AUDub 11,147 Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 Just now, Mikey said: It looks like their gate had been broken down and the mob was going to enter their yard and home to do damage. I'd say the presence of armed people at the door de-escalated the situation. The would be looters moved right along after they saw the weapons. Yes, trained people don't have their finger on the trigger until they have acquired their target and are ready to shoot. That's proper firearm etiquette, but it has no legal significance. The same lack of legal significance could be said of the safety being on or not. Not their gate. The gate to the hood. In reality, these folks probably would have been fine chilling in their den and been none the wiser that a protest was going on at all. And automatically assuming "looters!" is presumptuous bull****. And yes, there is significance to having your finger on the trigger with the safety off while pointing a weapon. Missouri's brandishing law is actually pretty clear on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,579 Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 8 minutes ago, AUDub said: Not their gate. The gate to the hood. In reality, these folks probably would have been fine chilling in their den and been none the wiser that a protest was going on at all. And automatically assuming "looters!" is presumptuous bull****. And yes, there is significance to having your finger on the trigger with the safety off while pointing a weapon. Missouri's brandishing law is actually pretty clear on that. I'm rather certain the United States Constitution finds brandishing a weapon when being threatened by a mob to be quite legal. As soon as this gets out of the fool's district, their guns will be returned to them, and they should get an apology as well. The threat was real. Similar mobs have beaten, burned and looted any number of homes, businesses and people in recent weeks. If such a group approaches you and yours, have your safety off, be in as good a location as possible and have your first target picked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savorytiger 182 Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 Apparently there's some information people are missing: https://www.wsls.com/news/2020/06/29/couple-draw-guns-at-crowd-heading-to-st-louis-mayors-home/ Video in the middle shows the protesters moving through an open gate into the neighborhood and encounter Mark Mcklosky sitting outside his home with a gun. His account of this angry horde storming the gates and charging his house was obviously false. I'm not sure I would judge them for feeling threatened (just imagine yourself at home while a huge, loud crowd appears and starts moving by), but being prepared for violence doesn't mean you should start pointing your weapon at people immediately. No neighbors came forward to corroborate their account thas this was some threatening mob, and, other than the gate that was broken later, there was no property damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 Missouri governor says Trump is ‘getting involved’ in case of St. Louis couple who pointed guns at protesters Meagan Flynn July 15, 2020 Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said Tuesday that President Trump would be “getting involved” in the case of the St. Louis couple who pointed guns at a group of protesters passing outside their home last month, and who are under review for criminal charges. On Tuesday, both the president and Republican governor offered separate impassioned defenses of Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who went viral after brandishing guns at protesters on the private street outside their mansion on June 28. Parson, who said the couple had “every right to protect their property,” said he spoke with Trump just before the governor’s coronavirus news briefing. He said Trump made it clear he “doesn’t like what he sees and the way these people are being treated,” referencing the McCloskeys. He said Attorney General William P. Barr “was represented on the call,” and he thinks the president and the attorney general “are going to take a look” at the McCloskeys’ case. “The president said that he would do everything he could within his powers to help with this situation and he would be taking action to do that,” Parson said. The prosecutor investigating the McCloskeys, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner (D), responded by accusing Trump and Parsons of playing politics with a local criminal investigation. Gardner said the facts of the case and the applicable laws are still under review and she would “apply them equally, regardless of the people involved.” “It is unbelievable the Governor of the state of Missouri would seek advice from one of the most divisive leaders in our generation to overpower the discretion of a locally elected prosecutor,” Gardner said in a statement. Trump’s apparent eagerness to involve himself in a state case that pits a viral gun-toting couple against racial injustice protesters is another example of his attempts to oppose protesters at any opportunity. Trump said in a Tuesday interview with Townhall, a conservative news website, that any attempt to prosecute the couple for a crime would be a “disgrace." Earlier in the day, Trump also scoffed at a question about black people dying at the hands of law enforcement — an urgent focus of the protests — by pointing out police also kill white people. He recently described BLM as a “symbol of hate” and has called for protecting Confederate monuments, painting those seeking to topple statues with racist histories as violent mobs. In his news conference, Parson did not offer any details about how the president would be “getting involved” in a case in which the federal government has no jurisdiction. Federal intervention in a state criminal investigation would be