Gun Seized - Justice or not???

[Grumps 3,704]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mark-mccloskey-st-louis-guns-black-lives-matter_n_5f094073c5b6480493d04299

St. Louis Cops Seize Gun That Couple Pointed At Black Lives Matter Protesters

“They took my AR,” Mark McCloskey told a right-wing radio program.

By Mary Papenfuss

 

St. Louis police on Friday executed a search warrant at the home of a local lawyer and seized a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle that he pointed at Black Lives Matter protesters last month, according to media reports.

Mark McCloskey, and his wife, Patricia McCloskey, who work together as personal injury attorneys, were captured on video brandishing guns as demonstrators walked past their palatial home on June 28. While critics called for their arrest, the two were embraced as heroes by gun lovers after the video went viral.

“We complied with the search warrant. They took my AR,” Mark McCloskey told the conservative Todd Starnes radio show. “I’m absolutely surprised by this.”

The couple told police Friday that the pistol Patricia McCloskey brandished was with their lawyer, sources told NBC affiliate KSDK-TV.

The couple’s attorney, Joel Schwartz, confirmed to the TV station that a warrant was issued for a search of their home Friday night. Schwartz said he has no idea where the handgun is. He hopes to meet with a prosecutor next week.

No charges had been filed against the couple as of Friday night.

Mark McCloskey claimed he and his wife grabbed their guns during the protest because they were afraid for their lives from the “angry mob who came through my gate.” His wife insisted in a Fox News interview that she heard protesters talk about how they wanted to take over their home, kill her and her husband, and their dog.

But video of the protest that went viral shows protesters slowly sauntering past the couple on the sidewalk and not confronting them. 

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Friday that the McCloskeys have a reputation as obnoxious neighbors who have “nearly constantly sued other people and ordered people off their property.”

They have sued neighbors for making changes to their gravel road, sued a former employer for wrongful termination, sued others for defamation, and asserted “squatters’ rights” on common neighborhood property, according to the newspaper. This was apparently part of the land they claimed to be guarding with their firearms. McCloskey said in an affidavit last year that he had once challenged a neighbor cutting through that property “at gunpoint.”

 

 

 

 

[Grumps 3,704]

Thoughts?

Did the couple break any laws? Are the police investigating any of the trespassers?

[AUDub 11,149]

15 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Thoughts?

Did the couple break any laws? Are the police investigating any of the trespassers?

They apparently have a history of brandishing firearms.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/tony-messenger/messenger-this-wasn-t-the-first-time-the-mccloskeys-pulled-a-gun-to-protect-property/article_fc2a31b1-5f7b-55d5-83e3-8b3ca1211c7c.html

It is quite possible his wife broke the law, possibly both of them. In the video she was pointing her gun at people with her finger on the trigger. Might as well have been holding a knife to their throats.

These people are damned morons. May not be legal to take those guns away (there is some gray area), but they're idiots and it's almost certainly sensible.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

They apparently have a history of brandishing firearms.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/tony-messenger/messenger-this-wasn-t-the-first-time-the-mccloskeys-pulled-a-gun-to-protect-property/article_fc2a31b1-5f7b-55d5-83e3-8b3ca1211c7c.html

It is quite possible his wife broke the law, possibly both of them. In the video she was pointing her gun at people with her finger on the trigger. Might as well have been holding a knife to their throats.

These people are damned morons. May not be legal to take those guns away (there is some gray area), but they're idiots and it's almost certainly sensible.

So do you think it is against the law for the wife to point a gun when a group of people are trespassing on her property and allegedly threatened her? I would think that her hold a knife to their throats in a similar situation would also be legal.

I agree that all involved are probably morons (depending on how you define it).

I think that their history of brandishing firearms is as relevant as George Floyd's criminal history prior to his being killed.

[alexava 6,973]

Not legal at all imo. All they have done is shown the world that these two idiots are now unprotected. An invitation for the next angry mob. 

[SaturdayGT 719]

This is f'd up....

[AUDub 11,149]

4 hours ago, Grumps said:

So do you think it is against the law for the wife to point a gun when a group of people are trespassing on her property and allegedly threatened her? I would think that her hold a knife to their throats in a similar situation would also be legal.

I agree that all involved are probably morons (depending on how you define it).

