Gun Seized - Justice or not???

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

18 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

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.

In Missouri they(prosecutors) have to prove that a weapon is "readily" capable of lethal use when it's used in a crime that's been charged. They couldn't charge it as a crime unless they proved the gun was operable and it wasn't, so they reassembled it and made it work in order to bring charges.

You can think the McCloskey's are idiots for what they did all you want but that doesn't mean they broke the law and if the gun was inoperable at the time it was brandished then these charges are weak. 

The rioters and looters arrested last month in St. Louis were not charged by this same prosecutor, Kim Gardner. She might get around to it eventually though.

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/171649-those-arrested-over-two-nights-of-protests-and-unrest-in-st-louis-released-from-jail-police-say/

[Grumps 3,704]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

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.

Thanks for your reply. I completely agree that their actions were not smart.

Edit: One last thing. Do you think that the prosecutor going after the McCloskey's actually helps Trump or hurts Trump or makes no difference regarding his re-election? I think the prosecutor is unwittingly helping Trump by stirring up his base. In my opinion, she should have ignored it like she has ignored the alleged crimes of the rioters.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

8 hours ago, Grumps said:

Thanks for your reply. I completely agree that their actions were not smart.

Edit: One last thing. Do you think that the prosecutor going after the McCloskey's actually helps Trump or hurts Trump or makes no difference regarding his re-election? I think the prosecutor is unwittingly helping Trump by stirring up his base. In my opinion, she should have ignored it like she has ignored the alleged crimes of the rioters.

I'm don't think it's going to make much, if any, difference.  The same people who would get stirred up by this were already stirred up by the protesting and riots.  

One other possibility I'll mention that we haven't touched on is that in the interim between this incident and the police confiscating their guns, the McCloskeys could have disassembled the pistol and made it inoperable to try and get out from any charges.  It wouldn't take you more than 5 minutes to do it, especially if you did it once before for a court case as they claim.  

The Catch-22 for them of course is, if they did that it does mean they may have felt threatened and were pointing an operable pistol at the protesters.  But then it opens them back up to the charges they're currently under plus evidence tampering.

[McLoofus 35,182]

9 hours ago, Grumps said:

Do you think that the prosecutor going after the McCloskey's actually helps Trump or hurts Trump or makes no difference regarding his re-election? I think the prosecutor is unwittingly helping Trump by stirring up his base.

Good question. Kinda like Tipper Gore selling 2 Live Crew albums for them.

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm don't think it's going to make much, if any, difference.  The same people who would get stirred up by this were already stirred up by the protesting and riots.

Good answer.

 

Good conversation.

[bootskii 264]

I agree with most that waving the barrel of a gun at people is highly irresponsible if you are a gun owner but somethings to keep in mind about the situation:

A. St. Louis is a very dangerous city. I know I was born there. It has been the murder capital of our country for a couple of years now.

B. Just a couple of days earlier mobs beat up unarmed Catholics praying in a public park. 

If you saw mobs break down an iron gate to your private neighborhood, chanting, beating drums, knowing that violence in the city is high, no cops will come to your aid, them telling you that they are going to either burn down your house or kill you and take up residence in your house, etc... how would you react?  Me personally, I would do the exact same thing as this couple did ( minus pointing guns at them ). I don't wish violence on anyone but protecting yourself and your home from a mob of people, not knowing what their intentions are at the time, would be the normal reaction of most people so you can't blame them for doing what they did. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

14 minutes ago, bootskii said:

I agree with most that waving the barrel of a gun at people is highly irresponsible if you are a gun owner but somethings to keep in mind about the situation:

A. St. Louis is a very dangerous city. I know I was born there. It has been the murder capital of our country for a couple of years now.

B. Just a couple of days earlier mobs beat up unarmed Catholics praying in a public park. 

If you saw mobs break down an iron gate to your private neighborhood, chanting, beating drums, knowing that violence in the city is high, no cops will come to your aid, them telling you that they are going to either burn down your house or kill you and take up residence in your house, etc... how would you react?  Me personally, I would do the exact same thing as this couple did ( minus pointing guns at them ). I don't wish violence on anyone but protecting yourself and your home from a mob of people, not knowing what their intentions are at the time, would be the normal reaction of most people so you can't blame them for doing what they did. 