unusual and legally questionable depending on the assistance Parson is seeking. Representatives for the Justice Department could not be immediately reached. The McCloskeys — who have a history of suing their neighbors, family members, employers and others for a wide spectrum of disputes, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch found — have said they feared for their lives when more than 100 protesters, who were headed to St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson’s home, walked onto their private street. The protesters have acknowledged trespassing on the private street, but deny damaging any property; the McCloskeys claimed they broke their gate. In interviews with Fox News and CNN, the couple tried to paint the protesters as a mob of “terrorists” intent on killing them, burning down their home and ransacking it, although there is no evidence the protesters attempted to do so. On Tuesday, Trump adopted their side of the story, defending the couple while seeming to repeat the claims the couple made about imminent death and destruction. “When you look at St. Louis, where two people, they came out. They were going to be beat up badly if they were lucky. If they were lucky,” the president told Townhall’s Katie Pavlich. “They were going be beat up badly and the house was going to be totally ransacked and probably burned down like they tried to burn down churches. “And these people were standing there, never used it and they were legal, the weapons. And now I understand somebody local, they want to prosecute these people. It’s a disgrace,” Trump said. Parson views Gardner’s investigation as an affront to the Second Amendment, saying he believed the couple was legally allowed to brandish the firearms under the state’s “castle doctrine” — Missouri’s “stand-your-ground” law that allows property owners to use force against intruders who cause property owners fear of imminent harm. The governor on Tuesday suggested he wanted Gardner removed from office. Parson said the state legislature should consider ways to remove local elected officials in future legislative sessions, and appeared to want to involve Trump in the immediate case. “We’ve got to explain to him why it’s very difficult for an elected official in this state, for a governor, to remove somebody from office, or what powers you have as a governor,” Parson said at the briefing. “I don’t want to make it sound like he’s going to come in and remove somebody from office. But I’ll guarantee you that the president’s focused on what’s happening here.” Gardner, who is black, suggested Trump and Parson were launching racially motivated attacks against her. “It is also incredible that at a time when our nation is dealing with a rapidly spreading deadly virus and our State reported a record number of new infections, they are launching these dog-whistle attacks against me,” she said. “They should be focused on their jobs, and I’ll focus on mine.” A lawyer for the couple could not be immediately be reached for comment late Tuesday. Attorney Joel Schwartz, who has previously maintained there is no basis for criminal charges against the McCloskeys, told the Associated Press over the weekend that police had executed a search warrant to seize the guns the couple brandished last month. St. Louis police applied for another warrant on Tuesday without elaborating on what it would cover, KMOV reported. “The hostility is what I noticed,” St. Louis Metropolitan Police Chief John Hayden told KMOV of the June 28 incident. “I don’t want to see guns out when people are very hostile and angry at each other. Those are recipes for violence." https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/15/trump-st-louis-mccloskeys/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-low_mm-mccloskeys-1245pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted July 21, 2020 Author Share Posted July 21, 2020 This is truly embarrassing. https://news.yahoo.com/st-louis-couple-charged-pointing-231215782.html St Louis couple charged for pointing guns at protesters BBC•July 21, 2020 A husband and wife have been charged with unlawful use of a weapon for pointing guns at demonstrators outside their home in St Louis, Missouri. Lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey drew guns on racial justice protesters marching through the grounds of their $1.15m mansion last month. The couple said they armed themselves because they felt threatened. But St Louis' top prosecutor said their actions had risked creating violence at an otherwise peaceful protest. "It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in non-violent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St Louis," said Kim Gardner, who is the city's first black circuit attorney. "We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation will not be tolerated," she added. The McCloskeys also face a charge of fourth-degree assault. The couple's lawyer, Joel Schwartz, called the decision to press charges "disheartening as I unequivocally believe no crime was committed". Five pieces of context to understand the US anti-racism protests Four dates that explain the US gun debate America's gun culture in charts The couple, both personal injury attorneys who live on a private street, have said they were within their rights to defend their property. Missouri Governor Mike Parson has said he was prepared to exercise his pardon powers if prosecutors brought criminal charges in the case. "I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail," the Republican told a local radio station last week. When he was a legislator, the governor co-wrote Missouri's "castle doctrine" law that justifies deadly force for those who are defending their homes from intruders. On Friday, the couple made an appearance at a virtual Trump campaign event. Earlier, Mr Trump told the conservative news website Townhall: "They want to prosecute these people, it's a disgrace." Video footage showed Mr McCloskey, 63, and his wife, 61, draw firearms as demonstrators marched past their mansion to the home of St Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson to call for her resignation on 28 June. The mayor had infuriated activists by reading out on Facebook Live the names and addresses of people advocating defunding the police. The McCloskeys' legal team has said two or three white protesters had threatened the couple and their property. According to a police report on the incident, the couple said a large group of people had broken through an iron gate marked with "No Trespassing" and "Private Street" signs. One of the protest leaders maintained the gate was already open. The march was part of a nationwide wave of demonstrations over police brutality and racism prompted by the killing of an unarmed black man, George Floyd, by a white policeman. Ms Gardner is recommending that the husband and wife participate in a "diversion programme" designed to reduce unnecessary involvement with the courts. It could see them ordered to take part in community service or a remedial course. Class E felonies like unlawful use of a weapon can carry prison sentences of up to four years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A husband and wife have been charged with unlawful use of a weapon for pointing guns at demonstrators outside their home in St Louis, Missouri. Lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey drew guns on racial justice protesters marching through the grounds of their $1.15m mansion last month. The couple said they armed themselves because they felt threatened. But St Louis' top prosecutor said their actions had risked creating violence at an otherwise peaceful protest. "It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in non-violent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St Louis," said Kim Gardner, who is the city's first black circuit attorney. "We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation will not be tolerated," she added. The McCloskeys also face a charge of fourth-degree assault. The couple's lawyer, Joel Schwartz, called the decision to press charges "disheartening as I unequivocally believe no crime was committed". Five pieces of context to understand the US anti-racism protests Four dates that explain the US gun debate America's gun culture in charts The couple, both personal injury attorneys who live on a private street, have said they were within their rights to defend their property. Missouri Governor Mike Parson has said he was prepared to exercise his pardon powers if prosecutors brought criminal charges in the case. "I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail," the Republican told a local radio station last week. When he was a legislator, the governor co-wrote Missouri's "castle doctrine" law that justifies deadly force for those who are defending their homes from intruders. On Friday, the couple made an appearance at a virtual Trump campaign event. Earlier, Mr Trump told the conservative news website Townhall: "They want to prosecute these people, it's a disgrace." Video footage showed Mr McCloskey, 63, and his wife, 61, draw firearms as demonstrators marched past their mansion to the home of St Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson to call for her resignation on 28 June. The mayor had infuriated activists by reading out on Facebook Live the names and addresses of people advocating defunding the police. The McCloskeys' legal team has said two or three white protesters had threatened the couple and their property. According to a police report on the incident, the couple said a large group of people had broken through an iron gate marked with "No Trespassing" and "Private Street" signs. One of the protest leaders maintained the gate was already open. The march was part of a nationwide wave of demonstrations over police brutality and racism prompted by the killing of an unarmed black man, George Floyd, by a white policeman. Ms Gardner is recommending that the husband and wife participate in a "diversion programme" designed to reduce unnecessary involvement with the courts. It could see them ordered to take part in community service or a remedial course. Class E felonies like unlawful use of a weapon can carry prison sentences of up to four years.
A husband and wife have been charged with unlawful use of a weapon for pointing guns at demonstrators outside their home in St Louis, Missouri. Lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey drew guns on racial justice protesters marching through the grounds of their $1.15m mansion last month. The couple said they armed themselves because they felt threatened. But St Louis' top prosecutor said their actions had risked creating violence at an otherwise peaceful protest. "It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in non-violent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St Louis," said Kim Gardner, who is the city's first black circuit attorney. "We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation will not be tolerated," she added. The McCloskeys also face a charge of fourth-degree assault. The couple's lawyer, Joel Schwartz, called the decision to press charges "disheartening as I unequivocally believe no crime was committed". Five pieces of context to understand the US anti-racism protests Four dates that explain the US gun debate America's gun culture in charts The couple, both personal injury attorneys who live on a private street, have said they were within their rights to defend their property. Missouri Governor Mike Parson has said he was prepared to exercise his pardon powers if prosecutors brought criminal charges in the case. "I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail," the Republican told a local radio station