# Missouri couple greet marching protesters with guns



## Sunny (Jun 29, 2020)

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/couple-aims-guns-at-protesters-072204408.html

That house looks like a fortress to me!  What were they so afraid of, that they had to go outside armed to the teeth?  (At least, nobody got shot this time.)

I get the feeling that there's a lot more to this story.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 29, 2020)

Lovely people.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 29, 2020)

Humanity ! I can’t believe I belong to the same species at times. I feel like I’m on another planet. The worlds going insane.


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 29, 2020)

Sunny said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/couple-aims-guns-at-protesters-072204408.html
> 
> That house looks like a fortress to me!  What were they so afraid of, that they had to go outside armed to the teeth?  (At least, nobody got shot this time.)



They're super lucky they weren't shot by a protestor  with the valid justification of self defense.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 29, 2020)

Keesha said:


> Humanity ! I can’t believe I belong to the same species at times. I feel like I’m on another planet. The worlds going insane.


Going?


----------



## Keesha (Jun 29, 2020)

Pepper said:


> Going?


Yeah. I’m truly trying to pretty it up some. I’ve spent my life doing that. It makes me feel better. To be brutally honest , I find what’s happening in the world right now to be heartbreaking. I can’t help but feel disappointed in humanity.

All this new technology where we can view everyone under high powered microscopes and judge them rentlessly and then justify our hatred.

Saying it’s disappointing is an understatement


----------



## Pepper (Jun 29, 2020)

@Keesha 
I love you.  Hope that helps a wee bit.  ❤


----------



## Keesha (Jun 29, 2020)

Pepper said:


> @Keesha
> I love you.  Hope that helps a wee bit.  ❤


It does. 
Thank you.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 29, 2020)

I'm wondering if what they said to the television station on an interview is that they tore down gates stating private property is true.  Because if it is they are justified in protecting their property.


----------



## rgp (Jun 29, 2020)

AnnieA said:


> They're super lucky they weren't shot by a protestor  with the valid justification of self defense.




 So, are you advocating the valid carrying of weapons by the protesters on the street ? .... And the possible use of them ? But are denouncing the valid use of weapons by the couple ..... on their own property ?


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 29, 2020)

I hate gated communities because to me they speak of a society that is not egalitarian. I live on a public road without even a fence between my front door and the road. I have a wire door to keep out flies but it is never locked. One evening last week a man knocked on my door to ask if we minded him parking his heavy work vehicle in front of our house overnight. We had no objection because the side street is a cul de sac and the vehicle was too big to park there.

If people were a bit less precious about their private property they would probably sleep better at night. The couple in the video were obviously upset by the intrusion into their territory and feared attack or vandalism. By the look of their home they were well to do and very afraid of a mob of people who have a lot less. 

I am beginning to think like our indigenous brothers and sisters who do not say that the land belongs to them. Their philosophy is that they belong to the land. My philosophy is that we are but stewards of the land and its wealth. We look after things and places so that they can be shared and eventually passed on to future generations. I admire people who open their homes to strangers in need and who eventually die with little wealth. As I write this I remember my mum who did exactly that, and her doors, front and back, were usually wide open so that anyone could enter freely if they wanted to. She was generous to a T, gave away and shared what she had and died rich in love but without very much money left in the bank and no property.

I guess I am feeling sorry for the couple in the video. They are stressed almost beyond limit by people in their "private" road. I'm very glad no-one died.


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 29, 2020)

rgp said:


> So, are you advocating the valid carrying of weapons by the protesters on the street ? .... And the possible use of them ? But are denouncing the valid use of weapons by the couple ..... on their own property ?



Anyone can carry with a valid permit.   I'm not at all denouncing the use of weapons by people on their own property; the protestors were not on the couple's property. 

My point about self-defense is that the couple were AIMING their weapons at the protestors in the street.  Aim a gun at someone and that person shoots thinking they're about to be shot ...that's self-defense.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 29, 2020)

Sunny said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/couple-aims-guns-at-protesters-072204408.html
> 
> That house looks like a fortress to me!  *What were they so afraid of, that they had to go outside armed to the teeth?*  (At least, nobody got shot this time.)
> 
> I get the feeling that there's a lot more to this story.


I can't help but get the impression that those who live their daily lives around guns are scared of their own shadows, and look for any excuse in the book to grandstand with them.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 29, 2020)

AnnieA said:


> Anyone can carry with a valid permit.   I'm not at all denouncing the use of weapons by people on their own property; *the protestors were not on the couple's property*.
> 
> My point about self-defense is that the couple were AIMING their weapons at the protestors in the street.  Aim a gun at someone and that person shoots thinking they're about to be shot ...that's self-defense.


I agree.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 29, 2020)

Keesha said:


> Humanity ! I can’t believe I belong to the same species at times. I feel like I’m on another planet. The worlds going insane.


Indeed, a sad state of affairs it is.


----------



## Lakeland living (Jun 29, 2020)

Afraid of???  Two people stood up to about 100 protesters that had just broken through gates clearly marked private. Trespassing , damaging private property which could lead to who knows what. These two people stood up facing incredible danger, if correct they stood up for their rights. Incredibly brave in my eyes.


----------



## Gaer (Jun 29, 2020)

This is only the beginning.  IMO:  There will be an internal war.  It's coming.  Householders are afraid.  They have watched the rioters on TV and are preparing to defend themselves.  Fear takes many forms.  I am so sad and fearful  for our country.


----------



## Lakeland living (Jun 29, 2020)

I am sorry to say I agree with you.


----------



## mlh (Jun 29, 2020)

Gaer said:


> This is only the beginning.  IMO:  There will be an internal war.  It's coming.  Householders are afraid.  They have watched the rioters on TV and are preparing to defend themselves.  Fear takes many forms.  I am so sad and fearful  for our country.


i am as well.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Jun 30, 2020)

The protestors broke down a gate, and forced their way onto private property, and that's just fine with y'all. But defending your home is not OK? The home owners, by a show of force, were saying don't mess with us. With all the craziness these so-called protesters have wreaked on private citizens and their property, I can't say I blame them. And the fact that this is obviously a mansion doesn't matter, at least not to me. But some of you think that because they're rich, they deserve some comeuppance.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 30, 2020)

So, the plot thickens.  The couple are supporters of BLM, and the mayor sounds like an idiot.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article243864442.html


----------



## old medic (Jun 30, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> I can't help but get the impression that those who live their daily lives around guns are scared of their own shadows, and look for any excuse in the book to grandstand with them.


I beg to differ.... HUGE differences between SCARED and PREPARED.... 

*the protestors were not on the couple's property* 
They BROKE down a gate and entered private property.... with all the dipshitted stuff these damn mobs have done across the country 
These folks had every right in the world to stand their ground and defend their property


----------



## squatting dog (Jun 30, 2020)

Once again, if you wait 24hrs and quit believing every breaking news story, you'll find it's usually a totally different circumstance.
   “Once through the gate, the victims advised the group that they were on a private street and trespassing and told them to leave,” the police summary further states. “The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims. When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.”


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

old medic said:


> I beg to differ.... HUGE differences between SCARED and PREPARED....
> 
> *the protestors were not on the couple's property*
> They BROKE down a gate and entered private property.... with all the dipshitted stuff these damn mobs have done across the country
> These folks had every right in the world to stand their ground and defend their property


*"St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner signaled the McCloskeys’ actions were the real threat".
__________________________________________________________________________

"Even residents living on what they declare to be private streets cannot act with impunity, said Eric Banks, a former state prosecutor and St. Louis city counselor.

“'Castle Doctrine’ does not extend to the street,” Banks told The Post, referencing a law that gives people certain protections to use deadly force on intruders to their home. “I defy you to find one picture of the [protesters] on the grass. They were not putting those homeowners’ lives at risk.”

Banks said residents living in gated communities and on private streets may overestimate the control they have over the “fiefdom.”

“Their private street status does not supersede the laws of the city of St. Louis, which says you can’t point guns at people to intimidate them,” he added.*

Above snippets taken from this article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/29/st-louis-protest-gun-mayor/

I need not say more.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

squatting dog said:


> Once again, if you wait 24hrs and quit believing every breaking news story, you'll find it's usually a totally different circumstance.
> “Once through the gate, the victims advised the group that they were on a private street and trespassing and told them to leave,” the police summary further states. “*The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims*. When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.”


Of course they did, tongue in cheek.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 30, 2020)

> Once again, if you wait 24hrs and quit believing every breaking news story, you'll find it's usually a totally different circumstance.
> “Once through the gate, the victims advised the group that they were on a private street and trespassing and told them to leave,” the police summary further states. “The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims. When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.”



So, the "victims" went outside, saw an armed mob, excused themselves, and while the mob politely waited, they went into the house grabbing their armaments (a semiautomatic?!) and returned to continue the discussion?  And the mob just stood there waiting for them to return?

Why does this story sound a bit, er...


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 30, 2020)

Watched another video. 

Protestors were on the street and sidewalk but were never on the couple's property.  Doesn't matter if it was a private street, they still were not on the homeowner's property.

Anyone who knows responsible gun ownership practices knows that you do not draw a gun until you intend to use it ...not brandish it as a threat and certainly don't aim without the intent to kill.

Aiming a gun at another person gives them the right to self-defense. 


I have a gun and have taken a gun safety course.  If caught in their situation, I would remain inside my home and shoot anyone who attempted to enter.


----------



## Gemma (Jun 30, 2020)

The husband was one can short of a six pack, pointing that AR-15 at his wife.  A firearm's training course is in order for this couple.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

Sunny said:


> So, the "victims" went outside, saw an armed mob, excused themselves, and while the mob politely waited, they went into the house grabbing their armaments (a semiautomatic?!) and returned to continue the discussion?  And the mob just stood there waiting for them to return?
> 
> *Why does this story sound a bit, er...*


ROFLMAO!

If a story sounds a bit, er... then it probably is a bit, er.

Related to this story, I think it's full of a whole lot of, er.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

Gemma said:


> The husband was one can short of a six pack, pointing that AR-15 at his wife.  A firearm's training course is in order for this couple.


The couple IMO should be charged, fined, and stripped of their rights to ever own or possess a firearm again.


----------



## Treacle (Jun 30, 2020)

I reiterate what I said in a previous post/thread. I am so glad I live in the UK. Yes, we have protests and yes some are very violent and destructive but the idea of passing a law where we can own a gun for any other purpose than a sport/hobby eg. clay pigeon shooting horrifies me. However I do not rule out that one day that may happen. The world is in complete chaos and it seems that whether through a virus or conflict, domestic or otherwise we are on the slippery slope to the destruction of the human race. In the news today it stated that China researchers have found another flu type virus that has come from pigs and could be a pandemic. So choose your weapon world!!!!!!!!!
I like to finish on a cheery note and I've said this before, I prefer animals than people anyway, present company on the Forum excepted!!!!!  ☺


----------



## Sunny (Jun 30, 2020)

According to the latest version of this story that I have seen, the mob was heading toward the mayor's house. They were angry because she had publicized the names and addresses of BLM supporters (which was a stupid and vicious thing to do, IMO.)  I think they were trying to force her to resign. 

So, how this couple fit into this at all beats me!  The mob was marching past their house?  And they claim they are supporters of Black Lives Matter? This story gets crazier by the minute!


----------



## Don M. (Jun 30, 2020)

This article doesn't mention where, in St. Louis, this incident took place.  However, having been to that city many times, in the past, I am no longer going there.  The Western suburbs are quite nice, and the core downtown area, around the Gateway Arch is pretty stable, but in between there are areas where I would Not want to have to stop to change a flat tire, in broad daylight.  Anymore, St. Louis ranks way up there in the list of the most dangerous cities in the U.S.  This couples actions were extreme, but given that cities decline, somewhat understandable.

