Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > >

Concealed Carry & Self Defense All aspects of Concealed and Open Carry, Home and Self Defense.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-21-2020, 03:40 PM
JJEH's Avatar
JJEH JJEH is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 6,103
Likes: 10,702
Liked 5,478 Times in 1,995 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscampbell2734 View Post

Bottom line is if your in fear for your life shoot. If your not in fear then no gun. PERIOD.
Private property is private property and they have the right to defend their property.

What if your property is 100+ acres and there's trouble on the other end? Do you go there unarmed and check just to go back to the house, get the firearm and then return to the scene if you need it?

What do you want them to do? Sit in their house, scared, call 911? Wait until someone breaks in?

This is all a media stunt and I'm sick and tired of being lectured what law-abiding citizens do wrong while all the rioters get a free ride on everything. Because if we do something then we are the racists, biggots and what not.

Walk through my property like the mob did, see what happens!
__________________
Jorge
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #52  
Old 07-21-2020, 03:51 PM
CB3's Avatar
CB3 CB3 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 1,136
Liked 1,712 Times in 684 Posts
Default

There were reportedly verbal threats of physical attack (yelling “fire” in a crowded place—not protected speech) and major property damage by
protesters who have been shown in the recent local past, at times, to be armed (capable of carrying out threats) PRIOR TO the homeowners arming themselves;
Protesters who by both their numbers and proximity represent a potential deadly threat through disparate force;
Protesters who are knowingly trespassing in violation of law;
Protesters who have regularly trespassed and destroyed property, as they had threatened;
Homeowners legally armed on their own property;
State Castle Doctrine that allows them to protect themselves and their property, especially after calling 911 and being refused protection.

They felt threatened. They were on their own property. They followed the law. Protesters did not. Homeowners did not shoot, perhaps because the mere presence of firearms acted as a deterrent. Nothing illegal about that, given the law and the situation.

The idea that a firearm can ONLY be used to shoot someone while on your own property is not legally accurate. This is one of those times when a countering display of force (brandishing firearms) had the desired effect to keep potentially harmful, even deadly, trespassers away, and no one was hurt.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #53  
Old 07-21-2020, 04:50 PM
mscampbell2734 mscampbell2734 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 356
Likes: 3
Liked 249 Times in 124 Posts
Default

JJEH and CB3

The issue and point of contention is if a reasonable person under similar circumstances would get their gun and act in a similar manner.

So what exact did the couple do. They armed themselves and POINTED the weapons at people. They did not just display that they had weapons they pointed the weapons at people.

That's the issue. If your justified in pointing the weapon why didn't you shoot? If you were not justified in shooting then why did you point the weapon at them?

Merely displaying a weapon as a deterrent/attempt to prevent a situation from escalating is GENERALLY frowned up. But again this couple did not just display their weapons they POINTED them at people.

Fine line? Yes, but from a legal standpoint the difference between open carry and brandishing a firearm.

Last edited by mscampbell2734; 07-21-2020 at 04:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #54  
Old 07-21-2020, 05:27 PM
nedlate nedlate is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Idaho
Posts: 631
Likes: 402
Liked 480 Times in 197 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoundFather View Post
The wife in particular was completely out of control, sweeping herself and her husband almost continuously as well as pointing her pistol at the protesters. Operable or inoperable, this woman does not have the mental capacity to bear arms. The husband at least sometimes made some effort to keep the AR pointed in a safe direction. He needs some remedial training and discipline but maybe is not a hopeless case.
The woman appears a little out of control! I keep watching the video to see where the husband has his finger on the trigger and haven't spotted it yet. I do see him with his trigger finger straightened out as is the common practice to show your finger is not on the trigger. I also don't see the husband sweeping the crowd. I do see the muzzle heading to the fringes a couple of times!

Now the wife! Well!!

Maybe someone can post a picture to correct me?

Ed
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #55  
Old 07-21-2020, 05:55 PM
RoyM52 RoyM52 is online now
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Northern Wis
Posts: 282
Likes: 506
Liked 283 Times in 137 Posts
Default

I've read this thread several times and wondered , what if, you were the one going to see the mayor. Two people show up coming out of a house you pass, waving guns around and pointing at you. {one of the people waving the guns has their finger on the trigger and has crazy eyes}.

{shoe on the other foot post}
How do you feel about their rights to do this to you?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #56  
Old 07-21-2020, 06:06 PM
CB3's Avatar
CB3 CB3 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 1,136
Liked 1,712 Times in 684 Posts
Default

MSCampbell

Given the 21 foot “rule” and that the trespassers appeared from the video to be at about that threshold, generally pointing a firearm in that direction does not seem unreasonable. The couple did not on the video specifically target any individuals. The trespassers were the instigators and law breakers, not the homeowners.

Your distinction about “pointing” does not seem to have legal justification. There is no legal requirement to shoot if you point a gun at someone. There does not appear to be a proscription under Missouri self defense statutes that prevents one from using the force necessary, in their minds, to defend themselves. In fact, they have an “absolute defense” (MRS 563.041; 563.07; 563.016) for doing so. Pointing a firearm in the general direction of law breakers threatening you is not illegal in Missouri from what I have read in the referenced material.

I cannot find a statute in Missouri that specifically states while defending your property, on your property, under the Missouri Castle Doctrine (Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw and MRS 563.031) or the Missouri Constitution’s equivalent of the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment (Article I; Section 23) that prohibits this use of force.

In THEIR minds at that time under those circumstances it was the required level of force needed to protect themselves. The requirements for self defense seem to have been satisfied. While the law does differentiate between “force” and “deadly force”, pointing a gun generally toward someone without firing after justification for self defense under the law has been reached, well, it’s just not illegal. It may be illegal at other places or under other circumstances, but not under CD and self defense laws. These are exceptions.