last week. When he was a legislator, the governor co-wrote Missouri's "castle doctrine" law that justifies deadly force for those who are defending their homes from intruders. On Friday, the couple made an appearance at a virtual Trump campaign event. Earlier, Mr Trump told the conservative news website Townhall: "They want to prosecute these people, it's a disgrace." Video footage showed Mr McCloskey, 63, and his wife, 61, draw firearms as demonstrators marched past their mansion to the home of St Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson to call for her resignation on 28 June. The mayor had infuriated activists by reading out on Facebook Live the names and addresses of people advocating defunding the police. The McCloskeys' legal team has said two or three white protesters had threatened the couple and their property. According to a police report on the incident, the couple said a large group of people had broken through an iron gate marked with "No Trespassing" and "Private Street" signs. One of the protest leaders maintained the gate was already open. The march was part of a nationwide wave of demonstrations over police brutality and racism prompted by the killing of an unarmed black man, George Floyd, by a white policeman. Ms Gardner is recommending that the husband and wife participate in a "diversion programme" designed to reduce unnecessary involvement with the courts. It could see them ordered to take part in community service or a remedial course. Class E felonies like unlawful use of a weapon can carry prison sentences of up to four years.
McLoofus 35,182 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 I'm guessing this is one of those times where they didn't actually do anything illegal... illustrating the catastrophically bad gun laws in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,473 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 34 minutes ago, Grumps said: This is truly embarrassing. https://news.yahoo.com/st-louis-couple-charged-pointing-231215782.html St Louis couple charged for pointing guns at protesters BBC•July 21, 2020 A husband and wife have been charged with unlawful use of a weapon for pointing guns at demonstrators outside their home in St Louis, Missouri. Lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey drew guns on racial justice protesters marching through the grounds of their $1.15m mansion last month. The couple said they armed themselves because they felt threatened. But St Louis' top prosecutor said their actions had risked creating violence at an otherwise peaceful protest. "It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in non-violent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St Louis," said Kim Gardner, who is the city's first black circuit attorney. "We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation will not be tolerated," she added. The McCloskeys also face a charge of fourth-degree assault. The couple's lawyer, Joel Schwartz, called the decision to press charges "disheartening as I unequivocally believe no crime was committed". Five pieces of context to understand the US anti-racism protests Four dates that explain the US gun debate America's gun culture in charts The couple, both personal injury attorneys who live on a private street, have said they were within their rights to defend their property. Missouri Governor Mike Parson has said he was prepared to exercise his pardon powers if prosecutors brought criminal charges in the case. "I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail," the Republican told a local radio station last week. When he was a legislator, the governor co-wrote Missouri's "castle doctrine" law that justifies deadly force for those who are defending their homes from intruders. On Friday, the couple made an appearance at a virtual Trump campaign event. Earlier, Mr Trump told the conservative news website Townhall: "They want to prosecute these people, it's a disgrace." Video footage showed Mr McCloskey, 63, and his wife, 61, draw firearms as demonstrators marched past their mansion to the home of St Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson to call for her resignation on 28 June. The mayor had infuriated activists by reading out on Facebook Live the names and addresses of people advocating defunding the police. The McCloskeys' legal team has said two or three white protesters had threatened the couple and their property. According to a police report on the incident, the couple said a large group of people had broken through an iron gate marked with "No Trespassing" and "Private Street" signs. One of the protest leaders maintained the gate was already open. The march was part of a nationwide wave of demonstrations over police brutality and racism prompted by the killing of an unarmed black man, George Floyd, by a white policeman. Ms Gardner is recommending that the husband and wife participate in a "diversion programme" designed to reduce unnecessary involvement with the courts. It could see them ordered to take part in community service or a remedial course. Class E felonies like unlawful use of a weapon can carry prison sentences of up to four years. I don't care if you "feel" threatened. You don't get to point your loaded gun with your finger on the trigger at people walking down a sidewalk and street next to your house. Not only does it break every gun safety rule in any NRA-sanctioned course you would ever take, it's spectacularly stupid. They are lucky they didn't accidentally shoot one of the protestors or each other. There's being vigilant and there's being an idiot. They chose the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A husband and wife have been charged with unlawful use of a weapon for pointing guns at demonstrators outside their home in St Louis, Missouri. Lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey drew guns