Missouri couple greet marching protesters with guns

Where we are, if a street is behind gates, then it is private. The street must be maintained by the owners in the development not by local taxes. In other words, homeowners pay for the street and collectively own the street. It is not a public road and is only to be used for owners and invitees.

Since we only have a small clip, it's hard to say who did what. If they were only walking by, we would have called the police, stayed behind locked doors, but had our guns ready. If they approached, I would like to think I would have done what Miss Ellie did in this video.

 
@JimBob1952
oh, ok, dear. The article you link with today has the full information. I was going by the first article which did not name or describe the shooter. The young man, the victim, Tyler Gerth, too young to have met this end, doing what he believed in. No words for the second one, the shooter, thank you for the update.
 
The more I read about this, the stranger and more puzzling the whole thing is. From what I can put together from reading both sides, and seeing a couple of videos of McCloskey being interviewed the next day, everybody involved in this behaved very badly and stupidly.

The protesters were lying when they said the gate was previously broken, they didn't break it, they just walked in. Who would believe that? A community with mansions like that wouldn't tolerate a broken gate for 5 minutes! By saying that, the protesters immediately damaged their believability.

From one of the pictures, at least one guy appeared to be armed and pointing a gun at the couple. There have been very few pictures showing that they were armed, however.

On the other hand, the couple says they were having dinner outside when this mob approached, heading directly for their house. If so, why did they grab weapons and run back outside? He says they were threatening their lives, even threatening their dog, threatening to burn down their home, etc. Wouldn't the sane reaction be to go inside, bring the dog in also, and call the police immediately?

McClosky seems to be pretty quick on the trigger. Once before, he aimed a gun at a neighbor who was merely cutting through his yard on his way to his own house. Fortunately, he didn't fire that time either. But I certainly wouldn't want this guy for a neighbor!

If the protestors were heading for the mayor's house, why did McCloskey think they were heading for his house and threatening him? Maybe the confrontation was started by him, not by them?

No one seems to be sure whether Missouri's "castle doctrine" extends to the street or not. Lots of heated opinions, but so far I haven't seen any legal evidence one way or another. It was clearly written to defend one's house and the immediate grounds around it. Where does the street fit in? Nobody seems sure, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from having an opinion anyway. :rolleyes:

And I repeat, where were the police?
 
My city is a mess. Windows broken, businesses boarded up, my church defaced. Statues covered with graffiti, or removed due to mob pressure. Bands of idiots fighting with the police every night. Crime is soaring because the cops are so beleaguered. Cops quitting, retiring, or just saying they are not going to bother doing their jobs anymore.

Pardon me for not worrying too much about the McCloskeys, or for wondering what the heck all this has to due with social justice. They are two not too bright people who stepped outside their own homes waving (legal) firearms and had the misfortune to be white and prosperous-looking. Not much else to be said.
 
JimBob1952 said:
My city is a mess. Windows broken, businesses boarded up, my church defaced. Statues covered with graffiti, or removed due to mob pressure. Bands of idiots fighting with the police every night. Crime is soaring because the cops are so beleaguered. Cops quitting, retiring, or just saying they are not going to bother doing their jobs anymore.

Pardon me for not worrying too much about the McCloskeys, or for wondering what the heck all this has to due with social justice. They are two not too bright people who stepped outside their own homes waving (legal) firearms and had the misfortune to be white and prosperous-looking. Not much else to be said.
Click to expand...
I don't know about their state, but threatening someone with a weapon is generally considered to be a crime.. regardless of anyone's race.
 
Let me get this right. Most of you think that if the homeowners AND the protesters were armed, that would be the way to settle. or if the protesters weren't armed, they'd realize that they wouild have to be armed at the next protest.

Some of you seem to be taking us down that slippery slope of everything settled by who carries the most weaponry. I realize that's the NRA's pitch and if I was a stockholder or scared of my own shadow, I might think that'd be the way to go. Frighten everyone on both sides of this stupidity and let the best and/or most shooters win.