I think that their history of brandishing firearms is as relevant as George Floyd's criminal history prior to his being killed.

Don't play dumb, Grumps. I see these a**holes literally breaking every rule of gun safety, muzzle sweeping each other, safety off, fingers on trigger etc., I get the feeling they'll more likely harm themselves before the folks in that video would.

Stepping out onto your lawn with a loaded weapon and pointing it at other people who are protesting, even if they are trespassing, is basically losing your affirmative defense.

I can see it now:

"Mr Dipshit, at any point prior to the shooting were you able to avoid getting into an altercation and discharging your weapon? Perhaps by staying indoors and contacting police?"

"Yes but they were on the sidewalk and I thought..."

[alexava 6,973]

I probably would have stayed inside myself. Especially if I had any indication the protesters were armed or had ill intentions. I would rather them hear and feel my gun before they see it and plan for it. That’s just my novice opinion. Showing some backbone can also be a deterrent. But standing in the front lawn with no cover is not a smart, tactical decision. It’s a attention grabbing decision. Which is what the protesters were doing too. What the couple did was stupid but if it’s illegal we are all in serious trouble. 

[homersapien 11,379]

I was taught in a CWP class that pointing a gun at someone in such a manner constitutes criminal assault, at least in SC.

What is Criminal Assault?

State legislatures and Congress define what constitutes crimes, including assault. This means that what may constitute assault in one state may be different from what constitutes assault in another state. If you would like to know the specific definition of criminal assault in your state, you should consult a criminal defense law firm in your area.

Assault can occur even if no one is actually physically harmed. Rather, assault occurs when someone threatens harm. This threat of harm must be intentional.

Examples of assault include swinging a baseball bat at someone but not hitting them, waving your fist at someone without making contact, and pointing a gun, loaded or not, at someone, while they are aware that you are pointing a gun at them.

https://www.attorneys.com/criminal-defense/criminal-assault

 

IMO, assuming Missouri's law is consistent, they - or at least that idiot woman - should have been arrested and charged with criminal assault based on the evidence in this video.

 

[aubearcat 2,137]

If they are being charged with a crime (in Alabama), the gun can be seized/detained as a part of the charges and investigation until it’s completed through the courts and ordered returned by a judge. 

[alexava 6,973]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I was taught in a CWP class that pointing a gun at someone in such a manner constitutes criminal assault, at least in SC.

What is Criminal Assault?

State legislatures and Congress define what constitutes crimes, including assault. This means that what may constitute assault in one state may be different from what constitutes assault in another state. If you would like to know the specific definition of criminal assault in your state, you should consult a criminal defense law firm in your area.

Assault can occur even if no one is actually physically harmed. Rather, assault occurs when someone threatens harm. This threat of harm must be intentional.

Examples of assault include swinging a baseball bat at someone but not hitting them, waving your fist at someone without making contact, and pointing a gun, loaded or not, at someone, while they are aware that you are pointing a gun at them.

https://www.attorneys.com/criminal-defense/criminal-assault

 

IMO, assuming Missouri's law is consistent, they - or at least that idiot woman - should have been arrested and charged with criminal assault based on the evidence in this video.

 

The fact that they broke down a gate and entered private property might be enough to justify the legal part. It’s still stupid. This couple probably were just about as dangerous to each other as any other threat. I have no problem with what they did. It was how they did it that blew. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

I’m thankful I live in Texas. 

[TitanTiger 20,483]

8 hours ago, Grumps said:

So do you think it is against the law for the wife to point a gun when a group of people are trespassing on her property and allegedly threatened her? I would think that her hold a knife to their throats in a similar situation would also be legal.

I agree that all involved are probably morons (depending on how you define it).

I think that their history of brandishing firearms is as relevant as George Floyd's criminal history prior to his being killed.

From what I could tell, no one was on their property.  They were on the sidewalk and in the street.  Walking on the sidewalk and in the street does not give you a free pass to point a loaded gun at someone with your finger on the trigger.

They should have stayed inside.  Have the weapon ready if anyone comes up to the house and attempts to break in or anything.

And I agree with Dub.  One of those dipshits is going to end up shooting the other before any BLM protester does.

[SaturdayGT 719]

Will be interesting to see what happens next now that the guns are seized.