This is fair and rational look at it.

But I think it's also fair and rational to suggest that St. Louis is a very dangerous city at least in part because of people like the McCloskeys. 

 

[bootskii 264]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

This is fair and rational look at it.

But I think it's also fair and rational to suggest that St. Louis is a very dangerous city at least in part because of people like the McCloskeys. 

 

First of all let me say thanks for trying to see things from my perspective. Many people are quick to jump the gun ( no pun intended ) and just want to argue without seeing things from different angles. That being said, if this same couple exerted the same form of behavior in public, for instance at an outdoor mall, and were in the same situation I would be inclined to agree with you. They could most likely vacate the area in a safe manner. Under the circumstances though this was their home. This is supposed to be their safe haven in which they are to go if they feel unsafe. That safety was breached and this couple that had no where else to go decided to take a stand. For that I have to side with them.  Now I don't condone vigilante justice unless under extreme duress but in this time where people are pushing the agenda of "defund the police" you are probably going to see more of these types of situations.

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, bootskii said:

First of all let me say thanks for trying to see things from my perspective. Many people are quick to jump the gun ( no pun intended ) and just want to argue without seeing things from different angles. That being said, if this same couple exerted the same form of behavior in public, for instance at an outdoor mall, and were in the same situation I would be inclined to agree with you. They could most likely vacate the area in a safe manner. Under the circumstances though this was their home. This is supposed to be their safe haven in which they are to go if they feel unsafe. That safety was breached and this couple that had no where else to go decided to take a stand. For that I have to side with them.  Now I don't condone vigilante justice unless under extreme duress but in this time where people are pushing the agenda of "defund the police" you are probably going to see more of these types of situations.

I'm a gun jumper (lol at the unintended pun), which speaks further to your well-articulated initial post. 

I don't see it exactly the same way you do, but I do understand how you see it the way you do and I wouldn't try to talk you out of your stance. 

Perhaps it's not as much that they felt threatened and felt a need to protect themselves, but the specifics of how they responded. The optics are objectively awful and certainly fuel much of the fervor around the situation, but I do think they- particularly as members of the legal community- could have taken a defensive and even deterring stance in a less dangerous manner. 

As an aside, I don't know enough to condemn or condone the protesters' actions. I have no problem believing that they accept some blame for the situation, and obviously any destruction of property was inappropriate and calls for restitution. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

I'm a gun jumper (lol at the unintended pun), which speaks further to your well-articulated initial post. 

I don't see it exactly the same way you do, but I do understand how you see it the way you do and I wouldn't try to talk you out of your stance. 

Perhaps it's not as much that they felt threatened and felt a need to protect themselves, but the specifics of how they responded. The optics are objectively awful and certainly fuel much of the fervor around the situation, but I do think they- particularly as members of the legal community- could have taken a defensive and even deterring stance in a less dangerous manner. 

As an aside, I don't know enough to condemn or condone the protesters' actions. I have no problem believing that they accept some blame for the situation, and obviously any destruction of property was inappropriate and calls for restitution. 

Do you think it’s possible it is the opposite? Perhaps being in the legal community they thought they knew the laws better and perhaps thought they were above the law?  At a minimum it’s a publicity stunt gone way wrong (or perhaps right in the very long run being any publicity is good publicity for them.) 

[Grumps 3,704]

Does anyone else think that this was also a publicity stunt by the prosecutor?

[aubiefifty 16,798]

if people pull out guns and point them at people because they feel threatened we are asking for to make this country more violent than it is. now if they are trying to burn your house down is one thing but to assume something is trouble looking to happen. the new sheriff of etowah county met with a decent sized group of armed citizens over the statue of emma sansom and he took their guns to be given back at a later date. regardless of what side you fall on no one deserves to die over a monument. i hate it. back when emma sansom high school was open they had a yearly thing going with trying to keep gadsden high school kids from putting their jersey on emma's statue. that had been going on for years until both schools closed.

