Missouri couple greet marching protesters with guns

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...
It makes no difference (legally) if his rifle was not loaded & her gun wasn't real. It's still called threatening someone with a firearm & brandishing. If your life is in immediate danger, that's justifiable. In this case, the two morons were using their guns to intimidate & frighten.
BTW, both of them have been charged criminally.
 
win231 said:
It makes no difference (legally) if his rifle was not loaded & her gun wasn't real. It's still called threatening someone with a firearm & brandishing. If your life is in immediate danger, that's justifiable. In this case, the two morons were using their guns to intimidate & frighten.
BTW, both of them have been charged criminally.
Click to expand...
No they haven't been charged criminally. Intimidating is exactly what the protestors were doing. Why did the prosecutors take so long to lay a charge? Actually the protestors were trespassing.
 
From today's Washington Post:

The St. Louis couple who emerged from their mansion in a gated community and aimed weapons at protesters marching past them last month were each charged Monday with one felony count of unlawful use of a weapon.

Lawyers Mark McCloskey, 61, and Patricia McCloskey, 63, have said they were merely defending their home on a private street in an upscale neighborhood from a crowd that was marching to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s house to protest racial injustice. Video and photographs showing Mark McCloskey wielding a rifle and Patricia McCloskey aiming a pistol at the marchers created a firestorm of controversy between those who felt the couple was legally defending their home and those who felt they were menacing peaceful protesters.
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, who filed the charges against the McCloskeys, did not order the couple to surrender or be arrested. Instead, as part of Gardner’s reformist approach to reducing incarceration for low-level crimes, she issued summonses and said she would consider them for a diversion program, which would enable the charge to be dismissed if counseling or another remedial course were completed. The charge carries a possible penalty from probation to four years in prison.
 
From Yahoo today:

Hours after the St. Louis couple who pointed guns at protesters were given felony charges, Missouri's attorney general said he's joining the case to get their charges dismissed.

  • Hours after the charges were filed, Missouri's attorney general, Eric Schmitt, filed an amicus brief asking that the charges be dismissed.
  • Schmitt cited the state's "castle doctrine," which allows Missourians to use force against intruders, as a reason the case should be thrown out.
 
Camper6 said:
Always plead not guilty. Always. Don't take a plea bargain. I'll wait for the court case because I'm interested in the law in this type of case and the second amendment on the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with the second amendment.
And, if you see nothing wrong with this couple's actions, enjoy paying the astronomical legal fees involved & having your guns confiscated.
I'd rather keep mine & spend my money elsewhere.
 
win231 said:
It makes no difference (legally) if his rifle was not loaded & her gun wasn't real. It's still called threatening someone with a firearm & brandishing. If your life is in immediate danger, that's justifiable. In this case, the two morons were using their guns to intimidate & frighten.
BTW, both of them have been charged criminally.
Click to expand...
.

Since the rioters were threatening their lives and pointing weapons at the McCluskys, it would seem to me that their fear of being shot and killed was legitimate. You see all of the pictures of the McCluskys waving their guns around, but you don’t see the ones of the rioters also having weapons , which were pointed at the older Missouri couple.
They had called for police help, and done everything correctly , as far as I can tell; before they went out to try and scare the rioters away. These same rioters had been attacking people and burning down homes and businesses, so it is no wonder that they were in fear for their lives.

6B695FE5-78C2-4556-94D1-DC1DD79BE47D.jpeg
 
Happyflowerlady said:
.

Since the rioters were threatening their lives and pointing weapons at the McCluskys, it would seem to me that their fear of being shot and killed was legitimate. You see all of the pictures of the McCluskys waving their guns around, but you don’t see the ones of the rioters also having weapons , which were pointed at the older Missouri couple.
They had called for police help, and done everything correctly , as far as I can tell; before they went out to try and scare the rioters away. These same rioters had been attacking people and burning down homes and businesses, so it is no wonder that they were in fear for their lives.

View attachment 114694
Click to expand...
The man circled looks to be wearing ear-pieces and holding what's referred to as a USB Shotgun Microphone.
 
Camper6 said:
If it was a serious criminal charge, they would have been arrested immediately.

They have not been arrested or subjected to surrender. There are degrees of criminal charges and felonies.

In fact now Gardner is offering a 'diversion' .
Click to expand...
No. Often times in cases like these, some investigation takes place & it's quite common for several days/weeks to pass before charges are filed.
 
I can't find anything about the "tampering with evidence" changes, other than to say they have been charged with that. What tampering? It would be nice to get the full story. What did they do? Attempt to hide the guns afterwards, or what?
 
How much damage did their home and property suffer? I didn't see that in the article? It would take a lot more than people walking (or marching) by my house to make me run out waving my weapon. That's how bad things get worse and if the people passing by didn't have weapons it makes it even more unreasonable.