Most sane folks, at least up 'til lately, figured that they could go through life without engaging in shoot-outs. It now looks like one side of this argument is hoping for armed militia and all out war. Remember the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for". You or one of your loved ones may catch a slug in your armed challenge during one of these disputes.
 
JaniceM said:
I don't know about their state, but threatening someone with a weapon is generally considered to be a crime.. regardless of anyone's race.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you can call it 'threatening' if people are on their own property and have guns for their own protection and display them if they have a license for open carry.
It has been discovered that the pistol displayed by the woman was a stage prop and not a real gun. Also the rifle was empty and there was no ammunition in the house on a search.
Everyone hollering and yelling isn't a 'peaceful' demonstration to my way of thinking. It's more like the threat is coming from the protestors.
So if you bring out your big German Shepard dog out is that threatening?
 
Pepper said:
That depends. It can be.
Click to expand...
How can it be? I'm terrified of German Shepards because I was bit by one as a child. It was behind a fence. I ran my hand on top of the fence and the dog bit it. I mean if I see one in a yard I won't go there on a bet even if he's sleeping.

During the riots in Los Angeles there were shopkeepers standing in front of their premises with guns. Were they threatening or were they simply protecting their property? My problem with this is that the Mc Closkeys were on their own property. More of a detterent than a threat in my opinion. Forgive me. I get carried away in these type of discussions.
 
Sunny said:
The more I read about this, the stranger and more puzzling the whole thing is. From what I can put together from reading both sides, and seeing a couple of videos of McCloskey being interviewed the next day, everybody involved in this behaved very badly and stupidly.

The protesters were lying when they said the gate was previously broken, they didn't break it, they just walked in. Who would believe that? A community with mansions like that wouldn't tolerate a broken gate for 5 minutes! By saying that, the protesters immediately damaged their believability.

From one of the pictures, at least one guy appeared to be armed and pointing a gun at the couple. There have been very few pictures showing that they were armed, however.

On the other hand, the couple says they were having dinner outside when this mob approached, heading directly for their house. If so, why did they grab weapons and run back outside? He says they were threatening their lives, even threatening their dog, threatening to burn down their home, etc. Wouldn't the sane reaction be to go inside, bring the dog in also, and call the police immediately?

McClosky seems to be pretty quick on the trigger. Once before, he aimed a gun at a neighbor who was merely cutting through his yard on his way to his own house. Fortunately, he didn't fire that time either. But I certainly wouldn't want this guy for a neighbor!

If the protestors were heading for the mayor's house, why did McCloskey think they were heading for his house and threatening him? Maybe the confrontation was started by him, not by them?

No one seems to be sure whether Missouri's "castle doctrine" extends to the street or not. Lots of heated opinions, but so far I haven't seen any legal evidence one way or another. It was clearly written to defend one's house and the immediate grounds around it. Where does the street fit in? Nobody seems sure, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from having an opinion anyway. :rolleyes:

And I repeat, where were the police?
Click to expand...
They did put in a 911 call immediately.
 
How can it be? I've known plenty of folks with attack dogs. If they are with their dog, and order the dog to attack, it will. If they are holding the dog on a leash & order them to threaten, it will lunge, bark, snarl, foam at the mouth right at you. If they then say they can unleash this dog on you, well that is a threat against your life.
 
Red Cinders said:
Where we are, if a street is behind gates, then it is private. The street must be maintained by the owners in the development not by local taxes. In other words, homeowners pay for the street and collectively own the street. It is not a public road and is only to be used for owners and invitees.

Since we only have a small clip, it's hard to say who did what. If they were only walking by, we would have called the police, stayed behind locked doors, but had our guns ready. If they approached, I would like to think I would have done what Miss Ellie did in this video.