IMO, these protests and riots are only going to harden peoples already fixed attitudes, and the longer this behavior lasts, the more the racial divisions will increase.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

Sunny said:


> According to the latest version of this story that I have seen, the mob was heading toward the mayor's house. They were angry because she had publicized the names and addresses of BLM supporters (which was a stupid and vicious thing to do, IMO.)  I think they were trying to force her to resign.
> 
> So, how this couple fit into this at all beats me!  The mob was marching past their house?  And they claim they are supporters of Black Lives Matter? *This story gets crazier by the minute*!


Oh, but wait, Sunny, they're both lawyers, so stay tuned for more... I suspect it's going to get a whole lot more crazier (and even more entertaining)!


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 30, 2020)

Riots are riots. Duh!  There are no orderly, polite, warm and fuzzy riots. Riots are an expression of social angst. People riot about anything. We've been rioting, since we fell out of the trees. And I doubt we will ever stop rioting. Riots are an open wound in a society.  Those wounds can be either  cured, or  they can fester, and cause the death of a society. I can only hope we are smart  enough to do what is needed to heal our present wounds.


----------



## rgp (Jun 30, 2020)

AnnieA said:


> Anyone can carry with a valid permit.   I'm not at all denouncing the use of weapons by people on their own property; the protestors were not on the couple's property.
> 
> My point about self-defense is that the couple were AIMING their weapons at the protestors in the street.  Aim a gun at someone and that person shoots thinking they're about to be shot ...that's self-defense.




 They [the protesters] had broken through community gates, and were on the sidewalk, which in many/most neighborhoods is part of the private property. Too me ! That's close enough, too close. Are they supposed to wait till they come through the door ?


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

rgp said:


> They [the protesters] had broken through community gates, and were on the sidewalk, which in many/most neighborhoods is part of the private property. Too me ! That's close enough, too close. Are they supposed to wait till they come through the door ?


What parts of the snippets related to the link below (that I posted on page one) do you fail to comprehend?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/29/st-louis-protest-gun-mayor/


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 30, 2020)

rgp said:


> Are they supposed to wait till they come through the door ?



Yes.


----------



## rgp (Jun 30, 2020)

Don M. said:


> This article doesn't mention where, in St. Louis, this incident took place.  However, having been to that city many times, in the past, I am no longer going there.  The Western suburbs are quite nice, and the core downtown area, around the Gateway Arch is pretty stable, but in between there are areas where I would Not want to have to stop to change a flat tire, in broad daylight.  Anymore, St. Louis ranks way up there in the list of the most dangerous cities in the U.S.  This couples actions were extreme, but given that cities decline, somewhat understandable.
> 
> IMO, these protests and riots are only going to harden peoples already fixed attitudes, and the longer this behavior lasts, the more the racial divisions will increase.




   "
IMO, these protests and riots are only going to harden peoples already fixed attitudes, and the longer this behavior lasts, the more the racial divisions will increase."

 I agree strongly here.


----------



## rgp (Jun 30, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> What parts of the snippets related to the link below (that I posted on page one) do you fail to comprehend?
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/29/st-louis-protest-gun-mayor/




   Every bit of it ........ and i "comprehend" the protesters actions as a threat.


----------



## rgp (Jun 30, 2020)

AnnieA said:


> Yes.



 Bull ! By then it's too late.


----------



## old medic (Jun 30, 2020)

rgp said:


> They [the protesters] had broken through community gates, and were on the sidewalk, which in many/most neighborhoods is part of the private property. Too me ! That's close enough, too close. Are they supposed to wait till they come through the door ?


We own, and pay tax to the center of the road..... the 15 feet of right of way they are welcome to use... but if you stand in it and threaten 
Well.... your technically on our land.... you advance... 
I wont be hiding in a closet calling 911


----------



## JB in SC (Jun 30, 2020)

Missouri castle doctrine statute.

A person has no duty to retreat:


From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle;
From their private property;
If the person is any other location where they have the right to be.
I‘d imagine brandishing a weapon is a misdemeanor. They both are personal injury lawyers, the husband has a lawsuit pending against police brutality.....maybe he had a reversal of opinion?


----------



## Giantsfan1954 (Jun 30, 2020)

If they were just"minding their own business" standing on the sidewalk,who tore down the gate???? The homeowners,come on!
They threatened their lives and their dogs!


----------



## Knight (Jun 30, 2020)

old medic said:


> I beg to differ.... HUGE differences between SCARED and PREPARED....
> 
> *the protestors were not on the couple's property*
> They BROKE down a gate and entered private property.... with all the dipshitted stuff these damn mobs have done across the country
> These folks had every right in the world to stand their ground and defend their property


That's the part of the story that is somehow missed. Making sure what they worked for is protected from a mob is reasonable given the videos of destruction of property for weeks now.


----------



## squatting dog (Jun 30, 2020)

Knight said:


> That's the part of the story that is somehow missed. Making sure what they worked for is protected from a mob is reasonable given the videos of destruction of property for weeks now.


Funny how the media misses those little things ain't it?


----------



## Pepper (Jun 30, 2020)

There was hardly any looting and rioting, it has overwhelmingly been peaceful protests, and those events you are outraged about happened in the beginning.


----------



## rgp (Jun 30, 2020)

Pepper said:


> There was hardly any looting and rioting, it has overwhelmingly been peaceful protests, and those events you are outraged about happened in the beginning.




 So far, there has been little to no ... "peaceful" protesting , it has been full rioting .


----------



## Pepper (Jun 30, 2020)

Mommy said I shouldn't play with you anymore.


----------



## Gardenlover (Jun 30, 2020)

This isn't getting as much coverage, but far from peaceful.
https://www.seniorforums.com/thread...sh-over-louis-ix-statue-in-forest-park.50478/


----------



## fmdog44 (Jun 30, 2020)

What the hell were those "protestors" doing in front of a private residence? I would have done the same if a bunch of jerks stood out in front of my home. Again. someone tell me the reason for being in front of their home. Anybody??? Read below, the clown says what I highlighted so why do they have the right to intimidate homeowners in their homes? Last, what does "Expect Us" say about them? I reply, _"Expect me armed and ready for your activities at my home."_

State Rep. Rasheen Aldridge (D), an organizer with the civil rights group *Expect Us*, told CBS affiliate KMOV that the protesters never threatened the couple and walked on private property as part of their nonviolent demonstration.
“Just like in many disobedient protests, even in the ’60s, *you break laws, make people feel uncomfortable,”* Aldridge told the station. “We’re not doing anything where we’re hurting anyone or putting anyone in danger.”


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> What the hell were those "protestors" doing in front of a private residence? *I would have done the same if a bunch of jerks stood out in front of my home*. Again. someone tell me the reason for being in front of their home. Anybody???


I wasn't aware that standing outside and in front of someone's home in the USofA, is illegal and worthy of being threatened with a gun.


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 30, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> What the hell were those "protestors" doing in front of a private residence?



They were walking to the mayor's house a block away to call for her to resign after she read out the names and home addresses on a facebook live video of people who wrote to her requesting police reform.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 30, 2020)

There's another thread about the Catholics and protesters, Gardenlover.


----------



## 911 (Jun 30, 2020)

After reading all of the comments and then the comments made by those in power in St. Louis, like the circuit attorney (prosecutor), I really can't comment on the legality of the McCloskey's rights. Since there is no audio clip, at least I haven't heard any, it's going to be who do we believe? The protest leader, Rasheen Aldridge, is saying that the protest was peaceful and no threats were made, but the McCloskeys say otherwise. 

Rasheen Aldridge did admit wrong-doing by stating, "Just like in many disobedient protests, even in the 60's, you break laws, make people feel uncomfortable. We’re not doing anything where we’re hurting anyone or putting anyone in danger.” 

Under PA law, he and his followers would have been arrested for trespassing. Each would have been issued a citation. If the couple (McCloskeys) had an audio and it would have contained threats of violence against the couple, more serious charges could have been brought at the DA's discretion. Pointing a gun at someone is not necessarily a felony, but it could have been a misdemeanor (possibly) in this state, but it's not a good idea, either. 

The protesters were in violation of trespass laws, probably even in Missouri. Gated communities are considered private property and therefore, certain laws must be abided by. The fact that the police did not show up tells me that something is very wrong in that area.


----------



## 911 (Jun 30, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> I wasn't aware that standing outside and in front of someone's home in the USofA, is illegal and worthy of being threatened with a gun.


It's private property. They had no right to be there, but pointing a weapon at them was a bad idea. They (the protesters) all should have received a citation for trespassing.


----------



## 911 (Jun 30, 2020)

AnnieA said:


> They were walking to the mayor's house a block away to call for her to resign after she read out the names and home addresses on a facebook live video of people who wrote to her requesting police reform.


Someone posted on either this forum or another one that they painted the words, "RESIGN" on the street in front of the Mayor's home. If that's true, it's also unlawful and they could be charged with destruction of property.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

911 said:


> *It's private property*. They had no right to be there, but pointing a weapon at them was a bad idea. They all should have received a citation for trespassing.


No, it isn't.

Entry #24, page one.


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 30, 2020)

911 said:


> The protesters were in violation of trespass laws, probably even in Missouri. Gated communities are considered private property and therefore, certain laws must be abided by. The fact that the police did not show up tells me that something is very wrong in that area.



Here's more info about private streets in the Central West End in St Louis. The Central West End is where I stay when I visit the city. It's near Forest Park, Washington University, museums and great restaurants and galleries. The private streets have beautiful, historic homes and I always walk through several each visit. There are pedestrian gates and I've never found them locked. The area is mostly bordered by an artsy urban type community that's safe, but there are also higher crime areas nearby.


----------



## 911 (Jun 30, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> Entry #24, page one.


Missouri's "Castle Doctrine" law and "Stand Your Ground Law" states the following:* "From private property that is owned or leased by such individual;" *

Seeing how they live in a gated community, I would have to believe that they pay an HOA fee, which would be leased property and would afford them the protection onto the street. If you are threatened, (according to Missouri law), you do not have to back down or go hide. You have the right to stand your ground and to protect yourself. 

I noticed that Missouri's law goes just a bit farther than Florida's law. I have to believe that this is the reason the Prosecutor did not issue a warrant.


----------



## 911 (Jun 30, 2020)

AnnieA said:


> Here's more info about private streets in the Central West End in St Louis. The Central West End is where I stay when I visit the city. It's near Forest Park, Washington University, museums and great restaurants and galleries. The private streets have beautiful, historic homes and I always walk through several each visit. There are pedestrian gates and I've never found them locked. The area is mostly bordered by an artsy urban type community that's safe but there are also higher crime areas nearby.


I used to hear about how horrible it was in East St. Louis. Is that correct?


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

911 said:


> Missouri's "Castle Doctrine" law and "Stand Your Ground Law" states the following:* "From private property that is owned or leased by such individual;" *
> 
> Seeing how they live in a gated community, I would have to believe that they pay an HOA fee, which would be leased property and would afford them the protection onto the street. If you are threatened, (according to Missouri law), you do not have to back down or go hide. You have the right to stand your ground and to protect yourself.
> 
> I noticed that Missouri's law goes just a bit farther than Florida's law. I have to believe that this is the reason the Prosecutor did not issue a warrant.