on racial justice protesters marching through the grounds of their $1.15m mansion last month. The couple said they armed themselves because they felt threatened. But St Louis' top prosecutor said their actions had risked creating violence at an otherwise peaceful protest. "It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in non-violent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St Louis," said Kim Gardner, who is the city's first black circuit attorney. "We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation will not be tolerated," she added. The McCloskeys also face a charge of fourth-degree assault. The couple's lawyer, Joel Schwartz, called the decision to press charges "disheartening as I unequivocally believe no crime was committed". Five pieces of context to understand the US anti-racism protests Four dates that explain the US gun debate America's gun culture in charts The couple, both personal injury attorneys who live on a private street, have said they were within their rights to defend their property. Missouri Governor Mike Parson has said he was prepared to exercise his pardon powers if prosecutors brought criminal charges in the case. "I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail," the Republican told a local radio station last week. When he was a legislator, the governor co-wrote Missouri's "castle doctrine" law that justifies deadly force for those who are defending their homes from intruders. On Friday, the couple made an appearance at a virtual Trump campaign event. Earlier, Mr Trump told the conservative news website Townhall: "They want to prosecute these people, it's a disgrace." Video footage showed Mr McCloskey, 63, and his wife, 61, draw firearms as demonstrators marched past their mansion to the home of St Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson to call for her resignation on 28 June. The mayor had infuriated activists by reading out on Facebook Live the names and addresses of people advocating defunding the police. The McCloskeys' legal team has said two or three white protesters had threatened the couple and their property. According to a police report on the incident, the couple said a large group of people had broken through an iron gate marked with "No Trespassing" and "Private Street" signs. One of the protest leaders maintained the gate was already open. The march was part of a nationwide wave of demonstrations over police brutality and racism prompted by the killing of an unarmed black man, George Floyd, by a white policeman. Ms Gardner is recommending that the husband and wife participate in a "diversion programme" designed to reduce unnecessary involvement with the courts. It could see them ordered to take part in community service or a remedial course. Class E felonies like unlawful use of a weapon can carry prison sentences of up to four years.
A husband and wife have been charged with unlawful use of a weapon for pointing guns at demonstrators outside their home in St Louis, Missouri. Lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey drew guns on racial justice protesters marching through the grounds of their $1.15m mansion last month. The couple said they armed themselves because they felt threatened. But St Louis' top prosecutor said their actions had risked creating violence at an otherwise peaceful protest. "It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in non-violent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St Louis," said Kim Gardner, who is the city's first black circuit attorney. "We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation will not be tolerated," she added. The McCloskeys also face a charge of fourth-degree assault. The couple's lawyer, Joel Schwartz, called the decision to press charges "disheartening as I unequivocally believe no crime was committed". Five pieces of context to understand the US anti-racism protests Four dates that explain the US gun debate America's gun culture in charts The couple, both personal injury attorneys who live on a private street, have said they were within their rights to defend their property. Missouri Governor Mike Parson has said he was prepared to exercise his pardon powers if prosecutors brought criminal charges in the case. "I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail," the Republican told a local radio station last week. When he was a legislator, the governor co-wrote Missouri's "castle doctrine" law that justifies deadly force for those who are defending their homes from intruders. On Friday, the couple made an appearance at a virtual Trump campaign event. Earlier, Mr Trump told the conservative news website Townhall: "They want to prosecute these people, it's a disgrace." Video footage showed Mr McCloskey, 63, and his wife, 61, draw firearms as demonstrators marched past their mansion to the home of St Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson to call for her resignation on 28 June. The mayor had infuriated activists by reading out on Facebook Live the names and addresses of people advocating defunding the police. The McCloskeys' legal team has said two or three white protesters had threatened the couple and their property. According to a police report on the incident, the couple said a large group of people had broken through an iron gate marked with "No Trespassing" and "Private Street" signs. One of the protest leaders maintained the gate was already open. The march was part of a nationwide wave of demonstrations over police brutality and racism prompted by the killing of an unarmed black man, George Floyd, by a white policeman. Ms Gardner is recommending that the husband and wife participate in a "diversion programme" designed to reduce unnecessary involvement with the courts. It could see them ordered to take part in community service or a remedial course. Class E felonies like unlawful use of a weapon can carry prison sentences of up to four years.
