BREAKING: Prosecutor Charges McCloskeys With Felony Unlawful Use of a Weapon

St. Louis McCloskey Kim Gardner

Mark and Patricia McCloskey, stand in front their house along Portland Place confronting protesters marching to St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson’s house in the Central West End of St. Louis. Missouri Gov. Mike Parson told reporters Tuesday, July 14, 2020, that President Donald Trump is focused on and concerned about the possibility that the couple could face criminal charges for displaying guns as they defended their home during a racial injustice protest. (Laurie Skrivan/St. Louis Post-Dispatch via AP, File)

By Jim Salter, AP

St. Louis’ top prosecutor on Monday charged a white husband and wife with felony unlawful use of a weapon for displaying guns during a racial injustice protest outside their mansion.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who are both personal injury attorneys in their 60s, also face a misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree assault.

Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner told The Associated Press that the McCloskeys’ actions risked creating a violent situation during an otherwise nonviolent protest.

“It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner — that is unlawful in the city of St. Louis,” Gardner said.

An attorney for the couple, Joel Schwartz, in a statement called the decision to charge “disheartening as I unequivocally believe no crime was committed.”

Supporters of the McCloskeys said they were legally defending their $1.15 million home.

Gardner is recommending a diversion program such as community service rather than jail time if the McCloskeys are convicted. Typically, class E felonies could result in up to four years in prison.

Several Republican leaders have condemned Gardner’s investigation, including President Donald Trump, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson and Sen. Josh Hawley, who has urged Attorney General William Barr to undertake a civil rights investigation of Gardner. Parson said in a radio interview Friday that he would likely pardon the couple if they were charged and convicted.

Gardner said Trump, Parson and others are attacking her to distract from “their failed approach to the COVID-19 pandemic” and other issues.

St. Louis, like many cities across the country, has seen demonstrations in the weeks since George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis, and the McCloskeys’ home was initially incidental to the demonstration on June 28. Several hundred people were marching to the home of Democratic Mayor Lyda Krewson, a few blocks from the McCloskeys’ home. Krewson had angered activists by reading on Facebook Live the names and addresses of some who had called for defunding police.

The McCloskeys live on a private street called Portland Place. A police report said the couple heard a loud commotion and saw a large group of people break an iron gate marked with “No Trespassing” and “Private Street” signs. A protest leader, the Rev. Darryl Gray, said the gate was open and that protesters didn’t damage it.

Mark McCloskey confronted protesters with a semi-automatic rifle, screamed at them and pointed the weapon at them, according to a probable statement. The statement said Patricia McCloskey then emerged with a semi-automatic handgun, yelling at protesters to “go” and pointing it at them. No shots were fired.

Photos emerged as memes on both sides of the gun debate.

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner speaks in St. Louis. Sen. Josh Hawley on Thursday, July, 16, 2020, urged Attorney General William Barr to launch a federal civil rights investigation of St. Louis’ elected prosecutor, accusing Circuit Attorney Gardner of abusing her power in her investigation of a white couple who wielded guns while defending their home during a protest. Mark and Patricia McCloskey are being investigated by Gardner’s office for the incident on June 28 when several hundred protesters marched by their $1.15 million mansion. (AP Photo/Jim Salter, File)

Trump spoke by phone with Parson last week to criticize Gardner’s investigation. Parson, when he was in the Legislature, co-authored Missouri’s “castle doctrine” law that justifies deadly force for those who are defending their homes from intruders. He has said that the McCloskeys “had every right to protect their property.”

Gardner declined to discuss why she decided the castle doctrine didn’t apply.

Schwartz said the McCloskeys “support the First Amendment right of every citizen to have their voice and opinion heard. This right, however, must be balanced with the Second Amendment and Missouri law, which entitle each of us to protect our home and family from potential threats.”

Gardner, St. Louis’ first Black circuit attorney, has been at odds with some in the St. Louis establishment since her election in 2016. Most notably, her office charged then-Gov. Eric Greitens with felony invasion of privacy in 2018 for allegedly taking a compromising photo of a woman during an extramarital affair. The charge was eventually dropped, but Greitens resigned in June 2018.

A private investigator Gardner hired to investigate the claims against Greitens was later indicted for perjury for allegedly lying during a deposition. His case is pending.

Gardner also has butted heads with police leaders, especially after she developed an “exclusion list” of more than two dozen officers who were barred from serving as primary witnesses in criminal cases over what Gardner called credibility concerns. The move angered Police Chief John Hayden, who also is Black.

In January, Gardner filed a federal lawsuit accusing the city, the police union and others of a coordinated and racist conspiracy aimed at forcing her out of office. The lawsuit also accused “entrenched interests” of intentionally impeding her efforts to change racist practices.

Several Black leaders in St. Louis have expressed support for Gardner, including Democratic U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay, who has said protesters “should never be subject to the threat of deadly force, whether by individuals or by the police.”

comments

  1. avatar Sam I Am says:

    This decision would have been made within minutes of seeing the video, in my jurisdiction. Law prohibits displaying a firearm with intent to cause alarm in others, unless one is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. The result seems to be that if you pull a firearm in self-defense, someone must get shot (my own interpretation).

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      With respect, the laws in your jurisdiction are irrelevant. The laws in Missouri are what matter – and those laws unequivocally justify the McCloskeys’ actions.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The laws in Missouri are what matter – and those laws unequivocally justify the McCloskeys’ actions.”

        Hi, Chip…

        Since I do not know MO law, I could only reference mine as a caution to others to understand and follow their local law. General bellowing of who has the right to do what can lead people to thinking their preferences/beliefs can substitute for actual statutes.

        1. avatar Matt says:

          Well, thank you for putting in your two cents. But MO law is what is being discussed here, And Disparity of Force, Fighting Words Doctrine, and all that other good stuff. And it’s not that hard to look up the pertinent laws that are in play here.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And it’s not that hard to look up the pertinent laws that are in play here.”

          No, many of the comments about who should do what are posted by people who have no idea, or interest, in the actual laws at play. On top of that, people who “look up” the law do not get to determine whether the suspects are guilty, or properly charges under MO law. That is up to the courts.

          We may not like how the DA operated, but her interpretation of the law is all that counts regarding charging the suspects. It is why we actually have trials: contending opinions of law argued in court to establish the facts and interpret the result (jury).

          Indeed, we probably should approach these type reports with curiosity, rather than pronouncements.Until the matter is resolved, anything other than, “Gee, I wonder how this will turn out?” is an exercise in futility.

          But, if you are unaware, I often use these reports to reflect (comment) on the larger questions about how such incidents might one day affect each of us. And as a caution about chest-thumping in indignation (it is called “virtue signalling” when the anti-American crowd does it).

        3. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

          Missouri constitution, note the part about IN DEFENSE OF HOME. Should clear it up.

          also, the following part

          Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement.

          Section 23. Right to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and certain accesso-ries—exception—rights to be unalienable.—That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully sum-moned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, Sec. 17. (Amended August 5, 2014

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Yes, one can look-up the law, one can even be a participant and quote the law of elected/appointed officials. But that is unlikely to influence the decision to charge, or not charge. Wording about strict scrutiny relates only to the courts. The DA is free to make decisions without regard to judicial standards of review. DAs only need decide if they think they can prove the case “beyond a reasonable”. Or maybe just decide to make a point by putting people through there ride.

          One of our local DAs admitted in a newspaper article the he was against private ownership of firearms, and he would charge any gun owner involved in a shooting incident, no matter what. The idea being that if he made the possession and use of guns risky enough, fewer people would have guns.

          As I understand it, “strict scrutiny” will not be at issue in a trial over whether the suspects violated the law. The initial trial will center only on whether the facts prove the law was violated. The existence, or wording of the law would be a matter for a different proceeding, a challenge to the law itself.

        5. avatar Lugnut says:

          So your advice is to know the laws you are dealing with, while not knowing the MO laws. You proclivity to pontificate in the absence of knowledge is the reason why Facebook was invented for folks such as yourself.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So your advice is to know the laws you are dealing with”

          Indeed. You would do otherwise? My original comment was a caution, based on the McCloskey incident, to know what you can and cannot legally do as a gun owner. The McCloskey was only a launch point for thinking through one’s actions in one’s jurisdiction. Thus, the MO laws were/are irrelevant, except that those laws come into play for McCloskeys, as our local laws would come into play for each of us.

          In the end, none of the discussion of the McCloskey incident is relevant to the incident. We don’t get a vote on whether they were/are justified, or not. And we definitely cannot conclude that the laws of MO should guide any understanding or action on the part of gun owners who are not residents of MO. All that we can glean from the dustup is that we must be fully aware of the laws that directly impact us…before we do something that would make such laws directly impact us.

        7. avatar Jan923 says:

          The Castle Doctrine Law is very simple and straight forward. It spells it out so a third grader can understand it…Sammy. The prosecutor doesn’t make the Law. The prosecutor Must abide by the Laws as written just like anyone else… This prosecutor has No Grounds for such charges by law. The charges are bogus, politically biased, and racist to say the least. This case will go nowhere because these law abiding citizens had every right to do what they did… and that is to protect their lives and their property. This prosecutor will most likely be removed from office…and rightly should be.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The Castle Doctrine Law is very simple and straight forward. It spells it out so a third grader can understand it…Sammy.”

          I searched the MO law for the term “Castle Doctrine”. Nothing found. If you have a reference available, I would like to have a look at it.

          What I did find is that the word “imminent”, regarding threat of deadly force against a person. All the other words notwithstanding, “imminent” is a crucial element justifying self-defense by the use of deadly force.

          Regarding “trespass” Chip Bennet referenced provisions of MO law that would seem to justify shooting on sight anyone who walks onto your property uninvited. Chip may be correct, but I read those same words to be in conjunction with forceful resistance by the trespasser to being removed. In that light, I have never read of any state law regarded as “castle doctrine” being construed to permit the immediate shooting of anyone who crosses your land uninvited. If not stated, common sense would dictate that shooting simple trespassers is an effective license to kill wantonly. Although there may be some benefit as regards door-to-door solicitations.

        9. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          @Sam

          The reason we look up the laws is to determine if the charges are in our opinion harassment, just, or racism particularly since guns, blacks, & whites are involved. It has also been reported that this particular CA caused to be released and refused to charge all looters & rioters apprehended during the St. Louis carnage. This leads to only one possible conclusion about these charges and it is a cause for serious concern to all Americans.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “This leads to only one possible conclusion about these charges and it is a cause for serious concern to all Americans.”

          Agree, but it is a different discussion; abuse of office/position/power. But for a lot of people, and maybe most politicians, what is the point of having power if you can’t abuse it?

          The matter at hand is regarding use of deadly force. Suppose, for a moment, that all we had was the report and the video; no legal actions discussed or pending. Legal use of force would still be a subject of discussion, with all talk of political misconduct beside the point.

          With all these politicians letting criminals run wild, only a federal civil rights case could settle the matter. Who is bringing that? And why not? Maybe that is the discussion to be had.

        11. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          “abuse of office/position/power”

          To agree that this constitutes “abuse” you must also agree that the McCloskeys did nothing wrong.

          Also, the AG does not seem to think any laws were broken and has moved for dismissal.

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “To agree that this constitutes “abuse” you must also agree that the McCloskeys did nothing wrong.”

          Nope. It was a general statement about politicians. Not every decision by a politician is an abuse of power.

          It would be an abuse of power for DA Gardner to have McCloskeys’ guns confiscated, yet lodge no charge authorizing such. Read about that happening, once, in Colorado. An elderly man discharged his gun in a dispute, but the details were foggy all around.

          The DA originally charged the man with attempted assault, or discharging a firearm inside the city, or some such. In the end, the DA dropped the charge in return for confiscating the elderly man’s guns, and prohibition against possessing a firearm in the future. Essentially, the elderly man was charged with no crime, but his property was unlawfully confiscated under color of law. Denied his 2A rights for the rest of his life, but no crime committed.

          That’s abuse.

      2. avatar former water walker says:

        Just saw McClosky on Tucker. Not so smug now…I doubt they’ll do time. I’ve known a few personal injury ambulance chasers. All I can say is “tort reform”! This is NOT a 2A case we should monetarily support.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          They should have not read fake news and took it as a personal threat to them. If they would have known that Twitter account (setup by white supremacists) stating ANTIFA is going to the suburbs was fake they wouldn’t have been so motivated to whip out their guns on all those black Americans. As lawyers and gun owners, they should have known self defense law doesn’t allow them to point guns under the circumstances they did so.

          Their story was so full of lies. So much creative liberty… Even their lawyer tried to get in on the silliness.

        2. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          “This is NOT a 2A case we should monetarily support.”

          Water Walker, just by looking at their home from the outside, they will have no problem shitting the few hundred thousand bucks it will take for a defense.

          It will surprise me if they request a GoFundMe. Someone else may do that, however.

          They ain’t crying for money…

        3. avatar anonymous says:

          They ain’t crying for money…

          I’m ready to give them money right now to flip Gardner the bird and the BLM protesters. That’s entertainment I’m ready to pay for… right now.

      3. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Every legal gun owner I have seen point guns at protesters have been arrested and charged. Only the cops can do that under law. It all comes down to the woman pointing the gun, not the carrying of the gun nor the words used during the confrontation.

        Don’t point guns at people unless you have the legal right to shoot them. I have seen many gun owners over the years get charged because they don’t know under today’s laws it’s illegal to use guns to intimidate people when you feel scared.

        Do you got a problem with the laws? You have to demand the Republicans, Democrats, sheriffs and police chiefs change them. But we all know American gun owners are like New Zealanders and Canadians.

        Gun owners should have learned from this Oregon Republican in 2016. He pointed a gun at protesters because he felt scared. He got arrested, charged and convicted. From a logical standpoint it was reasonable, but the law in America does not allow for that behavior unless you have a badge.

        A man who pulled out a gun at a Don’t Shoot Portland march and pointed it at a crowd of protesters in downtown was found guilty Friday of 21 felony and misdemeanor crimes.

        Multnomah County Circuit Judge Thomas Ryan found Michael Aaron Strickland, 37, guilty of 10 counts of unlawful use of a weapon, 10 counts of menacing and one count of second-degree disorderly conduct for pointing his Glock semi-automatic handgun at 10 protesters.

        During the week long trial, prosecutors argued that Strickland didn’t have a reasonable fear that he was in imminent danger of getting hurt.

        1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

          If you are justified in shooting you are justified in pointing. It’s likely this couple could have shot at least one protestor. MO law allows for deadly force against trespasses who use any force or credible threat of force.

        2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          And yet, Censor, none of the savages burning and looting the neighborhood my wife’s family in Philadelphia lives in were arrested, charged, or prosecuted. They did arrest the guy selling dynamite to savages and communist combatants, but none of the savages, or communist combatants were arrested. It is clear that some of the animals on the farm are more equal than others in the eyes of many officials.

          This is not a theoretical discussion to me. I had people I care about in harms way and I have had old friends walk away over my contentions that there were no peaceful protesters after dark in Philly.

          Let this be a lesson to us all; don’t display your firearm until you intend to shoot, and then when you display it shoot the bastards.

        3. avatar anonymous says:

          Every legal gun owner I have seen point guns at protesters have been arrested and charged. Only the cops can do that under law. It all comes down to the woman pointing the gun, not the carrying of the gun nor the words used during the confrontation.

          Don’t point guns at people unless you have the legal right to shoot them.

          While I agree with this in public places or places other than your own property. I disagree with this on your own property. For example, if burglar breaks into a person’s home and the owner points a gun at their face and tells them to get on the ground, and holds them there for the police. I see zero problem with that. Likewise with the McCloskey’s. They were not on public property. They didn’t go searching for a protest to play provocateur. A mob broke down their gate and into their private property. Had they not been on that lawn pointing guns at the rioters, they very well may have had their home looted, spray painted with ACAB, F**k12, BLM, and their windows broken, and perhaps, not surprisingly, their home razed to the ground. So… Disagree!

      4. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Here is a perfect case to compare with the McCloskeys.

        A Republican man thought it was okay to get his AR out and point it at trespassers. He was arrested and charged because it’s illegal to use such (deadly) force for low level crimes. Remember that’s how the McMichaels got charged with murder?

        Guns are for self defense unless you have the privilege of having a badge. Don’t like that fact? Go join the police department.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          In what state did your “perfect case” take place? Was it in Missouri, where Missouri statutes, particularly RSMo 563.031(2)(2) apply?

          If not, then your “perfect case” is perfectly irrelevant.

        2. avatar Chief Censor says:

          @Chip Bennett

          Virginia. Home of the NRA.

        3. avatar Anonymous says:

          🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

          Chip,
          Missouri AG dismisses the charges. And as quick as they were issued, they were just as quickly dismissed. The end.

          https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-missouri-ag-files-to-dismiss-charges-against-mccloskeys-i-wont-stand-by-while-missouri-law-is-being-ignored

          🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Missouri AG dismisses the charges.”

          Did he?

          From the article you linked:
          “…Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a brief that would dismiss the charges.”

          “Filed a brief” would indicate that a court is involved. That would mean judicial review and decision. Have the charges actually, officially, been dismissed? In MO, can the state AG order a city DA to dismiss a case? What if the DA refuses? I can see the state AG asserting jurisdiction over the case, removing it from control of the city DA.

        5. avatar Fun Gunner says:

          Anonymous, my understanding is the AG filed a brief asking the court to dismiss charges. But he didn’t file the charges in the first place, so he can’t dismiss them himself. He is asking a judge to agree to that dismissal. Think about the Flynn case and you’ll realize the judges don’t always do along, even when ordered by a higher court.

          Of course, my lawyer qualifications are about as good as anyone who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So will somebody who knows more explain how significant this is?

        6. avatar anonymous says:

          Yeah you guys are right. I got my hopes up. Now all hopes dashed.

        7. avatar anonymous says:

          A Republican man thought it was okay to get his AR out and point it at trespassers. He was arrested and charged because it’s illegal to use such (deadly) force for low level crimes.

          I would say it depends on how many trespassers, and did they break down your gate to get in??? It matters if you think your life is in danger. Reasonably in danger. And a mob that just broke your gate to get into your private property, who also is known for spraying ACAB, F***12, BLM and profanities on business fronts, breaking windows, and once in a while.. looting and razing them to the ground is certainly grounds for reasonably believing you are in imminent danger. So I don’t see that a “perfect” comparison – no.

          Remember that’s how the McMichaels got charged with murder?

          I do remember, and I was for them getting charged… right here on TTAG. I had heated arguments with other TTAGers. Also, not compariable to the McCloskeys. The McMichaels, walked down to the dumpster near his home with guns in hand. That is different, than a large mob breaking into your property and threatening you, who is also known for spray painting ACAB, F***12, BLM and profanies on store fronts, breaking the windows, and sometimes looting and razing them to the ground. So… not a fair comparison.

          Guns are for self defense unless you have the privilege of having a badge. Don’t like that fact? Go join the police department.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      I have twice used a firearm in self defense and have never fired a shot at anyone, nor ever in warning.

      My impression is that most defensive gun uses do not involve shots being fired.

      The McCloskey’s problems arise from their display not being defensive against any threat other than imaginary. Wealthy snowflakes over reacting, bad PR for the Second Amendment.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “My impression is that most defensive gun uses do not involve shots being fired.”

        That seems to be the general consensus, and I don’t dispute it. Only noting the implications in my town. Pull a gun, and don’t shoot, you become chargeable with “brandishing”. Theory is that if the subject of your presentation of a gun files a complaint with the police, the fact that no shot was fired indicates the gun owner was not in “imminent” danger.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          The Fact that display of a gun stops criminals from crime millions of times a year escapes both of you.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The Fact that display of a gun stops criminals from crime millions of times a year escapes both of you.”

          No, if you read for comprehension, rather than offense, you will note that we are discussing law surrounding presenting a firearm in public. The fact that millions of DGUs result in no shots fired is irrelevant to the discussion. That stat is useless as a defense to violations of firearm laws.

          If in your jurisdiction, displaying a weapon in a situation that does not result in shots fired represents criminal brandishing, then one ignores such a law at personal legal peril. Beliefs, politics, patriotism, whatever, do not represent Kryptonite to a charge of brandishing is every jurisdiction in the nation.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Thus, Mas Ayoob’s rules of DGUs. Always call the police. Always be the complainant.

          Coincidentally, in this incident, the McCloskeys ARE the complainants.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Thus, Mas Ayoob’s rules of DGUs. Always call the police. Always be the complainant.”

          Indeed. However, no guarantee the complaint will prevent charges (let the DA sort it out) for both parties. Each one will have to prove they weren’t the threat; proving a negative.

          Ain’t the law fun?

        5. avatar Neil says:

          The two times I have been in gun self defense situations, no shot was fired. In both cases, attempted muggings and knowing our party had guns gave us the confidence to tell the thugs to go away. They demanded a contribution, I yelled ” not in the move you are being threatening.” In both cases, we were able to get them apprehended on illegal weapons possession (priors lost their rights).

          These charges are so political.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” In both cases, we were able to get them apprehended on illegal weapons possession (priors lost their rights).”

          Excellent !

        7. avatar enuf says:

          “The Fact that display of a gun stops criminals from crime millions of times a year escapes both of you.”