[Grumps 3,704]

So is there any brandishing of weapons going on here? Where are those trigger fingers? Oh,  and three people were injured when someone, apparently accidentally, fired his/her weapon. I'm sure the prosecutor in Louisville, KY will be all over it. Right?

[Grumps 3,704]

Three Injured in Shooting as Rival Armed Militias Converge on Louisville

Emily Shugerman

July 25, 2020, 12:30 PM

 

 

Bryan Woolston/Reuters

Shots rang out in Louisville, Kentucky on Saturday as hundreds of members of heavily armed militia groups converged on the city for a protest against police brutality.

Louisville police confirmed three people were injured due to the “discharge of someone’s gun” as members of the “Not ******* Around Coalition,” an all-Black militia, gathered in Baxter Park shortly before 1 p.m.

The victims, all of whom were members of NFAC, were transferred to the University of Louisville Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, the police department said. There were no outstanding suspects.

The group’s founder, Atlanta-based rapper and DJ John “Jay” Johnson, said in a YouTube video that the march was a response to the death of Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old Black woman who was fatally shot by Louisville Metro Police Department officers serving a no-knock warrant on her apartment in March. Her death and those of other Black Americans sparked widespread protests this summer over racism and police violence.

Members of the Kentucky ‘Three Percenters’ militia line up as the all-Black militia group called NFAC hold an armed rally.

Bryan Woolston/Reuters

More

 

The “Three Percenter” far-right militia group also called on members to be present on Saturday to act as an ad-hoc security force during the rally. The group is known for its support of gun rights and opposition to government “tyranny,” and for its presence at white supremacist rallies like Unite the Right in Charlottesville. A Kentucky-based Three Percenter group held a rally in May, over gun rights, where they hung an effigy of Gov. Andy Beshear from a tree with a noose.

The NFAC was formed this summer by Johnson, who refers to himself as the “Official Grant Master Jay.” He previously assembled about 1,000 militia members to march through Georgia’s Stone Mountain Park in protest of a confederate monument there. For Saturday’s rally, he asked members to arrive armed and dressed in black.

About 200 NFAC members—some from as far away as Oregon—answered the call, according to reporters on the ground, gathering in Baxter Park Saturday morning before a planned march to Jefferson Square Park. Dozens of Three Percenters also showed up in camouflage and carrying guns. Black Lives Matter protesters, unaffiliated with either group, also showed up to protest.

By 11:30 a.m., before NFAC had even started their march, police in riot gear had erected a barricade to separate the Three Percenters from Black Lives Matter protesters, which did not stop the opposing sides from chanting and yelling at each other. One Black Lives Matter protesters who tried to walk through the police barricade was arrested, according to videos posted on Twitter by Courier-Journal reporter Hayes Gardner.

Shots rang out in Baxter Park shortly before 1 p.m., and medics arrived on the scene minutes later. The NFAC ordered members to take a knee as the situation developed.

The Louisville Metropolitan Police Department said an investigation was ongoing.

“This is a tragic situation that could have been much worse,” Chief Robert Schroeder said in a statement. “I encourage anyone exercising their Second Amendment Rights to do so responsibly.”

Tensions in Louisville were already high after a 27-year-old photographer was shot and killed last month during another protest against Taylor’s death. (Officials say another demonstrator unintentionally shot the photographer, Tyler Gerth, during a disturbance at the protest. The man has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and first degree wanton endangerment.) Experts said the dueling militias would likely exacerbate the situation.

“I am deathly afraid of a street war,” extremism expert J.J. MacNab previously told WFPL News. “We’ve got too many opposing factions who are all too heavily armed.”

Paramedics push a stretcher after shot rang out during the demonstration by NFAC.

Bryan Woolston/Reuters

Taylor, an EMT who worked for two local hospitals, and her boyfriend were asleep in their apartment on March 13 when three officers executed a “no-knock” search warrant looking for a suspected drug dealer who lived in a different part of town. Her boyfriend fired a warning shot as he thought they were being burglarized. It prompted officers to return fire at least a dozen times.

