St. Louis couple indicted for brandishing guns at protesters

[riclag]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Storm in a teacup, Trump will pardon them.

Nah, the Gov of the state of Missouri , said he would!

 

[RJRS1301]

2 hours ago, JimGant said:

So, in Missouri at least, a shopowner, with a huge glass front window, can't threaten a potential looter by aiming a firearm at him -- until that looter has actually thrown the brick through the window. But, if the looter doesn't throw the brick through the window, the shopowner is in violation of the law -- by brandishing a weapon and preventing a crime. Makes sense to leftward leaning Democrats, I guess.....

Why does every opinion have to be distilled down to either "left Democrat" or "right Republican", things are not as "simple as the binary" political debate.  Sometimes things are more complex and nuanced.

[Blue Muton]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Storm in a teacup, Trump will pardon them.

Not if the court date is in February!

[johnnybangkok]

17 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Which Judge and Jury was that ?

Ok I'm getting ahead of myself. I'll correct my post to 'A jury of their peers WILL find them guilty as what they did was against the law.

[riclag]

1 hour ago, sanuk711 said:

Grand Juries "Nearly" always do what is expected of them....so that isn't a surprise. The target of a grand jury investigation has no right to testify or put on a defense before the grand jury.

 

Was the crowd protesting at the McCloskey's, or just passing by on their way to protest somewhere else.?

If so it seems a bit extreme to come out with a gun.

You must admit a couple  weeks prior to this incident in that city, it was a war zone assults,arson ,riots that cause police to be shot and murdered! And somebody reported that law enforcement didn't react fast enough to calls 

I hope the defense lawyer has  the Mccluskies underwear  for that day!

Edited October 7, 2020 by riclag

[riclag]

57 minutes ago, sanuk711 said:

If they broke through the gate--Then I agree, but why ? who are the McCloskey's, why were they protesting against them? Or was it that after they waved their gun(s) around then the protesters encroached on them.? 

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184

Apparently it started when Mcclusky shouted this is Private Property!  Missouri has the castle doctrine it  gives property owners the right to protect their property with lethal force if necessary .

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-self-defense-laws.html

[CorpusChristie]

41 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

 

 

Anyway, it's irrlevant what you and the rest of those on here supporting these clowns think. A jury of their peers have found them guilty as what they did was against the law. Now since so many of you are all about law and order, you would think you would be quite happy to support this decision but no, the law is only correct (self-defence for Kyle Rittenhouse for example) when it suits your agenda.

 

Calling us all "clowns" because we dont support a verdict of a Court case that hasnt been held yet ????

[riclag]

21 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Are you sure that there wasnt riots and looting just prior  and after this event ?

With out doubt I think it was you that said it was also happening in many cities through out ! JC thousands of people went out in record numbers buying up guns for protection !

Edited October 7, 2020 by riclag

[Sujo]

20 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Are you sure that there wasnt riots and looting just prior  and after this event ?

Not relevant, there was no violence from the protestors, they were going past the house.

[riclag]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Not relevant, there was no violence from the protestors, they were going past the house.

They were trespassing on private property! How many times does this have to be said

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, Matzzon said:

Let´s hope they lockém up and throw the key. Such slime cowards are a danger to others and had no reason whatsoever to fear for their own safety.

 

At times like this I am sad that the medieval handcuffing trough holes in a log for people to spit on them in an open square has gone away.

 

Guess you're ok with "peaceful protesters" breaking and entering; trespassing and, based on previous behavior, the high probability of vandalism, looting, violence and arson?

 

Seems you believe in mob rule and the politicizing of law enforcement and justice too.

[teacherclaire]

MAGA MAGA. 

4 hours ago, Matzzon said:

I have read the story. Sure, they should not have entered into that area. However, if you happen to walk in the wrong area, would you think it is okay for people to hysterically shout at you at the same time pointing a gun at you? Still the protesters did nothing violent, and you have no right to point guns att people just because you can´t hack it in a diversified society.

   They believe they have the right, that's the problem. 

 

     

[Sujo]

45 minutes ago, riclag said:

They were trespassing on private property! How many times does this have to be said

They were not on mccluskeys private property. How many times do you need to be told.

[Sujo]

38 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Guess you're ok with "peaceful protesters" breaking and entering; trespassing and, based on previous behavior, the high probability of vandalism, looting, violence and arson?

 

Seems you believe in mob rule and the politicizing of law enforcement and justice too.

Of course you have evidence of this high probability from these protesters.

 

it was not for mcluskeys to do anything, they werent on their property, they were walking past it.

[asiacurious]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

They were not on mccluskeys private property. How many times do you need to be told.

There's not much point in arguing with or responding to certain people on these forums.  And in the more extreme cases, the ignore tool comes in handy!

[Isaan sailor]

This begs the question: Do liberals favor 2nd Amendment rights?

[onthedarkside]

A number of posts with false and unsupported claims have been removed.