Wrong.
*
“'Castle Doctrine’ does not extend to the street,” Banks told The Post, referencing a law that gives people certain protections to use deadly force on intruders to their home. “I defy you to find one picture of the [protesters] on the grass. They were not putting those homeowners’ lives at risk.”

Banks said residents living in gated communities and on private streets may overestimate the control they have over the “fiefdom.”*

Snippet taken from original link posted on page one.


----------



## 911 (Jun 30, 2020)

View Video


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

911 said:


> Missouri's "Castle Doctrine" law and "Stand Your Ground Law" states the following:* "From private property that is owned or leased by such individual;" *
> 
> Seeing how they live in a gated community, I would have to believe that they pay an HOA fee, which would be leased property and would afford them the protection onto the street. If you are threatened, (according to Missouri law), you do not have to back down or go hide. You have the right to stand your ground and to protect yourself.
> 
> I noticed that Missouri's law goes just a bit farther than Florida's law. I have to believe that this is the reason the Prosecutor did not issue a warrant.


Additional article related to.

*"People have a right to threaten force if they are threatened," Amman said. However, if a group of protesters is walking by a home and not doing anything to the homeowners specifically, then they don’t have the right to threaten lethal force without an imminent threat".

"According to Findlaw.com, Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual. This means that if someone illegally enters your front porch or backyard, you can use deadly force against them without retreating first".*

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/l...nding/63-531cc88c-336d-4bee-ba15-c270a0fd2879

I didn't see anyone on the front porch of, or in the backyard of, and I didn't see (or hear) an immanent threat to the couple .


----------



## 911 (Jun 30, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> Additional article related to.
> 
> https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/l...nding/63-531cc88c-336d-4bee-ba15-c270a0fd2879


You are wrong, but I don't argue with people outside of law enforcement. One word of advice. You can't just read the law and think you understand what it is telling you. You have to be able to interpret terminology and look beyond the scope of the meanings. Otherwise, the Prosecutor would have issued a warrant for the McCloskeys. 

Please view the video. Castle Doctrine Law in Missouri


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 30, 2020)

911 said:


> I used to hear about how horrible it was in East St. Louis. Is that correct?



I've always heard that as well.  It's not St Louis proper but is across the MS river in Illinois.  But St Louis itself is high crime.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 30, 2020)

911 said:


> It's private property. They had no right to be there, but pointing a weapon at them was a bad idea. They (the protesters) all should have received a citation for trespassing.


Is the sidewalk in front of the home also considered to be private property?


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

911 said:


> You are wrong, but I don't argue with people outside of law enforcement. One word of advice. You can't just read the law and think you understand what it is telling you. You have to be able to interpret terminology and look beyond the scope of the meanings. Otherwise, the Prosecutor would have issued a warrant for the McCloskeys.
> 
> Please view the video. Castle Doctrine Law in Missouri


An interesting read.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...le-to-hide-behind-the-states-castle-doctrine/


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

Here in Canada, our Castle Doctrine Law is close seconds behind that of Missouri's.


----------



## 911 (Jun 30, 2020)

Pepper said:


> Is the sidewalk in front of the home also considered to be private property?


I wanted to make sure that I was citing the Missouri laws correctly, so I called a fellow Trooper in Jefferson City that I knew. He said that because the residents pay an HOA fee each month, they are considered as owners of the land for that month. The CD in Missouri, along with Missouri’s Stand Your Ground Law, goes beyond Florida’s laws. These residents did have the right to defend the street in front of their home.

And, my friend also stated that the Circuit Attorney wanted to issue a warrant against the McCloskeys, but the prosecuting attorney said he really didn’t want the case. I think the fact that the police did not respond made the situation worse. Had they responded, they could have moved everyone along and there wouldn’t have been anything else going on.

I have supported the Stand Your Ground Law, but I still think the jury in Florida against George Zimmerman got it wrong. I believe the law was misapplied by the jury.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 30, 2020)

What a thorough reply!  Thank you, @911


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

911 said:


> I wanted to make sure that I was citing the Missouri laws correctly, so I called a fellow Trooper in Jefferson City that I knew. He said that because the residents pay an HOA fee each month, they are considered as owners of the land for that month. The CD in Missouri, along with Missouri’s Stand Your Ground Law, goes beyond Florida’s laws. These residents did have the right to defend the street in front of their home.
> 
> And, my friend also stated that the Circuit Attorney wanted to issue a warrant against the McCloskeys, but the prosecuting attorney said he really didn’t want the case.* I think the fact that the police did not respond made the situation worse*. Had they responded, they could have moved everyone along and there wouldn’t have been anything else going on.
> 
> I have supported the Stand Your Ground Law, but I still think the jury in Florida against George Zimmerman got it wrong. I believe the law was misapplied by the jury.


See, now I think having two gun owners who are scaredy-cats made the situation worse.


----------



## 911 (Jun 30, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> See, now I think having two gun owners who are scaredy-cats made the situation worse.


Aren’t the police responding to any calls or what is their agenda? However, if there were verbal threats, I think they would have just went into their house and made sure that everything was secured, like windows and doors. Even though they were within their legal rights, I believe that going outside and waving guns around probably wasn’t the best way to end the situation. If anything, it may have escalated it.

But, fear can make some people do things that they normally wouldn’t think about doing.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 30, 2020)

Pepper said:


> Is the sidewalk in front of the home also considered to be private property?



I think that's the crucial question, Pepper.  This may count for nothing, since I live in a gated community in Maryland, not Missouri, but as far as I know, our streets are not private property, they are just streets.  Even the lobby and elevators, stairs, etc. of my building are not my own private property. Only my condo is.  So no one is on my private property until they have come in through my own door.

I once got a parking ticket for parking where I shouldn't have been, on one of our streets. If it was my own private property, that probably couldn't have happened.

We do have gatehouses at our three entrances, and the guards make sure you are either a resident, or there with somebody's permission. Otherwise, you are asked to turn around and leave. What would happen if an angry mob came marching past the guardhouse?  Probably the police would be called. I'm not sure whether our guards are armed or not.  But it certainly wouldn't be OK for a resident to come out waving a gun at them.


----------



## peppermint (Jun 30, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> *"St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner signaled the McCloskeys’ actions were the real threat".
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 
> "Even residents living on what they declare to be private streets cannot act with impunity, said Eric Banks, a former state prosecutor and St. Louis city counselor.
> ...


Well, if it was my home, they were prancing around the street, I would be afraid....I'm not in a gated community....If they stepped on my property I would get the gun out or run them over with my lawn mower....I don't live on a private street...It's a town street....they can prance
if they want, but don't come on my property in droves of people....I wouldn't do anything to harm them, they should not harm us....
By the way, we are here in our home for 45 years.....Never had anything even touch our property....We do have a gate to the backyard, but
anyone can knock it down....We do have cameras but never had to do anything about someone messing with our property....
But the way it's going in the USA, it is very scary....


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 30, 2020)

I can't load the video again because it crashes my computer.

So I can only go by memory.  I don't recall them pointing the guns at the protestors.  Especially the guy with the semi-automatic.  It seems to me he knows the law.  The lady was waving the pistol around in the air.  There seemed to me to be no direct threat to the marchers. More of a deterrent.

I posted this before and got no response. I'm not a fan of guns but when mobs are out what do you do?

*I'm wondering if what they said to the television station on an interview is that they tore down gates stating private property is true.  Because if it is they are justified in protecting their property. *


----------



## peppermint (Jun 30, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> The couple IMO should be charged, fined, and stripped of their rights to ever own or possess a firearm again.


If someone or other's walking in front of our home with weapons....I would get my weapon out...
I have a right....The couple had a right when those thugs came marching in front of their home....and they knocked down
the gates to their private property...It wasn't just a street it was private....How can you even think that the thugs were just
walking to be nice.....I don't think so!!!!!!!!  By the way.....You must be young and haven't lived....Those thugs are dangerous...
When you have people in droves walking in front of your home with guns....You would be scared.....


----------



## C'est Moi (Jun 30, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> See, now I think having two gun owners who are scaredy-cats made the situation worse.


I just have to say, with all the burning and looting done by the idiots "demonstrating" in this country, I'd be afraid of a mob marching into my neighborhood, too.   I wouldn't be outside waving my guns, but I'd certainly have them locked and loaded inside my house.   And I'd be calling the police.

We are responsible gun owners, and your insults about American gun owners are quite tiresome.  You don't want them, FINE.   No need to insult other people who do.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 30, 2020)

peppermint said:


> If someone or other's walking in front of our home with weapons....I would get my weapon out...
> I have a right....The couple had a right when those thugs came marching in front of their home....and they knocked down
> the gates to their private property...It wasn't just a street it was private....How can you even think that the thugs were just
> walking to be nice.....I don't think so!!!!!!!!  By the way.....You must be young and haven't lived....Those thugs are dangerous...
> When you have people in droves walking in front of your home with guns....You would be scared.....


The reason why they were there?  They were marching to the mayor's home shouting for her to resign and take the police with her.

When people are hollering and shouting, that to me is not a "peaceful" demonstration.


----------



## peppermint (Jun 30, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> I wasn't aware that standing outside and in front of someone's home in the USofA, is illegal and worthy of being threatened with a gun.


What.........they had guns in droves.....I would get my gun pronto      They were not on the streets, they knocked down gates to get
into the Community....Where people pay a lot of money for their homes.....I never in my life ever see people walking in the streets
with weapons....Yes, the thugs had guns....Why don't you go join them...…..And did you ever see people in droves standing on 
someone's house....I never in my life ever saw that where I live....I lived a long time.....It never happened....
They were Thugs!!!!


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

peppermint said:


> If someone or other's walking in front of our home with weapons....I would get my weapon out...
> I have a right....The couple had a right when those thugs came marching in front of their home....and they knocked down
> the gates to their private property...It wasn't just a street it was private....How can you even think that the thugs were just
> walking to be nice.....I don't think so!!!!!!!!  By the way.....You must be young and haven't lived....Those thugs are dangerous...
> *When you have people in droves walking in front of your home with guns....You would be scared*.....


Not only did the couple prove to the world what dim-wits they are by so carelessly handling guns in the manner they did, but if I was fearing for my life the last thing I would have considered doing was turning myself into a sitting duck by walking outside brandishing guns.

Remaining inside ones home is (by far) the safer alternative (would be a no-brainer for most to compute), which tells me that the couple in question weren't afraid or scared at all, but rather, were craving notoriety.

The only thugs I seen were the McCloskey's.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

C'est Moi said:


> I just have to say, with all the burning and looting done by the idiots "demonstrating" in this country, I'd be afraid of a mob marching into my neighborhood, too.   I wouldn't be outside waving my guns, but I'd certainly have them locked and loaded inside my house.   And I'd be calling the police.
> 
> *We are responsible gun owners*, and your insults about American gun owners are quite tiresome.  You don't want them, FINE.   No need to insult other people who do.


From all that I seen of the couple in the video, nothing could be more untrue.

Dear husband and I are pro-gun folk, so it has zero to do with wanting them or not. We're armed, too, but here in Canada (thanks to regulations and laws) we don't look to reach for our guns whenever we encounter a problem or look to solve an issue.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jun 30, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> From all that I seen of the couple in the video, nothing could be more untrue.
> 
> Dear husband and I are pro-gun folk, so it has zero to do with wanting them or not. We're armed, too, but here in Canada (thanks to regulations and laws) we don't look to reach for our guns whenever we encounter a problem or look to solve an issue.