Authorities obtained the warrant to raid Taylor’s home because they claimed she used to date the suspected drug dealer and was receiving mail on his behalf. However, her family have argued in a lawsuit that there was no evidence to show Taylor or her boyfriend had any link to drug dealing or any criminal history of drugs of violence.

One officer has been fired for his role in obtaining the warrant and the Louisville Metro Police Department said it would no longer use “no-knock” warrants. However, protesters have demanded all three officers be charged.

In a tweet Saturday, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said he understood the desire for truth and asked for that—not violence—to be the focus of the protests.

“We continue to work diligently in pursuit of the truth by conducting an independent investigation into the death of Ms. Taylor,” he wrote.

Read more at The Daily Beast.

[McLoofus 35,182]

On 7/25/2020 at 5:11 PM, Grumps said:

So is there any brandishing of weapons going on here? Where are those trigger fingers? Oh,  and three people were injured when someone, apparently accidentally, fired his/her weapon. I'm sure the prosecutor in Louisville, KY will be all over it. Right?

Interesting that you chose this picture and not the one of the "Three Percenters" from the article below. Very telling about you, indeed.

Also, notice that their guns are all pointed at the ground.

You are so bad at this.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Interesting that you chose this picture and not the one of the "Three Percenters" from the article below. Very telling about you, indeed.

Also, notice that their guns are all pointed at the ground.

You are so bad at this.

My bad! I chose the picture from the group where one of the members actually shot three people and where you could get a better look at their fingers. But I will try to do better!

The "Three Percenters" picture is hilarious! They look like they are so proud that they can finally justify to their Mamas in whose basements they live the purchase of body armor! I do see three of those guys holding weapons and they are also aimed at the ground.

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, Grumps said:

My bad! I chose the picture from the group where one of the members actually shot three people and where you could get a better look at their fingers. But I will try to do better!

The "Three Percenters" picture is hilarious! They look like they are so proud that they can finally justify to their Mamas in whose basements they live the purchase of body armor! I do see three of those guys holding weapons and they are also aimed at the ground.

You tried to equate not pointing guns at people to pointing guns at people.

I'd be curious to know the details of the shooting accident. Certainly a bad and counterproductive look for that group. 

But it's funny to see certain folks jump all over this black 2A group when white guys have been doing this ridiculous GI Joe cosplay bull**** en masse for years. Never mind how many people their guns have actually shot, accidentally or otherwise. 

[aubiefifty 16,798]

24 minutes ago, Grumps said:

My bad! I chose the picture from the group where one of the members actually shot three people and where you could get a better look at their fingers. But I will try to do better!

The "Three Percenters" picture is hilarious! They look like they are so proud that they can finally justify to their Mamas in whose basements they live the purchase of body armor! I do see three of those guys holding weapons and they are also aimed at the ground.

this is what happpen's when the police will not disarm whites that carry weapons at protests.i mean how much dumber can people be than to allow weapons at protests anyway? it certainly is more dangerous for the police. now folks are running around screaming the black folks are armed now. i am all for certain rights but some things are just stupid and asking for trouble.

[Grumps 3,704]

33 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You tried to equate not pointing guns at people to pointing guns at people.

I'd be curious to know the details of the shooting accident. Certainly a bad and counterproductive look for that group. 

But it's funny to see certain folks jump all over this black 2A group when white guys have been doing this ridiculous GI Joe cosplay bull**** en masse for years. Never mind how many people their guns have actually shot, accidentally or otherwise. 

I did no such thing. I have seen no evidence that Mr. McCloskey pointed his weapon at anyone in a threatening manner.

It's funny to me to see certain folks jump all over a white couple protecting their property.

Let's compare:

1. A white couple stands on their own property with weapons after allegedly being threatened with death and the destruction of their property by multiple people in a large group who just destroyed private property and intentionally trespassed to get close to the couple's house. No weapons were fired and no one was hurt. Result: The couple gets charged with a felony.

2. A large group of black men (and a small group of white people) stand on public property with weapons and without any threat to themselves at all. A weapon is fired and three people are injured. Result: The group was simply exercising their 2A rights.

Does that really make sense to you?