          Not correct. My first defensive gun use was witnessed, at a distance, by law enforcement. They later told me I did well and provided me a ride out of the area.

          The second was not witnessed by any third party.

          I’ve no wish to ever repeat either incident. Hopefully, I won’t have to.

        8. avatar GS650G says:

          “displaying a weapon in a situation that does not result in shots fired represents criminal brandishing,”

          So unless triggers are pulled it’s an illegal display, right?
          You shouldn’t carry. Really you shouldn’t.
          Go ahead and wait to be attacked and then decide if brandishing is a risk or not. Maybe you’ll be able to protect yourself. Maybe not.

          But at least you won’t have that bug bad brandishing charge on you.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Go ahead and wait to be attacked…”

          That is the law, here. People standing in the street shouting threats does not constitute “imminent danger”. People standing in the front yard shouting threats does not constitute “imminent danger”.

          Shouting threats may constitute violation of another law, but does not justify deploying deadly force in anticipation of a “maybe”. People crashing through the door or windows is a whole ‘nuther matter. Our state does not allow the use of deadly force for simple trespass, or name-calling.

        10. avatar Ed Schrade says:

          It’s not against to openly carry a firearm on your own property. When a mob breaks their way into your property ( trespassing ) and shouts at you that they will kill you and your wife as well as your dog, then burn your house down then you have a right of self defense. Luckily they only had to show that they could and would defend themselves and the mob moved on to find some of the people on this sight that would keep their firearms hidden and get put in the hospital or morgue. This case will be beaten.

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It’s not against to openly carry a firearm on your own property. ”

          True. Just carrying a firearm is not brandishing. As in doing lawn maintenance while strapped. But if someone insults you from the street, and you point your gun at them, you are way beyond “open carry”, and into deploying deadly force.

          “When a mob breaks their wat into your property ( trespassing ) and shouts at you that they will kill you and your wife as well as your dog, then burn your house down then you have a right of self defense.”

          Self-defense against words? Also, the matter of private property is at issue in the McCloskey incident. People shouting threats from the street, at a distance, making no move to carry out such threats, do not constitute “imminent” danger. One might reasonably fear that the threats could turn dangerous/deadly, but without the “imminent” factor (an actual attack or move to harm), use of deadly force may violate the law, depending on jurisdiction. The threats may violate different laws, yet not rise to the level of “imminent”.

        12. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “People shouting threats from the street, at a distance, making no move to carry out such threats, do not constitute ‘imminent’ danger.”

          “The street” in this case was private property owned by the McCloskeys. RSMo 563.031(2)(3) renders your assertion false. Further, the question is not whether the mob shouting threats actually posed an imminent threat, but rather whether the McCloskeys reasonably believed that the mob posed an imminent threat, based on information known to them at the moment they acted in self-defense.

          Have you yet read RSMo 563.031? Your responses all imply that you still have not.

        13. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Chip, shouting threats may well be a crime all its own.

          The street ownership is disputed (whether private or public), and especially unclear whether the ownership was private (as owned by McCloskeys), private as owned by the community (and who knows how that ownership is apportioned by the community), or public, as in controlled and maintained by the local government.

          No, I don’t care to review the statutes because my interpretation is irrelevant. The law does not settle anything at this point. The law could read that a homeowner can shoot anyone, anywhere, anytime the home owner feels uncomforatble. The matter would still go to a judge and jury for resolution and appeal. Only then would anyone “know” what is within, or a violation of, the law.

          In the end, if I were a juror, I would not see any law as justifying sweeping a crowd with a firearm, unless the crowd crossed onto the property with objects that could be used as weapons. The distance maintained between the crowd and the McCloskeys indicates they were afraid of a potential, not an actual, event. But even that viewpoint would be subject to instructions from the judge as to the application of the law.

          So many people here seem to believe that the wording of the law prevents any charges being brought. Or that simply raising the law in trial would lead to immediate dismissal. Kinda like thinking that declaring “Shall not be infringed” would be a successful defense against any gun control law.

        14. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The street ownership is disputed (whether private or public), and especially unclear whether the ownership was private (as owned by McCloskeys), private as owned by the community (and who knows how that ownership is apportioned by the community), or public, as in controlled and maintained by the local government.

          No, the street ownership is not disputed. It is private. It is not public. The public records are quite clear on this point.

          No, I don’t care to review the statutes because my interpretation is irrelevant.

          Then there is no sense in discussing it further. I can’t argue against willful ignorance.

        15. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Then there is no sense in discussing it further. I can’t argue against willful ignorance.”

          Not willful ignorance, just an acknowledgement that the law does not bar an arrest and trial, leaving interpretation of application up to judge and jury. Even the excerpt you provided does not mean that the arrest and charge are violations of the law, or even prosecutorial misconduct. Even reading the entire law would not be convincing that the facts we are given justify brandishing a firearm at a crowd.

          In the end, the jury decides if the “reasonable person” would believe they were in imminent danger of death/serious harm. Ergo, the law is the starting point of the trial arguments, not the ending before the trial begins.

          If the couple wins, we have precedent, and we know what the law is. If the couple loses, we have precedent, and we know what the law is. Then we can discuss what the law should be.

        16. avatar Miner49er says:

          “It is private. It is not public. The public records are quite clear on this point.”

          OK chippy, what public records are you speaking of? What are these public records and what do they say?

          Your statement implies that you know the contents of these public records, please share with the group in order to justify your position.

        17. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The zoning records for Portland Place. Those records are public. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to look them up. I’ve seen them, and verified my claims.

          Points of interest from said zoning records:

          1) Property owners bear financial responsibility for maintenance of non-exclusive property and infrastructure (i.e. the roads), and municipal services (e.g. security), which means that said property and infrastructure are not municipally owned or public easements.

          2) Public access is indicated as “Public Access: Restricted” (meaning “by invitation only”; the available options are “prohibited”, “restricted”, and “allowed”).

      2. avatar Paul says:

        Those wrecked gates at the front of the property weren’t wrecked “peacefully”. There was most definitely an imminent threat from the crowd. A lot of people here have made fun of this duo’s handling of the matter, for various reasons – but they did NOTHING WRONG. Any charges against them is an injustice.

      3. avatar Andrew lias says:

        i would like to see all the video not just the part conveniently cut to show them without context.

      4. avatar Debbie W. says:

        The douchebag Gardner is using the law to “get” those who do not fit her mold. She is nothing but another self serving demented mike nyfong pos.

      5. avatar Big E says:

        They obviously could have handled themselves a little better- which is easy to say from the comfort of our PC’s. BUT to imply that rabble of thugs and criminal vermin was no threat is ridiculous. They were completely justified to be in fear of their life and property from a mob screaming threats while trespassing.

      6. avatar Jan923 says:

        Never the less… what they did is covered by the Castle Doctrine and the bogus, liberal biased and political charges will be dropped. Libtard bias will NOT PREVAIL and the law as written will protect the McCloskey’s as it should….But… The really good thing is, whether lady justice has lost her mind or not… The McCloskey’s will be set free because No Laws Were Broken and in event of a worst case scenario (which there won’t) They Will Be Pardoned…. and free as a bird to continue protecting their property and their lives from violent thugs and domestic terrorists….God Bless America and it’s law abiding citizens.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “what they did is covered by the Castle Doctrine“

          Well, that certainly is an affirmative statement!

          I’m having trouble finding the term ‘Castle doctrine‘ in Missouri law, could you please direct me to the relevant section?

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “I’m having trouble finding the term ‘Castle doctrine‘ in Missouri law, could you please direct me to the relevant section?”

          RSMo 563.031(2)

          As a bonus (although it really doesn’t apply here), the Missouri Stand Your Ground (SYG) statute is RSMo 563.031(3).

        3. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          I’m having trouble finding the term ‘Castle doctrine‘ in Missouri law,

          Missouri has a “Stand your Ground” law which is actually even more relevant than Castle Doctrine… Missouri has a law that allows citizens to defend themselves in public areas. There is not a duty to retreat. Sometimes referred to as a Stand Your Ground law, in Missouri, if you have a legal right to be in a location (their property but would also extend to the sidewalk and the roadway), then you also have a right to protect yourself if you’re in imminent threat of deadly harm. I know you’ll argue no such threat existed, I’ll want to know how much first hand knowledge YOU have of all relevant conversations that occurred during the event and obviously your response must be none since you weren’t there.. Hell even Leo Terrell the MOST LIBERAL Civil Rights Attorney that I ever loved to hate stated he would love to go to Missouri and defend the McCloskey’s… INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, this will never see a courtroom.. Carry on if you must but I’m all set with this one…

      7. avatar anonymous says:

        The McCloskey’s problems arise from their display not being defensive against any threat other than imaginary. Wealthy snowflakes over reacting, bad PR for the Second Amendment.

        I don’t blame them for “overreacting” to a large mob of violent rioters that broke their gate to get on their private property. Further, a group known for spray painting ACAB, F***12, BLM, and profanities on business fronts, breaking windows, nd once in a while looting and razing businesses/homes to the ground.

    3. avatar Ron says:

      What none of you seem to grasp is that there is no more “jurisdiction”.

      In the cities, there is now only mob rule. Mob under orders from the media and organized leftists.

      You can’t prosecute people like this when you are letting rioters have free reign over the city.

      Well, “they”, certainly can, and will, because there is now two different justice systems in this country.

      The United States as you knew it for most of your life no longer exists. The cities have now become autonomous states ruled by angry mobs with leftist state figure heads bowing to them.

      Get out of the cities.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Get out of the cities

        Get out of certain states.

        1. avatar adverse6 says:

          Just don’t come to Texas.

        2. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          “Just don’t come to Texas.”

          She says “What?”

          They got big long roads out there…

      2. avatar anonymous says:

        Ron’s got it!

        You guys are worried about the law. Phhhhht. What law? There are lawless mobs walking around everywhere, unabated. If you form a mob, you don’t have to obey the law – haven’t you heard???

    4. avatar Accur81 says:

      Hey Sam, maybe you shouldn’t pretend to support the 2nd Amendment? If you are on the side of the rioters, just say so.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Hey Sam, maybe you shouldn’t pretend to support the 2nd Amendment? If you are on the side of the rioters, just say so.”

        If you’ve been paying attention, you would know I am a 2A absolutist, extending to, and convicted felons after release. But the Second Amendment is not license to kill without justification.

        Despite 2A absolutism, reality is that we do have laws that impose restrictions. The issue at hand is not really 2A, but justifiable use of deadly force. If the weapons in hand had been hunting bows and arrows, or loaded cross bows, the issue would remain the same: did the couple face “imminent” danger of death, or serious bodily harm. In short, is producing a deadly weapon justified by people in the street shouting insults, even threats? Indeed, even the issue of whether the streets in a gated community were “privately” owned by the homeowners, or homeowners association is unsettled.

        If I stand in the middle of a street, and tell you that one day I am going to burn down your house, do you have legal justification to threaten me with deadly force? I may be committing a crime by issuing the threat, but where is the “imminent” threat? I don’t know the laws everywhere, but the idea of “reasonable fear” is related to “imminent threat”.

        My shouting from the street lacks the element of compressed time as a condition of “capability”, or “imminent”. You might have a “reasonable” (to be determined by a jury) fear that if I move to carry out my threat you would be in “imminent” danger of death or serious bodily harm, but if I just stand there, or just walk on, it would be difficult to prove I represent “imminent” threat of anything. The Second Amendment would not be at issue, but whether or not the conditions permitting the use of deadly force were present. Brandishing laws are established to discourage gun owners from using the threat of deadly force to settle an argument.

        As to protesters and looters, the two are different. Protesters can be discourteous and exasperating. They can fill the streets, fill the sidewalks, sit in and sit down. This is the essence of civil disobedience covered by the First Amendment. But once those protesters began to damage property and objects, they become looters, criminals. Once the line is crossed, the First Amendment has been abandoned, and a community has the right to empower their police to take whatever action the community authorizes to end the looting and criminality.

        If, during the Portland riots, shop owners shoot looters in the act, that is a justifiable exercise of firearm possession protected by the Second Amendment. During looting, someone inside their shop facing a mob breaking in should be justified in settling the matter with gunfire. Looting and criminal acts were not facing the McCloskeys.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          No, you are not a 2A absolutist. If trespassers broke in to private property – likely the same groups that have previously set fires and destroyed property – and you can’t defend those on their home turf, you are not a 2A absolutist. You are not even a gun rights advocate.

          Here’s the playbook: if you defended your property the mainstream media would vilify you. If anything there would be a 20 or 30 year old “sexual harassment” case or some crap. People would be coming for you, and they’d be bringing charges. Few on TTAG would even defend you.

          What a sad state of affairs.

          As for me, I could care less about the gun or voting rights of violent felons. Responsible citizens defending their property from the mob? I’m on their side. I haven’t promoted to Lt. because I wouldn’t kiss the ring. I have a feeling I’m more firmly rooted in my convictions than you are.

          At least people with actual intestinal fortitude, the governor and Trump in this case, will defend this couple. You sure won’t.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “At least people with actual intestinal fortitude, the governor and Trump in this case, will defend this couple. You sure won’t.”

          No, I wouldn’t, because this is not a 2A issue. It is a use of force issue. There is no legitimate 2A justification for using deadly force in any manner a gun owner chooses.

          The McCloskeys have the right to own firearms, of whatever type they can afford. I maintain that any government restriction on the type of firearms “the people” may possess is unconstitutional. Restrictions on the use of deadly force in interpersonal engagements is quite constitutional. And that is the matter at hand. Not whether the McCloskeys have the right to possess firearms, but whether they committed a prohibited use of force under the theory of self-defense.

          Justifiable use of force vs. the absolute right to possess firearms. Two different issues.

        3. avatar Tired of the bs says:

          That large of a crowd at that short a distance, comprised of mostly younger people already acting somewhat erratically, not to mention trespassing on posted private property, against two 60+ year old people? I believe they could have been in imminent danger in a matter of seconds. 1 or 2 instigators and it could have been ugly .That said I would have to see all available, unedited, film.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I believe they could have been in imminent danger in a matter of seconds. 1 or 2 instigators and it could have been ugly .”

          Yes, “could have”. The vast difference between did and did not. The jury will decide whether or not the distance was sufficient to prohibit the use of deadly force by the McCloskeys, whether the couple was in imminent danger (the fact that nothing happened will likely play a big part in the decision).

        5. avatar Montana Actual says:

          You are a FUDD. Nice try tho. You have given yourself away every time with this incident, and finally, many people see it. Give it a rest fuddley mcfudderton.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You are a FUDD.”

          If your idea of a FUDD is anyone who isn’t a 2A zealot, then…..

          Regardless of your failure to employ critical thinking, the issue at hand is not The Second Amendment, but the use of deadly force; when it is permissible. As noted, whether you like it or not, me standing in the street (whether private or public) shouting that I will come burn your house down is not justification for point a gun at me. You are defending nothing.

          MO law states that deadly force may be used in defense in response to an imminent threat. There goes that word again. Precisely what is the “imminent threat” posed by me standing in the street shouting at you? “Might pose an imminent threat at some time” is not going to fly in court as being the same as imminent threat by someone holding a weapon, and advancing on you. And there is the “reasonable” thing. As a juror, I would find it unreasonable to respond to words without action, using a deadly weapon to intimidate.

          If gun owners who know the laws in their jurisdiction, and obey them, are responsible gun owners, and responsible gun owners are, by your standard, FUDDs, then, by extension, non-FUDDs are…???

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “… the issue at hand is not The Second Amendment, but the use of deadly force; when it is permissible.”

          Under the Missouri constitution, this issue ABSOLUTELY is a second amendment issue. Further, no deadly force was used in this incident.

          “MO law states that deadly force may be used in defense in response to an imminent threat. There goes that word again.”

          Why do you keep asserting what MO statute does and does not say, while at the same time refusing to read the applicable statutes? Imminent force is NOT a requirement for use of deadly force in self-defense in two of the three applicable castle doctrine clauses.

          You don’t get to have it both ways. You cannot say that what the statutes say does not matter until the matter is determined in a court of law, while at the same time asserting what is and is not written in those statutes.

          Which position do you choose to take? You are absolutely, unquestionably wrong on black-letter law – an inconvenience that you continue to ignore by refusing to read the statute. So, you’re probably better off choosing the former position. But if you choose that one, you don’t then get to assert what the statute does or does not say (since that can and will only be determined in a court of law, if you are being consistent).

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          That imminent word, again:
          ” *563.031. Use of force in defense of persons. — 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, ”

          The later wording at para 2(1), “He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;” does not render “imminent” inoperable.

          Para 5 is also enlightening:
          “If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.”

          That “imminent” word, again.

          As said all along, the matter turns on “imminent”. The “Castle Doctrine” does not negate the element of “imminent”. And the Castle Doctrine turns on the word “entry”, not maybe “entry” (“attempted entry” is not the same as “maybe entry”). Note that there is no mention in law of trespass upon a street or gated community as being part of “…dwelling, residence, or vehicle…owned or leased…”

          Earlier, I noted that the ownership status of the street in front of the McCloskey house was disputed as to whether it is private or public. I can no longer find reference to that dispute. Looking further, the oddities of private neighborhoods in St. Louis can be construed to place the street under control of the community, but individual ownership of any particular plot of street is not explained. However, without specific ownership of any identifiable portion of the street, just who may lodge trespassing charges? Owners, or the community association? MO law of self-defense does not grant authority to private communities, or residents, to enforce trespass law at gun point.

        9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “…the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person.”

          “The later wording at para 2(1)…does not render “imminent” inoperable.”

          Correct. The use of unlawful force that had already taken place rendered “imminent” inoperable.

          In this incident, unlawful force had already been used, through the a) breaking and entering through the gate, and b) trespass on private property. The “imminent” hurdle, at that point, was moot.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The “imminent” hurdle, at that point, was moot.”

          Disagree. The alleged original damage (broken gate) and trespass did not pose imminent threat of death or serious bodily to any particular individual, or even the entire community behind the gate. At trial, it will not be the presumed threat to the community, but to the McCloskeys, individually.

          As noted before, if the mob stayed in the street, one is hard-pressed to demonstrate imminent threat to anyone. If the mob actually crossed onto the McCloskey lawn, it might be a different matter. Lacking any actual injury, or “nose-to-nose” threat to the McCloskeys, a jury of “reasonable” people might conclude the reasonable response, regardless of “stand your ground”, would have been to not present firearms, or even confront the mob.

          The outcome may revolve on the difference between an “impartial jury”, and a “jury of peers”.

        11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “The alleged original damage (broken gate) and trespass did not pose imminent threat of death or serious bodily to any particular individual, or even the entire community behind the gate.”

          It doesn’t have to. You are conflating the two subsections.

          563.031(1) requires “use or imminent use of unlawful force”. It says nothing about “threat of death or serious bodily [injury]”.

          563.031(2)(3) requires satisfying 563.031(1) (use or imminent use of unlawful force), combined with trespass on private property. It says nothing about “threat of death or serious bodily [injury]”. The latter element appears in 563.031(2)(2), which is independent of 563.031(2)(3).

          In other words, using deadly force is justified in response to trespass on private property combined with use or imminent use of unlawful force.

        12. avatar Accur81 says:

          @Sam and other FUDDs

          Sounds like you’ve never had your backs against the wall, and you are a bunch of comfortable keyboard commandos. This is a trespassing mob. Antifa and BLM are out of control in this nation, and would be happy to burn you down in your comfortable houses. With police being hamstrung by leftists, responsible gun owners are on their own even more. Imagine getting your heads out of the books for once, and into and actual confrontation. You aren’t going to be perfect, and neither will I. We may have many more instances like these, and they may set a very dangerous precedent.

          Hope if cops ever respond to you, it is someone like me who will actually gives the homeowner / defender the benefit of the doubt over the trespassing mob. Shame on the cops who confiscated the AR-15 and served the search warrant.

          @Sam – I would never want you backing me up ever. You need to re-think your alleged 2nd Amendment absolutism. I’m not buying it. Also, I hope you don’t serve on a jury. You sound like you have the exact comfortable condescension that would sacrifice real home defenders in favor of the mob. Soros would be proud of you. I bet the anti-gun crowd rejoices when they hear your comments. I don’t.

        13. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “This is a trespassing mob. ”

          The mob never set foot on McCloskey property. Can you find any legal case where use of force was sanctioned based on “might happen” ? A case where use of force was justified by the lack of someone advancing with intent upon the “defender”?

          And yes, I am the “reasonable person” you need to take into consideration when you contemplate pointing a gun at someone who is not presenting an imminent threat, i.e. you are under actual attack. Oh, and that is not to mention all the other “reasonable” jurors who think a “reasonable” person has no reason to own a firearm, much less point it at someone.

        14. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “The mob never set foot on McCloskey property.”

          Yes, the mob did. Some of the mob was on their lawn – the curtilage of property exclusively owned by the McCloskeys. And the mob as a whole was on the street, which is private property jointly owned by the McCloskeys.

          Everything inside the gate that the mob broke and entered = private property owned, jointly (street, sidewalks, easements) or exclusively (home lot), by the McCloskeys.