I wasn't talking about the couple in the video.  And FYI,  a handful of idiots who make the news are not representative of all American gun owners, or even a tiny fraction of them.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jun 30, 2020)

C'est Moi said:


> I wasn't talking about the couple in the video.  And FYI,  a handful of idiots who make the news are not representative of all American gun owners, or even a tiny fraction of them.


Oh? The last thread I recall reading and taking part in was that of the fed up' liquor store owner who shot a shoplifter in the back.

I'm no mathematician, but that's two-for-two, which tells me differently. 

Wishing you a wonderful evening.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jun 30, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> *I'm no mathematician*, but that's two-for-two, which tells me differently.


Yeah, no argument here.   That's two out of however million gun owners, so not exactly "2 for 2."


----------



## Sunny (Jul 1, 2020)

> The couple had a right when those thugs came marching in front of their home....and they knocked down
> the gates to their private property...It wasn't just a street it was private....



Ah, but that's the question, Peppermint. They were marching in the street, not on the couple's lawn, or in their house.  So, was the street the couple's "private property?"  I think only a lawyer in Missouri could answer that.

Here's a good article showing various points of view on this.

https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-...cle_afbb1b2c-b98e-11ea-ba7e-b3452007bfc8.html


----------



## peppermint (Jul 1, 2020)

Sunny said:


> Ah, but that's the question, Peppermint. They were marching in the street, not on the couple's lawn, or in their house.  So, was the street the couple's "private property?"  I think only a lawyer in Missouri could answer that.
> 
> Here's a good article showing various points of view on this.
> 
> https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-...cle_afbb1b2c-b98e-11ea-ba7e-b3452007bfc8.html


I'm pretty sure that it was a closed community....Did you see the gate pushed open.....Come on, the mob were thugs....
That's what is going on in the country, they think they could do anything they want....Probably because most of them don't even
have a job....Why are there so many people out in the streets.....I say go home and get a job or take care of your family.....

I thought years ago it was worse...when we had mobs walking the Main Street in our streets....I said this before....The poor ladies
most were Black ladies on the Avenue and very scared....My husband worked for a store and came out of the store to get the
ladies to come into the store...He wanted to protect them...this was in the 60's...…  It was a terrible time....
But this is worse....It just lingers everyday....


----------



## Sunny (Jul 1, 2020)

Yes, it was a gated community, but did that make the streets of that community anyone's "private property?"  I discussed that earlier in this thread. I live in a gated community, yet the streets are not anyone's "private property."  How could they be?  What if I decide to close off my "private property" to traffic, and plant a garden out there instead?  Would I be able to do it?  That's what you can do, after all, with your own private property.

If their community is anything like mine the streets are probably owned collectively, and managed by their community association.  If you don't like people marching around and chanting political slogans while they are in your own front yard, you have a perfect right to chase them off.  But not if they are in the streets. Living in a free country means people have the right to protest openly and publicly.

If they broke down a gate to get in (which seems to be in dispute), they should have been confronted by security guards. Or by the police, who obviously should have been called.  But the individual homeowners are not an armed militia, charged with getting people they don't like off the streets by waving guns around, in his case the kind of semiautomatic that has been implicated in so many mass shootings.  These people are lawyers; they should have known better! It's an absolute miracle that no one was killed.


----------



## rgp (Jul 1, 2020)

Sunny said:


> Yes, it was a gated community, but did that make the streets of that community anyone's "private property?"  I discussed that earlier in this thread. I live in a gated community, yet the streets are not anyone's "private property."  How could they be?  What if I decide to close off my "private property" to traffic, and plant a garden out there instead?  Would I be able to do it?  That's what you can do, after all, with your own private property.
> 
> If their community is anything like mine the streets are probably owned collectively, and managed by their community association.  If you don't like people marching around and chanting political slogans while they are in your own front yard, you have a perfect right to chase them off.  But not if they are in the streets. Living in a free country means people have the right to protest openly and publicly.
> 
> If they broke down a gate to get in (which seems to be in dispute), they should have been confronted by security guards. Or by the police, who obviously should have been called.  But the individual homeowners are not an armed militia, charged with getting people they don't like off the streets by waving guns around, in his case the kind of semiautomatic that has been implicated in so many mass shootings.  These people are lawyers; they should have known better! It's an absolute miracle that no one was killed.




 They were on the sidewalk in front of the couples home ..... In many jurisdictions , that is part of the owners property. It is that way here.


----------



## win231 (Jul 1, 2020)

Laws differ from state to state.  I'm not familiar with the laws in that state, but IMO, it's a bad idea to point a gun at anyone UNLESS you are in danger of injury or death.  Protesters walking by do not put anyone in danger.  

If I was concerned for my safety in that situation, I would have a concealed handgun on my person; not a rifle.  In my state, what the couple did would be considered "Brandishing" & may lead to charges & a loss of rights to own a firearm in the future.

30 years ago, I heard my dogs barking like crazy at around 10pm.  When I looked outside, I say a guy standing at my security gate.  I went out to see what he was doing there - with a concealed handgun (no need to scare anyone unnecessarily).
He was wearing a large tool belt & he looked around 20.
I said, "Hi, can I help you?"
He said, "I'm from Century Communications & I'm trying to find out who is pirating cable TV by connecting to their neighbor's antenna."
I said, "I don't have cable TV, so you're wasting your time here.  And, you're trespassing & startling my dogs."
He said, "I'm going to climb on your roof to check."
I said, "No, you're NOT going to climb on my roof."
He said, "I have a right to see if you're stealing cable."
I said, "This is the part where you leave.  If you climb on my roof, you won't make your next birthday.  Understand?"
I thought he got the message, but the next day the gate was open for the gardener, while I wasn't home.  He didn't climb on my roof, but he cut my TV antenna wire where it connects to the roof antenna.

After I made a police report, I called the cable company & told them what happened.  They immediately sent a technician who re-wired my antenna with an upgraded cable.  The technician also said they took the $300.00 installation cost out of his check & fired the employee.


----------



## peppermint (Jul 1, 2020)

Sunny said:


> Yes, it was a gated community, but did that make the streets of that community anyone's "private property?"  I discussed that earlier in this thread. I live in a gated community, yet the streets are not anyone's "private property."  How could they be?  What if I decide to close off my "private property" to traffic, and plant a garden out there instead?  Would I be able to do it?  That's what you can do, after all, with your own private property.
> 
> If their community is anything like mine the streets are probably owned collectively, and managed by their community association.  If you don't like people marching around and chanting political slogans while they are in your own front yard, you have a perfect right to chase them off.  But not if they are in the streets. Living in a free country means people have the right to protest openly and publicly.
> 
> If they broke down a gate to get in (which seems to be in dispute), they should have been confronted by security guards. Or by the police, who obviously should have been called.  But the individual homeowners are not an armed militia, charged with getting people they don't like off the streets by waving guns around, in his case the kind of semiautomatic that has been implicated in so many mass shootings.  These people are lawyers; they should have known better! It's an absolute miracle that no one was killed.


Come on, they were thugs....Be serious!!!!  Do you go out with a crowd in front of people's homes, you don't even know....
I don't get that!!!  A protest in front of a person's home is a scare for the people that live there...Why did the crowd pick that
street?   Not in my world!!!!     Protest's have nothing else to do, so they become radical...

So I'll tell you something here....I was a Secretary in a High School....We were demanded to walk the streets and give fliers to
people to read....That was from the Union in our State.....5 of our Secretaries, did not walk the streets....We went home....
The next day we went back to work....The Principal gave us the "High Five".....He was proud of us doing the right thing....

I don't protest.....It's not in my blood....(Only if someone was harming my house and my family) People can't stand outside your home unless they are watching a parade or having a community party on that street...And, that has to be allowed to get a permit from the city .   We only have dog walkers on our street....They say hello or just go by....They don't stand in front of the street from our home... 

By the way....they were thugs....They wanted to get those people out of their house and take their home....It wasn't 3 people, it was a mob...

You don't have to like what I just posted....


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 1, 2020)

As far as I can see the man holding the rifle knows the law.  He wasn't pointing it at anyone, at least that I could see in the video which I cannot load again.
The female holding the pistol was just waving it around and didn't have a clue about what she was doing.
The mob wasn't trying to take the homeowners home by any stretch of the imagination.
They were there on that street that went by the homeowners home because they were on the way to the mayor's home which is in the same area or same street. 
They were chanting at the mayor's home to resign and take the police with them.
They did force the gate open which was marked private property.
I don't live in the U.S. but if I did, I would have a gun for protection.
In our city now, we are seeing violence with guns which we never saw before.
At one time I had no qualms about going for a walk after midnight.  No longer.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 1, 2020)

Even if they were "thugs," I'm still waiting for someone to answer this:

Do they have no police in Missouri?


----------



## JimBob1952 (Jul 1, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> As far as I can see the man holding the rifle knows the law.  He wasn't pointing it at anyone, at least that I could see in the video which I cannot load again.
> The female holding the pistol was just waving it around and didn't have a clue about what she was doing.
> The mob wasn't trying to take the homeowners home by any stretch of the imagination.
> They were there on that street that went by the homeowners home because they were on the way to the mayor's home which is in the same area or same street.
> ...




Here's what I don't understand.  Why so much attention focused on this couple, who may have been doing something dumb.  They were not arrested and they did not hurt anyone.  And they were confronting protesters who had, after all, broken down the gate to the private street on which they live. 

I'm not condoning their actions.  I'm just saying at the end of the day, no harm was done, except to the gate. 

Meanwhile things like this come and go with little discussion.  This guy -- a "protester" -- actually did kill someone, with a pistol, in a public park. 
This is what I would call selective outrage. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...hooting-at-breonna-taylor-protest/3274003001/


----------



## Pepper (Jul 1, 2020)

JimBob1952 said:


> Meanwhile things like this come and go with little discussion.  This guy -- a "protester" -- actually did kill someone, with a pistol, in a public park.
> This is what I would call selective outrage.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...hooting-at-breonna-taylor-protest/3274003001/


The way I read it, a "protester" was the victim making the accused shooter, who was not yet identified, a person with a different point of view:

"The victim killed was a 27-year-old Louisville man who had become a vocal supporter of ongoing protests against racism and police brutality.

Tyler Gerth died Saturday at the downtown Louisville park, the Jefferson County Coroner's Office confirmed Sunday. A gunshot wound was cited as the cause of death."

USA Today stopped my ability to copy more, but the gist is there was going to be a counter-demonstration of a "patriot militia" and the shooter may have been part of that.  The shooter fired into the tents set up by the "protesters" and was somehow injured himself.

Re Read the article.  One of us got it backward & I think it was you.   


ETA---"The shooting took place at 9 p.m. following a peaceful morning and afternoon at the park, which at one point was expected to be the site of a counterprotest led by an armed "patriot militia." "


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 1, 2020)

I belong to a political forum.  I often see posts recommending a militia.  I hope it never happens.


----------



## fmdog44 (Jul 1, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> I wasn't aware that standing outside and in front of someone's home in the USofA, is illegal and worthy of being threatened with a gun.


Don't try to go there. You know damn well there is more to it. I suppose you know they tore down the gate to get on the PRIVATE STREET.


----------



## fmdog44 (Jul 1, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> See, now I think having two gun owners who are scaredy-cats made the situation worse.


I see your location is "The Great *White *North". A black official stated recently the greatest threat to black rights is liberal white women that holler at everyone nonblack until they find themselves alone with a black man then it's 911. Oh, and "scaredy-cats?! I have not heard that since I was 6 years old.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 2, 2020)

"Looks like MAGA Bonnie and Clyde robbed a Talbot's!"

(I thought this caption was right on the button!)