 

The gate in question was to the private housing development where the McCloskeys' home is located, not to their home itself. Also, there's opposing accounts as to whether the protesters that day broke thru the gate or it was already open, including a video account suggesting the gate had been unlocked.

 

There's no indication that the protesters did anything regarding the McCloskeys' home itself, other than marching past on a private street in the housing estate, where the confrontation occurred, while headed for a planned protest at the local mayor's house.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184

 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jun/30/what-we-know-about-st-louis-couple-who-pointed-gun/

 

[Matzzon]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Guess you're ok with "peaceful protesters" breaking and entering; trespassing and, based on previous behavior, the high probability of vandalism, looting, violence and arson?

 

Seems you believe in mob rule and the politicizing of law enforcement and justice too.

Seems to me that you totally chose to misunderstand on purpose just to stir up a problem. Simple, this is about the McCloskeys. They threatened people walking delivering their opinion outside their property. That is wrong and unlawful. End of story. Now you see that it seems to be after the law, and nothing else.

[Pique Dard]

in the usa, shooting is the answer any problem

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Matzzon said:

Seems to me that you totally chose to misunderstand on purpose just to stir up a problem. Simple, this is about the McCloskeys. They threatened people walking delivering their opinion outside their property. That is wrong and unlawful. End of story. Now you see that it seems to be after the law, and nothing else.

 

Seems to me you are deliberately ignoring the fact that the people walking outside their property were actually on a private road, which they broke down a security gate to get onto and had no right whatsoever to be there. They were delivering their opinion whilst trespassing on someone else's property; and some were expressing similar opinions not too far away in very violent destructive illegal fashions.

 

Seems you want to gloss over the illegal activities which contributed to this and only recognize the ones that suit your agenda.

[Matzzon]

9 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Seems to me you are deliberately ignoring the fact that the people walking outside their property were actually on a private road, which they broke down a security gate to get onto and had no right whatsoever to be there. They were delivering their opinion whilst trespassing on someone else's property; and some were expressing similar opinions not too far away in very violent destructive illegal fashions.

 

Seems you want to gloss over the illegal activities which contributed to this and only recognize the ones that suit your agenda.

Okay! I do not say that they had the right to be there. However, the McCloskeys had the possibility to call the police. They didn´t, instead they made the choice to illegally threaten people walking outside their property. That´s an illegal act. If you are not an officer of the law, you are not allowed to point a gun at someone that are walking in a street. if it is in a private community or out in the open city is totally irrelevant according to the law in that case. So, the result is that you are the one that choses to look away from the facts and the power of the law. Please do not make another stupid response. Good Night!

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

A number of posts with false and unsupported claims have been removed.

 

The gate in question was to the private housing development where the McCloskeys' home is located, not to their home itself. Also, there's opposing accounts as to whether the protesters that day broke thru the gate or it was already open, including a video account suggesting the gate had been unlocked.

 

There's no indication that the protesters did anything regarding the McCloskeys' home itself, other than marching past on a private street in the housing estate, where the confrontation occurred, while headed for a planned protest at the local mayor's house.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184

 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jun/30/what-we-know-about-st-louis-couple-who-pointed-gun/

 

 

Thank you for your clarifications. 

 

I don't know the specifics of the Trespass laws in the US and Missouri or St Louis in particular. But by being on a signed private road, with no right of passage, without a valid reason would seem like trespass? Regardless of whether the gate was broken open or not. If it was broken open, that would bring other charges maybe?

 

Speculation of what was said to heighten the McCloskey's fears was reported by several news sights. How reliable is debatable but presumably the Grand Jury had access to all evidence rather than just hearsay.

 

It has been pointed out that Missouri has a castle law so homes can be protected with lethal force. St. Louis also has laws aimed at preventing people threatening others with guns. 

 

I guess a lot will come out at the trial and it will be up to the jury what they believe such as the state of mind/fear felt by the defendants and whether their response was reasonable and if they broke laws in that response.

 

What may come out of this is an increase in closed private estates employing more private security guards as unlike certain politicians, they can't build barricades and / or station police officers permanently outside their homes to keep the rioters away. 

 

 

[Baerboxer]

1 minute ago, Matzzon said:

Okay! I do not say that they had the right to be there. However, the McCloskeys had the possibility to call the police. They didn´t, instead they made the choice to illegally threaten people walking outside their property. That´s an illegal act. If you are not an officer of the law, you are not allowed to point a gun at someone that are walking in a street. if it is in a private community or out in the open city is totally irrelevant according to the law in that case. So, the result is that you are the one that choses to look away from the facts and the power of the law. Please do not make another stupid response. Good Night!

 

Just because you don't like a response or it doesn't suit your narrative doesn't make it stupid or incorrect. Suggesting the bringing back of public stocks and spitting on people is rather stupid though. As is reverting to mob rule.