        15. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Yes, the mob did. Some of the mob was on their lawn.”
          Have not read any report to that effect, all seem to indicate the members of the mob stayed entirely in the street. If actually on the lawn, it would still be simple trespass, which is not enforceable by deadly force unless the couple had reasonable belief that the trespass constituted “imminent” threat of death or bodily harm.

          “Everything inside the gate that the mob broke and entered = private property owned, jointly (street, sidewalks, easements) or exclusively (home lot), by the McCloskeys.”

          If the mob stayed off the McCloskey lawn, what authority exists for individuals of the private community to enforce trespass law at the point of a gun? If the streets and sidewalks are jointly owned, would it not require the representatives of the community association to do the enforcing?

          In the end, as you noted, the entire matter will be up to a jury, not the McCloskeys, or anyone on this blog.

        16. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “If actually on the lawn, it would still be simple trespass, which is not enforceable by deadly force unless the couple had reasonable belief that the trespass constituted “imminent” threat of death or bodily harm.”

          Still wrong, because 563.031(2)(2) (and thanks for finally reading the statute) does not require imminent threat of death or bodily harm. It merely must take place in the context of “use or imminent use of unlawful force. That hurdle was satisfied already by the actions of the mob, namely: breaking and entering through the gate (unlawful force) and trespassing on private property (also unlawful force).

        17. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That hurdle was satisfied already by the actions of the mob, namely: breaking and entering through the gate (unlawful force) and trespassing on private property (also unlawful force).”

          Still we disagree. The mob could have trespassed, and simply sat down in the street, quietly. Under your rendering, a display of deadly force by the residents would be justified. The trespass provisions cannot be taken out of context with the rest of self-defense law requiring reasonable belief that death or serious bodily harm is imminent. Otherwise, you are left with open season for shooting trespassers. Which is difficult to support as the intention of the trespass provisions in the law.

        18. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “The trespass provisions cannot be taken out of context with the rest of self-defense law requiring reasonable belief that death or serious bodily harm is imminent.”

          Yes, you can, because they are written, intentionally and explicitly, as independent justifications for use of deadly force.

          563.031(2)(2), imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, is separated from 563.031(2)(3), trespass on private property, by or, not and. Further, 563.031(2)(3) was added to the statute after 563.031(2)(2) – IIRC, in response to an absurd court ruling about the definition of “dwelling”. The legislative intent and statutory language are clear.

        19. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The last paragraph of the law combines/conflates the two concepts. If the affirmative defense is submitted, the prosecutor must prove the individual did not have a reasonable belief they faced imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

          If the “imminent threat” were not an implied condition of the trespass provision, the prosecution would have no obligation to prove that the belief of imminent death/harm was unreasonable. The last paragraph makes no exception to “imminent threat” for persons asserting their rights under trespass provisions.

        20. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “The last paragraph of the law combines/conflates the two concepts. If the affirmative defense is submitted, the prosecutor must prove the individual did not have a reasonable belief they faced imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.”

          It does not:

          ” 5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

          The defendant can inject the affirmative defense under any subclause. The state only bears the burden of proof if the defendant injects the affirmative defense under (2)(2). The state’s burden of proof does not extend to (2)(1) or (2)(3).

        21. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The defendant can inject the affirmative defense under any subclause. The state only bears the burden of proof if the defendant injects the affirmative defense under (2)(2). The state’s burden of proof does not extend to (2)(1) or (2)(3).”

          Hhhhmmmm. Interesting proposition. I can understand the reasoning. Not ready to embrace, but it does require contemplation.

        22. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “If the mob stayed off the McCloskey lawn, what authority exists for individuals of the private community to enforce trespass law at the point of a gun? If the streets and sidewalks are jointly owned, would it not require the representatives of the community association to do the enforcing?”

          No, it would not.

          563.031(2)(3): “Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.”

          Even if you dispute that the McCloskeys are owners of the non-exclusive Private Street property in question (i.e. the street/sidewalk), the McCloskeys, as home/property owners, had specific authority from the Private Street board of trustees to occupy the non-exclusive private property in question (as do all of the home/property owners of the Private Street).

        23. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “the McCloskeys, as home/property owners, had specific authority from the Private Street board of trustees to occupy the non-exclusive private property in question”

          I think that is open to legal challenge. However, the crashing of the gate/wall/whatever barrier, without imminent threat to individual life and limb, doesn’t justify the use of deadly force against invaders who do not go after individuals.

          Again, the idea that simply kicking down your fence, or busting your gate is sufficient grounds for shooting someone is beyond reason. Damages to property are settled in civil court. The thrust of the provision you cite must be taken to include imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

          Under your standard, the kids selling cookies who walk uninvited through the gate in your front yard render themselves subject to lethal force. What kids decided that they won’t leave your porch until you give them Halloween candy. Such behavior would fall under your application of trespass law. Would you claim the legal right to shoot those kids, or would it be different because they posed on imminent threat of death or bodily harm to you? If the latter is the case, then the trespassing mob must also demonstrate clear and imminent threat of death or bodily harm to residents of the gated community. Clear and imminent, not potential based on “might” become a clear and imminent threat.

        24. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “I think that is open to legal challenge.”

          Possibly. But I’ll all but guarantee the street association bylaws give property owners specific authority to occupy the non-exclusive property of the Private Street.

          “However, the crashing of the gate/wall/whatever barrier, without imminent threat to individual life and limb, doesn’t justify the use of deadly force against invaders who do not go after individuals.”

          53.031 doesn’t require imminent threat to individual life or limb when using deadly force in response to trespass on private property. 563.031(2)(3) requires a) trespass on private property, and b) satisfaction of 563.031(1), which is “use or imminent use of unlawful force”.

          “Again, the idea that simply kicking down your fence, or busting your gate is sufficient grounds for shooting someone is beyond reason.”

          Take that matter up with the Missouri legislature.

          “Damages to property are settled in civil court.”

          It has nothing to do with damages to property; rather, the statute confers the presumption of intent to cause harm through the trespass (or, you may argue, the combined act of trespassing and using unlawful force – satisfied in either case, by breaking and entering).

          “The thrust of the provision you cite must be taken to include imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.”

          No, it must not. The Missouri legislature wrote it explicitly contrary to your assertion, by separating 563.031(2)(2) and 563.031(2)(3).

        25. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          “Again, the idea that simply kicking down your fence, or busting your gate is sufficient grounds for shooting someone is beyond reason.”

          No, that is, however, sufficient grounds to pick up a gun, point it at the trespassers, and demand that they leave the private property. It becomes grounds to shoot when having advised the mob that they were trespassing and demanded that they leave you are met with threats to yourself, your home, & even your pets.

          Seriously Sam, you’re grabbing at straws here…

        26. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Seriously Sam, you’re grabbing at straws here…”

          That’s what lawyers do, right?

          Just trying to think like a lawyer, simply pointing out that things may not be as many want them to be. I just hope this thing goes the full ride through the appeals process. Best way to make a definitive declaration of what the self-defense law means. At least until the next case.

        27. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          “At least people with actual intestinal fortitude, the governor and Trump in this case, will defend this couple.”

          The governor has talked the talk, whether or not he walks the walk remains to be determined…

        28. avatar anonymous says:

          But the Second Amendment is not license to kill without justification.

          McCloskey’s didn’t kill anyone.

        29. avatar anonymous says:

          Despite 2A absolutism, reality is that we do have laws that impose restrictions. The issue at hand is not really 2A, but justifiable use of deadly force. If the weapons in hand had been hunting bows and arrows, or loaded cross bows, the issue would remain the same: did the couple face “imminent” danger of death, or serious bodily harm. In short, is producing a deadly weapon justified by people in the street shouting insults, even threats? Indeed, even the issue of whether the streets in a gated community were “privately” owned by the homeowners, or homeowners association is unsettled.

          It is most certainly private property, that is completely settled. If it was not private property (public property) I would more or less agree with you.

          If I stand in the middle of a street, and tell you that one day I am going to burn down your house, do you have legal justification to threaten me with deadly force?

          I am disagreeing with this. I don’t see pointing a gun at someone as “deadly force.” Anytime a cop points a gun at a suspect in a vehicle is it deadly force? Did anyone die? No. I see a difference between shooting someone with a gun, and pointing a gun at them. And I certainly see it more allowable on private property than public property.

          I may be committing a crime by issuing the threat, but where is the “imminent” threat? I don’t know the laws everywhere, but the idea of “reasonable fear” is related to “imminent threat”.

          When they perform “breaking and entering” to get to you, I consider that they are an imminent threat.

          Brandishing laws are established to discourage gun owners from using the threat of deadly force to settle an argument.

          I see it as completely allowable, to point guns at people who present themselves on your property as a threat while NOT shooting them. In public, you don’t get that option really.

          If, during the Portland riots, shop owners shoot looters in the act, that is a justifiable exercise of firearm possession protected by the Second Amendment. During looting, someone inside their shop facing a mob breaking in should be justified in settling the matter with gunfire. Looting and criminal acts were not facing the McCloskeys.

          Disagree. Criminal Acts were facing the McCloskeys. A large mob, criminally broke a gate to gain entrance to private property. The McCloskey’s told them to leave, informed them they were on private property, and they did not, which is trespassing. Members of the mob verbally threatened the McCloskey’s with grievous bodily harm and death, which is also criminal. Many criminal acts, actually, were performed that the McCloskey’s were facing.

      2. avatar anonymous says:

        Funny story. I was really outraged by the events of George Floyd. I was beating the crap out of everyone in the comments section of all articles with comments sections.

        Now – i’ve done a complete 180. After the looting, razing, endless riots. After watching groups like Antifa, protect people performing crimes by putting their signs in front of cameras or assaulting journalists for recording them. Complete 180. The problem isn’t that there is too much police brutality. The problem is there isn’t enough. We need more brutality here. Can we get some police brutality up in here???? I need some “People’s Park” or a a “Kent State” up in here. This is what they are begging for. Why don’t we just give it to them.

        1. avatar Montana Actual says:

          They’ll start shooting people very soon in Portland. I’d be surprised if it goes one more week without them saying “fuck it, non lethal isn’t working”. No shit, right? Also, isn’t it a bit funny how all these weapons they use somehow do more damage than if they were armed? I mean, at least if they were armed they could pick off their targets, but instead, we see cities burning because mobs of “unarmed peaceful protestors” use anything they can as a projectile weapons. Seems to me like guns do less damage. Also, it would be easier to handle the situation if they were armed lol. I mean, can you picture a mob of soy boys and trannies when the bullets start flying? Mag dump from behind a corner, run out of ammo, drop weapon and run. City saved. Good guys only fire 30 rounds between 300 people, soy boys and trannies fire 5,000. Majority of wounded and deaths would still be on the soy boys and trannies side.

        2. avatar Montana Actual says:

          oh, and that whole narrative to push once shots are actually fired en mass against these “peaceful protesters” won’t work on anyone their agenda is not already working on. More have converted to “see the light” that they need self defense and that the left is clearly insane from the media’s constant attempts to push their agendas. Regardless of the election in November, it’s going to be a war (it already is honestly). So let’s just let the fed bois start picking them off early already.

    5. avatar Mercury says:

      A: lethal force is justified when threatened with lethal force.

      B: presenting a handgun is justified response to the threat of lethal force.

      C — [If not A then not B:] presenting a handgun is NOT a justified response when NOT threatened with lethal force.

      D: an attacker ceases to be a threat when retreating, under any and all circumstances.

      E — [If then not B]: presenting a handgun is justified, if and only if, an attacker continues the threat of lethal force after it is presented.

      F — [if E then not ]: lethal force is not justified when a handgun is used as a response.

      You have to reject at least one of these (i.e. A or B, otherwise it’s two or more) to have that position be logically consistent.

      1. avatar Mercury says:

        Apparently TTAG’s comment code barfs when you use the less than or greater than signs. The above should read:

        “E — [If (D and C) then not B]: presenting a handgun is justified, if and only if, an attacker continues the threat of lethal force after it is presented.

        F — [if E then not (A and B)]: lethal force is not justified when a handgun is used as a response.”

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        C is untrue under RSMo 563.031(2)(1 through 3). In this instance, sub-clauses 1 and 3 each applies independently; sub-clause 2 does not. Accordingly, E is also untrue.

        (Stated more precisely: “lethal force” is not the only standard; “forcible felony” also justifies deadly force in response; and also, castle doctrine statutes such as in MO presume inherent intent of lethal force or forcible felony merely by the act of trespassing on private property. (In Indiana, that trespass needs to be inside the dwelling or vehicle to justify deadly force; not so in Missouri.)

        D is also generally untrue when expressed as an absolute as you have done. One who retreats from one engagement can still present himself as an imminent danger to others.

      3. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Shouted threats from a distance did not present “imminent threat” of deadly force against the McCloskeys. No threat of deadly force? No justification for McCloskeys to muzzle the crowd. I doubt that MO law permits shooting trespassers who do no harm, either.

        Whether or not the brandishing of firearms, and sweeping the crowd with the muzzles is justifiable will be settled in court, not by what we want things to be. Same in any jurisdiction, and it is prudent to fully understand the law in yours.

        If the McCloskeys had been in their yard with pistol holstered, and rifle slung over the shoulder, they might be merely exercising their RTKBA on their property. The potential for using firearms to protect themselves from attack would have been in plain sight, but not threatening anyone. Consider, if someone in the crowd had been armed, and shot one of the McClokeys, that would be a more justifiable use of firearms. Again, shouting insults from the street does not present imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to anyone.

        Pointing a gun at people in the street creating a disturbance does constitute imminent threat. “Well, he shouted things at me I didn’t like” would be poor justification for causing a defensive shooting from someone in the crowd.

        1. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Yawn. Repetitive and falsified point of view. That’s just, like, your opinion, man. FUDD.

        2. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

          Shouted threats at a distance ? What distance. This was less than 30 feet that’s close enough to lob a maltov cocktail. The rioters threatened ( among other things ) to burn the house down. . And the threats where extremely credible when 300 people surround you with no exit but through them and say they are gonna kill you I think it’s reasonable to fee threatened.

          I should note under MO law ( unlike most states ) its the same regardless of pointing the gun. It’s the “display “ that is the issue I believe. So pointing is only a misdemeanor assault.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Making threats, and making no move to effect threats does not represent “imminent” threat. Remaining entirely in the street, 30 feet, or 10 feet does not represent “imminent” threat: woulda, shoulda, coulda are not legal justification. “Imminent” (a word in the MO law regarding use of deadly force in defense) does not mean, “maybe”, “might”, “possibly”. “Imminent” means the event (attack) is upon you, not milling around in a crowd.

          Marching directly at the McCloskeys while carrying weapons would be a whole different matter. I did not read that the mob ever advanced onto the McCloskey lawn, but Chip Bennet says the mob did exactly that. Such a move could change the dynamic. Such a development could turn the matter from brandishing, to self-defense.

        4. avatar 2020sight says:

          “If the McCloskeys…” were black, do you think this idiot Gardner would’ve made any move at all? She is the epitome of a racist.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If the McCloskeys…” were black, do you think this idiot Gardner would’ve made any move at all? She is the epitome of a racist.”

          The ethnicity of a DA is irrelevant. Black, White, Whatever, DAs are politicians and make political decisions all the time. Some decisions we like (whether the decision is defendable, or not), some we don’t like (whether the decisions are defendable, or not).

          How one lands in the soup is not as important as what happens after…in the current discussion: proper use of deadly force. Now, if the McCloskeys had been leaning on their fan-shaped plastic yard rakes, yelling at the mob, and the DA charged the McCloskeys with making deadly threats, or causing the mob to fear for their lives…that would be the time and place to discuss whether the charge was completely political..

        6. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          “causing the mob to fear for their lives”

          Uh, those are almost her exact words. Except she used “protesters”.

        7. avatar anonymous says:

          Shouted threats from a distance did not present “imminent threat” of deadly force against the McCloskeys. No threat of deadly force? No justification for McCloskeys to muzzle the crowd. I doubt that MO law permits shooting trespassers who do no harm, either.

          Disagree with this. This isn’t a lawn with an open sidewalk right. It’s not like they are pointing guns and passerby’s jogging on the sidewalk. They broke a gate to gain entry. Everything beyond the gate was private property. They were asked to leave but did not (trespassing). And the mob verbally threatened the McCloskey’s with grievous bodily harm and death (illegal). Further, this isn’t one guy or even a few people. This is hundreds of people, who happen to be known for spraying ACAB, F***12, BLM, and profanities on business fronts, breaking the windows out, while occasionally looting and razing them to the ground. They had every reason to be afraid of this mob.

          Having them sling their rifle and wait for the mob to attack them, is nonsensical stupidity.

      4. avatar anonymous says:

        A: lethal force is justified when threatened with lethal force.

        B: presenting a handgun is justified response to the threat of lethal force.

        C — [If not A then not B:] presenting a handgun is NOT a justified response when NOT threatened with lethal force.

        D: an attacker ceases to be a threat when retreating, under any and all circumstances.

        E — [If then not B]: presenting a handgun is justified, if and only if, an attacker continues the threat of lethal force after it is presented.

        F — [if E then not ]: lethal force is not justified when a handgun is used as a response.

        You have to reject at least one of these (i.e. A or B, otherwise it’s two or more) to have that position be logically consistent.

        Disagree with this, simply because if someone breaks into my home (without a weapon at all!) I can point a gun at their face and I DON’T have to shoot. I can call the cops and wait for their arrival.

        And you guys are missing the whole point of the castle doctrine.

    6. avatar Anonymous says:

      I, personally, believe the McCloskeys should be able to point an AR15 at a large angry mob that just broke their gate to trespass on private property. And I sure as F would vote for it.

      The mob should “peacefully assemble” outside the gate, outside private property. They should not threaten people (Illegal). They should not burglarize, vandalize, or destroy property, such as a private gate (illegal), and they should not trespass on private property when asked to leave (illegal).

      Sometimes, in the face of illegal activities against a person, sometimes the safest bet for that person being threatened by people performing illegal activities is to also perform illegal activities themselves (such as threatening a violent mob with your AR15). If members of the mob had been inside the McCloskeys home threatening them with an AR it would have been ok. Somehow, on the front lawn the rules appear to change, and I disagree that they should.

      Context matters here folks. The McCloskeys aren’t on these people’s lawns breaking down their gates. It’s the other way around.

      Rooftop Korean activities were illegal too. It paid off for them. When you are threatened – sometimes you have to threaten them back.

    7. avatar Anonymous says:

      I’m not going to lie, but I would likely do the same as the McCloskeys. Whether there is a violent mob in my house or one on my front lawn, they are going to get a rifle pointed at their face, and I’d splatter their F brains all over the wall before I apologized for it.

      You are welcome to disagree, and I’m welcome to tell you to go F yourself.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        “You are welcome to disagree, and I’m welcome to tell you to go F yourself.”

        – and I’m not aiming this specifically at Sam. This is for everyone. In general. Anyone.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Whether there is a violent mob in my house or one on my front lawn, ”

        The mob was neither, according to what has been reported to date. Not sure how many places in the US consider simple trespass to be a capital offense.

        And the question here is not what anyone thinks they would do, but the legal ramifications of such. Sitting in jail, shouting “Shall Not Be Infringed” is not a life to be envied.

        Simply declaring that one reasonably believed an imminent threat existed does not put a stop to anything. First, responding police need to be convinced (so they can recommend to the DA, or watch commander) that you should not be arrested.Then one needs to convince the DA that the threat was imminent, and charges should not be brought. And last, one must be able to convince a jury a reasonable person would believe an imminent threat existed. (Yeah, we are all familiar with the fiction that the innocent person doesn’t need to prove anything). Regardless of the law, it is the jury that must be persuaded as to justification. You will not get to salt a jury with POTG.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Not sure how many places in the US consider simple trespass to be a capital offense.”

          RSMo 563.031(2)(3):

          2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless: (3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          It is your conclusion that MO law permits one to shoot on sight someone who walks, uninvited, across your property, regardless of whether or not such individual poses a direct and imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm?

          Indeed, that would mean MO does consider simple trespass a capital offense. New knowledge gained.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “It is your conclusion that MO law permits one to shoot on sight someone who walks, uninvited, across your property, regardless of whether or not such individual poses a direct and imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm?”

          The hurdle to be cleared in order to invoke Clause (2)(3), per Clause 1, is “use or imminent use of unlawful force“, not death or great bodily harm.

          Death or great bodily harm is covered by Clause (2)(2). Clause (2)(2) and (2)(3) are joined by or, not by and. Thus, it is simple to conclude legislative intent that clause (2)(3) does not include or require the elements of clause (2)(2), i.e. death or great bodily harm.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The hurdle to be cleared in order to invoke Clause (2)(3), per Clause 1, is “use or imminent use of unlawful force“, not death or great bodily harm.”

          This means someone could kick over the picket fence in front of your yard, stick out their tongue at you, and you would be justified in using deadly force against them? Shooting someone for kicking over a picket fence, and nothing more. Can’t accept that such was the intent of the legislature. However, I suppose it is possible, as in anything is possible.

        5. avatar anonymous says:

          “Whether there is a violent mob in my house or one on my front lawn, ”

          The mob was neither, according to what has been reported to date. Not sure how many places in the US consider simple trespass to be a capital offense.