----------



## JimBob1952 (Jul 2, 2020)

Sunny said:


> Even if they were "thugs," I'm still waiting for someone to answer this:





Pepper said:


> The way I read it, a "protester" was the victim making the accused shooter, who was not yet identified, a person with a different point of view:
> 
> "The victim killed was a 27-year-old Louisville man who had become a vocal supporter of ongoing protests against racism and police brutality.
> 
> ...




No.


Pepper said:


> The way I read it, a "protester" was the victim making the accused shooter, who was not yet identified, a person with a different point of view:
> 
> "The victim killed was a 27-year-old Louisville man who had become a vocal supporter of ongoing protests against racism and police brutality.
> Lopez has been a frequent sight at the protests, which have rocked the streets of Louisville for a month.
> ...


No.  The guy  (Steven Nelson Lopez) was definitely one of the so called "protestors".


----------



## JimBob1952 (Jul 2, 2020)

never mind...


----------



## Red Cinders (Jul 2, 2020)

Where we are, if a street is behind gates, then it is private.  The street must be maintained by the owners in the development not by local taxes.  In other words, homeowners pay for the street and collectively own the street.  It is not a public road and is only to be used for owners and invitees.

Since we only have a small clip, it's hard to say who did what.  If they were only walking by, we would have called the police, stayed behind locked doors, but had our guns ready.  If they approached, I would like to think I would have done what Miss Ellie did in this video.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 2, 2020)

@JimBob1952 
oh, ok, dear.  The article you link with today has the full information.  I was going by the first article which did not name or describe the shooter.  The young man, the victim, Tyler Gerth, too young to have met this end, doing what he believed in.  No words for the second one, the shooter, thank you for the update.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 2, 2020)

The more I read about this, the stranger and more puzzling the whole thing is. From what I can put together from reading both sides, and seeing a couple of videos of McCloskey being interviewed the next day, everybody involved in this behaved very badly and stupidly.

The protesters were lying when they said the gate was previously broken, they didn't break it, they just walked in. Who would believe that?  A community with mansions like that wouldn't tolerate a broken gate for 5 minutes!  By saying that, the protesters immediately damaged their believability.

From one of the pictures, at least one guy appeared to be armed and pointing a gun at the couple.  There have been very few pictures showing that they were armed, however.

On the other hand, the couple says they were having dinner outside when this mob approached, heading directly for their house. If so, why did they grab weapons and run back outside?  He says they were threatening their lives, even threatening their dog, threatening to burn down their home, etc. Wouldn't the sane reaction be to go inside, bring the dog in also, and call the police immediately? 

McClosky seems to be pretty quick on the trigger. Once before, he aimed a gun at a neighbor who was merely cutting through his yard on his way to his own house. Fortunately, he didn't fire that time either. But I certainly wouldn't want this guy for a neighbor!

If the protestors were heading for the mayor's house, why did McCloskey think they were heading for his house and threatening him?  Maybe the confrontation was started by him, not by them?

No one seems to be sure whether Missouri's "castle doctrine" extends to the street or not. Lots of heated opinions, but so far I haven't seen any legal evidence one way or another.  It was clearly written to defend one's house and the immediate grounds around it. Where does the street fit in?  Nobody seems sure, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from having an opinion anyway. 

And I repeat, where were the police?


----------



## Pepper (Jul 2, 2020)

@Sunny
-Maybe the McCloskeys didn't know the protesters were heading toward the mayor's home. 
-Maybe the McCloskeys came back outside because they like confrontations and like fighting back.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 2, 2020)

Yup to both.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Jul 2, 2020)

My city is a mess.  Windows broken, businesses boarded up, my church defaced.  Statues covered with graffiti, or removed due to mob pressure. Bands of idiots fighting with the police every night.  Crime is soaring because the cops are so beleaguered.  Cops quitting, retiring, or just saying they are not going to bother doing their jobs anymore.  

Pardon me for not worrying too much about the McCloskeys, or for wondering what the heck all this has to due with social justice.  They are two not too bright people who stepped outside their own homes waving (legal) firearms and had the misfortune to be white and prosperous-looking. Not much else to be said.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 20, 2020)

The Mc Closkeys have been charged. I had the position that they had every right to arm themselves on their own property. St. Louis prosecutor doesn't agree.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 20, 2020)

Good.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jul 20, 2020)

Double good!


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 20, 2020)

Both guns seized. No ammunition found. The prosector will have a tough time proving harm was intended.


----------



## JaniceM (Jul 20, 2020)

JimBob1952 said:


> My city is a mess.  Windows broken, businesses boarded up, my church defaced.  Statues covered with graffiti, or removed due to mob pressure. Bands of idiots fighting with the police every night.  Crime is soaring because the cops are so beleaguered.  Cops quitting, retiring, or just saying they are not going to bother doing their jobs anymore.
> 
> Pardon me for not worrying too much about the McCloskeys, or for wondering what the heck all this has to due with social justice.  They are two not too bright people who stepped outside their own homes waving (legal) firearms and had the misfortune to be white and prosperous-looking. Not much else to be said.


I don't know about their state, but threatening someone with a weapon is generally considered to be a crime..  regardless of anyone's race.


----------



## DaveA (Jul 20, 2020)

Let me get this right. Most of you think that if the homeowners AND the protesters were armed, that would be the way to settle. or if the protesters weren't armed, they'd realize that they wouild have to be armed at the next protest.

Some of you seem to be taking us down that slippery slope of everything settled by who carries the most weaponry. I realize that's the NRA's pitch and if I was a stockholder or scared of my own shadow, I might think that'd be the way to go. Frighten everyone on both sides of this stupidity and let the best and/or most shooters win.

Most sane folks, at least up 'til lately, figured that they could go through life without engaging in shoot-outs. It now looks like one side of this argument is hoping for armed militia and all out war. Remember the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for".  You or one of your loved ones may catch a slug in your armed challenge during one of these disputes.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> I don't know about their state, but threatening someone with a weapon is generally considered to be a crime..  regardless of anyone's race.


I don't know if you can call it 'threatening' if people are on their own property and have guns for their own protection and display them if they have a license for open carry.
It has been discovered that the pistol displayed by the woman was a stage prop and not a real gun. Also the rifle was empty and there was no ammunition in the house on a search.
Everyone hollering and yelling isn't a 'peaceful' demonstration to my way of thinking. It's more like the threat is coming from the protestors.
So if you bring out your big German Shepard dog out is that threatening?


----------



## Pepper (Jul 21, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> So if you bring out your big German Shepard dog out is that threatening?


That depends.  It can be.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

Pepper said:


> That depends.  It can be.


How can it be?  I'm terrified of German Shepards because I was bit by one as a child.  It was behind a fence.  I ran my hand on top of the fence and the dog bit it.  I mean if I see one in a yard I won't go there on a bet even if he's sleeping.

During the riots in Los Angeles there were shopkeepers standing in front of their premises with guns.  Were they threatening or were they simply protecting their property? My problem with this is that the Mc Closkeys were on their own property.  More of a detterent than a threat in my opinion.  Forgive me. I get carried away in these type of discussions.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

Sunny said:


> The more I read about this, the stranger and more puzzling the whole thing is. From what I can put together from reading both sides, and seeing a couple of videos of McCloskey being interviewed the next day, everybody involved in this behaved very badly and stupidly.
> 
> The protesters were lying when they said the gate was previously broken, they didn't break it, they just walked in. Who would believe that?  A community with mansions like that wouldn't tolerate a broken gate for 5 minutes!  By saying that, the protesters immediately damaged their believability.
> 
> ...


They did put in a 911 call immediately.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 21, 2020)

How can it be?  I've known plenty of folks with attack dogs.  If they are with their dog, and order the dog to attack, it will.  If they are holding the dog on a leash & order them to threaten, it will lunge, bark, snarl, foam at the mouth right at you.  If they then say they can unleash this dog on you, well that is a threat against your life.


----------



## Treacle (Jul 21, 2020)

Red Cinders said:


> Where we are, if a street is behind gates, then it is private.  The street must be maintained by the owners in the development not by local taxes.  In other words, homeowners pay for the street and collectively own the street.  It is not a public road and is only to be used for owners and invitees.
> 
> Since we only have a small clip, it's hard to say who did what.  If they were only walking by, we would have called the police, stayed behind locked doors, but had our guns ready.  If they approached, I would like to think I would have done what Miss Ellie did in this video.


What Miss Ellie should have done is go to acting school!!!!!!  and I used to watch Dallas , never missed an episode even if Bobby came back in a dream!!!!


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

Pepper said:


> How can it be?  I've known plenty of folks with attack dogs.  If they are with their dog, and order the dog to attack, it will.  If they are holding the dog on a leash & order them to threaten, it will lunge, bark, snarl, foam at the mouth right at you.  If they then say they can unleash this dog on you, well that is a threat against your life.


Granted.  But what if the dog is just brought out to display that they have one?  Is that a threat?
The idea behind having an 'attack' dog in the first place is as a deterrent not a threat.
If I put up a sign that says "Trespassers will be prosecuted".  Is that a threat or a deterrent?


----------



## Sunny (Jul 21, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> I don't know if you can call it 'threatening' if people are on their own property and have guns for their own protection and display them if they have a license for open carry.
> It has been discovered that the pistol displayed by the woman was a stage prop and not a real gun. Also the rifle was empty and there was no ammunition in the house on a search.
> Everyone hollering and yelling isn't a 'peaceful' demonstration to my way of thinking. It's more like the threat is coming from the protestors.
> So if you bring out your big German Shepard dog out is that threatening?



Carrying guns while on their "own property" seems pretty irrelevant to me.  The question is, were the protesters on their property, or out on the street?  Fortunately, the guns weren't fired, but what if they had been?  What if they killed someone out on the street?  

By that logic, a homeowner is perfectly within his rights firing a long-range rifle at someone 200 feet away from his property, because he thought they looked menacing.

If her gun was in fact just a stage prop, this whole incident just gets more and more bizarre.  But his gun was real, wasn't it?


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

Treacle said:


> What Miss Ellie should have done is go to acting school!!!!!! and I used to watch Dallas , never missed an episode even if Bobby came back in a dream!!!!


I don't do videos because I can't hear what they are saying.
So sum up for me.  What did Miss Ellie say or do?


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

Sunny said:


> Carrying guns while on their "own property" seems pretty irrelevant to me.  The question is, were the protesters on their property, or out on the street?  Fortunately, the guns weren't fired, but what if they had been?  What if they killed someone out on the street?
> 
> By that logic, a homeowner is perfectly within his rights firing a long-range rifle at someone 200 feet away from his property, because he thought they looked menacing.
> 
> If her gun was in fact just a stage prop, this whole incident just gets more and more bizarre.  But his gun was real, wasn't it?


Well no.  If I'm a farmer and patrolling my own property with a gun that's not irrelevant.  That's a fact of life.  The protestors were on a private street in front of their house and they went through a gate that was announced broken.  I would be alarmed if that happened to me and people hollering and yelling isn't a peaceful demonstration where I come from.

If the guns had been fired that's a different ball game altogether. You are describing a fictional presentation with a 'what if' connotation.  No by that logic it is not perfectly within his rights to fire a long-range rifle at someone because he thought they looked menacing.  Far from it.

His gun was real but not loaded and there was no ammunition in the house.  So it's highly unlikely he could have done anything as you describe it. I watched a few videos and she was waving that thing around like she didn't know what she was doing.  I did not see him pointing his gun at anyone.  I think he knows the law. I saw people carrying guns and standing on the steps of the legislature in Michigan.  There were not charged with anything.  