[Grumps 3,704]

14 hours ago, AUDub said:

Don't play dumb, Grumps. I see these a**holes literally breaking every rule of gun safety, muzzle sweeping each other, safety off, fingers on trigger etc., I get the feeling they'll more likely harm themselves before the folks in that video would.

Stepping out onto your lawn with a loaded weapon and pointing it at other people who are protesting, even if they are trespassing, is basically losing your affirmative defense.

I can see it now:

"Mr Dipshit, at any point prior to the shooting were you able to avoid getting into an altercation and discharging your weapon? Perhaps by staying indoors and contacting police?"

"Yes but they were on the sidewalk and I thought..."

I completely agree with you about how reckless the couple was. My concern about this is from a legal perspective.

[Grumps 3,704]

https://nypost.com/2020/07/02/st-louis-lawyer-mark-mccloskey-claims-couples-guns-kept-mobsters-away/

St. Louis lawyer Mark McCloskey claims couple’s guns kept ‘mobsters’ away

By Yaron Steinbuch

July 2, 2020 | 7:17am | Updated

The St. Louis legal eagle who, along with his wife, confronted Back Lives Matter protesters in their swanky neighborhood insisted that the only thing that kept the “mobsters” at bay was the fact that the couple brandished guns, according to a report.

“I believe in my heart of hearts that the only thing that kept those mobsters, that crowd, away from us is that we were standing there with guns,” Mark McCloskey, 63, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Wednesday.

“If I was in the same situation, I’d do it all again,” the lawyer said in an interview at their mansion. “The bottom line was, I was there to protect my family and my house and myself.”

McCloskey and his wife, Patricia, told the outlet that they had prepared for violent activists — leaving fire extinguishers in every first-floor room and a rifle in the living room — after neighborhood homeowner trustees warned them that the protest group was expected to show up.

“We weren’t concerned about it until it got up to the point where the Kingshighway gate was and realized there was no security, no police, nothing to keep them from coming in,” Mark told the paper. “And then they did come in and it was a flood of people.”

He said he saw the demonstrators break a locked pedestrian gate and enter the private Portland Place – though protesters have said they walked through an unlocked gate peacefully, without damaging it, en route to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s home to demand her resignation.

Gun-toting lawyer claims he's the victim — 'of terrorism'

Mark insisted the safety mechanisms on his AR-15 and his wife’s handgun were on when they confronted the group. He declined to say if either weapon was loaded.

He said one protester called him by name and that another man kept getting closer while “trying to look intimidating.”

“I’m not a mind reader but he gave every impression of being there for assault purposes and to be physically threatening,” Mark said. “It got to the point where I was concerned that I might actually have to shoot.”

Patricia said she called 911 but that cops never showed up. Her husband said he didn’t blame police because they are “underfunded, understaffed, overwhelmed.”

The couple said that while they have heard from supporters, they also have been inundated with threats.

“‘We’re gonna burn your house, this is gonna be my bedroom, my living room and bathroom after you’re dead,’” Mark cited as an example.

Meanwhile, several neighborhood residents signed a letter Wednesday in support of the demonstrators and condemning threats of violence against them, “especially through the brandishing of firearms,” the paper reported.

During the interview, the couple sat in a room with a leopard skin rug and a red fox head mounted on the wall, but Mark insisted he is not a hunter.

“I don’t kill animals but whenever trophy mounts come up for sale, somebody having killed those poor bastards and put them up for auction … I buy them and preserve them,” he told the paper.

The McCloskeys also made light of a meme that has been circulating after their encounter went viral.

“The Hamburglar …,“ Mark joked.

“The Hamburglar was one of the funniest,” interjected his wife, who sparked the meme after wearing a black and white striped shirt that was reminiscent of an outfit worn by the character in a McDonald’s commercial.

[alexava 6,973]

11 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

From what I could tell, no one was on their property.  They were on the sidewalk and in the street.  Walking on the sidewalk and in the street does not give you a free pass to point a loaded gun at someone with your finger on the trigger.

They should have stayed inside.  Have the weapon ready if anyone comes up to the house and attempts to break in or anything.

And I agree with Dub.  One of those dipshits is going to end up shooting the other before any BLM protester does.