          It wasn’t simple trespass. It was breaking and entering. And it was on private property. In fact, it was destruction of property, breaking and entering/burglary, trespassing, and threatening with grievous bodily harm or death. So… Disagree!

          And the question here is not what anyone thinks they would do, but the legal ramifications of such. Sitting in jail, shouting “Shall Not Be Infringed” is not a life to be envied.

          You do whatever you have to. Irregardless/regardless of the law.
          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

          Simply declaring that one reasonably believed an imminent threat existed does not put a stop to anything. First, responding police need to be convinced (so they can recommend to the DA, or watch commander) that you should not be arrested.Then one needs to convince the DA that the threat was imminent, and charges should not be brought. And last, one must be able to convince a jury a reasonable person would believe an imminent threat existed. (Yeah, we are all familiar with the fiction that the innocent person doesn’t need to prove anything). Regardless of the law, it is the jury that must be persuaded as to justification. You will not get to salt a jury with POTG.

          I don’t’ know what to tell you about this. Nothing is guaranteed. Even if you feel the law protects you. But in the end, everyone does what they feel they must. Under the circumstances, I don’t think the McCloskey’s should be charged. Charging them sets precedent to erode the meaning and protections of the Castle Doctrine. Yes, their gun etiquette was horrific. No, I don’t think they were POTG. I think they were exactly what they look like. Uptown wealthy lawyers in the nice district that were simultaneously scared and upset about the prospect of having their house ransacked by garbage lowlifes that just broke into their private property and destroyed their gate. They probably thought, because they had money and the mob were commie equality extremists, that their home would be spray painted with profanies, their windows broken, and home looted, and perhaps razed to the ground. And if the mob did that… would you be surprised? I wouldn’t!

    8. avatar Waylon says:

      Sam it seems to me your one of those people who questions every little detail in a defensive scenario, yet you yourself have never been in one. Have you ever been in a real, honest to god fight? You don’t have time to weigh options and consider ramifications. Feel lucky that You haven’t, because you’d probably freeze and lose badly.

      You are nothing more then a Monday morning quarterback.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Have you ever been in a real, honest to god fight?”

        Does a surgeon have to be a cancer survivor in order to understand and remove a cancer?

        When seconds count, you better have already worked through the potential issues long before confronted. Ad hoc thinking is not a plan of response. Just as one must develop the warrior mindset before the battle begins, one must also develop the skills to know when to draw, and when not, before being confronted. If one cannot distinguish between a mob shouting in the street, and a determined attacker advancing to do harm is one truly a responsible, reasonable gun owner? (The mob apparently never stood on McCloskey property – and precisely which measure of the street was privately owned by the McCloskeys?).

        Regardless of what anyone thinks, “imminent threat” is an important element in any post-shooting process. Envision a person, or mob, standing some distance away, shouting threats. What are the possible outcomes? More than one? The person/mob might attack? Is it not also true that the person/mob might just continue on their way? Is it not also true the person/mob might just continue to stand there hurling threats and insults? Might the mob just tire out, and disperse on its own?

        With so many alternative outcomes/scenarios, which one was “imminent”? The only two words that are germane are “imminent” and “reasonable”. Whether we like it, or not, the general population (the jury pool) likely believes “imminent”means attack in progress, and the threat so close as to preclude any other response. As for “reasonable” that is a whole ‘nuther can of worms that we cannot control.

        When you pull a gun on another individual, you are accepting the entire range of outcomes, not just the one you want. Ignoring that would indicate the gun owner is not practicing/demonstrating responsible/reasonable gun ownership.

        1. avatar Ron says:

          Sam, now you really have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about.

          This idea that you can have everything planned out for a defensive situation is silly. You clearly have zero clue as to what your long winded posts are going on about. You lost all credibility you may have had with that statement.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “This idea that you can have everything planned out for a defensive situation is silly. You clearly have zero clue as to what your long winded posts are going on about. You lost all credibility you may have had with that statement.”

          Your are completely misunderstanding planning. To quote: “The plan is nothing; planning is everything.”

          A person who does not spend time thinking about scenarios, actions, reactions is not preparing, but relying on pure instinct. Doing “what about” exercises is valuable in charging the mind, getting off the X, dumping pre-conceived notions, even unhelpful biases.

          In the military, the day before flight, we planned the mission, “walked” it through more than once, considered alternatives based on changing weather and air traffic conditions, briefed emergency procedures, and threw in complications we knew other crews endured.

          On the day of flight, we did a quick review of the day before, and considered last minute changes if certain equipment was not operable. Planning. And then, at the end of the mission, we de-briefed and looked at needed changes in our assumptions and execution. Then at the bar afterward, we listened to and told flying stories. All the while, testing our self-assurance, and absorbing new lessons. Yet, not once in 20yrs did I ever fly a mission that was perfect in every detail we planned. Not once did I fly a mission where something was not just a bit different from what was expected.

          The plan was nothing; planning was everything. Not planning for situations, not “table flying” possibilities leaves one completely subject to the winds of hope. In more recent years, when my wife and I go out of the house, we talk about situations we may encounter, how we might respond. Carjackings, mall shootings, vehicle breakdowns, who defends and who calls 911, where are the exits and where do we go if separated. And now, what happens if we get caught in a “protest”.

          Do you never learn anything new from the experience of others posting/commenting here? Never re-evaluate something you were so sure about? No assumptions re-considered, or modified? Never planned for that Black Swan event that puts your life on the line? Are all your estate affairs in order? What happens to your guns if you lose? What happens to your family if you lose? Do you have finances in place such that your survivors suffer no loss in income, if you lose? What happens if you are permanently injured, and confined to a bed long term, if you lose? All this is part of “planning”, but the details will be different from the plan.

        3. avatar anonymous says:

          When you pull a gun on another individual, you are accepting the entire range of outcomes, not just the one you want. Ignoring that would indicate the gun owner is not practicing/demonstrating responsible/reasonable gun ownership.

          I think the McCloskey’s demonstrated reasonable actions in the face of possibly having ACAB, F***12, BLM, and profanities sprayed all over their home, with windows broken and house ransacked/looted, and possibly razed to the ground. Totally reasonable to me! And when you have a hundred angry people shouting at you and threatening you, I’m not going to wait for them to bum rush me to un-sling my rifle. That’s just stupidity.

    9. avatar Buford says:

      Sam if there was a crime committed here, perhaps you could point us all to a victim? Hmm?

      Who exactly did the McCloskeys victimize?

      No victim, no crime. Unless you are a statist of course…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Sam if there was a crime committed here, perhaps you could point us all to a victim? Hmm? ”

        Crimes do not require victims, only the breach of a law. If you are arrested for possessing a stolen gun, but you didn’t steal it, where is the victim of your crime? Not the crime of theft of the gun, but the crime of possession of stolen goods.

        Suppose the person who stole the gun had no idea who the gun belonged to, and the owner never reports the theft. Do police need to find the last legal owner in order to make an arrest? Suppose the stolen goods are jewelry for which a report was filed way cross Georgia, and a report was filed, but you live in Nevada. Is it necessary find the “victim” before an arrest can be executed for possession of goods you cannot establish legal ownership of?

        “Brandishing” is an interesting concept because one person’s alarm is another persons disinterest. Thus, if there is no imminent threat to self, yet you pull your gun and point it at some random group of people, where is the victim? Does each person in the crowd need to file a criminal complaint? Only one? What about a person behind you who sees your intimidation of others, since the person behind you was not in front of your gun, is that person a victim? If not a victim, can that observer from the rear justifiably file a brandishing complaint?

        1. avatar Mitch says:

          So in other words… “I support the second amendment, BUT!”

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So in other words… “I support the second amendment, BUT!” ”

          Where do you get that? Admittedly, everyone is “second amendment, BUT…” it is just a matter of which exception one favors. For instance, “I support the second amendment, BUT…not for convicted and released felons.”; “I support the second amendment, BUT…not for people who are mentally incompetent.”‘; “I support the second amendment, BUT…not for blind people.”

          Each of the above is a step away from second amendment absolutism, and each is an opinion of who is worthy. In this regard, POTG are no different from those anti-gun fascists who declare, “I support the second amendment, BUT….we must have more background checks, close the loopholes, prohibit “high capacity” magazines, ban “weapons of war”.

          So, yes, “I support the second amendment, BUT…we must follow the legal restrictions until we get them changes/overturned.” The fact I think all laws restricting the second amendment are unconstitutional is irrelevant; we live in the world as it is, until we can make it the world we want it to be.

        3. avatar anonymous says:

          Suppose the person who stole the gun had no idea who the gun belonged to, and the owner never reports the theft.

          If that’s the case, then the police won’t be arresting you for stolen property.

          Crimes do not require victims, only the breach of a law. If you are arrested for possessing a stolen gun, but you didn’t steal it, where is the victim of your crime? Not the crime of theft of the gun, but the crime of possession of stolen goods.

          If there is no victim, then it is majoritarian intolerance of particular behaviors/freedoms. A law without a victim is social engineering. See, this is why I don’t like people. People in general. All people are pieces of s**t, looking to legislate your freedoms away. They are intolerant crapheads that can’t leave people alone. It’s just like safety. Let’s make some laws that people can’t point guns at each other – right? After all, there is no victim, but there could be, accidentally. Then the next you know, I can’t own any f****** lawn darts. Can’t even buy a gas can with a nozzle that works or doesn’t break because of the overwhelming intolerance and safety related crap being force fed to me by Karens everywhere. Literally, everyone is a Karen, and they don’t even know it.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Why have these fine gentlemen not been charged?”

        Raw politics; now a full contact sport.

    10. avatar anonymous says:

      This decision would have been made within minutes of seeing the video, in my jurisdiction. Law prohibits displaying a firearm with intent to cause alarm in others, unless one is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. The result seems to be that if you pull a firearm in self-defense, someone must get shot (my own interpretation).

      Sounds like your jurisdiction sucks in my opinion. I agree in that you should not pull a firearm and aim it at people, to cause alarm, but I disagree when it’s in my home, or my front or back yard (my property), when others are threatening me on my own property.

      If you have a burglar in your home and you have a gun pointed at his face, and order them to get on the ground, and they comply, and you call the police and wait for them to arrive, should you be charged with brandishing? I think not. And honestly, I don’t see why your car, RV, front yard, or back yard, or back acreage, should be any different.

      1. avatar Loughsun says:

        I am 100% with you on this. If a burglar enters a person’s home while that person or persons are in their home, that already demonstrates harmful intent or the willingness to do harm. That person should be engaged with extreme prejudice. It is not the good citizens responsibility to risk their life and the lives of those they love on a “bah humbug.” How do, I know if this is a homicidal maniac or a just rebellious teen on a dare with friends? Well Jimmy Crack Mutha-F-ing Corn and I can’t afford to care. Somebody is getting blown away. And I won’t shew away the blue tailed fly.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “If you have a burglar in your home and you have a gun pointed at his face, and order them to get on the ground, and they comply, and you call the police and wait for them to arrive, should you be charged with brandishing? ”

        Of course not. Brandishing has to do with a non-threatening situation, yet the gun owner displays a firearm with intent to cause general alarm and intimidation. We had a case or two over the years where a concealed carrier inadvertently uncovered their pistol, and someone call the cops, complaining they felt threatened by the sight of the gun. The gun owners gun hassled by the cops

  2. avatar John says:

    They should of call the police; oh wait.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      And wait until they go through the front door and set fires according to some people here.

      1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

        I just wish Florida attracted this kind of ‘protester’ :

        https://twitter.com/i/events/1285231086641930241

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      I’m sure they called the police many times. Yet they never came until the McCloskeys had to threaten the violent mob off their lawn.

      And this is the problem. The mob doesn’t have to follow laws apparently. But because the McCloskeys were on their own – they apparently do. So it is reasonable, within this context, that the McCloskeys did what they felt they had to do, in the face of overwhelming numbers of violent rioters that broke several laws (burglary, destruction of property, trespass, verbal threats of bodily harm) to be in front of the McCloskeys house/lawn on private property.

      Anyone who thinks the McCloskeys didn’t have a reason to do what they did, are absolute fools.

      1. avatar Buford says:

        Agreed. Anyone here that thinks the McCloskeys committed some kind of crime are no friends of the gun rights community. They are pure statists.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Anyone here that thinks the McCloskeys committed some kind of crime are no friends of the gun rights community. ”

          The instance is not about gun rights, but use of deadly force. Maybe I missed something, but no one here is claiming the McCloskeys did not have a constitutionally protected right to own those firearms. The constitution does not protect simply pointing a gun at someone; that is misuse of deadly force.

          Brandishing laws deal not with RTKBA, but with misuse of a firearm you legally own. The brandishing laws define misuse. The issue is whether or not the weapons display was a misuse of deadly force (brandishing), or a proper response to a situation where the law permits use of deadly force. The DA can bring no charge (so far as we know) that the McCloskeys had no right to firearms in the first place.

          For the McCloskey case to be about RTKBA, one must argue that the Second Amendment permits the use of firearms for whatever purpose the owner desires. That laws declaring crimes regarding the use of firearms are unconstitutional on their face, with no exceptions. Who would argue that?

        2. avatar anonymous says:

          The DA can bring no charge (so far as we know) that the McCloskeys had no right to firearms in the first place.

          To my knowledge, any DA anywhere and bring whatever charges they want and drag you to court to defend yourself. Nothing is truly protected or guaranteed.

  3. avatar jwm says:

    I admit that I cannot be bothered to research this. But I’ve heard that these folks are more left wing than right. If so, good. More lefties in legal hot water the better.

    If wrong, I apologize in advance.

    1. avatar 2A Nation says:

      They basically went to war with the HOA because they didn’t want gay people moving in their neighborhood.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        What!!! Left wingers don’t want gay people in their neighborhood????
        Say it isn’t so.

      2. avatar Ben Janssen says:

        Where’d you get that?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Ben Janssen commented on BREAKING: Prosecutor Charges McCloskeys With Felony Unlawful Use of a Weapon.

          in response to 2A Nation:

          They basically went to war with the HOA because they didn’t want gay people moving in their neighborhood.

          Where’d you get that?”

          Sources are not important. Merely stating something renders the statement a fact.

          New rules for the game. You gotta catch up.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Thanks for the link. Interesting back story, but the incident in question was sorta given less attention. The first part of the article seems not to be germane to determining if the homeowners were really under “imminent threat” of death or grievous bodily harm.

        3. avatar Matthews says:

          So from an article that debunks the claim. Neat.

        4. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          Wasting your time asking for a source. It is funny to watch grow men post long rants after you ask them for a source, still with no source for the BS coming out of their mouths.

          Chris and Tidvia or whatever his name is are particularly good at this and you missed Powerserge, that guy was hilarious. I honestly started believing in russian trolls after that guy, maybe the media is not 100% FOS.

        5. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          Serge is no troll, and is a genuine Russian immigrant.

          His particular POV has been forged by growing up as a kid in the old CCCP…

        6. avatar anonymous says:

          Chris and Tidvia or whatever his name is are particularly good at this and you missed Powerserge, that guy was hilarious. I honestly started believing in russian trolls after that guy, maybe the media is not 100% FOS.

          Pwrserge is hilarious, but he has that point of view for a reason. He is not a Russian troll. Much of what he says I agree with, sometimes he goes off the rails. And … he’s angry. And I think all of us are getting there.
          These days he spends more and more of his time at http://www.dailywire.com in the comments section. Tearing it up over there. He seems to be well liked over there. Example:

          https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-chicago-police-release-video-of-antifa-using-protest-as-cover-changing-to-all-black-arming-against-cops#comment-5000322165

          https://disqus.com/by/pwrserge/

          LOL.

          Went full gulag:

          BLM is based on a racist fantasy and every protestor who supports them is guilty of material support of terrorism. Every single one of you vermin needs to be rounded up and shipped to a labor camp to work off your debt to society.

          32 • Reply • Share ›

          Still got 32 likes out of it. LOL

    2. avatar Leigh says:

      In one video the guy has pictures in the background of Trump and Ollie North…
      but I also read somewhere where they claimed they support BLM…
      for what that info is worth, of course

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      So, eroding castle doctrine principles and openly flaunting castle doctrine black-letter law is okay, in your opinion, because those who asserted their constitutional rights and statutory authority hold ideological views that are different from yours?

    4. avatar -Peter says:

      I’ve heard Mark McCloskey in at least one interview state that he and his wife are republicans and conservatives but that they have donated to several close friends’ personal campaigns who happened to be running as democrats. That’s where the rumor came from.

      1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

        Smart wealthy people donate to both sides, to hedge their bets…

    5. avatar enuf says:

      They have a string of incidents to their record. Including destroying the bee hives of children at a neighboring synogogue and suing to have their wreckage removed. Also suing the other homeowners to add a tiny piece of land to their property, after having first sued to obtain their property. Mr McCloskey has previously admitted to brandishing a gun at a neighbor who walked across the contested tiny piece of land.

      These people are not good representatives for gun ownership, self defense or the Second Amendment. They are wealthy snowflakes who think the world must conform to their whims and demands.

      OR ELSE!

      1. avatar Ron says:

        Are you sure this is true or is this part of some CNN smear campaign? Keep in mind we are at a point where we should very much question every detail in any and and every news story. Kind of like right now this debate about are the McCloskeys themselves leftists or not, no one really knows the truth.

    6. avatar tdiinva says:

      An instapundit post misidentified them. The did support Democrats who were already in office but they gave money to the RNC and Trump campaigns. Instapundit corrected the story but it never went away.

      The Governor needs to issue preemptive pardons.

      1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

        Needs a conviction of a crime before the pardon can be drafted and signed…

    7. avatar rosignol says:

      There is confusion because someone with the same name in a different state that has donated to the Democrats. It is not the same person.

    8. avatar Montana Actual says:

      I bet they are leaning right now. Doesn’t take much. For some all it takes is YouTube and watching their understanding of politics get shut down. Every. Time.

    9. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

      They are lefties who donated to the campaign that got the leftist DA elected.

      I have a feeling they aren’t gonna be Democrat’s come 2020

  4. avatar 2A Nation says:

    It’s a shame these people ended up being the poster children for gun rights and private property rights at the moment. Aside from their awful handling of the firearms from a safety standpoint, there as an article detailing Mr. McCloskey’s history of lawsuits and feuds against neighbors, family, and tenants. He actually sounds like a first rate asshole.

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/portland-place-couple-who-confronted-protesters-have-a-long-history-of-not-backing-down/article_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html

    1. avatar Casey says:

      Even assholes are afforded rights and protections. That’s what being better than the left means. 🙂

    2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Well according to those who believe in civil rights. Even a$$holes have rights.

    3. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Yea I could honestly care less. It doesn’t get any more pro 2A than this.

  5. avatar Leigh says:

    Brandishing perhaps…should have kept at low ready position at the most…finger off triggers. IMO
    Local and state laws will vary. Maybe they can plead down.
    The DA pretty much HAD to charge them. All the videos and witnesses.
    Let’s see how it plays out.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      Plea deals suck. They did nothing wrong. They could have conducted themselves better, yes, but they didn’t go out looking for trouble. The trouble was brought to them, when the mob wrecked the front gates, and invaded the private property.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Paul,

        They [McCloskeys] did nothing wrong.

        The McCloskeys intentionally POINTED their firearms at the mob. Intentionally pointing a firearm at someone is deadly force. If the McCloskeys pointed their firearms at the mob BEFORE the mob was a reasonable and imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm, then the McCloskeys were in the wrong (illegal) in almost every jurisdiction in the United States.

        In my opinion a reasonable person does not see a raucous mob merely marching (trespassing) down a private street past the McCloskeys as an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the McCloskeys.

        And before anyone screams that the raucous mob verbally threatened to maim/kill the McCloskeys which justifies the McCloskeys’ use of deadly force, that depends on who acted first. If the McCloskeys pointed their firearms at the mob IN RESPONSE to the mob first verbally threatening to maim/kill the McCloskeys, then the McCloskeys were legally justified to point their firearms at the mob. If the mob threatened to maim/kill the McCloskeys IN RESPONSE to the McCloskey’s first pointing their firearms at the mob, then the mob was legally justified to threaten to apply deadly force in self-defense against the McCloskeys.

        Caveat: the above principles apply in almost every jurisdiction in the United States. They may not apply if the McCloskeys live in a jurisdiction which allows a property owner to use deadly force (kill) trespassers.

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          The McCloskeys intentionally POINTED their firearms at the mob.

          I’d have pointed them at them too. If someone broke into my front yard, my backyard, or my home, they very well could get a gun pointed at them. And if they aren’t careful, they very well could get shot and killed, irregardless of the law.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…irregardless of the law.”

          How cool. Haven’t heard “irregardless” in years. Or “unthaw”. Those were common words when I was growing up. Good on ya’ for using “irregardless”.

        3. avatar anonymous says:

          The McCloskeys intentionally POINTED their firearms at the mob. Intentionally pointing a firearm at someone is deadly force. If the McCloskeys pointed their firearms at the mob BEFORE the mob was a reasonable and imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm, then the McCloskeys were in the wrong (illegal) in almost every jurisdiction in the United States.