In all this I am only interested in the law and what is going to happen.   I support the right of the couple to stand on their own property as a deterrent to a bunch of people hollering and yelling on a private road in front of the property.


----------



## Treacle (Jul 21, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> I don't do videos because I can't hear what they are saying.
> So sum up for me.  What did Miss Ellie say or do?


Basically Miss Ellie told the guy who had turned up at her door to leave and then asked her son Ray  to get the shotgun. She made it clear that anyone on her property that wasn't invited was a trespasser. The man  left without any hesitation (I think he was a media guy) . Camper6, if you click on the the letters cc you will get subtitles. Hope that helps.  ☺


----------



## Pepper (Jul 21, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> Granted.  But what if the dog is just brought out to display that they have one?  Is that a threat?
> The idea behind having an 'attack' dog in the first place is as a deterrent not a threat.
> If I put up a sign that says "Trespassers will be prosecuted".  Is that a threat or a deterrent?


If the dog is behaving himself & just sitting around, no it's not a threat, IMO.  re:  the signage:  no, don't see that as a threat, either.  IMO.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

Treacle said:


> Basically Miss Ellie told the guy who had turned up at her door to leave and then asked her son Ray  to get the shotgun. She made it clear that anyone on her property that wasn't invited was a trespasser. The man  left without any hesitation (I think he was a media guy) . Camper6, if you click on the the letters cc you will get subtitles. Hope that helps.  ☺


Thanks but I have an old system on my main computer and it loads and plays very slowly. 
I much rather people supply a summary and the video as well.  Then if I am interested I can load it on my cell phone or tablet which is much faster.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Jul 21, 2020)

The Missouri State Attorney General says he is intervening in the case to get the charges dropped.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

Pepper said:


> If the dog is behaving himself & just sitting around, no it's not a threat, IMO.  re:  the signage:  no, don't see that as a threat, either.  IMO.


Do you see breaking down a gate marking Private as a threat?  I do.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

JimBob1952 said:


> The Missouri State Attorney General says he is intervening in the case to get the charges dropped.


I don't like to see that type of interference.  I would like to see it go to a court trial and get it settled once and for all.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jul 21, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> Do you see breaking down a gate marking Private as a threat?  I do.


Not threatening enough, considering the couple have been charged.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jul 21, 2020)

JimBob1952 said:


> The Missouri State Attorney General says he is intervening in the case to get the charges dropped.


Of course, anything less would be criminal.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

Not threatening enough?  Not in my opinion.  Someone breaking anything to get in anywhere is a threat in my opinion.   You see you are forgiving the protestors for breaking into private property but you are relentless on the couple? Come on put on those granny panties and give the protestors a piece of your mind and you can give the couple a couple of shots as well.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 21, 2020)

"Granny panties?"  Down, boy, down.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

Pepper said:


> "Granny panties?"  Down, boy, down.


Hey that's on her avatar.  Check it out.  I couldn't come up with that on my own without reading it.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jul 21, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> Hey that's on her avatar.  Check it out.  I couldn't come up with that on my own without reading it.


You're off the hook this time, Camper, but let it be known, Pepper and I, will be keeping a close eye on you in the future. LOL!


----------



## rgp (Jul 21, 2020)

JimBob1952 said:


> The Missouri State Attorney General says he is intervening in the case to get the charges dropped.




 Kudos to him


----------



## Pepper (Jul 21, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> Hey that's on her avatar.  Check it out.  I couldn't come up with that on my own without reading it.


Why yes, it is.  I didn't notice that.  You're free to go.  Have a nice day.


----------



## 911 (Jul 21, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> Not threatening enough, considering the couple have been charged.


This may be a problem for the Prosecutor. The handgun was a fake and the rifle was empty and no ammo was found. Still, the Prosecutor decided to file the charges, which will go nowhere since the AG made a statement that he intends to ask for a dismissal of the charges in court. 

This could be a problem for the Prosecutor. In many states when a D.A. or Prosecutor brings charges knowing that no threat existed, they can face disbarment. This is considered a serious offense in several states. I don't know where Missouri stands on this rule of law. 

One other thing. Anyone that would wave an empty gun at a mob is somewhat mental, or I would at least think so. If the mob sees you waving a gun at them, they are more than likely to take it as a serious threat and maybe also to act first.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 21, 2020)

As usual, @911, well thought out assessment.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

911 said:


> This may be a problem for the Prosecutor. The handgun was a fake and the rifle was empty and no ammo was found. Still, the Prosecutor decided to file the charges, which will go nowhere since the AG made a statement that he intends to ask for a dismissal of the charges in court.
> 
> This could be a problem for the Prosecutor. In many states when a D.A. or Prosecutor brings charges knowing that no threat existed, they can face disbarment. This is considered a serious offense in several states. I don't know where Missouri stands on this rule of law.
> 
> One other thing. Anyone that would wave an empty gun at a mob is somewhat mental, or I would at least think so. If the mob sees you waving a gun at them, they are more than likely to take it as a serious threat and maybe also to act first.


Were they waving it at them or just waving it in the air?  I have a hard time viewing the videos again but from what I remember it looks like to me that she didn't know what she was doing but he knew the law and didn't point it at anyone in a threatening manner.
This is no different than the guys on the steps of the legislature in Michigan with their rifles slung over their shoulders.  They weren't charged with anything because Michigan has open carry.  Another thing.  I keep reading that one of the protestors was armed.  I can't prove it.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jul 21, 2020)

911 said:


> This may be a problem for the Prosecutor. The handgun was a fake and the rifle was empty and no ammo was found. Still, the Prosecutor decided to file the charges, which will go nowhere since the AG made a statement that he intends to ask for a dismissal of the charges in court.
> 
> This could be a problem for the Prosecutor. In many states when a D.A. or Prosecutor brings charges knowing that no threat existed, they can face disbarment. This is considered a serious offense in several states. I don't know where Missouri stands on this rule of law.
> 
> One other thing. *Anyone that would wave an empty gun at a mob is somewhat mental, or I would at least think so. If the mob sees you waving a gun at them, they are more than likely to take it as a serious threat and maybe also to act first*.


I can't help but think calls and/or meetings were arranged with the couple to tutor them on how things will go down once they do this, and do that, and hide those, and follow these instructions, and comply with that, etc.

IMO, if this case is tossed, it just confirms and bolsters everything I already know about the justice system in general. It's as sleazy, slimy, greasy, filthy, and underhanded as it get's, with an endless array of corrupt scum at the top.

As for the couple in question, my husband analyzed the video and shook his head the entire way through.

As for the couple waving empty guns at the crowd (which I don't believe the guns were empty for a second), they should count their blessings that they're still above ground.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> You're off the hook this time, Camper, but let it be known, Pepper and I, will be keeping a close eye on you in the future. LOL!


Likewise I'm sure.  Never post anything you don't want an analytical person to read.  Because he will read it.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> I can't help but think calls and/or meetings were arranged with the couple to tutor them on how things will go down once they do this, and do that, and hide those, and follow these instructions, and comply with that, etc.
> 
> IMO, if this case is tossed, it just confirms and bolsters everything I already know about the justice system in general. It's as sleazy, slimy, greasy, filthy, and underhanded as it get's, with an endless array of corrupt scum at the top.
> 
> ...


The guy is a lawyer and from watching I think he knew what he was doing and he also knew the law.
You do realize that the mob came by again.?  This time they sat back and had security people take care of it.  

Of course the law had their weapons in their possession.  I keep saying.  On your own property the law is on your side. This was not a peaceful demonstration by the protestors.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Jul 21, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> Not threatening enough, considering the couple have been charged.



Read up about the prosecutor.  She's a) rabidly partisan; b) supremely incompetent (her staff is down to 20 from 50 because no one will work for her) and c) corrupt (she paid a big fine for misuse of campaign funds).   She's the one who's  "sleazy, slimy, greasy, filthy, and underhanded" to use your words.


----------



## JaniceM (Jul 21, 2020)

911 said:


> This may be a problem for the Prosecutor. The handgun was a fake and the rifle was empty and no ammo was found. Still, the Prosecutor decided to file the charges, which will go nowhere since the AG made a statement that he intends to ask for a dismissal of the charges in court.
> 
> This could be a problem for the Prosecutor. In many states when a D.A. or Prosecutor brings charges knowing that no threat existed, they can face disbarment. This is considered a serious offense in several states. I don't know where Missouri stands on this rule of law.
> 
> One other thing. Anyone that would wave an empty gun at a mob is somewhat mental, or I would at least think so. If the mob sees you waving a gun at them, they are more than likely to take it as a serious threat and maybe also to act first.


Seriously?!?  Are you saying in your state or others individuals who are being threatened with a gun need to somehow know or find out if there is ammo in it before considering it a threat?  or, for that matter, to get close enough to determine that a gun was fake?


----------



## Sunny (Jul 21, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> The guy is a lawyer and from watching I think he knew what he was doing and he also knew the law.
> You do realize that the mob came by again.?  This time they sat back and had security people take care of it.
> 
> Of course the law had their weapons in their possession.  I keep saying.  On your own property the law is on your side. This was not a peaceful demonstration by the protestors.



1. About the "on your own property" part of this, I already raised this. Are you saying that anything you do is all right as long as YOU are on your own property?  The mob was out in the street, which is not the couple's "own property."

2. It may have not been a peaceful demonstration, if by "peaceful" you mean soft voices, polite consideration, etc.  But it was not violent either. Nobody was hurt.


----------



## 911 (Jul 21, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> Seriously?!?  Are you saying in your state or others individuals who are being threatened with a gun need to somehow know or find out if there is ammo in it before considering it a threat?  or, for that matter, to get close enough to determine that a gun was fake?


You have me confused. The Prosecutor is at fault here. Prosecutors or D.A's cannot file false charges and since she knew that the handgun was fake and the rifle was empty and no ammo was available, and still decided to file a charge, she could be found guilty of malfeasance of office and removed and eventually disbarred. However, I would not be waving an empty or fake gun at a mob. The mob may decide that they are now being threatened and decide to act.

This Prosecutor has been in trouble before with the law. How she has kept her position is unclear to me. 

Does that clear it up?


----------



## JaniceM (Jul 21, 2020)

911 said:


> You have me confused. The Prosecutor is at fault here. Prosecutors or D.A's cannot file false charges and since she knew that the handgun was fake and the rifle was empty and no ammo was available, and still decided to file a charge, she could be found guilty of malfeasance of office and removed and eventually disbarred. However, I would not be waving an empty or fake gun at a mob. The mob may decide that they are now being threatened and decide to act.
> 
> This Prosecutor has been in trouble before with the law. How she has kept her position is unclear to me.
> 
> Does that clear it up?


No, not really.  I'd think the issue would be whether the "protesters" believed the guns were real and contained ammo, rather than what the prosecutor eventually learned about the guns.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

Sunny said:


> 1. About the "on your own property" part of this, I already raised this. Are you saying that anything you do is all right as long as YOU are on your own property?  The mob was out in the street, which is not the couple's "own property."
> 
> 2. It may have not been a peaceful demonstration, if by "peaceful" you mean soft voices, polite consideration, etc.  But it was not violent either. Nobody was hurt.


On your own property means there is protections available not normally available out in public. The castle laws for instance. I should be able to carry a gun on my own property for protection much easier than walking into a pub for instance. 
Peaceful demonstrations have an obligation to be peaceful. Hollering threats and disrupting the peace and blocking traffic to me is not peaceful. It's disruptful and infringes on people's privacy. They were calling on the mayor to resign and used a private road to do it.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> No, not really.  I'd think the issue would be whether the "protesters" believed the guns were real and contained ammo, rather than what the prosecutor eventually learned about the guns.