If you can cite a Missouri law proscribing pointing a gun generally toward someone in legally justified self defense as illegal, I would include it in this discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-21-2020, 06:14 PM
CH4's Avatar
CH4 CH4 is online now
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Washington/Philippines
Posts: 4,689
Likes: 10,107
Liked 8,916 Times in 2,900 Posts
Default

Ain’t going anywhere. All a political/media stunt. If the DA had a solid case she wouldn’t have offered a diversion plea deal at this stage of the game and the state AG and Gov wouldn’t be fervently opposing her. Between Heller, MO castle doctrine and other cases protect the property owners. What’s also fishy is that she didn’t charge any of the trespassers/vandals, where she had righteous offenses to prosecute. If you don’t want a gun pointed at you don’t violently break into my property and threaten me, especially en mass.
__________________
FBINA 213

Last edited by CH4; 07-21-2020 at 06:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Like Post:
  #58  
Old 07-21-2020, 06:33 PM
ladder13's Avatar
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 32,944
Liked 31,243 Times in 10,746 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyM52 View Post
I've read this thread several times and wondered , what if, you were the one going to see the mayor. Two people show up coming out of a house you pass, waving guns around and pointing at you. {one of the people waving the guns has their finger on the trigger and has crazy eyes}.

{shoe on the other foot post}
How do you feel about their rights to do this to you?
I don’t go to see the mayor with hundreds of people chanting and frothing.
__________________
In memory of Labworm
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #59  
Old 07-21-2020, 06:49 PM
CB3's Avatar
CB3 CB3 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 1,136
Liked 1,712 Times in 684 Posts
Default

All the opinions on generalities, training, other locales, safety issues, etc. are rabbit trail side issues that have no bearing on the core issue: did they commit a criminal act.

The point of this thread is that the couple has been charged by a local DA with the “crime” of pointing a gun toward people trespassing along their property. The AG and the governor both understand the applicable Missouri self defense laws and say the local DA is wrong to have charged them.

Why? Yes, politics, but one side of the issue actually has the Law on their side. Time will tell.

Last edited by CB3; 07-21-2020 at 06:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #60  
Old 07-21-2020, 06:51 PM
mscampbell2734 mscampbell2734 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 356
Likes: 3
Liked 249 Times in 124 Posts
Default

CB3

Like everything else the issue comes down to what is reasonable.

The legal statue you linked to raises this several times. While POINTING a weapon is not specifically cited the question is still the same.

Would a reasonable person, under broadly similar circumstances, react in a similar manner.

The Missouri statue reads, to quote Deadly force "May be used when a person reasonably believes that the level of force is necessary for self-defense or defense of others (including unborn children) in response to an imminent threat."

So would a reasonable person believe a large crowd, yes they broke in and yes they were mouthing off, be a imminent threat to their physical safety?

This is why we have judges and trials. Not everyone is going to look at that video and see the same thing. I'm sure several versions of the video exist and I'm sure the media is only showing what they want to show.

Regardless if that couple committed a crime or not they were definitely boneheads.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #61  
Old 07-21-2020, 07:06 PM
rays44 rays44 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NJ
Posts: 80
Likes: 14
Liked 49 Times in 24 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LPD256 View Post
A case of cold water or a Gatorade by the street probably would have gotten a few thank you’s from the protestors. The protestors had to break the gate to get into the gated coMmunity, but other than that I didn’t see any threats from anyone other than McCluskey and his trigger happy wife.
With all due respect, sir, why would anyone serve drinks to these people. They are anarchists, not peaceful protesters. At the very least, they vandalized and trespassed their property. That alone kills the "peaceful protest argument". It amazes me that we have people in power all over the country like Kimberly M. Gardner. I'll stop here.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #62  
Old 07-21-2020, 07:09 PM
max503's Avatar
max503 max503 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Illinois near STL
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 366
Liked 1,402 Times in 590 Posts
Default

I would not do what they did for fear of drawing fire to myself.

I want to hear the whole story. The media is expert at only letting you see what supports their reality.

Last edited by max503; 07-21-2020 at 07:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #63  
Old 07-21-2020, 07:12 PM
THEmodelof1989 THEmodelof1989 is offline
Suspended
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Texas
Posts: 494
Likes: 587
Liked 931 Times in 290 Posts
Default

Uhh... has this post gotten political yet?

Too bad I don't know how to post big memes on here. This seems like the perfect place to leave sweet mike eating some popcorn. Long live the king baby.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-21-2020, 07:32 PM
CB3's Avatar
CB3 CB3 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 1,136
Liked 1,712 Times in 684 Posts
Default

MRS 563.041. Use of physical force in defense of property.

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

Reasonable in the minds of the defenders. Tough standard to overcome, especially with the defenders being attorneys. Not what is reasonable in my mind or your mind but what the couple can justify given their unique circumstances and perspective. It’s actually a fairly low bar when handled professionally.

Critics abound. Yet the desired effect was achieved, apparently legally according to MO law, without anyone being injured. Not everyone is as well trained, prepared, experienced, controlled and knowledgeable as we are. The law does not require them to be such.

What message would be sent to “protesters” by locking the couple up, or even forcing them to “anger management” classes?

What message is sent to the mobs and other defenders if the law justifies the couple’s use of force?

Last edited by CB3; 07-23-2020 at 01:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #65  
Old 07-21-2020, 07:38 PM
FoundFather FoundFather is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 71
Likes: 30
Liked 85 Times in 36 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THEmodelof1989 View Post
Uhh... has this post gotten political yet?