          Which is exactly why they pointed their guns at them, when they stepped on their lawn, after they broke the gate into private property, trespassed, threatened them, etc. Several crimes were committed by the rioters on the McCloskeys. Breaking and entering/burglary, trespass, verbal threats of grievous bodily harm and death. Of course they are going to point guns at them. I would too!

          I’m not going to lie, in my jurisdiction, I can point a gun at a guys face and not shoot him and everything is legally all good. How can I do this? When a guy breaks into my garage, my home, or my backyard. They don’t need to even be armed before I point a gun at their face, when they have broken into my home wandering around. I can point a gun at their face, order them on the ground, and wait for the police to arrive. Or alternatively, blow their brains all over my wall and wait for the police to come clean it up. Either way, I’ll get a high five from the cops when they arrive. And that is the way it should be.

          In my opinion a reasonable person does not see a raucous mob merely marching (trespassing) down a private street past the McCloskeys as an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the McCloskeys.

          I do. They were not welcome. They broke the gate to get in. They were asked to leave but did not. Then they threatened the McCloskey’s with grievous bodily harm and death. Also… and here is the kicker… lol… who would be surprised if say, the McCloskey’s were not on their lawn defending themselves and their property and the rioters sprayed ACAB, F***12, BLM, and profanities all over their house. Broke the windows, looted the place, and then started a fire on their way out, because the McCloskey’s were wealthy capitalists that deserved it? LOL Not me!

          And before anyone screams that the raucous mob verbally threatened to maim/kill the McCloskeys which justifies the McCloskeys’ use of deadly force, that depends on who acted first. If the McCloskeys pointed their firearms at the mob IN RESPONSE to the mob first verbally threatening to maim/kill the McCloskeys, then the McCloskeys were legally justified to point their firearms at the mob. If the mob threatened to maim/kill the McCloskeys IN RESPONSE to the McCloskey’s first pointing their firearms at the mob, then the mob was legally justified to threaten to apply deadly force in self-defense against the McCloskeys.

          I disagree with that. I think they were justified in pointing their guns at an unruly and criminal mob that just committed breaking and entering into private property, was informed the property was private and asked to leave and did not, and a mob that backs an organization that has a history of violence such as spraying ACAB, F***12, BLM, and profanities all over properties, breaking windows, looting, and arson. Context matters.

          Caveat: the above principles apply in almost every jurisdiction in the United States. They may not apply if the McCloskeys live in a jurisdiction which allows a property owner to use deadly force (kill) trespassers.

          I can use deadly force to kill trespassers in my home. Right now. I can hold them at gunpoint for the police to arrive. If I feel they are an imminent threat, I can fire bullets repeatedly into their body until they are a threat no longer. If a mob (known for looting, arson, vandalism) “breaks” into a property, refuses to leave, and then threatens the owner, how is that different? In my opinion, the moment they broke the gate to infiltrate private grounds, they were a threat.

          Not to drop anecdotes, but I know the “president” of a company in a city of about 400,000 that ran a piping and vessel fabrication shop. Theives kept breaking in and stealing high chrome/nickel/moly materials and selling for scrap at enormous prices costing the company big $$$. The president of the company loaded his 357, turned off the lights and waited for them. When they came, they were putting chains on some materials to load on their truck. He pointed the revolver right at their face and basically said, “You are going to do exactly what I say, or i’ll kill ya right now. You will die gurgling on the floor of this factory if you don’t do exactly what I say.” They laid down, didn’t move, and the cops arrived and picked them up. Cops were cheerful about it. He was cheerful about it. Yet amazingly, nobody was charged with brandishing.

  6. avatar c says:

    Loks like a racist elected prosecuter going after another white couple to me. Damned this liberal racism.

    1. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

      Just as a thought exercise, imagine a 400 strong white supremacy march forcibly entering a black neighborhood and a black couple doing the same thing as this white couple and being charged by a white prosecutor. I wonder how that would go down and what the media would have to say about it.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        In that situation the black couple would’ve just been shot, drug to the streets and their bodies burned, it’s happened before.

        And the law-enforcement officers would turn their head and ignore the killing, or in many cases, participate in the violence against the black couple.

        Are you on familiar with American history?

        1. avatar anonymous says:

          In that situation the black couple would’ve just been shot, drug to the streets and their bodies burned, it’s happened before.

          And the law-enforcement officers would turn their head and ignore the killing, or in many cases, participate in the violence against the black couple.

          Are you on familiar with American history?

          Yeah, maybe a hundred years ago. The question is… when are people going to get over it!

      2. avatar anonymous says:

        Just as a thought exercise, imagine a 400 strong white supremacy march forcibly entering a black neighborhood and a black couple doing the same thing as this white couple and being charged by a white prosecutor. I wonder how that would go down and what the media would have to say about it.

        I don’t see it happening. And it is just a “thought exercise” because today, racism is in such high demand with such little supply that people have to actually manufacture racism. Jussie Smollett this up. Or have a “nascar noose.” LOL. Or people sending themselves hate letters, or spray painting their own properties and decrying racism. It’s comical.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      Hold on, not a “white couple”, it was in the original video. The male is clearly a Pink, while the female appears to be a Caucasian.

      This is therefore a mixed race couple, and as such enjoy special rights and dispensations.

  7. avatar Nonips48 says:

    No way these animals broke into a gated community these people were scared they had the right and it did stop these animals which need to be arrested charged with disturbing the peace, destruction of private property, intimidation, Terrorist, protesting is one thing but threatening, destroying property, any and all violent actions, should be taken as a life threatening act shoot to kill.

    1. avatar Cea says:

      Dammed hard to comprehend, with only one period after all those sentences. Some caps were used…but dang it man!
      Your first sentence, or at least what I thought was gonna be a sentence, came across sounding like just the opposite of what (I think) you meant.

  8. avatar Richard Coon says:

    During their CNN interview, they Mark clearly stated that he and his wife we’re in mortal fear for their lives and that a couple of the so called peaceful protesters were verbally threatening to kill he and his wife….

    Pretty sure that arming yourself is justified in that situation, especially given that the protesters were trespassing and had committed breaking and entering of private property.

    1. avatar Prndll says:

      “protesters were verbally threatening to kill he and his wife….”

      His wife made herself a very open target.

    2. avatar Diksum says:

      “threatening to kill he”. Really?

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Richard Coon,

      Did the raucous mob explicitly (verbally) threaten to maim/kill the McCloskeys BEFORE the McCloskeys pointed their firearms at the raucous mob? If that is the case, then the McCloskeys were legally justified. If not, then the McCloskeys had no legal justification (in almost all jurisdictions in the United States) to point their firearms at the mob.

      Remember, being afraid of someone immediately maiming/killing you does not legally justify using deadly force in self-defense unless that fear is reasonable. Assuming that the mob did not explicitly (verbally) threaten to maim/kill the McCloskeys BEFORE the McCloskeys pointed their firearms at the mob, I do not believe it was reasonable to fear that the mob was going to immediately maim/kill them.

      Was it reasonable to feel general fear/apprehension about what the raucous mob — that was trespassing on private property — might do? Absolutely. Nevertheless, that does not rise to the level of a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm which is necessary to legally justify using deadly force. (And intentionally pointing a firearm at people while screaming at them is deadly force even if you do not pull the trigger.)

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Two counter-points:

        1. The crowd did threaten the McCloskeys, and the state will bear the burden of proof to disprove it.

        2. The *mere presence* of a trespassing mob of several hundred people constitutes *prima facie* grounds for presumption of reasonable fear.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Chip,

          First and foremost, I always appreciate and respect your comments.

          Can you show me the formal legal standard which establishes (in most jurisdictions in the United States) that several hundred people trespassing is prima facie evidence of a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm which justifies applying deadly force?

          I do not agree with that standard since it would empower a property owner to start shooting a group of several hundred visibly unarmed people that are trespassing 200 yards away from the property owner. That cannot possibly present an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the property owner and should not justify the property owner applying deadly force.

          In my mind there are only two mob situations that would legally justify a property owner using deadly force against the mob:
          1) Mob is within 30 feet and starts advancing on visibly armed property owners after commands to back-off.
          2) Mob has visible firearms and offensively points their firearms or threatens to shoot at the property owners.

          Whether or not jurisprudence reflects my standard I do not know for certain. I sure hope that it does.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You’re asking for something that I can’t possibly provide, and that I didn’t assert. I was speaking in the context of the incident in question, not any and all instances of trespass. The mob of trespassers was not 200 yards away; it was closer to 20 feet away.

          Interestingly, both of your justifying circumstances applied to the incident in question.

          Regarding your hypothetical, I wonder, though: if a property owner reasonably fears for his life, the life of his family, or the security of his home based on the actions of the trespassing mob 200 yards away, how close must that property owner let the trespassing mob get, before acting in self-defense? This is a rather capricious legal standard you are trying to apply.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Chip,

          The legal standard is that your fear must be reasonable and it must reflect an IMMINENT threat.

          A mob of people who are 200 yards away and do not have visible firearms are not an imminent threat to the property owner. Fearing such a mob is reasonable. Fearing that such a mob will impart life threatening injuries in the next one or two seconds is not reasonable and therefore the property owner does NOT have a reasonable fear of IMMINENT death or great bodily harm.

          Look at it this way: even if that mob of people that are 200 yards away start charging toward the property owner, it will take them at least 26 seconds (assuming that they are not Olympic sprinters) to get close to the property owner. Something that might happen 26 seconds into the future is not imminent simply because the mob could decide at any point to break-off their charge and retreat.

        4. avatar anonymous says:

          I do not agree with that standard since it would empower a property owner to start shooting a group of several hundred visibly unarmed people that are trespassing 200 yards away from the property owner. That cannot possibly present an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the property owner and should not justify the property owner applying deadly force.

          Mob was NOT 200 yards away. They were right on the easement next to their home, AND, the easement is private property. It is their driveway. Not a public road. Context matters. The property owner is one guy, against hundreds. How do you know they were “unarmed” (YOU DON’T!). They broke the gate to gain entry to private property. Once on private property, they refused to leave when informed they were trespassing on private property. I don’t know what standard you go by, but i’m going to stand guard of my home with a rifle slung with hundreds of angry violent extremists looking to bum rush me and spray paint my home, break the windows, followed by looting and razing it to the ground. Nope!

          In my mind there are only two mob situations that would legally justify a property owner using deadly force against the mob:
          1) Mob is within 30 feet and starts advancing on visibly armed property owners after commands to back-off.
          2) Mob has visible firearms and offensively points their firearms or threatens to shoot at the property owners.</block

          I don’t mean to be mean, but you must be smoking something, because this is NOT 200 yards!
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8k_e1E3Xc0

          They just broke onto your property. You have no idea what they have or don’t have. I think you need to watch the video again.

          Whether or not jurisprudence reflects my standard I do not know for certain. I sure hope that it does.

          I sure hope it does not! LOL

        5. avatar anonymous says:

          People do NOT have a right to protest on private property. These protests are not “peaceful” And this crap needs to stop. Everyone is blaming the McCloskey’s. WTF! They wouldn’t have any guns in their hands if there wasn’t a mob of hundreds of people storming their gate down and surrounding their home and community and are known (its very common and well known by now guys) that they are NOT peaceful. WTF!

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Did the raucous mob explicitly (verbally) threaten to maim/kill the McCloskeys BEFORE the McCloskeys pointed their firearms at the raucous mob?

        A huge mob broke into their private property by breaking the lock on the gate. So, IMO, Their actions to get there are indicative of the inherent threat. Further, as we all know, the “these are peaceful protesters” narrative is bullsh*t. They broke the lock on the gate to get in. They trespassed. They were asked to leave and did not. If the McCloskeys weren’t there, would ANYONE, ANYONE be surprised if they looted his home, spray painted ACAB, F*CK12, and BLM on his home and perhaps razed it to the ground??? I sure as F wouldn’t. Case closed to me.

      3. avatar anonymous says:

        Remember, being afraid of someone immediately maiming/killing you does not legally justify using deadly force in self-defense unless that fear is reasonable.

        VERY REASONABLE. Mob of hundreds. Just broke down your gate. Are members of an organization that supports socialism/marxism and radical equality extremists. Are breaking and entering into a “rich/wealthy” neighborhood full of wealthy capitalists. Mob is known for spray painting ACAB, F***12, BLM, and profanities on buildings, breaking windows, looting, and sometimes razing to the ground, said structures. McCloskey’s warn the mob that they are on private property. Mob becomes outraged, aggressive, and sneers and shouts at McCloskeys. Regardless of whether or not they made verbal threats – I’d have my rifle at the ready!

        And honestly, I don’t even care if they made threats or not. Totally don’t care. If I called the cops 28 times and they still aren’t coming, and I’m left with a mob of hundreds of socialist losers, who can’t compete in a capitalist system, looking angrily at my large mansion. Don’t give a ****. At all. Rifle is coming out. And I’m probably going to have it at the low ready – in hand. Now the McCloskey’s are obviously not POTG. So they point it at people. I would have likely (likely mind you) just kept it at the low ready. But who knows!

        Very reasonable to me.

    4. avatar enuf says:

      They lied a lot.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Guess who bears the burden to prove that assertion beyond a reasonable doubt?

        (Hint: it’s not the McCloskeys.)

  9. avatar Steve says:

    Open carry ? Taking guns in to shoot at a range ? Lol

  10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    She actually did it. Wow.

    IANAL, but as soon as the McCloskey’s inject the affirmative defense under 563.031(5), this political prosecution will end with summary judgment.

    1. avatar Curtis in Illinois says:

      Another article I read says they were also charged with misdemeanor fourth-degree assault. I don’t know how they committed two separate crimes, but if I put money on this, it would bet they plead guilty to the misdemeanor in exchange for dropping the felony, get 6 months probation and that will be the end of it.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        “I don’t know how they committed two separate crimes”

        Politically motivated prosecutors make up crimes to fit the situation. Michael Strickland was convicted of 21 counts for a single no shots fired DGU in Multnomah County- 10 counts of unlawful use of a weapon, 10 counts of menacing, and one count of disorderly conduct.

        He was charged with even *more* imaginary crimes initially though… At one point he was facing what could have worked out to something like 12 years in prison for every second his gun was actually drawn.

    2. avatar Missouri_Mule Esquire Emeritus says:

      No summary judgment in criminal cases. Only failure to make a submissable case.
      This will go to the jury or judge unless pled out for disturbing the peace.
      P.S. St. Louis jury? LOL
      It will be a mess.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Directed verdict, then?

        (I’m assuming Missouri has pre-trial hearings, and that said hearings would include the 563.031(5) hurdle that the state must clear, once injected by the defense.)

        IANAL, and I know that it works differently in every state. But there is simply no way that the state can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the McCloskeys were not reasonably in fear necessary to invoke 563.031(2)(2).

        1. avatar Matthews says:

          In Missouri it’s much more realistic to expect a justification jury instruction. I’ve never heard of a case being dismissed by the court pretrial based on justification. Missouri’s justification statute isn’t interpreted as creating the kind of immunity from prosecution that as does, for example, Kansas’s, where defendants are entitled to a pretrial justification hearing.

          Justification is always a tricky defense, and it’s almost always silly to say that it obviously applies.

        2. avatar Missouri_Mule Esquire Emeritus says:

          Chip, yes but very rare for judges to get in the middle of cases as messy as this one.
          Pretrial hearings unlikely to derail a trial.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I imagine that (true self-defense immunity) will be next up for the MO legislature.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Missouri_Mule,

        My non-professional opinion is that there will be a hung jury if this goes to trial.

    3. avatar CTstooge says:

      Go easy on her Chip. Imagine the Bloomberg/Watts Zoom call that descended upon her like the wrath of almighty God….

    4. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

      “She actually did it. Wow.”

      Surprised as well.

      We just might see if the offer of a pardon was legit or not…

  11. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Let there be no doubt that we are at war. It’s different but it’s war.

    1. avatar RGP says:

      Correct, and, unfortunately, we’re not allowed to shoot back. Hell, we’re not even allowed to say anything that might hurt their feelings.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Anyone stupid enough to do with these two did will not be on the winning side.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Hannibal,

        I no longer have any inkling of how all of this will work out.

        I mentioned this once before recently: it seems like the overwhelming majority of people form an immediate, emotion-based position and will almost never re-examine their position much less admit that they were wrong. Assuming that is accurate, there is no telling which way the winds will blow people’s emotions — and thus there is no telling what is going to happen.

        I fear that we are facing some very dark days ahead because of that.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I fear that we are facing some very dark days ahead because of that.”

          Yes. If you don’t agree entirely with me, you are Untermensch, undeserving of respect, or maybe even life. All sides seem to be in agreement this is where we are. A review of the period 1850-1860 may guide us as to how things might go.

        2. avatar anonymous says:

          Hannibal,

          I no longer have any inkling of how all of this will work out.

          I know exactly how it’s going to work out. If the DA follows through, the governor will pardon them, and we’ll all laugh and flip the bird at the ignorant uneducated sensitivity mob who can’t stop throwing pity parties.

          That is exactly how it is going to work.
          https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/507988-missouri-governor-says-hed-pardon-st-louis-couple-if-they-are-charged

          …and you better believe I support it too.

        3. avatar anonymous says:

          I mentioned this once before recently: it seems like the overwhelming majority of people form an immediate, emotion-based position and will almost never re-examine their position much less admit that they were wrong.

          Oh no. Some of us have been examining our position for years now. This isn’t overnight outrage. Everyone is pissed off. And by God some of us can’t wait for 1860s now.

  12. avatar Loughsun says:

    Well it is merely symbolic for the DA, the governor has already shared that if convicted he would pardon them anyways.

  13. avatar JohnnyL says:

    It should be pointed out that prosecuting St. Louis district attorney Kimberly Gardner took money from George Soros-backed ‘super PAC of $67,693.23 back in Jul of 2016. So if anything it looks like Soros is now getting a return on his investment. So let that sink in for a moment… (Link Below)

    https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/st-louis-circuit-attorney-candidate-defends-accepting-super-pac-campaign-money-from-liberal-billionaire/article_11036aaf-4b1b-58cd-871f-4084f1ec1485.html

  14. avatar Disgusted Missourian says:

    The “Video” evidence was taken by a member of the mob….what do you think happened to any phone videos taken by the mob in which their people could be heard physically threatening this couple? How can a prosecutor give ANY weight to evidence which was given to her by the MOB trespassing onto private property. The testimony of mob members is more believable than the home owners? Only to Kim Gardner who has made it quite clear that she ONLY represents the interests of Black residents of Saint Louis.

    1. avatar Missouri_Mule Esquire Emeritus says:

      LOL Jury or judge will decide who to believe.
      Game on!

    2. avatar Casey says:

      Some of the mob-provided video actually does include people threatening them and their property. But facts never stopped Gardner from doing anything twitter told her to do.

    3. avatar RGP says:

      Isn’t a group of a hundred people showing up on your property uninvited and unfriendly enough of a threat?

      1. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

        It is for me. I don’t live in the same kind of neighborhood but if there were ever 400 people marching down my country lane they might get a prickling on the back of their neck like someone was watching them through a rifle scope from a concealed position. Knowing my neighbors, the marchers might feel that feeling coming from every direction.

        Any right to protest anything ends at the county right-of-way if I tell you you are trespassing and ask you to leave. Thankfully, we still have police where I live to prevent any misunderstandings.

      2. avatar anonymous says:

        Isn’t a group of a hundred people showing up on your property uninvited and unfriendly enough of a threat?

        Obviously not. Even for a lot of people here. And you forget storming your gate down, cussing at you, threatening you, not leaving when informed they were trespassing. Destroying the gate to pieces when leaving. On and on.

  15. avatar Gregory Peter DuPont says:

    To paraphrase Ghandi, if your choices are reduced to either violence or cowardice-choose violence.
    Here it would be if your choices are 1) to be assaulted, murdered,looted by an ideologica driven pogrom-like mob or 2) use the weapons you have… Well you might as well drop a body or 12… because either way you’re in for a rough ride. May as well 1) make it as interesting for the Progressitard Scum as it is for you. And you may actually survive.

  16. avatar enuf says:

    Community Service huh?

    Well, there’s that busted gate that needs fixing. They could work on that.

    Could also be helpful in Gun Safety classes as a prop dummies in how not to handle firearms. That’d be a useful service.

    1. avatar Casey says:

      She’s going for community service because if the governor pardons them, it’ll look like he’s playing white-favorites because they’re “too good” for community service, which really they aught to be doing anyway to apologize for having a nice house. She can use that against him.

      On the other hand, if the felony stands, they’ll lose their gun rights and be for-sure defenseless, which (especially after the seizure of the weapons) is clearly what she’s aiming for.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        They deserve to lose their gun rights.

        1. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          You deserve to lose your free speech rights, among other things.

        2. avatar anonymous says:

          They deserve to lose their gun rights.

          You deserve a gulag. Maybe you’ll get one.