No doubt the intent would be to have the protestors believe the guns were real. The point is. Was what they did legal? It depends on state law. Did the protestors issue any threats real or fake threats.?  If they just walked by and kept quiet then that would make a difference.


----------



## win231 (Jul 21, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> I don't know if you can call it 'threatening' if people are on their own property and have guns for their own protection and display them if they have a license for open carry.
> It has been discovered that the pistol displayed by the woman was a stage prop and not a real gun. Also the rifle was empty and there was no ammunition in the house on a search.
> Everyone hollering and yelling isn't a 'peaceful' demonstration to my way of thinking. It's more like the threat is coming from the protestors.
> So if you bring out your big German Shepard dog out is that threatening?


It makes no difference (legally) if his rifle was not loaded & her gun wasn't real.  It's still called threatening someone with a firearm & brandishing.  If your life is in immediate danger, that's justifiable.  In this case, the two morons were using their guns to intimidate & frighten.
BTW, both of them have been charged criminally.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

win231 said:


> It makes no difference (legally) if his rifle was not loaded & her gun wasn't real.  It's still called threatening someone with a firearm & brandishing.  If your life is in immediate danger, that's justifiable.  In this case, the two morons were using their guns to intimidate & frighten.
> BTW, both of them have been charged criminally.


No they haven't been charged criminally. Intimidating is exactly what the protestors were doing. Why did the prosecutors take so long to lay a charge? Actually the protestors were trespassing.


----------



## JaniceM (Jul 21, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> No they haven't been charged criminally. Intimidating is exactly what the protestors were doing. Why did the prosecutors take so long to lay a charge? Actually the protestors were trespassing.


https://www.newsmax.com/us/felony-use-weapon-missouri/2020/07/20/id/978104/
(along with other news sites I can't access from this browser)


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> https://www.newsmax.com/us/felony-use-weapon-missouri/2020/07/20/id/978104/
> (along with other news sites I can't access from this browser)


If it was a serious criminal charge, they would have been arrested immediately.

They have not been arrested or subjected to surrender.  There are degrees of criminal charges and felonies.

In fact now Gardner is offering a 'diversion' .


----------



## Sunny (Jul 21, 2020)

From today's Washington Post:

The St. Louis couple who emerged from their mansion in a gated community and aimed weapons at protesters marching past them last month were each charged Monday with one felony count of unlawful use of a weapon.

Lawyers Mark McCloskey, 61, and Patricia McCloskey, 63, have said they were merely defending their home on a private street in an upscale neighborhood from a crowd that was marching to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s house to protest racial injustice. Video and photographs showing Mark McCloskey wielding a rifle and Patricia McCloskey aiming a pistol at the marchers created a firestorm of controversy between those who felt the couple was legally defending their home and those who felt they were menacing peaceful protesters.
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, who filed the charges against the McCloskeys, did not order the couple to surrender or be arrested. Instead, as part of Gardner’s reformist approach to reducing incarceration for low-level crimes, she issued summonses and said she would consider them for a diversion program, which would enable the charge to be dismissed if counseling or another remedial course were completed. The charge carries a possible penalty from probation to four years in prison.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

Always plead not guilty.  Always.  Don't take a plea bargain. I'll wait for the court case because I'm interested in the law in this type of case and the second amendment on the right to bear arms.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jul 21, 2020)

From Yahoo today:

*Hours after the St. Louis couple who pointed guns at protesters were given felony charges, Missouri's attorney general said he's joining the case to get their charges dismissed.*


Hours after the charges were filed, Missouri's attorney general, Eric Schmitt, filed an amicus brief asking that the charges be dismissed.
Schmitt cited the state's "castle doctrine," which allows Missourians to use force against intruders, as a reason the case should be thrown out.


----------



## win231 (Jul 21, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> Always plead not guilty.  Always.  Don't take a plea bargain. I'll wait for the court case because I'm interested in the law in this type of case and the second amendment on the right to bear arms.


This has nothing to do with the second amendment.
And, if you see nothing wrong with this couple's actions, enjoy paying the astronomical legal fees involved & having your guns confiscated.
I'd rather keep mine & spend my money elsewhere.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 21, 2020)

If you see nothing wrong with what the protestors did, then you have no right to tell me anything. It has yet to be determined if the guns are confiscated and if the charges will be dropped . Stay in touch.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Jul 22, 2020)

win231 said:


> It makes no difference (legally) if his rifle was not loaded & her gun wasn't real.  It's still called threatening someone with a firearm & brandishing.  If your life is in immediate danger, that's justifiable.  In this case, the two morons were using their guns to intimidate & frighten.
> BTW, both of them have been charged criminally.


. 

Since the rioters were threatening their lives and pointing weapons at the McCluskys, it would seem to me that their fear of being shot and killed was legitimate.  You see all of the pictures of the McCluskys waving their guns around, but you don’t see the ones of the rioters also having weapons , which were pointed at the older Missouri couple. 
They had called for police help, and done everything correctly , as far as I can tell; before they went out to try and scare the rioters away.  These same rioters had been attacking people and burning down homes and businesses, so  it is no wonder that they were in fear for their lives.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jul 22, 2020)

Happyflowerlady said:


> .
> 
> Since the rioters were threatening their lives and pointing weapons at the McCluskys, it would seem to me that their fear of being shot and killed was legitimate.  You see all of the pictures of the McCluskys waving their guns around, but you don’t see the ones of the rioters also having weapons , which were pointed at the older Missouri couple.
> They had called for police help, and done everything correctly , as far as I can tell; before they went out to try and scare the rioters away.  These same rioters had been attacking people and burning down homes and businesses, so  it is no wonder that they were in fear for their lives.
> ...


The man circled looks to be wearing ear-pieces and holding what's referred to as a USB Shotgun Microphone.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jul 22, 2020)

Rode NTG2 Multi-Powered Condenser Shotgun Microphone.


----------



## win231 (Jul 22, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> If it was a serious criminal charge, they would have been arrested immediately.
> 
> They have not been arrested or subjected to surrender.  There are degrees of criminal charges and felonies.
> 
> In fact now Gardner is offering a 'diversion' .


No.  Often times in cases like these, some investigation takes place & it's quite common for several days/weeks to pass before charges are filed.


----------



## 911 (Jul 22, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> Rode NTG2 Multi-Powered Condenser Shotgun Microphone.


I read the same thing. It appears to be a boom mic to me.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 22, 2020)

win231 said:


> No.  Often times in cases like these, some investigation takes place & it's quite common for several days/weeks to pass before charges are filed.


Not in serious cases. This obviously was not one of them.


----------



## Pink Biz (Oct 7, 2020)

*Update: Patricia and Mark McCloskey, the St. Louis homeowners who pointed guns at protesters, have been indicted on weapons and tampering with evidence charges, their attorney said.*

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/us/patricia-mark-mccloskey-st-louis-indicted/index.html


----------



## Sunny (Oct 7, 2020)

I can't find anything about the "tampering with evidence" changes, other than to say they have been charged with that. What tampering? It would be nice to get the full story.  What did they do? Attempt to hide the guns afterwards, or what?


----------



## DaveA (Oct 7, 2020)

How much damage did their home and property suffer?  I didn't see that in the article?  It would take a lot more than people walking (or marching) by my house to make me run out waving my weapon.  That's how bad things get worse and if the people passing by didn't have weapons it makes it even more unreasonable.

This is similar to road rage. If everytime someone "slights" you, you go to the ultimate solution and under those circumstances, you may not always come out on the winning side.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Oct 7, 2020)

DaveA said:


> *How much damage did their home and property suffer*?  I didn't see that in the article?  It would take a lot more than people walking (or marching) by my house to make me run out waving my weapon.  That's how bad things get worse and if the people passing by didn't have weapons it makes it even more unreasonable.
> 
> This is similar to road rage. If everytime someone "slights" you, you go to the ultimate solution and under those circumstances, you may not always come out on the winning side.


From everything I have read, the couple's home suffered zero damage.

Gobsmacks as to why the couple exited their home. They were perfectly safe inside their residence.


----------



## Sunny (Oct 7, 2020)

Those people were walking by their house, on the way to a demonstration. It had nothing to do with them. It sounds to me as if they went out of their way to create trouble.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Oct 7, 2020)

Sunny said:


> Those people were walking by their house, on the way to a demonstration. It had nothing to do with them. It sounds to me as if they went out of their way to create trouble.


That is exactly how I construed it.

If dear husband and I witnessed a gang of people walking up or past our street and we felt even a smidge concerned, inside our own home would be the safest place, and any well-adjusted person with even a _sliver_ of plain old-fashioned common sense knows it.

Fools are a dime-a-dozen today, and boy, did the couple _EVER_ look like a couple of fools!


----------



## Aunt Marg (Oct 7, 2020)

Sunny said:


> Those people were walking by their house, on the way to a demonstration. It had nothing to do with them. It sounds to me as if they went out of their way to create trouble.


Even more moronic is how so many people made such a BIG deal about the broken iron gate at the entrance of the exclusive neighbourhood.

My opinion of the broken gate? BOO-HOO! SO WHAT! WHO CARES! SMALL PEANUTS! LET IT GO!

My husband summed it up best, "a broken iron gate is worth a human life"?

I guess for some it is. Stupidity and shallowness at it's best!

The couple don't need guns, what they need is straight-jackets, a rubber-room, and psychiatric help!


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Oct 7, 2020)

Keesha said:


> Yeah. I’m truly trying to pretty it up some. I’ve spent my life doing that. It makes me feel better. To be brutally honest , I find what’s happening in the world right now to be heartbreaking. I can’t help but feel disappointed in humanity.
> 
> All this new technology where we can view everyone under high powered microscopes and judge them rentlessly and then justify our hatred.
> 
> Saying it’s disappointing is an understatement


I *so* agree with you Keesha! I feel heartbroken too many times lately when I read or view the news.


----------



## 911 (Oct 7, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> Even more moronic is how so many people made such a BIG deal about the broken iron gate at the entrance of the exclusive neighbourhood.
> 
> My opinion of the broken gate? BOO-HOO! SO WHAT! WHO CARES! SMALL PEANUTS! LET IT GO!
> 
> ...


When the Protesters broke down the front gate, that would be comparable to someone breaking down your front door. It was on private property and trespassers were not allowed. Whether any of us believe it to be a non-issue or not, by law, it is trespassing. This has already been hashed out and according to Missouri law because they live in a private gated community and pay an HOA fee, the streets, including the gates are considered as part of the McCloskeys property.  

We can dissect it or whatever, but what I believe it came down to and why the Grand Jury handed down the indictment was because the McCloskeys pointed their weapons at the intruders. The next thing that has to be considered is does this come under Missouri's Castle Doctrine law? I don't know. Wording of the law is everything and states word their Castle Doctrine law differently from one another. Here in Pennsylvania, the answer would be 'yes.'  

The Governor of Missouri has stated that if the McCloskeys are found guilty, he will pardon them.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Oct 7, 2020)

911 said:


> When the Protesters broke down the front gate, that would be comparable to someone breaking down your front door. It was on private property and trespassers were not allowed. Whether any of us believe it to be a non-issue or not, by law, it is trespassing. This has already been hashed out and according to Missouri law because they live in a private gated community and pay an HOA fee, the streets, including the gates are considered as part of the McCloskeys property.
> 
> We can dissect it or whatever, but what I believe it came down to and why the Grand Jury handed down the indictment was because the McCloskeys pointed their weapons at the intruders. The next thing that has to be considered is does this come under Missouri's Castle Doctrine law? I don't know. Wording of the law is everything and states word their Castle Doctrine law differently from one another. Here in Pennsylvania, the answer would be 'yes.'
> 
> The Governor of Missouri has stated that if the McCloskeys are found guilty, he will pardon them.