The Freak 2,527 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 I thought brandishing laws were pretty clear. Apparently not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 1 hour ago, TitanTiger said: I don't care if you "feel" threatened. You don't get to point your loaded gun with your finger on the trigger at people walking down a sidewalk and street next to your house. Not only does it break every gun safety rule in any NRA-sanctioned course you would ever take, it's spectacularly stupid. They are lucky they didn't accidentally shoot one of the protestors or each other. There's being vigilant and there's being an idiot. They chose the latter. I don’t think they ever felt threatened. I agree that their handling was unsafe and stupid. I just see the trespassing on private property as justification for having a gun pulled on you. I also read something today ( I forgot where) that the rifle wasn’t loaded and the pistol was not even a real gun. If true it confirms they were not threatened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,473 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 1 minute ago, alexava said: I don’t think they ever felt threatened. I agree that their handling was unsafe and stupid. I just see the trespassing on private property as justification for having a gun pulled on you. I also read something today ( I forgot where) that the rifle wasn’t loaded and the pistol was not even a real gun. If true it confirms they were not threatened. If that's the case, it's stupid for a different reason. If you pull a gun on someone, and they are armed, there's a decent chance they might pull theirs to defend themselves. But if you pull a gun on someone and yours isn't even loaded or is a fake, you're purposely escalating a situation where you can't actually defend yourself. If they are armed with a loaded pistol, you're in real trouble. How brainless is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,770 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 1 hour ago, TitanTiger said: I don't care if you "feel" threatened. You don't get to point your loaded gun with your finger on the trigger at people walking down a sidewalk and street next to your house. Not only does it break every gun safety rule in any NRA-sanctioned course you would ever take, it's spectacularly stupid. They are lucky they didn't accidentally shoot one of the protestors or each other. There's being vigilant and there's being an idiot. They chose the latter. the way that lady is holding the pistol tells me she has no clue. if that was a 45 cal i bet she breaks her nose or busts herself in the face. gun cshool tells you always use two hands and speard your legs for balance and she is doing neither. and i will bet a chicken dinner they thought they would get on the news and be hailed as heroes...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,473 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, aubiefifty said: the way that lady is holding the pistol tells me she has no clue. if that was a 45 cal i bet she breaks her nose or busts herself in the face. gun cshool tells you always use two hands and speard your legs for balance and she is doing neither. and i will bet a chicken dinner they thought they would get on the news and be hailed as heroes...... It looked like a .380 or something to me. But still, she was being reckless with that gun if it was loaded, and stupid with it if it wasn't. Just stay in your house with your loaded gun, keep an eye on the windows and the security cameras, call the police to tell them about the people on the private road. Quite simple. Don't go out there looking for an altercation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 29 minutes ago, TitanTiger said: It looked like a .380 or something to me. But still, she was being reckless with that gun if it was loaded, and stupid with it if it wasn't. Just stay in your house with your loaded gun, keep an eye on the windows and the security cameras, call the police to tell them about the people on the private road. Quite simple. Don't go out there looking for an altercation. I don’t suspect it was an altercation they wanted. It was dubious attention. I think they got what they wanted. The protesters did too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,473 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, alexava said: I don’t suspect it was an altercation they wanted. It was dubious attention. I think they got what they wanted. The protesters did too. Well if they walked out there with unloaded firearms and pointed them at people, then I'd hope they didn't want an altercation. Otherwise they have a death wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburnfan91 1,407 Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 Quote Gardner staffer ordered crime lab to reassemble Patricia McCloskey's gun Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley stated in charging documents that the gun was "readily capable of lethal use" Author: Christine Byers (KSDK) Published: 3:32 PM CDT July 21, 2020 Updated: 6:09 PM CDT July 21, 2020 ST. LOUIS — The gun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable when it arrived at the St. Louis police crime lab, but a member of St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Kim Gardner’s staff ordered crime lab experts to find out why and wrote that it was “readily capable of lethal use,” in charging documents filed Monday, 5 On Your Side has learned. In Missouri, police and prosecutors must prove that a weapon is “readily” capable of lethal use when it used in the type of crime with which the McCloskeys have been charged. At the request of Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley, crime lab staff members field stripped the handgun and found it had been assembled