  17. avatar Darkman says:

    This a Great case of Votes matter. From everything I’ve read about the McCloskeys. They are card carrying Democrats. Most likely they voted for Kim Gardener. Much in the same way business owners in Ferguson voted for the same officials who allowed those businesses to be Looted and Burned. As well as many other Liberal Democrat cities across the nation. This may become a case of Woke Liberals learning from their mistakes by voting for Liberal Henchmen. Excuse me…Henchwomen. Regardless a Pardon from Governor Parsons is on the way.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Did some digging back when it happened.
      They’re personal injury attorneys.
      Suing cops for doing cop stuff is one of the ways they got rich, but not the only way.
      He was listed as making a variety of political contributions over the years (a comment here says it was mostly friends and business associates), and she contributed to Trump in 2016 and pretty much nothing before that.

  18. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Their lawyers will crush this racist DA. They seems to have enough $$$ to pay for very good lawyers. I hope the gov pardons them. So they can get their gun rights back.

    1. avatar anonymous says:

      They need to get some guns and some training. Their firearm etiquette is probably in the bottom 5 that I’ve ever seen. But it would be epic glory, if there could be big ceremony where their firearms are given back, and outlying communities donate ammo and larger guns to them. Then a photo op. Hey marxist/socialist BLM nutbags, look at this, then snap a photo of McCloskey armed to the teeth with a big smile on his face after the attempted political hit by the rioter supporting DA. Glorious.

  19. avatar merlin grayman says:

    ” Several Black leaders in St. Louis have expressed support for Gardner, including Democratic U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay, who has said protesters “should never be subject to the threat of deadly force, whether by individuals or by the police.”

    which proves none of the d*ip-sh*its can read.
    the 1st amendment says “peaceful” protest.
    property destruction is not peaceful.

  20. avatar FedUp says:

    When the Governor says “if you charge them, I’ll pardon them”, the Prostituting Attorney hears “I can charge them for political gain and don’t need to show any evidence in court”

    1. avatar James W Crawford says:

      “prostituting attorney”?
      Typo or intentional joke?

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        I rarely say Prosecutor, because Prostitutor and/or Persecutor are all too often more accurate.

  21. avatar 007 says:

    All this will never stop until Trump orders arrest and immediate deportation of the Nazi collaborator who is bankrolling these 5th brigade prosecutors.

    1. avatar Truth Hurts says:

      Soros needs to be convicted and hung, not deported

  22. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Mean while in Portland. The feds are arresting criminals who wear a disguise while they commit vandalism and arson.
    And the three L’s complain about the Feds!!!

    I guess local control means the police can be ordered to stand down. Or they can be ordered to enforce laws in a very unequal manner.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      I saw one video of some dumb thug screaming “Who are you? Identify yourself” (screamed from behind their own masks of course) and “Use your words, use your words!!!” (as they were snatching up the TERRORIST). Then she goes on to say “we’ll get you out bro, we got your back”

      Nah snowflake, your “bro” is federally fucked and already “disappeared”. Use your words… I never laughed so hard in my life. I never thought I’d actually support fed boi’s stepping, but in these cases, have at em. Wonder how many they pack in those mini vans at a time lol.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        We’ll get you out! NLG will get you out!
        (I think “use your words” is code for “hey idiot, remember what NLG coached you to say”)

        NLG was sort of the official legal team for the Weather Underground terrorists 50 years ago. They’ve got a long history of doing commie stuff.

        1. avatar anonymous says:

          “Use your words” is symbolic for their leftist crappy upbringing. They were probably always treated like 2 year olds and so are now treating everyone else like 2 year olds.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        They were world record breakers!! Like Sardines in a can!

      3. avatar Chief Censor says:

        You will be next. Let’s see how much you praise the feds when Biden is running the show and sending them in to enforce the new control on your ass.

        First they came for…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Chief,

          I lost the string here. What is this thread all about?

        2. avatar Montana Actual says:

          If you truly believe it will play out that way… Wait… NVM, you actually do believe that dumb shit. Since you are always visiting YouTube, maybe try asking it how a new civil war will play out.

          Come and take them.

        3. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Sam:

          The drastic change and all out war your fuddley ass cowers from.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam:
          The drastic change and all out war your fuddley ass cowers from.”

          Been to war, got the participation patch. Real war is not as much fun as it is onTV and in movies. Regardless, there will be no third civil war along the lines of the first two. While you keep watching the front door for SWAT teams, the real conflict is being won everywhere else.

        5. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Keep telling yourself that, only try actually telling yourself that and not TTAG… because nobody here agrees with you.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Keep telling yourself that, only try actually telling yourself that and not TTAG… because nobody here agrees with you.”

          Are you not uncomfortable with federal police looking like the anti-narco teams in Mexico? Armed people, faces covered, identical cammo clothing; how difficult would it be for other people to adopt similar tactics? Who could tell the difference?

          Thinking if police are afraid to be identified because it might put themselves and/or family at risk, those cops need to find jobs outside law enforcement. The entire method of operation is new in America; never seen before. Not buying all the media hype, but this is not good.

      4. avatar SoCalJack says:

        Yup, if the protesters (like the ones in Seattle and Portland) are charged with, say destruction of federal property or attack federal agents, they are commiting a federal crimes. Much stiffer federal penalties if convicted. These Missouri protesters are under city/state jurisdiction. But the recent protesting on the left coast, they are going nuts.

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      First of all, the feds don’t have legal jurisdiction outside of federal buildings/land unless they have a warrant. The sheriff can give them permission to be around but local crimes are not for the feds to enforce.

      These are the guys you want around and praise? Is the constitution and civilization not worth defending because you don’t like another American’s politics?

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        An “American” who advocates socialism and cannot understand any of it… Yes.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        “First of all, the feds don’t have legal jurisdiction outside of federal buildings/land unless they have a warrant.”

        Lol. OK, bud.

        Here’s the deal: Feds can investigate and detain or arrest anyone for whom they have articulatable suspicion or probable cause to suspect has committed a violation of Federal Law. They need not seek a warrant to do this if they meet the aforementioned standards, like a local cop if they see you do it they can grab your ass without calling up a judge.

        Tresspassing on or damage to federal property fall under this. As does assault/battery on a federal officer. As do interstate crimes.

        Illegally hauling fireworks across state lines for a riot and then launching them at feds or federal property puts you squarely in the crosshairs of any federal LEO who sees you do it and they can grab your friends at the same time too. Commercial fireworks without a license is BATFE territory and other federal agencies can grab you and detain you for the ATF.

        Pop off a legally defined “display firework”? No license? Well, BATFE has some thoughts for you that involve rear entry without lube cause you just invited the feds to come fuck you and they are going to win. If a FBI or USPS or CPB agent sees you do it and you can’t provide said license you’re going to be grabbed by them u til the BATFE Agents can have a chat with you.

      3. avatar J. Smith says:

        there are numerous provisions under USC that legally put federal officers in these cities for myriad reasons. Unconstitutional arguments are BS. They could use deprivation of rights, failure to enforce, drug investigations, weapons investigations, insurrection, parallel construction investigations, etc….

        Next, if a mob which is a weapon in and of itself of what like 500 people converge on private property, carrying impromptu weapons, and by one account an AK-47 was present, hailing violent threats, both imminent and present doesnt constitute a threat then Im not sure what to say other than you are blind, ignorant or have an agenda, or maybe all the above. I would appreciate better muzzle discipline, but not everyone is competently trained and proficient, Id give them a pass considering the circumstances. As for the Soros backed DA, there is the problem. Maybe put your efforts and energy there.

        So many willing to eat their own. No wonder why we are heading the direction we are going.

        I think they should have turned on the sprinklers and hose, im sure they would have then been charged with felony assault for bathing the dirty hippies with water.

      4. avatar FedUp says:

        A mob was rioting and assaulting federal officers. Anyone choosing to remain in the mob after that gets what the mob deserves. And the criminal who took a LTL round to the sinus cavity was clearly one of the prime instigators when he was hit, so my only regret is that he’s still alive.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Yes, I agree the 53-year-old Naval Academy veteran was assaulting the federal agents.

          He assaulted their pride when he politely asked why they were violating their oath to uphold the Constitution’s protections.

          He assaulted their a male ego when he calmly stood and received the repeated baton blows by the little man.

          When they came for BLM, I didn’t say anything because I didn’t care about them.

          When they came for the labor activists I didn’t say anything because I’m already wealthy.

          When they came for the asylum-seekers from Central and South America, I didn’t say anything because my folks were immigrants from Europe.

          When they came for the Native American sacred site protesters, I didn’t say anything because that’s not my religion.

          When they marched with torches in America’s streets, shouting ‘Jews will not replace us!’ I didn’t say anything because I’m not Jewish.

          Then they came for me, and there was no one left to say anything.

        2. avatar anonymous says:

          Yes, I agree the 53-year-old Naval Academy veteran was assaulting the federal agents.

          He assaulted their pride when he politely asked why they were violating their oath to uphold the Constitution’s protections.

          He assaulted their a male ego when he calmly stood and received the repeated baton blows by the little man.

          You’re right. He should have used a baseball bat, with barbed wire on it. Walking dead Glenn spagetti style because his baton was too small and flimsy. Great Idea Miner.

          Why didn’t the 53 year old ask this this question during the day when there wasn’t a violent riot going on and blatant property destruction. Maybe because he was part of the riot?

          Here you missed these videos:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7vlKbR3Gcs&t
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4BvbLRpMls

          When they came for BLM, I didn’t say anything because I didn’t care about them.

          When they came for the labor activists I didn’t say anything because I’m already wealthy.

          When they came for the asylum-seekers from Central and South America, I didn’t say anything because my folks were immigrants from Europe.

          When they came for the Native American sacred site protesters, I didn’t say anything because that’s not my religion.

          When they marched with torches in America’s streets, shouting ‘Jews will not replace us!’ I didn’t say anything because I’m not Jewish.

          Then they came for me, and there was no one left to say anything.

          That sounds good, except they aren’t coming for anyone. The government is incapacitated. Mobs are taking over. If anything, a leftist mob is coming for you. But yeah – keep spouting ridiculous poems and sh**.

        3. avatar Montana Actua says:

          At this point, it would be pretty amusing to just ban Miners IP. It’s clear he’s taken the “silence is violence” stance and even the “male privilege” and we already know his white guilt. Fuck man, your mom must be so ashamed to have raised such a pu$$y.

      5. avatar anonymous says:

        These are the guys you want around and praise? Is the constitution and civilization not worth defending because you don’t like another American’s politics?

        The “other” american politics will have your constitution and civilization replaced by political correctness, mandatory bias training, sexualization of your children, free abortions on every street corner, and forced marxist regimented equality extremism. The bottom line is, your constitution isn’t compatible with marxism, and neither is your religion, so they must be eliminated. But yeah – keep whining about some dumb kids surrounding a federal building in oregon that got shot in the face with a rubber bullet because they couldn’t seem to stop partaking in property destruction and marxism boy scouts (antifa).

    3. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

      You are an “L” for Lunitic.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Does that also make you an “L” for not knowing how to spell lunatic?

  23. avatar Enemies both Foreign and DOMESTIC says:

    This is a declaration of War.
    We’ve been in the middle of a coup since 2016, which they intend to complete in November.
    Here is my question?

    When do Patriots begin to take action, as called for by the Constitution and the Oath that many have taken???

    1. avatar Cea says:

      Same question I asked a few weeks ago. This blatant disregard for the oath of office and the Constitution in general, cannot continue to go unchallenged.

      1. avatar Ginder12 says:

        So Private Bone Spurs has faithfully fulfilled his oath of office?

        1. avatar Cea says:

          “Private Bone Spurs has faithfully fulfilled his oath of office?”

          From PBS/NPR, almost 2 1/2 years ago…really? Come on guy, you gotta be able to come up with something modern and real.
          The very fact that you pay attention to PBS/NPR, shows that nobody should pay attention to you.

    2. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Anyone in MO should already be mobilizing on these tyrants. I expect a nice gathering of some no fuck around types today! And unlike the failures of Virginia, they better stick around either until someone is pressured into arresting this tyrant or removing her (them – anyone with her) all together, or they better start kicking in doors. Time to play by the rules is over. Laws exist to fuck us. The left will burn cities and go unpunished for “civil liberties” but they play the slow game with our rights and we are fucking done. Grab your shit, get in your wifes van, and start digging trenches Missourians. You show up, and guarantee people will come from all over the nation to support you.

    3. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

      If we are unlucky and corrupt senile Biden wins and the corrupt Democrat Party wins the Senate and House they will abrogate the Bill of Rights. That is when the final box gets opened, God help us!

      1. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

        The final box opened and closed will be a pine box. It genuinely grieves me that we can’t come together as a united nation of individuals and respect each other.

        There will be no winners, we will all suffer for our foolishness. Some will suffer more than others but I hope liberty prevails.

  24. avatar TP says:

    U.S.S.A. ???

  25. avatar MtnDewey says:

    So the first line of this AP contributors story is “white husband and wife”. Why? This is all about the “movement”. Ridiculous, regardless of their political affiliation or color of skin. The pastor of the group is a liar according to the pictures I have seen. But since this is a racially heated time, anything whitey says is a lie. The 1st Amendment does not apply to people trespassing, B and E or any other crime being committed. I understand that MO has a castle doctrine, if so, this is a case of racism against white home owners, and the prosecution is going after them due to the color of their skin and possibly (speculation), their affiliation with any right leaning politicians. We will see all of this come to a horrible ending soon in this country. And the vultures will enjoyingly pick at the left overs.

  26. avatar Truckman says:

    I don’t think they broke any law they were on their own property standing out there to prevent any damage to anything they owned or themselves and right now the DA pressed charges because of race and party because the Governor said he would commute the sentence if they were charged and convicted myself hope that he will wipe it off there record even if he is a butthole right is right

  27. avatar Connor M. says:

    The tree of liberty has never been so thirsty. This kind of thing is gonna start a war if this kind of thing keeps happening.

  28. avatar Ralph says:

    Oh, this is funny. Someone edited Kim Gardner’s Wikipedia page to include this:

    “Gardner an anti white racist and second amendment denier”

    Wait til the leftist Karens at Wikipedia get a hold of this!

  29. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Kim Gardner is a “prosecutor” based on the Eric Holder model. Gardner should be disbarred for politicizing the rioting and attempting to use the power of the state to punish homeowners protecting their property. Gardner is nothing but a cancerous low grade Maoist.

  30. avatar WI Patriot says:

    And just where is the aclu on this…??? Isn’t this EXACTLY what the aclu is supposed to protect against…???

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      How does the ACLU count to ten?

      One, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        The ACLU supports the tenth????

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Indeed, the joke is in need of updating. Several more integers should now be removed.

  31. avatar Montana Actual says:

    Maybe this war we won’t have to burn our poop or use wag bags. I think I’d like to use Gardner’s toilet instead.

  32. avatar Dennis says:

    Guess we’re all gonna be criminals, eh? Gauntlet’s been thrown down, Doomberg and Soros are sittin on the sidelines in their cheerleader outfits!

  33. avatar Darkman says:

    Where choice is set between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence … I prefer to use arms in defense of honor rather than remain the vile witness of dishonor…”
    ― Mahatma Gandhi
    I see much of the Former and little of the Latter. In terms of POTG Standing Up for Their Rights. Mostly a lot of keyboard commandoing. Full of false bravado and hollow threats. While BLM and ANTIFA have chosen the Latter. Which is for them. Is Leading to More Victories in getting their Agenda’s Advanced.
    Even the Founding Patriot’s came to this conclusion 90+ years before Gandhi was born. At the end of the day it comes down to choices. Choose to be a Free Citizen or a Kneeling Subject. One takes Courage. The other requires Nothing.

  34. avatar James W Crawford says:

    I wonder if this DA would file criminal charges against a Black couple who armed themselves to confront a mob of KKK dressed in white robes and hoods who had just broken down the front gate to their private community?

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      That’s a different situation than the one the McCloskeys were in.

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        Same, but different. Same. But different?

      2. avatar Nemesis to Chief Sensor the Troll says:

        Only in your mind would it be different, because it is only libtards that can keep conflicting concepts of reality in their head at the same time and somehow think it all makes sense. Good luck with your delusion and misunderstanding of just about everything CHIEF SENSOR.

  35. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

    Looking at everything involved would I be crazy to think they were overcharged with the intent of being acquitted so there can be another drama ridden “protest” for racial agitation purposes?

  36. avatar Hannibal says:

    I wonder if Garner is charging them the way she is because she assumes they will be pardoned by the governor, as he suggested (not guaranteed) he would to. In that case she gets to look like a warrior for racial justice for her constituents but not actually have to prosecute the case.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      *Gardner

    2. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Of course that’s it. A quick Wikipedia check will tell you that much. This bitch is racist as fuck.

  37. avatar B says:

    First of all, the McCloskey couple are well within their State’s law to act in defense of their lives. It is reasonable in all aspects, when a mob tears down your locked gate and storms your curtilage. This is violence with sheer disparity in numbers and overwhelming force, and constitutes not just Imminent Danger, BUT Immediate Danger.

    Imminent Danger due to proximity and capability already meets the law in Self Defense in this case, but differs from Immediate Danger. It is usually best described as Imminent Danger = “About to Happen” and Immediate Danger = “Happening Now”.

    Imminent Danger is all you need to start defending because Immediate danger is often too late, meaning you’re already bleeding and you may never recover from your injuries which can or will result in death.

    Self defense allows one to defend their lives to survive the threat at hand, not injuries after the fact.

    Secondly, the charge of Brandishing fails to meet the law because it lacks Corpus Delicti. Brandishing is displaying a weapon in a rude or threatening manner when NOT in self defense, which is the critical element.

    Typical examples: the classic road rage scenario, or when some fool flashes his gat to be tough, because his ego was hurt. These do not constitute reasonable self defense. Obviously, not the case in the McCloskey incident.

    The McCloskeys may have had other prudent options and techniques that better trained persons may have exercised, BUT the bottom line is that they are well within their constitutional rights to “stand and defend” in reaction to the mob’s violence.

    Regardless if they’re political asshats, they too are protected under the Bill of Rights, period.

    Having said that, political asshats like the charging DA, should face prosecution for willful violations of human rights and abuse of power under color of authority. Gross actions which should hold higher penalties since she’s held to a higher level.

    1. avatar B says:

      Then again, it was never about the law. It’s all political theatre. The assclown DA scores points with the mob wether she wins or loses. Where’s the real justice. What a crock.

  38. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    So, charged with brandishing.

    Get training, all you “new gun owners” that the PTOG are so wet about. You can’t afford to make one mistake. Not one.

    1. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

      *POTG

  39. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Prosecutor should be hanged.

  40. avatar dale bullock says:

    This tells me everything I need to know about their character:

    “Mark McCloskey dismissed the defamation case, but he sued his sister and his two brothers and their father’s trust again in 2016, accusing all of them of “tortious interference” for pressing their father to cut him out of an inheritance.

    The siblings settled with their father’s trust paying Mark McCloskey $400,000, with all of them agreeing to drop all claims and never have contact with Mark McCloskey again”

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Yeah, but when has character ever mattered to conservatives?

      Just because McCluskey attacked his siblings in an estate battle doesn’t make him a bad person, does it?

      Donald Trump changed his fathers will after dad had been diagnosed with dementia, causing a large internal battle and a family rift but Donald made some money so it’s all good, right?

      1. avatar Nemesis to Miner49er Troll says:

        Your troll skills are lacking. An alpha male warrior doesnt debate the stupid rantings of beta-cucks. Ill leave you to figure out which one you are. The only thing you mine is BS.

      2. avatar anonymous says:

        Still whining about the Trump election fellas?

        Still better than Hillary. If Hillary were elected, Bill would be groping 20 year old interns in the white house as the “first man.” She would have canned the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. Manipulated firearm companies to her will and destroying any that resisted her with frivolous lawsuits until they went under.

        And here you man babies are – bi***ing and moaning about Trump’s game of thrones style relationship with his family and his wives. Just last year unemployment was a record lows. Other than his stupidity regarding bump stocks, Trump rejected all gun control propositions. He killed the individual mandate for health care, and lowered taxes (both corporate and individual). Yet your complaints are that he is not nice and is not a good character. Not much into policy are ya fellas?

      3. avatar Montana Actual says:

        You should watch some “Fleccas Talks” before you talk about character not mattering in conservatism. The majority of hypocrites exist on the left. Will you find the same idiots on the right? Yes, in small uninformed and outdated numbers. But the amount of assholes who cannot even practice what they preach about tolerance and acceptance at everything from gay pride marches to your beloved black lives matter protests is appalling. And that is just asking them basic questions of morality. There are rare gems who are decent people, which Fleccas makes sure to showcase because he is of sound character, as a true conservative would be. Seriously, watch one video. Basic questions. They say something then instantly contradict what they just said, or worse, the hamsters just stop turning the wheels all together and they just admit defeat in a jaw droppingly laughable kind of way. And fleccas is not the only one… you can even watch fucking Jimmy Kimmel for basic history questions and that little piece he stopped doing because it was making his own demographic look bad. Hell, even Steven Colbert stopped getting random people involved because they made the whole agenda he was trying to push look bad. I even used to like the guy before he started feeding the left. The one thing all these leftist idiots have in common is they stop having dialogues with conservatives because they get destroyed every time they try, so they result to sticking to their target audience and poking jokes. Meanwhile, conservatives all over youtube constantly invade all these events and most are actually there to simply have a political discourse and dialogue. Watch one video. The leftists last maybe 5 minutes before you put your palm to your face. Even good conservatives know that liberalism is good in moderation. Sometimes things need to change. However, what we have in 2020 is progression so far extreme and so rapid, they are herding themselves off a cliff. The worst part, is the advocation of historically flawed and failed tactics. So modern day liberals like yourself and all your silence if violence and guilt tripping with cries of “equality” actually results in oppression, and you can’t even see it. Just another sheep in the herd.