I don't have any problem with the guys carrying the weapons if they want to exercise their 2A rights. I have a problem with the couple being charged with a felony when they actually had a legitimate reason to be armed. That is the topic of this whole thread, is it not?

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I did no such thing.

I can't with you any more.

13 minutes ago, Grumps said:

A large group of black men (and a small group of white people)

You tell on yourself every single chance you get. 

[aubiefifty 16,798]

5 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I did no such thing. I have seen no evidence that Mr. McCloskey pointed his weapon at anyone in a threatening manner.

It's funny to me to see certain folks jump all over a white couple protecting their property.

Let's compare:

1. A white couple stands on their own property with weapons after allegedly being threatened with death and the destruction of their property by multiple people in a large group who just destroyed private property and intentionally trespassed to get close to the couple's house. No weapons were fired and no one was hurt. Result: The couple gets charged with a felony.

2. A large group of black men (and a small group of white people) stand on public property with weapons and without any threat to themselves at all. A weapon is fired and three people are injured. Result: The group was simply exercising their 2A rights.

Does that really make sense to you?

I don't have any problem with the guys carrying the weapons if they want to exercise their 2A rights. I have a problem with the couple being charged with a felony when they actually had a legitimate reason to be armed. That is the topic of this whole thread, is it not?

 

i agree with your post mostly. there are gun safety classes everywhere and many of them free from local law enforcement so ifthe couple screwed up it is on them. i disagree with anyone being allowed to carry at protests because it gets so emotional and anyone including innocents could get hurt anytime. you know carrying in a bar is illegal right? it is based on the same principle. people get buzzed and everything gets emotional. this country has terrible gun laws and it is a disgrace. and yes i own a gun. and by the way that group never walked in that couples yard for the record so i am kinda conflicted.i guy tells you he is going to leave his business at quitting time and is coming to your house to kill you. you want to head it off so you go to his business and shoot him you just murdered someone.and in alabama it is no excuse not knowing the law.

[Grumps 3,704]

8 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I can't with you any more.

You tell on yourself every single chance you get. 

Fair enough. The race of the people is involved is important because the couple would not have been charged with a felony if they had not been white. 

Call me racist if you want. You know almost nothing about me.

Will you at least admit that you always get fed up and leave the discussion before you answer the questions being asked? Yeah, I didn't think so. I am sorry to have frustrated you again. Have a great day!

[aubiefifty 16,798]

6 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Fair enough. The race of the people is involved is important because the couple would not have been charged with a felony if they had not been white. 

Call me racist if you want. You know almost nothing about me.

Will you at least admit that you always get fed up and leave the discussion before you answer the questions being asked? Yeah, I didn't think so. I am sorry to have frustrated you again. Have a great day!

so do you worry about whites more than blacks? there is systemic racism in this country and people are getting fed up so you will see a lot of things many of us might not agree with . would you like me to post a bunch of video's of karen's acting out? i could post them all day long if i wanted to invest the time. love it or hate i god made blacks just like he made all the other races. and by the way if that was a black couple they would have been arrested most likely.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,366]

2 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Interesting that you chose this picture and not the one of the "Three Percenters" from the article below. Very telling about you, indeed.

Also, notice that their guns are all pointed at the ground.

You are so bad at this.

I don’t think I see any fingers on triggers. They appear to be using proper trigger discipline. The finger is not supposed to be on the trigger unless you plan to destroy something. 

[The Freak 2,528]

57 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

 and by the way if that was a black couple they would have been arrested most likely.

You missed a chance to say they would have been killed by the police.

 

Just tryin' to help, bud.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

so do you worry about whites more than blacks? there is systemic racism in this country and people are getting fed up so you will see a lot of things many of us might not agree with . would you like me to post a bunch of video's of karen's acting out? i could post them all day long if i wanted to invest the time. love it or hate i god made blacks just like he made all the other races. and by the way if that was a black couple they would have been arrested most likely.

I am concerned about ANYONE who is charged with a crime as part of a political stunt. I am concerned about ANYONE who is charged with a crime for trying to protect themselves and their property. The subject of this thread is about a couple who I think was unjustly charged with a crime. Does that make sense to you?