As I mentioned previously, 911, what a sad state of affairs it is when a disposable iron gate trumps human life, regardless of doctrines, the second amendment, and all the rest of the foolishness surrounding the ownership and use of guns in the USofA, and my stance on what I think of the couple hasn't changed, I still think they're a couple of prize dullards.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Oct 7, 2020)

911 said:


> When the Protesters broke down the front gate, that would be comparable to someone breaking down your front door. It was on private property and trespassers were not allowed. Whether any of us believe it to be a non-issue or not, by law, it is trespassing. This has already been hashed out and according to Missouri law because they live in a private gated community and pay an HOA fee, the streets, including the gates are considered as part of the McCloskeys property.
> 
> We can dissect it or whatever, but what I believe it came down to and why the Grand Jury handed down the indictment was because the McCloskeys pointed their weapons at the intruders. The next thing that has to be considered is does this come under Missouri's Castle Doctrine law? I don't know. Wording of the law is everything and states word their Castle Doctrine law differently from one another. Here in Pennsylvania, the answer would be 'yes.'
> 
> *The Governor of Missouri has stated that if the McCloskeys are found guilty, he will pardon them.*


Who needs criminals when you've got the likes of the McCloskey's and governors as mentioned above.

With neighbours like the McCloskey's, I'd be far more concerned over my own safety and my children's safety than I would my safety seeing a gang of protestors walking by.


----------



## mark55 (Oct 7, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> I can't help but get the impression that those who live their daily lives around guns are scared of their own shadows, and look for any excuse in the book to grandstand with them.


if I was in their spot at the same time all of this was going on, I would have fired my gun a few times warning shots. I never saw any peaceful protesters in the crowd of looters , also protesters are only allowed to protest in the area, that their protest permit, say they can protest in, plus they have to have insurance in case there is any damage or injuries, I bet your life , that they had no permits, for any of the so called protests in the country,  mark55.


----------



## win231 (Oct 7, 2020)

mark55 said:


> if I was in their spot at the same time all of this was going on, I would have fired my gun a few times warning shots. I never saw any peaceful protesters in the crowd of looters , also protesters are only allowed to protest in the area, that their protest permit, say they can protest in, plus they have to have insurance in case there is any damage or injuries, I bet your life , that they had no permits, for any of the so called protests in the country,  mark55.



^^^  Yup.  A prime example of a gun owner who shouldn't own a gun because he never grew up.
"I can't help but get the impression that those who live their daily lives around guns are scared of their own shadows, and _*look for any excuse in the book to grandstand with them."*_


----------



## Aunt Marg (Oct 7, 2020)

win231 said:


> ^^^  Yup.  A prime example of a gun owner who shouldn't own a gun because he never grew up.
> "I can't help but get the impression that those who live their daily lives around guns are scared of their own shadows, and _*look for any excuse in the book to grandstand with them."*_


I couldn't have said it better myself, Win!


----------



## 911 (Oct 7, 2020)

mark55 said:


> if I was in their spot at the same time all of this was going on, I would have fired my gun a few times warning shots. I never saw any peaceful protesters in the crowd of looters , also protesters are only allowed to protest in the area, that their protest permit, say they can protest in, plus they have to have insurance in case there is any damage or injuries, I bet your life , that they had no permits, for any of the so called protests in the country,  mark55.


Do you live in the U.S.?


----------



## Pepper (Oct 7, 2020)

911 said:


> Do you live in the U.S.?


Do you ask because he says 'if I was in their *spot*..........'  Just curious


----------



## ELjane (Oct 7, 2020)

One of the homeowners guns should have been a paintball gun and used it to shoot every loud-mouth threatening protester for identification by the police.


----------



## AnnieA (Oct 7, 2020)

DaveA said:


> '''
> 
> This is similar to road rage. If everytime someone "slights" you, you go to the ultimate solution and under those circumstances, you may not always come out on the winning side.



Think I posted this back when it happened, but had anyone in the crowd been carrying legally, it could've ended permanently for this couple.   Don't brandish a gun unless you're prepared for someone to shoot in self-defense.  They're hopefully on their way to being convicted felons and will lose their right to possess firearms.


----------



## AnnieA (Oct 7, 2020)

mark55 said:


> if I was in their spot at the same time all of this was going on, I would have fired my gun a few times warning shots. I never saw any peaceful protesters in the crowd of looters , also protesters are only allowed to protest in the area, that their protest permit, say they can protest in, plus they have to have insurance in case there is any damage or injuries, I bet your life , that they had no permits, for any of the so called protests in the country,  mark55.




You shouldn't own a gun according to the gun safety class I took.  Super irresponsible to fire warning shots at people who aren't even on your property; no one was on the McCloskey's property per numerous videos of the incident.  I'm guessing that's where the evidence tampering charge comes into play.  Plus the people were walking down the street on their way to a location a block away.  They weren't protesting in front of the McCloskey's home, were just walking by but stopped when the couple came out acting fools.


----------



## Irwin (Oct 7, 2020)

We have a 1st Amendment right to free speech, even if you don't like what the other person says. Of course, that was a private street, so the 1st Amendment might not apply. But you can't break the law to stop people from speaking.


----------



## win231 (Oct 8, 2020)

mark55 said:


> they were on private property , plus breaking and entering through the gate, is just like going thru the front door in a gated community . I am guessing that you have no brain, or you are just too blind to see, and I think that you probably flunked your gun class.


As a responsible gun owner, I'm generally not in favor of gun control.  But - just as not everyone should drive, not everyone should own a gun.  You are a poster child for gun restrictions.
And, by the way, TV cop shows are not good sources for learning.


----------



## Sunny (Oct 8, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> As I mentioned previously, 911, what a sad state of affairs it is when a disposable iron gate trumps human life, regardless of doctrines, the second amendment, and all the rest of the foolishness surrounding the ownership and use of guns in the USofA, and my stance on what I think of the couple hasn't changed, I still think they're a couple of prize dullards.


Aunt Marg, though I agree with you, I don't think this was really about the broken gate. Who cares about a gate?  It was the fact that the protestors were illegally marching inside a gated community.  The gates are there ostensibly to protect the residents. No one is supposed to be able to enter without being cleared by a guard at the gatehouse. This means having a pass showing that you are a resident, having a "frequent visitor" pass, or by a phone call to the gatehouse from a resident who is expecting a visitor.  It is true that it's not a public thoroughfare.

However, this certainly doesn't excuse the way the McCloskeys behaved. Their stupidity with their guns could have created a tragic outcome.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Oct 8, 2020)

Sunny said:


> Aunt Marg, though I agree with you, I don't think this was really about the broken gate. Who cares about a gate?  It was the fact that the protestors were illegally marching inside a gated community.  The gates are there ostensibly to protect the residents. No one is supposed to be able to enter without being cleared by a guard at the gatehouse. This means having a pass showing that you are a resident, having a "frequent visitor" pass, or by a phone call to the gatehouse from a resident who is expecting a visitor.  It is true that it's not a public thoroughfare.
> 
> However, this certainly doesn't excuse the way the McCloskeys behaved. Their stupidity with their guns could have created a tragic outcome.


I 100% agree with you, Sunny, and by no means was I attempting to relay that it's okay to enter a private gate-guarded community in the manner in which the protestors did.


----------



## 911 (Oct 8, 2020)

Pepper said:


> Do you ask because he says 'if I was in their *spot*..........' Just curious


The reason that I asked was when the poster stated,* "if I was in their spot at the same time all of this was going on, I would have fired my gun a few times warning shots." *really caught me off guard. 

In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to discharge a weapon when the shooter is within 200 yards of a residence. If you care to fact check me, you can find it in Title 34 of the Pennsylvania Criminal Code. I apologize, but I have forgotten the scilicet number. I know this law because I have had to use it in the past. Some people think that because they own a piece of property that they can set up a target in the backyard and fire away. 

I had a case where 2 high school boys, aged 16, were shooting daddy's .22 rifle out the upstairs bedroom window at a street light. According to them, they had fired 8 rounds before striking the light and causing it to shatter. Two of the shots went through a home's downstairs window some 275 feet away and hitting the family's pet dog, which did survive. The investigation only took less than a day to solve who the shooter was. Kids like to brag about such things, so when we asked for help from the local school, we received 3 or 4 calls leading us to the shooters. 

I couldn't imagine anyone living in the U.S. and being a responsible gun owner not knowing that it's illegal, or at least, not a good idea to discharge a weapon when living in a development.


----------



## mark55 (Oct 9, 2020)

911 said:


> The reason that I asked was when the poster stated,* "if I was in their spot at the same time all of this was going on, I would have fired my gun a few times warning shots." *really caught me off guard.
> 
> In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to discharge a weapon when the shooter is within 200 yards of a residence. If you care to fact check me, you can find it in Title 34 of the Pennsylvania Criminal Code. I apologize, but I have forgotten the scilicet number. I know this law because I have had to use it in the past. Some people think that because they own a piece of property that they can set up a target in the backyard and fire away.
> 
> ...


here we go again. just think how ignorant you look, when you see the light , of the situation, going on in their part (of a no trespassing zone), neighborhood . your law will change, when the circumstances change. all of the rioting in their area changed it. now they are protecting their property, some people wait until the low life, are breaking into their house, this may be too late , to have good outcome. I think, you need to turn, your gun in to the police, they will need it, when they get defunded, by the BLM gang. by the way, look up, blm , it stands for   Bowel, Lower Movement.    mark55.


----------



## win231 (Oct 9, 2020)

mark55 said:


> here we go again. just think how ignorant you look, when you see the light , of the situation, going on in their part (of a no trespassing zone), neighborhood . your law will change, when the circumstances change. all of the rioting in their area changed it. now they are protecting their property, some people wait until the low life, are breaking into their house, this may be too late , to have good outcome. I think, you need to turn, your gun in to the police, they will need it, when they get defunded, by the BLM gang. by the way, look up, blm , it stands for   Bowel, Lower Movement.    mark55


When you filled out your paperwork for your gun purchase, how did you answer the question about mental illness?


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 9, 2020)

mark55 said:


> here we go again. just think how ignorant you look, when you see the light , of the situation, going on in their part (of a no trespassing zone), neighborhood . your law will change, when the circumstances change. all of the rioting in their area changed it. now they are protecting their property, some people wait until the low life, are breaking into their house, this may be too late , to have good outcome. I think, you need to turn, your gun in to the police, they will need it, when they get defunded, by the BLM gang. by the way, look up, blm , it stands for   Bowel, Lower Movement.    mark55


Perhaps you are unaware that 911 is a former State Trooper, I can‘t  imagine you would knowingly 
disrespect his decades of service by calling him ignorant.


----------



## Sunny (Oct 9, 2020)

Looking at the two notes #177 and #192, both of them written by Mark55, there is an astonishing difference in the writing style. While I disagree 100% with the ideas in both notes, the first one is at least comprehensible; the second one sounds deranged.  Either he has been heavily hitting the bottle, is on some mind-twisting drug, or is mentally ill.

Any one of these explanations provides the best defense of strict gun control laws that I can imagine!  This person is boasting about brandishing and firing a gun at a group of unarmed, nonviolent protestors walking down the street.  Now, there's a reassuring thought!


----------

