.2  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @8    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Kavika
8.2.1  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @8.2    3 weeks ago
Who gives a fuck?

The neighbors who actually live there and know the couple unlike you who does not live there or know a damn thing about them.

nor the uniformed indignant neighbors. 

LOL, too funny. You know nothing about them at all yet you feel you're intelligent enough to call them uninformed..

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.2.2  Sparty On  replied to  Kavika @8.2.1    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Kavika
8.2.3  Kavika   replied to  Sparty On @8.2.2    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  Kavika @8.2.3    3 weeks ago

Hmmmm ... small world eh?   Changes nothing though.  

People are entitled to protect their property.   Especially when the cops won't.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Kavika @8    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Kavika
8.3.1  Kavika   replied to  JohnRussell @8.3    3 weeks ago

Exactly, seems this couple has a bit of a problem with weapons.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @8.3.1    3 weeks ago
Exactly, seems this couple has a bit of a problem with weapons.

Really?

Ever been arrested on any gun-related charges before this incident?

 
 
 
Kavika
8.3.3  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @8.3.2    3 weeks ago

Don't know but the lady sure needs lessons on how to hold a weapon.

 
 
 
charger 383
9  charger 383    3 weeks ago

If the police had been properly protecting the homeowners they would not needed to get their guns,   

 
 
 
Kathleen
10  Kathleen    3 weeks ago

Nothing peaceful about it. They forced their way in and trespassed.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @10    3 weeks ago

"Nothing peaceful about it. They forced their way in and trespassed."  

They didn't force their way in.  The gate was WIDE OPEN.  Peaceful protesters.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
11  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @11    3 weeks ago

"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.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
12  Texan1211    3 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.1  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @12    3 weeks ago

Some people just like the sound of their own whine

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @12.1    3 weeks ago
"Some people just like the sound of their own whine"

Apparently. . . . 

 
 
 
Kathleen
13  Kathleen    3 weeks ago

They were being threatened, so they needed to protect themselves.

They should dismiss this case.

 
 
 
Tessylo
13.1  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @13    3 weeks ago

NO, they were not being threatened.  Not at all.  

 
 
 
MUVA
13.1.1  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @13.1    3 weeks ago

The so called peaceful protesters told the couple the were going to burn their house down kill their dog the couple heard a commotion and went to the front of the house how peaceful could it have really been.

 
 
 
Tessylo
13.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @13.1.1    3 weeks ago
"The so called peaceful protesters told the couple the were going to burn their house down kill their dog the couple heard a commotion and went to the front of the house how peaceful could it have really been."
jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

You have a link to support that, right?  Video?  Audio?

 
 
 
Texan1211
13.2  Texan1211  replied to  Kathleen @13    3 weeks ago
They were being threatened, so they needed to protect themselves.

Yes, and the fools shouldn't have been there to begin with--on private property without permission.

They should dismiss this case.

Yes, but no matter what, they won't do any time. They will be pardoned if necessary.

 
 
 
Tacos!
14  Tacos!    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
15  XDm9mm    3 weeks ago
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner,

And the Missouri State Attorney General has already come out and has asked the court to dismiss the politically inspired charges as what the McCloskeys did was well within the laws of Missouri.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
16  The Magic Eight Ball    3 weeks ago

Charges Filed BY A LEFTWING POLITICAL HACK Against St. Louis Couple Who Brandished Guns At Protesters And Have Nothing To Worry About.

 

 
 
 
Wheel
17  Wheel    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Tessylo
Texan1211
Dulay
Kavika
Gordy327
Bob Nelson
r.t..b...
Save Me Jebus
Trout Giggles
JaneDoe

pat wilson


78 visitors