Too bad I don't know how to post big memes on here. This seems like the perfect place to leave sweet mike eating some popcorn. Long live the king baby.
St Louis couple charged-michael-jackson-meme-jpg

Here you go!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #66  
Old 07-21-2020, 07:46 PM
reddog81 reddog81 is online now
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: IA
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 335
Liked 934 Times in 497 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CB3 View Post
Pointing a firearm in the general direction of law breakers threatening you is not illegal in Missouri from what I have read in the referenced material.
What happens when your walking down the sidewalk with a group of people inside a gated community and someone steps onto a neighbors grass, words are exchanged with the property owner, and then wife comes out with her gun drawn, finger on the trigger sweeping everyone in the group? What would you do if she pointed the gun at your child, her finger on the trigger and you were carrying? You'd be within your rights to defend your family, correct?

You can say they broke down the gate to get into the neighborhood, but there are videos of the protesters walking through the open undamaged gate. The gate was broken once the McCloskey's realized they needed an alibi...

You can say the protesters were threatening, but I'm guessing the only reason any words were exchanged is because the hot headed McCloskeys were acting in a threatening manner the moment they exited the safety of their house.

I don't understand why people are putting these hot headed, BLM supporting, ambulance chasing lawyers on such a pedestal. I don't support the protesters and don't agree with their cause, but that doesn't mean what the the McCloskeys did was correct. Is charging them with a felony justified? No, probably not, but their reaction was way overblown.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-21-2020, 07:52 PM
FoundFather FoundFather is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 71
Likes: 30
Liked 85 Times in 36 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CB3 View Post
Pointing a firearm in the general direction of law breakers threatening you is not illegal in Missouri from what I have read in the referenced material.

If you can cite a Missouri law proscribing pointing a gun generally toward someone in legally justified self defense as illegal, I would include it in this discussion.
You have loaded the question by concluding that they were engaged in "legally justified self defense." That will be a question for the jury, but from the evidence I have seen, this couple are going to have problems establishing that.

In the meantime, to answer your question about Missouri statutes, I think *571.030. "Unlawful use of weapons" would give them some problems:
1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;
Missouri Revisor of Statutes - Revised Statutes of Missouri, RSMo Section 571.030

The wife was definitely angry and threatening. It has been claimed that her weapon was not "readily capable of lethal use." Another jury question.

The husband was arguably not threatening, but I would say he was angry. And I haven't heard any claim that his weapon was inoperable.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #68  
Old 07-21-2020, 07:57 PM
clipper1 clipper1 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 140
Likes: 63
Liked 45 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WCCPHD View Post
What people can't seem to get through their heads is that with rights comes responsibility.
Well, how does that statement line up with the amendment that says you have a right to 'peacefully' protest? I never was taught, ever, that destroying property and arson was considered a means to peacefully protest AnyThing. Those are not responsible actions by any means.

Last edited by clipper1; 07-21-2020 at 07:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #69  
Old 07-21-2020, 08:12 PM
FoundFather FoundFather is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 71
Likes: 30
Liked 85 Times in 36 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nedlate View Post
The woman appears a little out of control! I keep watching the video to see where the husband has his finger on the trigger and haven't spotted it yet. I do see him with his trigger finger straightened out as is the common practice to show your finger is not on the trigger. I also don't see the husband sweeping the crowd. I do see the muzzle heading to the fringes a couple of times!

Now the wife! Well!!

Maybe someone can post a picture to correct me?

Ed
Actually, the husband definitely did sweep the crowd. Check this video around the 12 second mark. If you look at the 10-11 second mark he looks to me to have his finger on the trigger as well:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1277398234055483393

Here is a screen grab from the video. It is actually even more clear on the video, but the camera zoomed out just when the AR was aimed directly at the cameraman:
St Louis couple charged-st-louis-lawyer-jpg
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 07-21-2020, 08:20 PM
LPD256's Avatar
LPD256 LPD256 is offline
SWCA Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Kansas
Posts: 949
Likes: 7,732
Liked 2,439 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rays44 View Post
With all due respect, sir, why would anyone serve drinks to these people. They are anarchists, not peaceful protesters. At the very least, they vandalized and trespassed their property. That alone kills the "peaceful protest argument". It amazes me that we have people in power all over the country like Kimberly M. Gardner. I'll stop here.
Nobody that wasn’t there knows all the facts. I didn’t see anyone threatening the McCloskeys. I didn’t see anyone run onto their lawn. There was no looting, burning, or tagging, as far as I know. Is the street in front of their home private property or public property? I don’t know. There are reports of people walking down the street, taking a shortcut. Is there any evidence that anyone in the group broke the gate? Was the gate locked? Are there any No Trespassing signs warning it is private property? Were there any actual threats? Did anyone in the group display a weapon? Lots I don’t know. There are a couple things I do know. The McCloskeys have every right to protect themselves against violence using appropriate force. They are entitled to have guns. The other thing I know is that if you challenge and threaten people, you will sometimes be forced to make stupid decisions. Do you start shooting when they step on your grass and call you a name? I have found that deescalation has kept me from getting my butt kicked. Threatening someone with a gun just seems a little over the top. Based on what I do know. Not saying it wouldn’t reach that level.
__________________
SWCA 3255 SWHF 615
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 07-21-2020, 08:54 PM
Muss Muggins Muss Muggins is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 12,908
Likes: 5,220
Liked 20,282 Times in 6,472 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoundFather View Post
And I haven't heard any claim that his weapon was inoperable.
Well, now you have . . .