It was not a public street either. I’m guessing the hoa owns it. The protesters were trespassing/ breaking and entering. But yes they are a danger to anyone in their vicinity, including themselves when they brandish guns. 
 

[AUDub 11,149]

He's lying about the safety being on. The selector on that gun is in the fire position. 

[The Freak 2,528]

His safety is on in the pic (finger off the trigger -lol)

[Mikey 16,605]

6 hours ago, AUDub said:

He's lying about the safety being on. The selector on that gun is in the fire position. 

Whether the safety is on or not has zero bearing on things. Whether the wife's finger is on the trigger or not has zero bearing on things. In most of America, a person may have a firearm while standing at their front door. The DA there is simply trying to pick up election points. Those people will get their guns back, hopefully in time to discourage the next mob from attacking their home.

Would I have been out front like that? No, it's a terrible place to be when/if the stuff hits the fan. I'd have been in as protected a spot as possible that still gave me an acceptable field of fire.

[AUDub 11,149]

9 hours ago, Mikey said:

Whether the safety is on or not has zero bearing on things. Whether the wife's finger is on the trigger or not has zero bearing on things. In most of America, a person may have a firearm while standing at their front door. The DA there is simply trying to pick up election points. Those people will get their guns back, hopefully in time to discourage the next mob from attacking their home.

Would I have been out front like that? No, it's a terrible place to be when/if the stuff hits the fan. I'd have been in as protected a spot as possible that still gave me an acceptable field of fire.

I agree this is all theater. Criminal culpability is going to be a bitch to prove and I seriously doubt any charge the DA throws at them will stick. 

But that doesn't absolve them being very stupid. Carrying a weapon is a big responsibility and escalating the situation is to be avoided at every turn. They seemed to view the situation through the lens of an 80s action movie and their handling of the guns isn't that far out from a poorly budgeted action film. s***, his wife was one sneeze away from ruining somebody's day with the way she was waving that handgun around with her finger on the trigger. Blech.

Plus, if he'll brazenly lie about something as easily disproven as the safety being on, he'll probably lie about a lot of other stuff too. 

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

I agree this is all theater. Criminal culpability is going to be a bitch to prove and I seriously doubt any charge the DA throws at them will stick. 

But that doesn't absolve them being very stupid. Carrying a weapon is a big responsibility and escalating the situation is to be avoided at every turn. They seemed to view the situation through the lens of an 80s action movie and their handling of the guns isn't that far out from a poorly budgeted action film. s***, his wife was one sneeze away from ruining somebody's day with the way she was waving that handgun around with her finger on the trigger. Blech.

Plus, if he'll brazenly lie about something as easily disproven as the safety being on, he'll probably lie about a lot of other stuff too. 

So then we agree that the couple did nothing illegal even though they used very poor judgment and that the politicians are intentionally investigating the situation strictly for political gain.

Is it disturbing to you that the DA would violate the couple's constitutional right just for political purposes?

[AUDub 11,149]

2 minutes ago, Grumps said:

So then we agree that the couple did nothing illegal even though they used very poor judgment and that the politicians are intentionally investigating the situation strictly for political gain.

Is it disturbing to you that the DA would violate the couple's constitutional right just for political purposes?

Two things can be true: I thinks it's possible they did something illegal, but getting a conviction with the available evidence will not happen and they will get their guns back...

...and that the DA is playing political games.

[The Freak 2,528]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Plus, if he'll brazenly lie about something as easily disproven as the safety being on, he'll probably lie about a lot of other stuff too. 

Well, he is a lawyer.

(apologies in advance to upstanding lawyers on this site)

[Mikey 16,605]

15 hours ago, AUDub said:

I agree this is all theater. Criminal culpability is going to be a bitch to prove and I seriously doubt any charge the DA throws at them will stick. 

But that doesn't absolve them being very stupid. Carrying a weapon is a big responsibility and escalating the situation is to be avoided at every turn. They seemed to view the situation through the lens of an 80s action movie and their handling of the guns isn't that far out from a poorly budgeted action film. s***, his wife was one sneeze away from ruining somebody's day with the way she was waving that handgun around with her finger on the trigger. Blech.

Plus, if he'll brazenly lie about something as easily disproven as the safety being on, he'll probably lie about a lot of other stuff too. 

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.