  41. avatar Bob in IN says:

    When protestors broke a private gate and trespassed on private property are still called protesters?

  42. avatar Gary L. says:

    I wonder how many people, trained or not, would react to hundreds of angry people approaching them? I’m pretty sure rational thought goes out the window. If they believe, in their minds, that they are in imminent danger, their actions are more than justified!

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      And the guns they had were probably props anyway. Not sure if it takes more or less balls to stare down a mob with a fake gun. Just a hunch and what I’ve gathered from listening and watching.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        The McCloskey’s lawyer claimed the one handgun was in operable, and it had been used by lawyer McCloskey in lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

        It is interesting to see so many POTG supporting an attorney who has sued gun manufacturers multiple times.

        You folks sure do pick strange heroes.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          This situation has nothing to do with idolizing the McCloskeys or condoning any of their prior lawsuits; rather, it has to do with standing up for the exercise of rights – rights that are theirs just as much as they are ours, and rights that are lost for us just as much as when they are lost for them.

          More often than not, the test cases for upholding constitutional protection of our rights are people who act, think, and believe differently from us.

          Then again, your side – the proponents of cancel culture – apparently believe that rights don’t belong to those who exhibit wrongthink.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Then again, your side – the proponents of cancel culture”

          If you mean people who think they have the right to disapprove of others actions, well then yes, I do harbor that belief.

        3. avatar anonymous says:

          The McCloskey’s lawyer claimed the one handgun was in operable, and it had been used by lawyer McCloskey in lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

          It is interesting to see so many POTG supporting an attorney who has sued gun manufacturers multiple times.

          You folks sure do pick strange heroes.

          Sounds made up. Your source?

          I’d like to see it (if it’s real).

        4. avatar anonymous says:

          “Then again, your side – the proponents of cancel culture”

          If you mean people who think they have the right to disapprove of others actions, well then yes, I do harbor that belief.

          not disapprove of other’s actions. He said “apparently believe that rights don’t belong to those who exhibit wrongthink.” Its about stripping them of their rights, not disapproving of their actions.

        5. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          If you mean people who think they have the right to disapprove of others actions

          49r: You didn’t complete that thought, you failed to add …… “While attempting to deny the rights of OTHERS to disapprove with their actions”… There that’s better, you’re welcome..

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      You can’t start the fight then claim self defense. Have gun owners not learned from the McMichaels? Now they are not going to learn from the McCloskeys?

      Stop watching political talking heads’ legal opinions. It’s no longer “cowboys and indians”.

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        Take your own advice.

      2. avatar anonymous says:

        You can’t start the fight then claim self defense. Have gun owners not learned from the McMichaels? Now they are not going to learn from the McCloskeys?

        Stop watching political talking heads’ legal opinions. It’s no longer “cowboys and indians”.

        The McMichaels brought guns in hand to their neighbors residence and the dumpster. They took the firearms over to their location. Not comparable to the McCloskey’s The McCloskey’s never left their property. A mob took the fight to their residence, not the other way around. Further, a mob does NOT have a right to break into their gate. Does not have a right to trespass on private property.

  43. avatar GS650G says:

    The missing scene in those videos is when the mob ransacked and torched their house.

    That’s because they stood there with guns and defended their property.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Were the other 93 houses in the subdivision were torched because they had new armed guards?

      And isn’t it true the people were marching past on the street and the sidewalk, not approaching the McCloskey’s?

      It must’ve been divine intervention that prevented the other homes from being looted and torched, even though they had no armed guards… Yeah, that’s the ticket!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “It must’ve been divine intervention that prevented the other homes from being looted and torched, even though they had no armed guards…”

        The other homeowners obviously were depending on the McCloskeys.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          Which is why they dislike the McCloskeys and left the gate unlocked for protesters. They even put their names on a letter… The McCloskeys’ own private security said, if things go down we are letting your house burn as we all run away.

        2. avatar Montana Actual says:

          3 peas in a pod. Miner, Sam, Chief.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          You are too kind.

          It is indeed an honor to be counted in such august company, thank you.

        4. avatar anonymous says:

          3 peas in a pod. Miner, Sam, Chief.

          Naivete. If they think the rioters are on their side, they are either marxist equality extremists, from the John Brown gun club, or they’re mistaken.

        5. avatar Montana Actual says:

          That’s what amuses me the most. The actually believe there is some unity amongst people who will tell you “no common ground” before they bash your windows in and murder you in the streets. All it takes is one word. One slip of the tongue. It’s interesting to see all these politicians come out and “join protestors” and then a week later have them on their front lawns. Sam would be that politician, Miner would be the one in the group to get smashed over the head with a skateboarder after rioting and looting with them for a whole week only to slip up and graffiti the wrong tag somewhere, and chief would be snatched up by a fed boi while his tranny GF shouts “Use your words! Identify yourself! We’ll get you out bro!”.

          3. Peas. In. A. Pod.

      2. avatar anonymous says:

        Were the other 93 houses in the subdivision were torched because they had new armed guards?

        There are NOT 93 homes on portland place.

        And isn’t it true the people were marching past on the street and the sidewalk, not approaching the McCloskey’s?

        They were, and then they made an abrupt turn, broke the gate to the private drive, trespassed on private property, threatened the McCloskey’s the grievous bodily injury and death, and then destroyed the rest of the gate on the way out.

        It must’ve been divine intervention that prevented the other homes from being looted and torched, even though they had no armed guards… Yeah, that’s the ticket!

        If they spray painted ACAB, f***12, BLM, and profanities on a house there and then looted it and razed it to the ground would anyone be surprised? I wouldn’t.

    2. avatar anonymous says:

      The missing scene in those videos is when the mob ransacked and torched their house.

      That’s because they stood there with guns and defended their property.

      Ding ding ding. Winner!

  44. avatar BillinOR says:

    They should go to trial. They’re reputations are already being trashed. Should demand a jury trial, find a great lawyer, and call Gardner to the stand and make her say her s*&t on the record, and let their attorney take Gardner apart.

    JURY TRIAL

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      A jury chosen from the mob that broke the gate, invaded his property, and threatened to kill him and rape his wife?

  45. avatar tdiinva says:

    The State AG has already filed for dismissal.

    I doubt there will be a trial.

  46. avatar Anymouse says:

    Quit listening to internet “lawyers” or your belief of what your rights are or should be. Dragging bodies of attackers inside, shooting fleeing felons, or defending property with deadly force are rarely legal. When you use a gun to defend yourself, you are almost always committing a crime, such as brandishing, assault, homicide, etc. There are legal excuses for these crimes (self-defense, defending others, castle doctrine, make my day, etc). If you are in an unfriendly jurisdiction, you may have to justify your actions in court. If you did not follow the laws exactly or can’t convince a jury that your fears were reasonable, you may be the one going to prison. Even doing the right thing but saying the wrong thing to cops can get you in trouble. Get real education by local experts. You might even want to join a legal defense insurance/prepaid organization, which often have classes. Make sure that you ask yourself, “what would happen if I don’t pull the trigger (or brandish the gun)?”, and make sure the result is worth more to you than a trial and possible guilt verdict.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      True. But in these times, tactics have changed. How quickly you can be surrounded by “non violent” types. The definition of “threat” is also changing. These protesters know that, and they will use it to their advantage. Defend yourself.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “Defend yourself“ against people shouting rude things that you don’t want to hear while marching by your home.

        The horror!

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          A mob, hundreds strong, telling you they’ll kill your dog, rape your wife, and kill you, is not a valid threat?

          How about members of that mob pointing pistols at your wife, is that a threat

          You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own made up version of the facts.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          The first to produce weapons and point them at other humans were the McCloskey’s, that makes them the aggressors.

          The protesters just replied in-kind to the McCloskey’s initial threats and brandishing.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Wrong.

          The unlawful trespass on private property (and destruction of private property) was the initial aggression.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          “unlawful trespass on private property”

          The McCluskeys did not hold title to the street, they have no standing to make a trespassing complaint. Only the association trustees or their designated agent can exercise such an authority and they chose not to on that day.

          The McCluskey’s can’t be random actors, claiming to ‘defend‘ association property, all the while involved in multiple adversarial proceedings with the same association involving association property wrongfully claimed by the McCloskeys.

          Regardless, the matter appears to be headed for adjudication so we shall see.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “The McCluskeys did not hold title to the street, they have no standing to make a trespassing complaint. Only the association trustees were their designated agent can exercise such an authority and they chose not to on that day.”

          Someone else who refuses to read applicable statute.

          “2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless: (3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.”

          At a minimum, all property owners on the Private Street have been given specific authority to occupy the jointly owned property (street, sidewalks, easements, etc.). The statute does not require that actors be designated as “agents” in order to justify the use of deadly force in response to trespass on private property.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The statute does not require that actors be designated as “agents” in order to justify the use of deadly force in response to trespass on private property.”

          If I were the DA, arguing such would be part of my prosecution theory (unless a judge prohibited it). The statute on deadly force may not require an “agent”, but maybe other law regarding property ownership requires it. If so, I would argue that since real estate law requires (if it does) an agent to pursue claims in the name of the association, the lack of wording to the contrary in the use of force law does not supersede the real estate law. Ergo, the McCloskeys had no legal standing to enforce trespass law for the community.

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Ergo, the McCloskeys had no legal standing to enforce trespass law for the community.”

          And that would be a bad argument. 563.031(2)(3) is clear. All the McCloskeys would need to show is evidence that they had specific authority to occupy the non-exclusive property of the Private Street. I imagine that would take nothing more than the street association bylaws being presented as evidence.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “All the McCloskeys would need to show is evidence that they had specific authority to occupy the non-exclusive property of the Private Street.”

          The counter would be that “authority to occupy” is nothing more than permission, such as the permission you grant a relative to visit you over several days. You grant permission to occupy, but not agency. Thus, your relative cannot claim to have authority to sell your house, acting as your de facto agent.

        9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “The counter would be that “authority to occupy” is nothing more than permission, such as the permission you grant a relative to visit you over several days. You grant permission to occupy, but not agency.”

          I don’t see how that is a “counter”. It only strengthens the argument. “Agency” is not required under 563.031(2)(3), but rather only “permission to occupy”. And, yes: I would agree that anyone I grant permission to occupy my property is justified in using deadly force in self-defense while on my property (more importantly, would be justified in using deadly force in self-defense in response to trespass on my private property, if in Missouri).

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Thinking “agency” applies if the McCloskeys were attempting to assert trespass law in the name of the community association, under permission granted to roam the private enclave. Since the streets and sidewalks are “community property” (supported collectively by fees from all members of the community), only the community association, as an entity, can assert defense against trespass of the common areas. The association, as reported, chose not to do so. I would make that a significant attack on the representation that permission for the McCloskeys to occupy the common areas also grants agency to act for the association.

        11. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Final answer, the statute does not require agency, only permission to occupy. If that’s all you’ve got, case closed.

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Final answer, the statute does not require agency, only permission to occupy. ”

          If it were so easy, we wouldn’t need judiciary, would we?

        13. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          “If it were so easy, we wouldn’t need judiciary, would we?”

          Actually, it is that easy, the law is explicit, and we really don’t need judiciary. They simply want to over complicate things to make you think we need them. Follow the money, check judges salaries, see how much lawyers make. It’s a multi-trillion dollar money making machine for the people on the inside.

        14. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Thinking “agency” applies if the McCloskeys were attempting to assert trespass law in the name of the community association, under permission granted to roam the private enclave.”

          Is it your claim that a property owner generally does not have the right to trespass people in non-exclusive property who have not been invited into the Private Street? Because, if so, that’s a pretty extraordinary claim.

        15. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Is it your claim that a property owner generally does not have the right to trespass people in non-exclusive property who have not been invited into the Private Street?”

          No. Starting from the position that management of the common areas (streets) is the purview of the community association, not the individual residents.

          Under your claim that the individual residents can enforce trespass laws because they are permitted/authorized to occupy the common areas, do the individual residents have the authority to bind the association to a contract for servicing those common areas, without regard to explicit/written delegation by the community association? If not, then how do the residents have “authority” to individually enforce trespass law in the name of the association?

        16. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Under your claim that the individual residents can enforce trespass laws because they are permitted/authorized to occupy the common areas, do the individual residents have the authority to bind the association to a contract for servicing those common areas…”

          That is quite the stretch – to the point of being non sequitur. Asserting property rights/trespass imposes no burden on the Private Street trustees, and is in no way analogous to imposing contractual obligations on the trustees.

        17. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That is quite the stretch…”

          Actually, it is not. The theory that individual residents can repel boarders on the common areas is at the core of your position. The justification seems to be that because the residents have permission (“authority”) to occupy the common areas, they are allowed to treat the common areas as their own property, or as visitors granted permission to occupy space in a private residence. However, the homeowner association is the primary agent for control and maintenance of the common areas. A such, the association writes the contracts for services to the common areas. The logic must follow that if the residents can individually apply trespass law to the common areas (which are the responsibility of the association), they have individual autonomous authority to arrange for services and maintenance of the common areas, an activity of extremely lesser importance than using deadly force to thwart trespass of the common areas. The argument that residents can legally enforce trespass law with deadly force, but are powerless to contract for maintenance of the common areas (which the community association never surrendered – and refused to assert their power to remove the protesters) just doesn’t add up.

          To continue this line, I would need to do the work of the DA’s office, researching real estate law and homeowner association privileges and responsibilities. The goal was to introduce an avenue of attack against the self-defense law regarding trespass. As noted before, I hope the prosecutors are inventive, innovative, and motivated to pursue this case, and it goes into the appeals process. For me, it remains a use of force issue, not a 2A issue.

        18. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          @Sam

          “visitors granted permission to occupy space in a private residence”

          The statute does not say “private residence” so are you saying you dispute the intent of the legislature and the word “occupy” was to mean structure or residence rather than an area or space?

          That certainly would be the best argument. Tough sell unless you had a sympathetic jury but possible and maybe something that should be settled in court for the Missourians. A decision either way would have no impact on anyone else.

        19. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The statute does not say “private residence” so are you saying you dispute the intent of the legislature and the word “occupy” was to mean structure or residence rather than an area or space?”

          I was using “private residence” to differentiate between homes, and common areas managed by the community association. The theory being that the common areas controlled/maintained by the association conferred legal rights of defeating trespass onto common areas, but no to any individual residing in the community. However, if the trespass law permits individuals of the community to use deadly force to stop trespass of the common areas, the individuals are acting as agents of the community association. Thus, if the individuals are agents for using deadly force to protect the common areas, surely they have agency for seriously lesser activities, such as contracting for service and maintenance of the common areas.

          The whole thing being an exercise in developing an alternative line of argument that the McCloskeys unjustifiably usurped the power/authority/privilege of the association to manage the common areas, and therefore had no standing to invoke the trespass law regarding use of deadly force. The theory would stand or fall on legal history in MO/STL, which I leave up to the prosecution to research and evaluate.

        20. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          “surely they have agency for seriously lesser activities”

          The flaw in your argument is that there is no statute that I’m aware of that confers upon the individual or group the legal authority to do the “lesser activities”. Lacking that then, no, it does not logically follow.

        21. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The flaw in your argument is that there is no statute that I’m aware of that confers upon the individual or group the legal authority to do the “lesser activities”.”

          The laws (statutes) of “agency” fall outside “gun laws”, and address who may empower whom, for what, under which circumstances. Real Estate sits squarely in the “agency” genre. Some states allow homeowner/association covenants/by-laws to be treated as law, others do not. The question might be which has precedence, by-laws restricting the authority of residents to take any action regarding the common areas, or the self-defense law regarding defense against trespass? Contest between two existing laws (theoretical; I don’t know the real estate law, nor law of agency in MO).

        22. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “The question might be which has precedence, by-laws restricting the authority of residents to take any action regarding the common areas, or the self-defense law regarding defense against trespass? Contest between two existing laws (theoretical; I don’t know the real estate law, nor law of agency in MO).”

          I really have no idea what you’re trying to get at here.

          The statute in question merely requires “…occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property…”

          At a minimum, it requires the McCloskeys be able to show evidence that they have “specific authority…to occupy the property” – which likely would take nothing more than the Private Street bylaws, authorizing the homeowners to occupy/use the non-exclusive areas of the Private Street. No agency is required. That they had specific authority to occupy the street satisfies the statutory requirement.

          This has nothing to do with agency, real estate law, or contract law.

        23. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The statute in question merely requires “…occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property…”

          But it may not end there. “Agency” and HOA law may have a part to play. That “specific authority” just might have limitations established under the covenants and by-laws. This is the unknown avenue I proposed the DA pursue.

          If the law were perfectly clear in every circumstance, there would be no need for trials. It is the judicial interpretation of the “perfectly clear” laws that establishes what “is, is”. Unlike “global warming”, the law is never truly settled. It only takes a breather between court cases.

        24. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “But it may not end there. “Agency” and HOA law may have a part to play. That “specific authority” just might have limitations established under the covenants and by-laws. This is the unknown avenue I proposed the DA pursue.”

          I just don’t understand this line of reasoning. “Authority to occupy” is binary; either it exists or it does not. It means nothing more than, “where I’m standing, I am authorized to stand”. It says nothing, and requires nothing, about what you may do while occupying.

          Insofar as bylaws restrict constitutionally protected rights and statutory authority to use deadly force in self-defense, the constitution and statutes trump all subordinate authority – both in principle and in action, given Missouri’s preemption statutes.

        25. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Authority to occupy”

          Presumes there can be no limit to the authority. A question to be resolved. I maintain one can be given “authority to occupy” only that space, time and manner designated in the by-laws of the association. The by-laws might even include words that prohibit using firearms in defense of self or property when occupying common areas. Or a host of other limits to “authority to occupy”. For instance, you are staying in my house while I am away. In writing I tell you that you may not possess a firearm (this is actually not too far from signs posted at a business prohibiting firearms on the premises.)

          Thus, in my house (or in a business prohibiting firearms), you have authority to occupy, but you do not have authority to defend yourself with a firearm. Do my restrictions (or those of a business) override local self-defense laws that permit the use of a firearm in self-defense of person and property? Regardless of my written restrictions, is the authority to occupy absolute? The answer is….authority to occupy has not been adjudicated to be absolute, across the nation.

          “Insofar as bylaws restrict constitutionally protected rights and statutory authority to use deadly force in self-defense, the constitution and statutes trump all subordinate authority – both in principle and in action, given Missouri’s preemption statutes.”

          In the case of a business location, where the owner tells you not to resist trespass because the owner wants to limit property damage, does the self-defense law apply, or the law regarding how a person may manage and control their business.? Can you ignore the store owner direction, and take it upon yourself to create damage by resisting trespassers? Can you use deadly force to stop trespass on property owned by another individual who instructs it not be done? If such limit to “authority to occupy is legal, then a community association could write limits into the covenants regrading the use of deadly force (or any sort of trespass resistance) in common areas.

          Businesses who post firearm prohibition signs do not, via the signs, remove your ability to defend your self using deadly force that does not include a firearm. What if the sign stated that the use of deadly force for any purpose is prohibited while on the property? Business owner’s right to protect a business, and your right to self-defense using any force at all. Rights in conflict. The US constitution does not prohibit an individual, or a business to limit the use of firearms, or deadly force on owned property.

          State preemption law does present an interesting wrinkle, but generally applies only to firearm regulation by subordinate government. So we come back to the question of whether “authority to occupy” carries with it the absolute right to the use of deadly force in self-defense, everywhere in the state. I say that is a question to put before the court: can the right of self-defense be restricted at all by private entities?

        26. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I just don’t understand the degree to which you are extending the naval gazing over this incident and the controlling statute.

          “Presumes there can be no limit to the authority. A question to be resolved. I maintain one can be given “authority to occupy” only that space, time and manner designated in the by-laws of the association. The by-laws might even include words that prohibit using firearms in defense of self or property when occupying common areas. Or a host of other limits to “authority to occupy”. For instance, you are staying in my house while I am away. In writing I tell you that you may not possess a firearm (this is actually not too far from signs posted at a business prohibiting firearms on the premises.)”

          Authority to occupy is authority to occupy. Show me anything resembling the likely bylaws for Portland Place – an HOA covenant, for example – that limits the space, time, and manner that residents have authority to occupy non-exclusive property, generally (i.e. not, say, the hours for a clubhouse or swimming pool, but general common areas).

          Your house rules are irrelevant, as are the rules for your publicly accessible business.

          “Thus, in my house (or in a business prohibiting firearms), you have authority to occupy, but you do not have authority to defend yourself with a firearm.”

          Side note, but: this is not how private property rights work. You have authority to trespass me; you do not have authority to disarm me or to prevent me from using a firearm in lawful self-defense.

          “Do my restrictions (or those of a business) override local self-defense laws that permit the use of a firearm in self-defense of person and property?”