Attorney for Portland Place couple turns handgun over to police | Law and order | stltoday.com

Quote:
Watkins stood outside his Clayton office building Saturday afternoon and held the handgun wrapped in a plastic bag. He said the gun was “inoperable” and had been used as an exhibit in several cases against the manufacturer — litigation that Mark McCloskey had handled at his firm.

Patricia McCloskey knew the gun was inoperable as she confronted protesters, Watkins said, but displayed the gun as an “intimidation factor which may be utilized within the context of any self-defense.”
You (I won't) can argue about whether or not somebody should waive a piece of metal shaped like a gun to intimidate people all day . . .
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Last edited by Muss Muggins; 07-21-2020 at 08:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #72  
Old 07-21-2020, 09:09 PM
BB57's Avatar
BB57 BB57 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 1,723
Liked 6,924 Times in 1,962 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladder13 View Post
Everyone is allowed to defend their lives without training required, end of story, period.
Agreed. However with every right comes a commensurate degree of responsibility to wield that right wisely and appropriately.

Inadequate training or no training, and/or making bad decisions is certainly not going to prevent you from *having* Second Amendment rights.

However, waving guns at people, and making really bad decisions that infringe on the rights of others isn't going to be protected under the Second Amendment. And it shouldn't be. Your rights, my rights, everyone's rights - they all stop at the point they infringe on someone else's rights when that person is acting in a lawful manner.

In this case, yes, someone broke down the gate to the gated community and everyone on that street was arguably guilty of illegal trespass. However, most reasonable people would not conclude an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury was present - castle defense or not.

Stupid people win stupid prizes, and they reflect badly on the rest of responsible gun owners.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #73  
Old 07-21-2020, 09:23 PM
Turq Turq is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: NC
Posts: 217
Likes: 917
Liked 474 Times in 142 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muss Muggins View Post
Well, now you have . . .

Attorney for Portland Place couple turns handgun over to police | Law and order | stltoday.com



You (I won't) can argue about whether or not somebody should waive a piece of metal shaped like a gun to intimidate people all day . . .
I'm not a lawyer, but the Google leads me to believe it doesn't matters if the gun was working or not, you still can't threaten people by pointing it without proper justification. Not sure of MO's laws
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #74  
Old 07-21-2020, 09:24 PM
ladder13's Avatar
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 32,944
Liked 31,243 Times in 10,746 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BB57 View Post
Agreed. However with every right comes a commensurate degree of responsibility to wield that right wisely and appropriately.

Inadequate training or no training, and/or making bad decisions is certainly not going to prevent you from *having* Second Amendment rights.

However, waving guns at people, and making really bad decisions that infringe on the rights of others isn't going to be protected under the Second Amendment. And it shouldn't be. Your rights, my rights, everyone's rights - they all stop at the point they infringe on someone else's rights when that person is acting in a lawful manner.

In this case, yes, someone broke down the gate to the gated community and everyone on that street was arguably guilty of illegal trespass. However, most reasonable people would not conclude an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury was present - castle defense or not.

Stupid people win stupid prizes, and they reflect badly on the rest of responsible gun owners.
That all includes the “protestors” too, of which we all know little of. Their rights come with responsibility. I‘ll wait for all the facts.
__________________
In memory of Labworm
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #75  
Old 07-21-2020, 09:28 PM
Muss Muggins Muss Muggins is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 12,908
Likes: 5,220
Liked 20,282 Times in 6,472 Posts
Default

Duly noted . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turq View Post
I'm not a lawyer, but the Google leads me to believe it doesn't matters if the gun was working or not, you still can't threaten people by pointing it without proper justification. Not sure of MO's laws
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 07-21-2020, 09:54 PM
CB3's Avatar
CB3 CB3 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 1,136
Liked 1,712 Times in 684 Posts
Default

MRS 571.030 Unlawful Use of Weapons has numerous paragraphs that provide exceptions. Paragraph 5 is the one that specifically carves out the exception for lawful self defense as defined in 563.031, previously referenced.

It appears from the statements of the AG and the governor that there will be no trial. The AG has already filed an amicus brief requesting the charges be dismissed based on lawful self defense statutes. He (his office) can ratchet up the pressure if he needs to. The local “circuit attorney” apparently does not have the legal muscle to overcome the position of state authorities superior to her.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 07-21-2020, 10:10 PM
FoundFather FoundFather is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 71
Likes: 30
Liked 85 Times in 36 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muss Muggins View Post
Well, now you have . . .

Attorney for Portland Place couple turns handgun over to police | Law and order | stltoday.com



You (I won't) can argue about whether or not somebody should waive a piece of metal shaped like a gun to intimidate people all day . . .
The handgun was “hers” and I noted the claim in my post. I haven’t seen any claim “his” AR was inoperable.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 07-22-2020, 10:22 AM
GerSan69 GerSan69 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: metro Phoenix
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 10,642
Liked 2,522 Times in 1,012 Posts
Default