Click to expand...
What Miss Ellie should have done is go to acting school!!!!!!;) and I used to watch Dallas , never missed an episode even if Bobby came back in a dream!!!! 😟
 
Pepper said:
How can it be? I've known plenty of folks with attack dogs. If they are with their dog, and order the dog to attack, it will. If they are holding the dog on a leash & order them to threaten, it will lunge, bark, snarl, foam at the mouth right at you. If they then say they can unleash this dog on you, well that is a threat against your life.
Click to expand...
Granted. But what if the dog is just brought out to display that they have one? Is that a threat?
The idea behind having an 'attack' dog in the first place is as a deterrent not a threat.
If I put up a sign that says "Trespassers will be prosecuted". Is that a threat or a deterrent?
 
Camper6 said:
I don't know if you can call it 'threatening' if people are on their own property and have guns for their own protection and display them if they have a license for open carry.
It has been discovered that the pistol displayed by the woman was a stage prop and not a real gun. Also the rifle was empty and there was no ammunition in the house on a search.
Everyone hollering and yelling isn't a 'peaceful' demonstration to my way of thinking. It's more like the threat is coming from the protestors.
So if you bring out your big German Shepard dog out is that threatening?
Click to expand...

Carrying guns while on their "own property" seems pretty irrelevant to me. The question is, were the protesters on their property, or out on the street? Fortunately, the guns weren't fired, but what if they had been? What if they killed someone out on the street?

By that logic, a homeowner is perfectly within his rights firing a long-range rifle at someone 200 feet away from his property, because he thought they looked menacing.

If her gun was in fact just a stage prop, this whole incident just gets more and more bizarre. But his gun was real, wasn't it?
 
Sunny said:
Carrying guns while on their "own property" seems pretty irrelevant to me. The question is, were the protesters on their property, or out on the street? Fortunately, the guns weren't fired, but what if they had been? What if they killed someone out on the street?

By that logic, a homeowner is perfectly within his rights firing a long-range rifle at someone 200 feet away from his property, because he thought they looked menacing.

If her gun was in fact just a stage prop, this whole incident just gets more and more bizarre. But his gun was real, wasn't it?
Click to expand...
Well no. If I'm a farmer and patrolling my own property with a gun that's not irrelevant. That's a fact of life. The protestors were on a private street in front of their house and they went through a gate that was announced broken. I would be alarmed if that happened to me and people hollering and yelling isn't a peaceful demonstration where I come from.

If the guns had been fired that's a different ball game altogether. You are describing a fictional presentation with a 'what if' connotation. No by that logic it is not perfectly within his rights to fire a long-range rifle at someone because he thought they looked menacing. Far from it.

His gun was real but not loaded and there was no ammunition in the house. So it's highly unlikely he could have done anything as you describe it. I watched a few videos and she was waving that thing around like she didn't know what she was doing. I did not see him pointing his gun at anyone. I think he knows the law. I saw people carrying guns and standing on the steps of the legislature in Michigan. There were not charged with anything.

In all this I am only interested in the law and what is going to happen. I support the right of the couple to stand on their own property as a deterrent to a bunch of people hollering and yelling on a private road in front of the property.
 
Camper6 said:
I don't do videos because I can't hear what they are saying.
So sum up for me. What did Miss Ellie say or do?
Click to expand...
Basically Miss Ellie told the guy who had turned up at her door to leave and then asked her son Ray to get the shotgun. She made it clear that anyone on her property that wasn't invited was a trespasser. The man left without any hesitation (I think he was a media guy) . Camper6, if you click on the the letters cc you will get subtitles. Hope that helps. ☺
 
Camper6 said:
Granted. But what if the dog is just brought out to display that they have one? Is that a threat?
The idea behind having an 'attack' dog in the first place is as a deterrent not a threat.
If I put up a sign that says "Trespassers will be prosecuted". Is that a threat or a deterrent?
Click to expand...
If the dog is behaving himself & just sitting around, no it's not a threat, IMO. re: the signage: no, don't see that as a threat, either. IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top