          Still side note, but: it depends on the state. In Ohio, where compliant signs have the force of law, I could put myself in legal jeopardy for using a firearm in otherwise lawful self-defense, if I do so inside a posted business. In Indiana, where signs have no force of law and your only recourse is to trespass me? No; I do not put myself in legal jeopardy for using a firearm in otherwise lawful self-defense.

          “Regardless of my written restrictions, is the authority to occupy absolute?”

          Certainly not. But it is irrelevant, because in the hypothetical you contemplate, you are the sole owner of the private property in question, and the other person is not a property owner. So, you maintain the right to trespass the non-property-owner at any time, for any reason. That has nothing at all to do with a joint owner of private property, or of trustee-managed non-exclusive private property.

          “In the case of a business location…”

          Skipping, because it is irrelevant.

          “State preemption law does present an interesting wrinkle, but generally applies only to firearm regulation by subordinate government.”

          What, exactly, would you consider the board of trustees of a Private Street, to be, in the context of state preemption laws? (In Michigan, I know, the state supreme court determined, absurdly, that an elected school board creating rules for school grounds was not a subordinate government.)

          “So we come back to the question of whether “authority to occupy” carries with it the absolute right to the use of deadly force in self-defense, everywhere in the state. I say that is a question to put before the court: can the right of self-defense be restricted at all by private entities?”

          No, it cannot. For that assertion, I rely not on RSMo 563.031, but rather on the Missouri state constitution. The right to self defense is absolute.

        27. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “No, it cannot. For that assertion, I rely not on RSMo 563.031, but rather on the Missouri state constitution. The right to self defense is absolute.”

          Which is why we have courts. If MO permits businesses to prohibit firearms, your right is constrained, thus not absolute. You may still retain the right to self-defense using other means, but the authority to occupy is not absolute.

          What is this all about? Kicking ideas around. Your are one of the better challenges. We’ve used up a lot of bandwidth, and those who might tangential interest have probably gone. Thanx for the workout.

        28. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          No, it really is a stretch.

          First, as far as I’m aware, it is generally acceptable, even on property in which private ownership is less certain that on a Private Street – such as the common grounds of a condominium complex, for example – individual residents/owners can trespass people who do not have permission to occupy the common grounds. (What they can do to enforce the trespass, certainly, will vary.)

          But even moreso, in this circumstance, they are explicitly and specifically authorized by black-letter law to end a trespass on private property under the extant conditions.

          “The justification seems to be that because the residents have permission (“authority”) to occupy the common areas, they are allowed to treat the common areas as their own property, or as visitors granted permission to occupy space in a private residence. ”

          Here, you’re conflating general rights of property owners and the statutory language of 563.031(2)(3). The “authority to occupy the property” is part of language justifying use of deadly force in self-defense in response to trespass on private property. You are making the specious jump from justified use of deadly force in self-defense to “allowed to treat the common areas as their own property”.

          (Although, again, in this case, the non-exclusive property is their own private property; they are merely in non-exclusive ownership – that is what non-exclusive means. It doesn’t mean that it’s not their property; rather, it means that it is jointly owned property, of which they are joint owners.)

          “The logic must follow that if the residents can individually apply trespass law to the common areas, they have individual autonomous authority to arrange for services and maintenance of the common areas, an activity of extremely lesser importance than using deadly force to thwart trespass of the common areas.”

          No, that logic certainly does not follow. I would go so far as to say that it is an absurd stretch of logic.

        29. avatar Loughsun says:

          I am not saying that, I agree or disagree with you. But what, I will say is that, I like how you have demonstrated how a debate is supposed to go. And how facts as in the use of a law or statutes and precedents act as evidence to support your position. This is how debate is done. I’m glad to see it whether, I disagree or agree.

        30. avatar Sam I Am says:

          As noted elsewhere, the possible lack of standing by home owners may derive from real estate law as regards homeowner associations. My HOA reserves all rights regarding common areas. I cannot even contract to repair a whole in an exterior wall without suffering the six-week approval process, and then there are rules about how a contractor may conduct the work. My HOA and its covenants have the effect of state law. The covenant document requires a background check for new buyers of existing, or new property. Which is where I proposed the idea that the residents in a private community, may not have full ownership rights to the common areas, which could conflict with self-defense law regarding trespass of/on the common common areas.

          In the McCloskey event, for some reason, the community association board members declined to enforce trespass law. The implication is that they had the prime responsibility to do so, the failure of which may have contributed to the McCloskeys taking matters into their own hands (again, this is predicated on my reading of the posting indicating the mob did not cross onto McCloskey grounds). Does MO/STL law permit, or prohibit resident of an HOA/private community to act in the stead of the community association?

          My theoretic proposition was/is the DA office should have a look at pursuing McCloskeys for violation of law concerning covenants and by-laws. It would be an interesting exercise in determining priority of law.

        31. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “In the McCloskey event, for some reason, the community association board members declined to enforce trespass law. ”

          I have seen this asserted by others, but I don’t find it to be a compelling point. How would the board of trustees have had the time or opportunity to act in this incident? That the board of trustees failed to act is indicative of nothing whatsoever, and says nothing about the statutory justification for the McCloskeys to use deadly force in self defense in response to trespass on private property that they own and/or have specific authority to occupy.

          “Does MO/STL law permit, or prohibit resident of an HOA/private community to act in the stead of the community association?”

          Irrelevant, in that the McCloskeys did not “act in the stead” of the board of trustees. The McCloskeys acted in self defense in response to trespass on private property that they own and/or have specific authority to occupy.

          “My theoretic proposition was/is the DA office should have a look at pursuing McCloskeys for violation of law concerning covenants and by-laws.”

          What “law concerning covenants and by-laws” did the McCloskeys allegedly violate by acting in self-defense?

          If I really need to gild the lily here, I’ll invoke 563.031(3), which is the Stand Your Ground statute.

        32. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I have seen this asserted by others, but I don’t find it to be a compelling point. How would the board of trustees have had the time or opportunity to act in this incident? ”

          IIRC, some reported that the incident in question was a second visit, an intent signaled during the first attempt. If the board was requested to deal with the second mob, a declination would have to have happened in between. If there was no actual appeal to the board (thus no declination), then that part of the reasoning as to board jurisdiction would not be germane.

          “What “law concerning covenants and by-laws” did the McCloskeys allegedly violate by acting in self-defense?”

          That is the question. The DA office would need to research all of that in order to develop lack of standing arguments. There may be no “there” there. The entire thing was a speculative idea.

          In the beginning, I disagreed with the display of firearms by the McCloskeys based on an understanding that the mob never crossed the property line of the McCloskey residence, thus, there was no threat of any kind to the McCloskeys. You disagreed with that analysis. If the mob did set foot across the property line, then the “brandishing” conclusion would be wrong. The rest of the discussion could not develop.

          Maintaining my position that the mob remained in/on the common areas, I began to look at a possible method whereby real estate law could limit/remove the authority of McCloskeys to defend the common areas against trespass. I then proposed a possible avenue to explore, designed to defeat the self-defense claim. That being the covenants and by-laws of the community association may have preempted any resident from acting independent of the board regarding management and control of the common areas. Making such a case would involve the laws regarding the powers of HOAs/Community Associations/Private enclaves.

          Presuming one thing or another about the powers of community associations, an array of speculative outcomes could be available…a task I leave up to the DA office. Launching from the speculation that an association could indeed refuse power for users of the common area to make any decision regarding use, control, maintenance, management of the common areas, the next “what if” became a question of whether a covenant could restrict the right of defense against trespass on the common areas, preventing McClokseys from availing themselves the power of self-defense of the common areas. All in all, the entire discussion was a cautionary tale for gun owners to be certain they know what they can and cannot legally do, in their own jurisdiction.

        33. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          “Thus, your relative cannot claim to have authority to sell your house”

          No, but they do have authority to defend it according to the statute.

        34. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “No, but they do have authority to defend it according to the statute.”

          True, but your relatives don’t have the authority to defend the communal (public, tax-supported) street in front of your house. You are being charged fees to maintain the street (and some places, the sidewalks). Your “community association” is the municipal government. Your “community association” grants you authority/permission to use the street, but not agency to enforce trespass law regarding those streets/common areas. (in my neighborhood, we have two small parks established, but no authority to enforce trespass law in those parks).

          Admittedly, the analogy between a gated community and a municipal neighborhood does breakdown at some point, but, without specific delegated authority from the “community association” for every resident to enforce trespass law on community property, it seems quite a stretch to conclude that every resident of the community, by mere permitted presence, has been delegated the authority of the association to act in benefit to the community.

          Interestingly, the usual lawyer club here hasn’t really weighed-in on these discussions of law. Curious.

        35. avatar anonymous says:

          “Defend yourself“ against people shouting rude things that you don’t want to hear while marching by your home.

          The horror!

          Statements of the uninformed.

        36. avatar anonymous says:

          The first to produce weapons and point them at other humans were the McCloskey’s, that makes them the aggressors.

          The protesters just replied in-kind to the McCloskey’s initial threats and brandishing.

          Incorrect. The mob broke the gate, and trespassed on private property. They committed two crimes right there. The McCloskey’s didn’t go to their house and surround it and shout profanities while trespassing and breaking down their gate. So – disagree with that.

        37. avatar anonymous says:

          Sam I am and Miner are just really upset that the McCloskey’s aren’t being punished enough for this. They pointed guns at an angry mob that broken down their community gate and surrounded the McCloskey home and trespassed.

          You know what the problem here is????
          The McCloskeys! How dare they point guns at a crowd of rioters! On their own lawn, in front of their own house. Unacceptable! Take their gun rights away!

  47. avatar B says:

    Cuz it’s never been about the legal facts. The assclown DA wins points with the mob regardless if she wins or loses. It’s all political theatre. But she needs to be held accountable for her illegal abuse of her office.

  48. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    Things are gettin’ GNARLEY!

    Eric Schmitt, the AG for Missourah, has just announced:

    Citizens shouldn’t be targeted for exercising their #2A right to self-defense

    STL prosecutor Kim Gardner is engaged in a political prosecution

    As AG I’m entering the case seeking a dismissal & defend all Missourians’ right to protect their lives/property

    https://twitter.com/Eric_Schmitt/status/1285350569977274369

  49. avatar Manny says:

    The McCloskeys were kind and compassionate and probably saved lives that day. Not to mention that they exposed themselves. The other option would have been to silently barricade themselves inside the house with guns trained at openings, call the cops (useless, but just to cover that base) and blast away the moment somebody comes through a broken door or window. A few dead bodies but no brandishing charges.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The other option would have been to silently barricade themselves inside the house with guns trained at openings, call the cops…”

      Another option would have been to stand on the porch, weapons holstered/slung, just observing the crowd. It would be defensible for the McCloskeys to declare that they were open carrying on their own property, and made no move intimidate anyone. The message they would be sending would be the same as open carrying at the local grocery store; threatening no one, but prepared to defend if attacked.

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        If you honestly believe this crowd would have just minded their own business seeing that, you have not been paying attention and will surely be a victim soon enough. Has they been indoors even, how quickly windows would have been smashed and such. How naive are you? Rhetorical.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Everybody else in the other 93 houses in the subdivision seem to survive without armed guards, no windows broken, no doors kicked in.

          I would be very interesting in whatever report you might have of home invasions in the Portland place suburb during the protest. There must be many, you seem to think that the protesters were on a mission of home invasions and the McCloskey’s just barely saved them selves by brandishing and threatening with firearms so please share with us your evidence of other homes that were invaded because their owners were not pointing guns at the protesters, thanks!

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          This argument is, of course, irrelevant for at least two reasons:

          1) The McCloskeys could not have known at the time of the incident what the trespassing mob would or would not do to any other home on the Private Street.

          2) The intent of the trespassing mob need not be to cause any particular harm; what matters is whether or not the McCloskeys’ fear of such intent was reasonable at the time of the incident.

        3. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Do you ever stop ranting to think that maybe no other houses were fucked with because the first one they encountered was an armed opposition? Thanks.

      2. avatar anonymous says:

        “The other option would have been to silently barricade themselves inside the house with guns trained at openings, call the cops…”

        Yeah – calling the cops is definitely going to work in these times.

        Another option would have been to stand on the porch, weapons holstered/slung, just observing the crowd. It would be defensible for the McCloskeys to declare that they were open carrying on their own property, and made no move intimidate anyone. The message they would be sending would be the same as open carrying at the local grocery store; threatening no one, but prepared to defend if attacked.

        Well, they didn’t defend their home in the exact manner that you portrayed, so I guess they need to be punished right?

        1. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Sam has no rebuttal for how to defend the entire house from a balcony with limited views. All it took was asking him how it would prevent people from smashing in windows or vandalizing from the blind spots of inside the house or on a small balcony. Simple. Never thought he’d actually shut up though. Kind of nice.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam has no rebuttal for how to defend the entire house from a balcony with limited views.”

          The same way anyone would defend themselves against an unexpected home invasion.

  50. avatar Chadwick says:

    Is it time to start shooting? Because it feels like it’s time to start shooting. Just saying…

    1. avatar Dan W says:

      Looks like the rules are that you go down if you don’t shoot.

  51. avatar Ing says:

    On second thought, let us not read the blog comment section. ‘Tis a silly place.

    So much obtuseness and talking past each other, so many people so absolutely sure that only they know what truly happened and what’s absolutely right or wrong, when none of them were there…what a mess.

  52. avatar strych9 says:

    Let’s be honest here. The exact details of what they did are immaterial. Even with impeccable safety handling of holstered and slung weapons they’d still be up on charges.

    This is political. 2020 and 2021 are going to a rough ride regardless of who wins what. That die has been cast.

    1. avatar B says:

      Bingo!👆

    2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Indeed.

    3. avatar Dude says:

      If this incident had anything to do with law and order, she would have charged the trespassers as well. She’s sending a message that’s it’s okay to break the law as long as you agree with her politically. It’s the exact same message that is being sent across the country right now.

  53. avatar Dan W says:

    If you want to win these are the kind of people that you need to support. Because guess what? No matter what you do, no matter how good your weapon handling, your background, etc. The cucks on here will find something to complain about to sell you up the river.

    This also sets the precedent that you’ll be treated the same if you mag dump or not.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Not correct. The kind of people to support are the homeowners or their kids who take up a gun in the dark of night and stop a home invasion with the murderous thugs DRT in the hallway.

      The kind of people you want to support is the father who, rushing to the sound of his child’s screams discovers a rapist has climbed thru the window and with whatever weapons the father has he sends that animal to the morgue.

      You want to support the citizen who sees an armed robbery suddenly happen in front of him in a convenience store, draws his weapon and puts a final and decisive ending to a criminal “career”.

      Support the security guard, the off duty police officer or the member of the congregation when some mad dog starts shooting up the place, and the Good Guy With A Gun moves toward the gun fire and ends it.

      The man who saw a State Trooper on the ground, a criminal beating him to death and ran across the interstate highway with his own gun to kill that criminal and save that officer’s life, that’s the sort of people you should support.

      Who you do not want to support are these fucking snowflakes, entitled assholes who have been making everyone around them miserable for years with their lawsuits and over reactions to absolutely every factor in their lives that has not gone perfectly their way. People who were under zero threat but went out on property the ownership is in dispute of, a piece of grass not even their own, to threaten people who were not on their property and could not have had less interest in them.

      The McCloskey’s are lying their asses off. It’s in the many videos. The broken gate happened well after their little display. No body threatened them. Everyone who tried to engage in a shouting match with them was hurried out of there by others in the crowd.

      These are bad examples. We are lucky they did not shoot anybody, or our cause would be in much worse shape for it.

      Stop supporting the enemies of the Second Amendment!

      1. avatar Dude says:

        “Stop supporting the enemies of the Second Amendment!”

        We should all be wary of Leftist apologists. If these people are convicted, it could set a bad precedent for defending your home and property. Whether or not the attorneys are jerks or nice people is irrelevant.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        Snuffy, you are right on point.

        Celebrate the citizen, who steps forward to risk his life to save another’s, without thought of the consequence.

        Entitled Snowflakes is exactly the term to describe these two sterling examples of the excess of privilege.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          “…sterling examples of the excess of privilege.”

          Your rights are the same whether you live in a mansion or a shack, just like they’re the same no matter what your skin color is. They’re either right or wrong. Their wealth, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.

        2. avatar anonymous says:

          Entitled Snowflakes is exactly the term to describe these two sterling examples of the excess of privilege.

          LOL. Excess of privilege.

          Yeah, they were so privileged to have a giant mob of BLM marxists storm in, trespass on their private property, not leave, and threaten them.

        3. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Miner is just mad he can’t compete in a capitalist environment and earn his own “entitlements”.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “This also sets the precedent that you’ll be treated the same if you mag dump or not.”

      Not entirely correct. I may find that you violated the law in using a firearm in “defense”, but stopping the threat means doing whatever it takes to stop the threat. Now, if your mag dump takes out several bystanders, that is entirely different, but not the normal understanding of an event where a “mag” dump takes place. The issue is not that you made the person more deader, or even more hurted, but whether the use of the firearm met the legal standard for self-defense.

      I may be an exception (unlikely), but I can reach a split decision in the scenario you pose.

  54. avatar mannyg says:

    The McCloskeys should move to the USA (e.g. Polk County, FL) if they wish to preserve their Constitutional rights.

  55. avatar RandyN says:

    In neighboring state Oklahoma where I live there would be no charges. Their property was being trespassed upon by mob that had to break a gate to gain entry onto the property. It would be within your rights to stand guard to protect your residence. I know several people that live in Missouri and as they understand it they have pretty much he same right to protect their homes as we do here.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      “Their property was being trespassed upon”

      No, the streets are owned by the Portland place association, only the trustees and their designated agents are entitled to make trespassing complaints and they chose not to do so on that day.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        “…only the trustees and their designated agents are entitled to make trespassing complaints…”

        [Citation Needed]

        This assertion is not supported by RSMo 563.031.

      2. avatar anonymous says:

        “Their property was being trespassed upon”

        No, the streets are owned by the Portland place association, only the trustees and their designated agents are entitled to make trespassing complaints and they chose not to do so on that day.

        Exactly. Private property. Let is soak in. And you have zero idea of the contractual agreement of the private drive. Claiming that the McCloskey’s can’t assert trespassing complaints is total speculation. Total fabrication.

        1. avatar anonymous says:

          The reality is Miner, that you don’t like them and you want them punished and their gun rights taken away.

          And you’ll pay for it later, when you can’t defend your home from angry mobs, or that you have to wait for the mob to bum rush you before you can unsling your rifle, too little and too late.

  56. avatar Dale Menard says:

    This is why we have a jury system and adversarial trail. Reasonable people can differ on this case, but somebody has to decide whether this was okay. Just because they had the right to use deadly force does not mean a jury will agree with them. This is why we as armed gun owners avoid these kinds of situations as much as possible.

    Personally, I think this couple can justify their actions to an impartial jury, but anything can happen in a trial.

  57. avatar Kap says:

    better judged by 12 than carried by six! most of this crap is funded by , and lead by the Democratic Party, this is a ploy to get new gun owners to use their new guns so they can get a charges of ill use too bolster democrats anti gun, anti American agenda! This black prosecutor is Racist and doing this for political points! hope she gets charged for civil rights violation which would be ironical!

  58. avatar George says:

    To paraphrase U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay, who has said “protesters should never be subject to the threat of deadly force, whether by individuals or by the police.”

    Should state “trash talking trespassers should always be subject to the threat of deadly force”.

  59. avatar Simply southern says:

    Well only thing they could of possibly done differently would of been just to have the rifle shouldered and pistol in holster at side nothing illegal about that at your own residence both clearly being visible by protesters clearly anyone of them with some sense would know not to mess with the folks

  60. avatar The 2A clearly states your rights, bare arms! What better way to quell a threat of a mob! says:

    That POS prosecutor should be disbarred for abuse of ignoring people’s rights!

  61. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    WOW, All this noise about nothing.. All these legal scholars lined up to convict these people of WHAT? Exercising their Constitutional rights and defending their lives and property within the bounds of MISSOURI law (NOT Ca, NY, NJ, Il or Ma law) MISSOURI law… The Mo State AG said the broad is batshit crazy (my interpretation) and the Governor of the State of Missouri has already said that if she actually attempts to prosecute them he will issue a FULL PARDON… She knows she has no case, she’s already offered to drop IF they will agree to anger management course and some other crap that would ultimately make them ineligible for gun ownership… All you BLM, ANTIFA, Commie loving Liberal shits can cry and bitch and whine and moan all YOU want, it IS what it is and it’s not going to fall your way… Just hope you have someone willing to stand with you when they come knocking down your gate.. Hint, it won’t be me

  62. avatar Top says:

    And the governor will step in in 5, 4, 3…

  63. avatar Robert says:

    It appears that the McCloskys are litigators. Now is the time to sue the prosecutor for MALICIOUS PROSECUTION!

  64. avatar Alan says:

    If what I read was correct, the governor said something about pardoning the couple. Now might well be the time for him to exercise his pardoning power.

  65. avatar borg says:

    This prosecutor is demonstrating racism by choosing whom to prosecute on the basis of skin color. I hope she gets removed from office and disbarred. Also the Governor may pardon them.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email