Good grief. I had to stop reading this thread when I saw "Gatorade for the protestors."
As such, I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but: these "protestors" broke through a locked gate and were on private property when the McCloskeys went out there.
The media skillfully edited out that these "protestors" themselves were armed and brandishing their guns at the McCloskeys and others.
These were NOT protestors, they were armed thugs who made it plain that they were looking to cause harm. The governor is supporting the McCloskeys not because it's politically expedient, but because he knows the true story, not the lies handed out by an anti-gun crusading DA. Let's not let a media-driven fake story get in the way of a reasonable assessment of a situation, please?
Oh, one other thing: This prosecutor is one of the Soros-paid plants to muck up the criminal justice system ahead of the 2020 election. Unfortunately, this case is her way of paying George back.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #79  
Old 07-22-2020, 12:58 PM
rays44 rays44 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NJ
Posts: 80
Likes: 14
Liked 49 Times in 24 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LPD256 View Post
Nobody that wasn’t there knows all the facts. I didn’t see anyone threatening the McCloskeys. I didn’t see anyone run onto their lawn. There was no looting, burning, or tagging, as far as I know. Is the street in front of their home private property or public property? I don’t know. There are reports of people walking down the street, taking a shortcut. Is there any evidence that anyone in the group broke the gate? Was the gate locked? Are there any No Trespassing signs warning it is private property? Were there any actual threats? Did anyone in the group display a weapon? Lots I don’t know. There are a couple things I do know. The McCloskeys have every right to protect themselves against violence using appropriate force. They are entitled to have guns. The other thing I know is that if you challenge and threaten people, you will sometimes be forced to make stupid decisions. Do you start shooting when they step on your grass and call you a name? I have found that deescalation has kept me from getting my butt kicked. Threatening someone with a gun just seems a little over the top. Based on what I do know. Not saying it wouldn’t reach that level.
Agreed, lots we don't know. But, what we do know is that they broke through his gate, entered private property and paraded in front of his home. Doesn't matter if the gate was locked or not. They called the cops who failed to come. Nothing else matters. I should give them water??? The only thing that I find fault with is their weapons handling which displayed a complete lack of training or even common sense.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 07-22-2020, 01:34 PM
BC38's Avatar
BC38 BC38 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 9,322
Likes: 510
Liked 12,047 Times in 4,759 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LPD256
A case of cold water or a Gatorade by the street probably would have gotten a few thank you’s from the protestors. The protestors had to break the gate to get into the gated coMmunity, but other than that I didn’t see any threats from anyone other than McCluskey and his trigger happy wife.
Selective editing. Naturally the protesters videoed and posted the McCloskey's misdeeds, but didn't do the same with their own. So you're only seeing their side of the story. It's called "shaping the narrative".

Maybe instead of a case of water by the street they should have invited the protestors all in for a BBQ. I'm sure that would have turned the mob into a real friendly bunch.

With all the publicity I'm sure you can easily get hold of some of the "protestors". Maybe you should invite them over to your neighborhood. Or even look up some of their counterparts in your area. I'm sure they'd be happy to come "peacefully" protest in front of your house if they were invited.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

Last edited by BC38; 07-22-2020 at 01:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 07-22-2020, 03:32 PM
LPD256's Avatar
LPD256 LPD256 is offline
SWCA Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Kansas
Posts: 949
Likes: 7,732
Liked 2,439 Times in 704 Posts
Default

I’m so glad I responded to this thread. I’ve done some further research. McCloskeys street is private property. Therefore everyone not invited could be charged with illegal misdemeanor trespassing. If there is evidence of who was responsible for damaging the gate, they probably could be also charged with another misdemeanor. It appears to me the target of the group was not McCloskey, but instead the Mayor. I’m not arguing that the McCloskeys were beyond their constitutional rights. My personal choice would not be to stand 100 feet away with my AR trying to intimidate people. To me, he just made his home a target for the real criminals. His address and video is all over the internet. If someone of any color during protests came on my property with Molotov cocktails, or weapons, that would be a different outcome. If they are walking by on the street, I’ll be 20 feet away from them. Not intimidated. Not threatening. My Mom told me you catch more flies with sugar than vinegar. I always treat people the way I would like to be treated. If you are peaceful, I’m peaceful. If you go to weapons, That is an extremely poor choice you’ve just made. There are basically peaceful protestors exercising their first amendment rights, and there are rioters. I think that’s an important distinction to make.
__________________
SWCA 3255 SWHF 615
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #82  
Old 07-22-2020, 03:42 PM
kbm6893 kbm6893 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,962
Likes: 215
Liked 3,813 Times in 1,538 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LPD256 View Post
I’m so glad I responded to this thread. I’ve done some further research. McCloskeys street is private property. Therefore everyone not invited could be charged with illegal misdemeanor trespassing. If there is evidence of who was responsible for damaging the gate, they probably could be also charged with another misdemeanor. It appears to me the target of the group was not McCloskey, but instead the Mayor. I’m not arguing that the McCloskeys were beyond their constitutional rights. My personal choice would not be to stand 100 feet away with my AR trying to intimidate people. To me, he just made his home a target for the real criminals. His address and video is all over the internet. If someone of any color during protests came on my property with Molotov cocktails, or weapons, that would be a different outcome. If they are walking by on the street, I’ll be 20 feet away from them. Not intimidated. Not threatening. My Mom told me you catch more flies with sugar than vinegar. I always treat people the way I would like to be treated. If you are peaceful, I’m peaceful. If you go to weapons, That is an extremely poor choice you’ve just made. There are basically peaceful protestors exercising their first amendment rights, and there are rioters. I think that’s an important distinction to make.

Agreed. The "peaceful protestors" were trouble makers embolded by the current political climate that breaking things is OK as long as it's for the current narrative, which is why nobody is being arrested for vandalism at a BLM protest, but those who dare to throw paint on a BLM "Mural" are charged. But I didn't see evidence they were approaching his property. I would have gotten a weapon and waited at the window. If they came onto my property to do harm, my wife, (his was clearly incompetent with her weapon anyway) would be recording the crowd so I would have video of them on my property, brandishing weapons, threatening, etc. They proceeded to threaten or use a weapon, then it's time to throw down.

Not that I don't support the McCloskey's. I do. But they could have and should have been smarter.

As for the whole "They didn't break anything or loot", I would say the AR-15 had a lot to do with that. They had already broken a gate to illegally enter.