 

Had the trespassing protesters actually attacked the McCloskey's home, then they would have been legally entitled to use lethal force to defend, IIUC. However, threatening people publicly with weapons is also against a local law, as the prosecutor has informed everyone with some relish. Had no trespass taken place, no threatening would have. Thankfully the protesters didn't do any damage and lethal force wasn't required. Was that because these protesters, unlike many many others, were peaceful or was it because they backed of at the site of the guns and homeowners? No one really knows. But the deliberate ignoring or protesters looting, thieving and causing significant criminal damage for political agendas certainly fueled emotions on both sides. That context is important consideration.

[asiacurious]

There are a number "streets" like the one in question in St. Louis, which were originally established at a time when it was legal to put restrictive covenants in land titles/deeds that prohibited the sale of property to anyone who was not white.  Although the US Supreme Court has since struck these sorts of covenants down as unconstitutional, these streets remain almost exclusively white and remain a simple of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws.  (I'll also note that the security hired by the trusts that own these kinds of streets are typically off-duty police, something that shouldn't be ignored when discussing protests against police brutality.)

 

So what you have is:

 

A private street that is itself an enduring symbol of the racism of a supposedly earlier time, located in the middle of a city who's mayor had recently doxed peaceful protesters and who's house was a few blocks away on the other side of this particular Jim Crow Street) on the one hand...

 

AND

 

100 or so peaceful protesters marching down this street uninvited on their way to the Mayor's home in an act of peaceful civil disobedience.

 

The homeowners had a few options:

 

1. Let the protesters pass on by and call it a day.
2. Call the police and wait safely inside their homes, armed with their guns if they were so inclined to protect themselves should anyone try to break in.
3. Don't call the police and instead head outside with their guns to waive them around and point them directly at people marching in the street.

 

They opted for the most provocative option, the one that could have led to serious injury or death.  Thankfully the people marching did not react.  Were the marchers trespassing?  Yes.  But basic peaceful civil disobedience isn't the kind of thing that should be met with guns being pointed at people.

 

There is NOTHING more American than protesting peacefully, even when (or especially when) the protest includes non-violent civil disobedience.  At the same time, there is something quite off about two people living inside their little bubble of privilege, heading outside to threaten and point guns at people.

 

I'll quote three sentences from the BBC article linked to by others in this thread, to do away with a few other issues people in support of the gun couple have raised:

 

Quote

However, a live stream from the front of the march shows that the first protesters walked through an intact gate that was being held open.

 

[SNIP]

 

Demonstrators shouted back at McCloskey that the street is "public property," which is not true of Portland Place - it is private property owned by a trust.

 

[SNIP]

 

According to analysis by St Louis Post-Dispatch investigative reporter Jeremy Kohler, video evidence does not show the protesters crossing onto the McCloskeys' property, remaining instead on the sidewalks and in the roadway.

 

 

[whaleboneman]

15 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

White. Black. White. Says who? How is this relevant? We have no way of knowing how the McCloskeys racially identify. Lots of people that at 1st appear to be white actually identify as being an ethnic minority for a variety of reasons. Just look at Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug and Elizabeth Warren. 

 edit to add, and why does white get a small w, while Black gets a capital B in the same sentence? Reuters seem intent to race bait readers, very sad indeed.

 

That may be so, but the McCloskeys go to sleep at night safe and sound in the knowledge there are no rioters and trespassers smashing down their front gate and entering their property. Not sure whether they win the war, but they won this battle.

They have made themselves infamous. I doubt their cozy little mansion will ever feel safe again.

[Hanuman2547]

This couple just did all the wrong things.  They were merely marching past their house to the mayors house.  There was no reason to come outside with firearms.  They should have just stayed in their house, with their guns if they want to, and let them pass by.  If someone, anyone, were to enter their house without permission then they would be within their right to display their weapons.  Instead they escalated a situation which didn't need to be done.  Hopefully they will be convicted, sentenced, and serve their prison time.  In addition they will be disbarred from the legal profession.  

[Rhys]

CS45 to the rescue...

[GroveHillWanderer]

Incidentally, this couple seems to have a penchant for waving guns in a threatening manner at the slightest excuse.

 

According to court records discovered by the St Louis Post-Dispatch, they also brandished a gun at a neighbour who walked across a piece of grass near their house. According to the McCloskey's, the land belongs to them while other residents say it is community property.

 

This is a couple who are obviously prone to over-reacting.

Edited October 8, 2020 by GroveHillWanderer

[onthedarkside]

A post making false claims about the protesters who marched past the McCloskeys' home has been removed, along with various replies.

[GroveHillWanderer]

16 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Was that because these protesters, unlike many many others, were peaceful or was it because they backed of at the site of the guns and homeowners? No one really knows.

I think it's fairly obvious, given that many of the protestors had already passed by the McCloskey's house without incident before the couple emerged, and that all of the houses (including the mayor's) whose owners did not wave guns around, were neither damaged nor even encroached upon, that the show of arms was unnecessary.