incorrectly. Specifically, the firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin, which was backward, and made the gun incapable of firing, according to the documents. Firearms experts then put the gun back together, per Hinckley’s request, in the correct order and test-fired it, finding that it worked, according to the documents. Crime lab workers photographed the disassembly and reassembly of the gun, according to the documents. Patricia McCloskey and her husband Mark McCloskey have said the handgun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable because they had used it as a prop during a lawsuit they once filed against a gun manufacturer. In order to bring it into a courtroom, they made it inoperable. Their attorney, Joel Schwartz, confirmed to 5 On Your Side that the McCloskeys intentionally misplaced the firing pin on the gun and that it was in that condition when Patricia McCloskey waved it at protesters and turned it into their former attorney Al Watkins. “It’s disheartening to learn that a law enforcement agency altered evidence in order to prosecute an innocent member of the community,” Schwartz said. A spokeswoman for Gardner wrote: "We can't comment on a pending case." There is no reference to the operating condition of the gun in the probable cause statement police wrote on the case. The only reference to it is contained in the charging document with Hinckley’s name on it. The McCloskeys have become somewhat of a household name ever since photos of them pointing guns at protesters went viral June 28. The protesters were marching past their house along a private, gated street on their way to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s house after Krewson read the names and addresses of those who wrote letters to her asking her to shutter the city’s jail, known as the Workhouse. Mark McCloskey was holding a rifle. His wife was holding a silver handgun. Most legal experts say Missouri law is not on Gardner’s side in this case because it allows people to defend their property with lethal force under what’s known as the Castle Doctrine. Her decision to charge them has now garnered commentary from local and national Republicans including President Donald Trump, whose press secretary called it "abuse of power.” Missouri Governor Mike Parson has said he will pardon the couple if they are convicted. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a legal briefing asking that the case be dismissed. https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/gardner-staffer-ordered-crime-lab-to-reassemble-patricia-mccloskeys-gun/63-be112149-d06c-4f54-a225-6545e74b5c2d?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted July 22, 2020 Author Share Posted July 22, 2020 6 hours ago, TitanTiger said: I don't care if you "feel" threatened. You don't get to point your loaded gun with your finger on the trigger at people walking down a sidewalk and street next to your house. Not only does it break every gun safety rule in any NRA-sanctioned course you would ever take, it's spectacularly stupid. They are lucky they didn't accidentally shoot one of the protestors or each other. There's being vigilant and there's being an idiot. They chose the latter. Yes you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted July 22, 2020 Author Share Posted July 22, 2020 4 hours ago, TitanTiger said: It looked like a .380 or something to me. But still, she was being reckless with that gun if it was loaded, and stupid with it if it wasn't. Just stay in your house with your loaded gun, keep an eye on the windows and the security cameras, call the police to tell them about the people on the private road. Quite simple. Don't go out there looking for an altercation. Exactly, the law says you must stay in your house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,473 Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 28 minutes ago, Grumps said: Yes you do. No, you do not. They are not on your property. They are not coming at you. You do not get to point guns at people for protesting who are not an immediate threat to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,473 Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said: https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/gardner-staffer-ordered-crime-lab-to-reassemble-patricia-mccloskeys-gun/63-be112149-d06c-4f54-a225-6545e74b5c2d?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot If that dimwit walked outside to confront a crowd she believed capable of violence pointing a gun she knew was inoperable at them, she's dumber than a bag of hammers. She's lucky she didn't get her ass shot. Because violent people tend to be armed and they tend respond to people pointing guns at them by shooting first. So she either walked out there truly believing she was confronting a violent mob threatening her life and property with a gun she knew was inoperable, making her a colossal dumbass -OR- she knew this crowd wasn't actually violent at all and just wanted to grandstand and make some headlines, which undermines her defense of feeling threatened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 5 hours ago, aubiefifty said: the way that lady is holding the pistol tells me she has no clue. if that was a 45 cal i bet she breaks her nose or busts herself in the face. gun cshool tells you always use two hands and speard your legs for balance and she is doing neither. and i will bet a chicken dinner they thought they would get on the news and be hailed as heroes...... That bent elbow was pathetically hilarious (if that term applies in such a situation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted July 22, 2020 Author Share Posted July 22, 2020 12 hours ago, TitanTiger said: No, you do not. They are not on your property. They are not coming at you. You do not get to point guns at people for protesting who are not an immediate