Last edited by kbm6893; 07-22-2020 at 03:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #83  
Old 07-22-2020, 04:51 PM
LPD256's Avatar
LPD256 LPD256 is offline
SWCA Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Kansas
Posts: 949
Likes: 7,732
Liked 2,439 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbm6893 View Post
Agreed. The "peaceful protestors" were trouble makers embolded by the current political climate that breaking things is OK as long as it's for the current narrative, which is why nobody is being arrested for vandalism at a BLM protest, but those who dare to throw paint on a BLM "Mural" are charged. But I didn't see evidence they were approaching his property. I would have gotten a weapon and waited at the window. If they came onto my property to do harm, my wife, (his was clearly incompetent with her weapon anyway) would be recording the crowd so I would have video of them on my property, brandishing weapons, threatening, etc. They proceeded to threaten or use a weapon, then it's time to throw down.

Not that I don't support the McCloskey's. I do. But they could have and should have been smarter.

As for the whole "They didn't break anything or loot", I would say the AR-15 had a lot to do with that. They had already broken a gate to illegally enter.
I appreciate your response and those of others. They have prompted me to do a little further research. It seems that in addition to their legal issues, the McCloskeys have unfortunately had to board up the windows at their law firm due to their notoriety.

Additionally, I was curious as to what happened at Mayor Krewson’s House when the protestors arrived, since reportedly that was where they were headed when trespassing through McCloskey’s private street. I found video. Basically there were three foot barriers along the curb in front of the Mayor’s home. The protestors chanted for awhile about defunding the Police. Some held signs. No one violated the easily jumped barriers. Nothing burned. No looting. There was no Police presence. Looked to me like a peaceful gathering of people exercising their First Amendment protected rights. Same as McCloskeys exercising their Constitutional rights. Enough of this thread for me. I hope I’ve generated some thoughts for members.
__________________
SWCA 3255 SWHF 615
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #84  
Old 07-22-2020, 05:25 PM
kbm6893 kbm6893 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,962
Likes: 215
Liked 3,813 Times in 1,538 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LPD256 View Post
I appreciate your response and those of others. They have prompted me to do a little further research. It seems that in addition to their legal issues, the McCloskeys have unfortunately had to board up the windows at their law firm due to their notoriety.

Additionally, I was curious as to what happened at Mayor Krewson’s House when the protestors arrived, since reportedly that was where they were headed when trespassing through McCloskey’s private street. I found video. Basically there were three foot barriers along the curb in front of the Mayor’s home. The protestors chanted for awhile about defunding the Police. Some held signs. No one violated the easily jumped barriers. Nothing burned. No looting. There was no Police presence. Looked to me like a peaceful gathering of people exercising their First Amendment protected rights. Same as McCloskeys exercising their Constitutional rights. Enough of this thread for me. I hope I’ve generated some thoughts for members.
Breaking down a fence into a private community doesn’t fall under exercising their first amendment rights. And quite honestly, I’ve always felt that protesting outside a private residence should not be covered by the first amendment. No person, no matter how vile I may find them to be, should be harassed at their home or be prevented from enjoying the home in peace. It would be nice if these so called “protesters” would show at least an ounce of decency.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 07-22-2020, 07:19 PM
Turq Turq is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: NC
Posts: 217
Likes: 917
Liked 474 Times in 142 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbm6893 View Post
Breaking down a fence into a private community doesn’t fall under exercising their first amendment rights. And quite honestly, I’ve always felt that protesting outside a private residence should not be covered by the first amendment. No person, no matter how vile I may find them to be, should be harassed at their home or be prevented from enjoying the home in peace. It would be nice if these so called “protesters” would show at least an ounce of decency.

Kind of ironic because the whole reason for the protest was the Mayor publishing some protestors name and addresses. The McClosky St. was just a shortcut they used because the Police had closed off some streets leading to the Mayor's house.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #86  
Old 07-26-2020, 05:01 PM
Doug M.'s Avatar
Doug M. Doug M. is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 5,600
Likes: 8,547
Liked 5,801 Times in 2,472 Posts
Default

They were idiots. I dislike them. They had horrible tactics, and even my barely firearm familiar wife was able to raise valid criticisms of their gun handling. It was abysmal. Do that garbage as a recruit on the range and you would be unemployed RFN.

I stay in my house, behind my fence. These two should have armed up and stayed inside, and called the cops. Going back outside with no duty to act (like a cop has, at least until the moonbats end policing) was well into or past stupid. I still probably would not charge them, but they need an epic dressing down (one that would make Ermey cringe) from their attorney and would likely get one from us too (in the presence of counsel of course as required by RPC 4.3, as they are represented).

The "protestors", as they are usually labeled by the ignorant (just as in Minneapolis, NYC, Portland, Chicago, and Seattle, they are mostly rioters if one is generous, and some border on insurrectionists) were wrong; do what they did in my community and they would be charged with burglary. They need to do time, and a lot of it. There is no defense for their conduct, especially when one considers that the entire story that triggered this was knowingly fabricated - read the transcripts of the body cams. The actions of the prosecutors in St. Louis are not ethical or smart. For good measure, it has been reported (not heavily, but at least in the local news sources in the area) that at the direction of one of the prosecutors, the crime lab repaired the non-functional pistol and reported it as working. That is likely a felony (would be here) and certainly a disbarment offense. He is not of my tribe.

There is more than enough excremental action here by all concerned, and not a single person smells any better than the others.
__________________
NHI, 10-8.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #87  
Old 07-26-2020, 05:26 PM
ladder13's Avatar
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 32,944
Liked 31,243 Times in 10,746 Posts
Default

The “protestors” are getting restless. Just exactly what answer to what question do they seek, and when will that question come?