This is similar to road rage. If everytime someone "slights" you, you go to the ultimate solution and under those circumstances, you may not always come out on the winning side.
 
DaveA said:
How much damage did their home and property suffer? I didn't see that in the article? It would take a lot more than people walking (or marching) by my house to make me run out waving my weapon. That's how bad things get worse and if the people passing by didn't have weapons it makes it even more unreasonable.

This is similar to road rage. If everytime someone "slights" you, you go to the ultimate solution and under those circumstances, you may not always come out on the winning side.
Click to expand...
From everything I have read, the couple's home suffered zero damage.

Gobsmacks as to why the couple exited their home. They were perfectly safe inside their residence.
 
Sunny said:
Those people were walking by their house, on the way to a demonstration. It had nothing to do with them. It sounds to me as if they went out of their way to create trouble.
Click to expand...
That is exactly how I construed it.

If dear husband and I witnessed a gang of people walking up or past our street and we felt even a smidge concerned, inside our own home would be the safest place, and any well-adjusted person with even a sliver of plain old-fashioned common sense knows it.

Fools are a dime-a-dozen today, and boy, did the couple EVER look like a couple of fools!
 
Sunny said:
Those people were walking by their house, on the way to a demonstration. It had nothing to do with them. It sounds to me as if they went out of their way to create trouble.
Click to expand...
Even more moronic is how so many people made such a BIG deal about the broken iron gate at the entrance of the exclusive neighbourhood.

My opinion of the broken gate? BOO-HOO! SO WHAT! WHO CARES! SMALL PEANUTS! LET IT GO!

My husband summed it up best, "a broken iron gate is worth a human life"?

I guess for some it is. Stupidity and shallowness at it's best!

The couple don't need guns, what they need is straight-jackets, a rubber-room, and psychiatric help!
 
Keesha said:
Yeah. I’m truly trying to pretty it up some. I’ve spent my life doing that. It makes me feel better. To be brutally honest , I find what’s happening in the world right now to be heartbreaking. I can’t help but feel disappointed in humanity.

All this new technology where we can view everyone under high powered microscopes and judge them rentlessly and then justify our hatred.

Saying it’s disappointing is an understatement 😒
Click to expand...
I so agree with you Keesha! I feel heartbroken too many times lately when I read or view the news. :cry:
 
Aunt Marg said:
Even more moronic is how so many people made such a BIG deal about the broken iron gate at the entrance of the exclusive neighbourhood.

My opinion of the broken gate? BOO-HOO! SO WHAT! WHO CARES! SMALL PEANUTS! LET IT GO!

My husband summed it up best, "a broken iron gate is worth a human life"?

I guess for some it is. Stupidity and shallowness at it's best!

The couple don't need guns, what they need is straight-jackets, a rubber-room, and psychiatric help!
Click to expand...
When the Protesters broke down the front gate, that would be comparable to someone breaking down your front door. It was on private property and trespassers were not allowed. Whether any of us believe it to be a non-issue or not, by law, it is trespassing. This has already been hashed out and according to Missouri law because they live in a private gated community and pay an HOA fee, the streets, including the gates are considered as part of the McCloskeys property.

We can dissect it or whatever, but what I believe it came down to and why the Grand Jury handed down the indictment was because the McCloskeys pointed their weapons at the intruders. The next thing that has to be considered is does this come under Missouri's Castle Doctrine law? I don't know. Wording of the law is everything and states word their Castle Doctrine law differently from one another. Here in Pennsylvania, the answer would be 'yes.'

The Governor of Missouri has stated that if the McCloskeys are found guilty, he will pardon them.
 
911 said:
When the Protesters broke down the front gate, that would be comparable to someone breaking down your front door. It was on private property and trespassers were not allowed. Whether any of us believe it to be a non-issue or not, by law, it is trespassing. This has already been hashed out and according to Missouri law because they live in a private gated community and pay an HOA fee, the streets, including the gates are considered as part of the McCloskeys property.

We can dissect it or whatever, but what I believe it came down to and why the Grand Jury handed down the indictment was because the McCloskeys pointed their weapons at the intruders. The next thing that has to be considered is does this come under Missouri's Castle Doctrine law? I don't know. Wording of the law is everything and states word their Castle Doctrine law differently from one another. Here in Pennsylvania, the answer would be 'yes.'

The Governor of Missouri has stated that if the McCloskeys are found guilty, he will pardon them.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned previously, 911, what a sad state of affairs it is when a disposable iron gate trumps human life, regardless of doctrines, the second amendment, and all the rest of the foolishness surrounding the ownership and use of guns in the USofA, and my stance on what I think of the couple hasn't changed, I still think they're a couple of prize dullards.
 
Back
Top