threat to you. Yes you do. You cannot possibly know if the couple felt an immediate threat. According to what I have read, some people destroyed private properter (the gate) and numerous people walked past a "Private Property" sign and a "No Tresspassing" sign and were outside of the couple's house threatening their lives and their property. If that doesn't give the couple the right to "bear their arms" then what does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,473 Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 1 minute ago, Grumps said: Yes you do. You cannot possibly know if the couple felt an immediate threat. I can in this situation, by deduction. No sane person walks out to confront what they truly believe to be a violent mob with a pistol they know is inoperable. You're escalating a situation with people you believe are violent. Violent people are often armed. You're increasing the chances of a shooting knowing you can't actually shoot anyone. 1 minute ago, Grumps said: According to what I have read, some people destroyed private properter (the gate) and numerous people walked past a "Private Property" sign and a "No Tresspassing" sign and were outside of the couple's house threatening their lives and their property. If that doesn't give the couple the right to "bear their arms" then what does? They broke through the gate and may have pulled the sign out of the ground. That's the sum total of this 'violent' mob's wake of destruction. And they weren't just hanging out outside their home. They were walking past it on the sidewalk and in the street on the way to the mayor's house - the target of their protests. Had Karen and Ken Dipshit not walked out waving their guns around like morons, there wouldn't have been so much as a conversation with the protestors, much less any alleged threats. Virtually every castle doctrine has a "duty to retreat." It is not meant to cover you going out to initiate a confrontation. No one said they couldn't bear arms, but what they did when beyond that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted July 22, 2020 Author Share Posted July 22, 2020 1 hour ago, TitanTiger said: I can in this situation, by deduction. No sane person walks out to confront what they truly believe to be a violent mob with a pistol they know is inoperable. You're escalating a situation with people you believe are violent. Violent people are often armed. You're increasing the chances of a shooting knowing you can't actually shoot anyone. They broke through the gate and may have pulled the sign out of the ground. That's the sum total of this 'violent' mob's wake of destruction. And they weren't just hanging out outside their home. They were walking past it on the sidewalk and in the street on the way to the mayor's house - the target of their protests. Had Karen and Ken Dipshit not walked out waving their guns around like morons, there wouldn't have been so much as a conversation with the protestors, much less any alleged threats. Virtually every castle doctrine has a "duty to retreat." It is not meant to cover you going out to initiate a confrontation. No one said they couldn't bear arms, but what they did when beyond that. I guess we will have to see what the courts say, huh? My bet is that even a liberal court will find no wrong doing. I think the question is would a "reasonable" person feel threatened. Obviously, one of us is not reasonable! So does one have a "duty to retreat" if one is concerned that his/her lives and property will be destroyed as the couple claims was threatened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,473 Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 17 minutes ago, Grumps said: I guess we will have to see what the courts say, huh? My bet is that even a liberal court will find no wrong doing. I think the question is would a "reasonable" person feel threatened. Obviously, one of us is not reasonable! So does one have a "duty to retreat" if one is concerned that his/her lives and property will be destroyed as the couple claims was threatened? Given that the governor and state AG have already sought to dismiss the charges and signaled they'd immediately pardon them even if convicted, I'm betting the case ends up being pled out to something minor or dropped. I don't think you'll get any actual referendum on their 'wrong doing.' As far as a duty to retreat goes, I don't know the specifics of Missouri's law here, so I'm speaking generally. Typically, a castle doctrine does not cover mere trespassing. And most cases, it applies to you when you are inside your home, not out on your front lawn for instance. In terms of "duty to retreat", a sometimes even in places with a castle doctrine in place, you still have a duty to retreat paired with it. That typically means you have to make an effort to avoid a confrontation. You don't escalate a situation and if you have an opportunity to leave or avoid it, you take it. In most cases where a duty to retreat is paired with the castle doctrine, the castle doctrine applies inside the home and duty to retreat applies outside of it. Back to the specifics of this actual situation though...again, the McCloskey's actions defy the notion that they really felt threatened. There's no way you walk out to confront what you truly believe to be a dangerous, threatening mob where your very life is at stake waving and pointing a pistol that you KNOW is inoperable. It's borderline suicidal. You're amping up the possibility of gun violence but you have no ability to actually defend yourself. What that tells me is, she didn't actually feel all that threatened. She was grandstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUfan_UAgrad 230 Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 This is what comes to mind seeing Patricia and how she holds her gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.