Police and protesters clash in Portland and cities across the U.S. in violent weekend
__________________
In memory of Labworm
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-26-2020, 05:43 PM
Plunky McPlunker Plunky McPlunker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

I live in St. Louis. I don't know if it was mentioned here, but a few blocks from where they live saw buildings burned and a retired police officer murdered. A few blocks away from them is basically a DMZ. I wish she had not pointed her gun at the protestors, but I don't know. The whole area is gated, private property. Protestors ripped the gate off to get through. They were trying to get to the mayor's home, from what I heard. If you look at a street map, they could have taken a much shorter, easier path to the mayor's home. Hard to say what happened. Reports of protestors threatening them and their property. The whole thing is sad. Also a huge run on guns and ammo here. Also, I don't necessarily agree these were all non-violent protestors. What is happening to our country?

Last edited by Plunky McPlunker; 07-26-2020 at 05:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 07-26-2020, 06:03 PM
SAFireman's Avatar
SAFireman SAFireman is online now
SWCA Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Home of the Alamo
Posts: 4,548
Likes: 10,108
Liked 9,846 Times in 2,052 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladder13 View Post
The “protestors” are getting restless. Just exactly what answer to what question do they seek, and when will that question come?



Police and protesters clash in Portland and cities across the U.S. in violent weekend
Mike,
I don't know what end they seek, but I only see more violence occurring as more people who are afraid of the protestors who are unable to run and are forced to fight. These protestors are not seeking to be heard, they seem bent on dragging unwilling participants into the fray. I fear that it will get worse if LE isn't allowed to protect the general public from these folks.

Folks - if you can, stay far away from where these people are, they don't care if they harm you, your property, or anyone/anything in their path.

Stay safe folks!
__________________
Say when...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #90  
Old 07-26-2020, 06:12 PM
flagman1776's Avatar
flagman1776 flagman1776 is online now
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,941
Likes: 2,292
Liked 1,578 Times in 659 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug M. View Post
For good measure, it has been reported (not heavily, but at least in the local news sources in the area) that at the direction of one of the prosecutors, the crime lab repaired the non-functional pistol and reported it as working.
I note that the couple's weapons were not seized immediately. A search warrant was issued and the pistol was not available. Supposedly the pistol was held by heir atty and still later surrendered. The couple claims the pistol was non-functional during the confrontation. [Can't be proven. You can believe it or not as you wish.]

The correct assembly by the crime lab and subsequent test firing will undoubtedly be subject to legal arguments.

I am still interested to see photos of the crowd / mob / rioters. Were they armed? Were they carrying incendiary items? Did they make threats?

I'm afraid muzzle control, trigger control with a threat not yet apparent may go against them. Had they not crossed that line, I think they should have been ok.
__________________
NRA LIFE
Reserve Officer 9yrs
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 07-26-2020, 06:13 PM
Ziggy2525's Avatar
Ziggy2525 Ziggy2525 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,152
Likes: 414
Liked 2,264 Times in 719 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladder13 View Post
The “protestors” are getting restless. Just exactly what answer to what question do they seek, and when will that question come?



Police and protesters clash in Portland and cities across the U.S. in violent weekend
No questions involved. The anarchist leadership wants to use violence to destabilize the state and federal government. The sheep following them? Who knows.
__________________
Vegan by proxy.

Last edited by Ziggy2525; 07-26-2020 at 06:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #92  
Old 07-26-2020, 06:26 PM
Muss Muggins Muss Muggins is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 12,908
Likes: 5,220
Liked 20,282 Times in 6,472 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flagman1776 View Post
Supposedly the pistol was held by heir atty and still later surrendered. The couple claims the pistol was non-functional during the confrontation. [Can't be proven. You can believe it or not as you wish.]
Not "supposedly." It was. And of course it can be proven. They have the pistol. Have you read the associated news stories? They are linked in various posts in this thread.

Quote:
Watkins stood outside his Clayton office building Saturday afternoon and held the handgun wrapped in a plastic bag. He said the gun was “inoperable” and had been used as an exhibit in several cases against the manufacturer — litigation that Mark McCloskey had handled at his firm.

Patricia McCloskey knew the gun was inoperable as she confronted protesters, Watkins said, but displayed the gun as an “intimidation factor which may be utilized within the context of any self-defense.”
I don't know what the pistol was, but from the pictures and my knowledge of firearms with a lot of litigation in their history, my guess is Jimenez, Bryco, Jennings, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flagman1776 View Post
The correct assembly by the crime lab and subsequent test firing will undoubtedly be subject to legal arguments.
You don't get to "correctly assemble" a firearm after the fact to prove a crime. The standard is "readily capable of lethal use" at the time the crime was committed . . .
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Last edited by Muss Muggins; 07-26-2020 at 06:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #93  
Old 07-26-2020, 08:03 PM
kbm6893 kbm6893 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,962
Likes: 215
Liked 3,813 Times in 1,538 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muss Muggins View Post
Not "supposedly." It was. And of course it can be proven. They have the pistol. Have you read the associated news stories? They are linked in various posts in this thread.



I don't know what the pistol was, but from the pictures and my knowledge of firearms with a lot of litigation in their history, my guess is Jimenez, Bryco, Jennings, etc.



You don't get to "correctly assemble" a firearm after the fact to prove a crime. The standard is "readily capable of lethal use" at the time the crime was committed . . .
I have no doubt that the prosecutor, who has shown her true colors by even charging these people. while choosing to NOT charge the rioting trespassers, would stoop to tamper with evidence to bolster her case.

BUT, the weapons weren't seized until much after the event. Plenty of time to make the weapon inoperable before it was seized. I know there is no way to prove it, but I'm not sure the weapon was inoperable.

Either way, bad gun handling, unwise to leave home. NONE of this would have happened if a lawless crowd didn't feel entitled to break the law. The McCloskey's were making dinner and bothering NOBODY.

I find it odd that such a mansion didn't have security cameras. I'd like to see what the McCloskey's saw instead of just the edited video that the rioters submitted. I know rather than have my incompetent wife handle a firearm, I'd have her on recording duty with the cell phone while I stood watch at the window.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #94  
Old 07-26-2020, 08:52 PM
Muss Muggins Muss Muggins is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 12,908
Likes: 5,220
Liked 20,282 Times in 6,472 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbm6893 View Post
I find it odd that such a mansion didn't have security cameras . . .
How do you know it didn’t?
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #95  
Old 07-26-2020, 09:06 PM
kbm6893 kbm6893 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,962
Likes: 215
Liked 3,813 Times in 1,538 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muss Muggins View Post
How do you know it didn’t?
If it did and they recorded what the homeowners said the protesters were doing, threatening with firearms and incendiary devices, they would have released the video. Unless of course it only recorded a mob of people walking past their house.

I don’t support the mob. Not one bit. But the video I saw did not show threats of violence. Matter of fact, I saw one protester telling the others to keep moving and not engage the home owners.

This could very well be two homeowners who have been watching the news with looting and burning and wasn’t gonna let it happen to him. I applaud him standing up, but what I saw didn’t warrant stepping outside his house. If there is video supporting his claims of guns and bombs I’d love to see it.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #96  
Old 07-26-2020, 09:53 PM
Jessie James 58 Jessie James 58 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 10
Likes: 1
Liked 6 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Please read the states castle doctrine, it is the STRONGEST of all the fifty states! As a side note it was put into place to protect the BLACKES right after the Civil War (this is why real history is so important).
Under the states doctrine The couple would have been in their right to shoot the people on their land (thank God that did not happen). Plus the LADY KNEW that the PISTOL DID NOT WORK because she and her husband had used it as a prop in a case they had tried about a month before the riots and had not repaired the gun.
Now lets talk about the real crime, The city officials in a disregard of both local, state and federal laws (and tampering with evidence) by video and written evidence are guilty of TREASON!!!
Why have these people been dragged out of their offices in disgrace.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07-26-2020, 09:58 PM
Pavia Pavia is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 67
Likes: 19
Liked 172 Times in 42 Posts
Default

I posted MO law since I live in MO, but I have no opinion because posting MO law on Castle doctrine got me a warning that I was going off the approved line for this forum. So there it is...
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07-26-2020, 10:07 PM
Steve912 Steve912 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1,969
Likes: 2,522
Liked 1,730 Times in 920 Posts
Default

Everything ya need to know about the validity of the McCloskey case, in
one simple article; amazingly, from MSN...

AG, governor want case against gun-wielding couple dropped
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07-26-2020, 10:16 PM
kbm6893 kbm6893 is offline
Member
St Louis couple charged  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,962
Likes: 215
Liked 3,813 Times in 1,538 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessie James 58 View Post
Please read the states castle doctrine, it is the STRONGEST of all the fifty states! As a side note it was put into place to protect the BLACKES right after the Civil War (this is why real history is so important).
Under the states doctrine The couple would have been in their right to shoot the people on their land (thank God that did not happen). Plus the LADY KNEW that the PISTOL DID NOT WORK because she and her husband had used it as a prop in a case they had tried about a month before the riots and had not repaired the gun.
Now lets talk about the real crime, The city officials in a disregard of both local, state and federal laws (and tampering with evidence) by video and written evidence are guilty of TREASON!!!
Why have these people been dragged out of their offices in disgrace.

Again, if they made the gun inoperable for their case they could have made it operable after the case. The gun wasn’t seized until days after the incident. I know the burden to prove that is on the DA, and if there is actual evidence evidence that the gun they took into custody was inoperable and the lab techs were instructed to make it operable, or made it operable on their own and didn’t note that, then that is a bigger crime then the mob committed by trespassing, or the McCloskey’s did by walking outside their house (and it looks like the Castle Doctrine covered them there). The DA manipulating evidence to strengthen their case should result in heads rolling and prison time being handed down.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 07-27-2020, 01:23 AM
fredj338's Avatar
fredj338 fredj338 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kalif. usa
Posts: 6,499
Likes: 2,366
Liked 3,629 Times in 2,207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turn4811 View Post
The Castle doctrine once the closed gate was broken down permits them to protect themselves with lethal force. The DA took two weeks to find something she could charge them with. She had their weapons illegally confiscated. There will be a big payday and the DA will loose.
I doubt it. Still just a criminal tresspass. What property are you protecting? Were they trying to steal something, burn the house down? Is simple vandalism cause for use of deadly force? Pretty sure i cant shoot someone for spraying graffiti on my wall. That has nothing to do with protecting property in context of castle doctrine. Bte, I see nothing in the Missouri CD that says I can use deadly for e be ause people ate on my driveway or lawn. Understand what the law actually means, not what you want it to mean. One reason that couple is in trouble.
Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw
__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Last edited by fredj338; 07-27-2020 at 01:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Now an LEO is charged with murder here... rwsmith The Lounge 128 04-09-2015 10:22 PM
Should he be charged? vigil617 Concealed Carry & Self Defense 108 06-20-2014 12:16 AM
SD9 Charged Carry Saftey Jinseru Smith & Wesson SD & Sigma Pistols 6 05-21-2012 02:00 PM
Keeping it charged dodge_sigma Smith & Wesson SD & Sigma Pistols 10 05-08-2011 05:59 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:21 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.42 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)