Mark McCloskey Responds to Felony Charges: Prosecutor ‘Keeps Criminals Safe From Us’

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)

Mark McCloskey and his wife defended their St. Louis home from a violent mob of criminal trespassers and hoodlums using their guns on June 28th.  Yesterday, the St. Louis Circuit  Attorney Kim Gardner charged them with felonies.  Last night on Tucker Carlson Tonight, McCloskey hit back.

The lawyer spoke very articulately, saying the Gardner “apparently decided her job as a prosecutor isn’t to keep us safe from criminals but to keep the criminals safe from us. It’s a bizarre upside down world.  I’ve been a little irritated by this process until today and now I am just flat out pissed off. This has gotten to be outrageous.”

 

Carlson gave McCloskey the floor and the attorney delivered a scathing assessment of the prosecutor and her jihad against the law-abiding.

You know, everybody has to stand up and do what’s right.  I’m not going to be bullied. I’m not going to be intimidated. The left, the mob, uses social intimidation and threats to get people to knuckle under and apologize for doing what’s right. We are not going to apologize for doing what’s right. We are not going to back down and we are not going to move.

People need to stand up, wake up and recognize this for what it is.  It’s a concerted effort to destroy our way of life.  To change the fundamental basic social contract.  To do away with capitalist democracy and replace it with mob rule, encouraging violence, protecting the criminals and prosecuting the people to try to defend themselves against it. It’s a bizarre world. It’s time for people to wake up and pay attention to it.

Tucker asked what McCloskey was supposed to do?

McCloskey answered by saying he chose to stop the 300 Black Lives Matter and Antifa intruders from coming into his house to break things, set fires and kill him and his wife.

Now facing four years in prison, McCloskey seems optimistic given the support he’s received.

We have gotten support now from the White House on down. Governor Parson, there’s a senator, Eric Schmidt our Attorney General.  It seems like the only person in the United States that thinks we did something wrong is our circuit attorney, but she’s the same person that let out of jail everybody that was responsible for the looting and fires and destruction following the George Floyd death in the city of St. Louis. The only people she wants to prosecute are the people that defended themselves against it and nobody else to my knowledge.

There you have it.  Kimberly Gardner isn’t a traditional prosecutor advocating for the innocent and prosecuting the criminals.  Thanks in large part to George Soros’ generosity, she works as a social justice warrior masquerading as a prosecutor.  She releases violent criminals while prosecuting the innocent.

comments

  1. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    They aren’t facing anything but drama. The real America is standing up for them. It sucks that they have to endure this war against Americans.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      True, ‘Real America’ is standing up for them, and I agree with your sentiment. But the reality is that they have had real world felony charges levied against them, and are in the unenviable position of needing that ‘Real America’ support. If this hadn’t garnered the massive national attention it got, and the support of MO’s own Governor who has pledged a pardon, they’d be fighting this in court for who-knows-how-long and at who-knows-what-$$-cost to their pocketbook. The fact that there are real Leftist traitors such as C.A. Gardner in prominent positions serves to remind us that we’ve been far too complacent for far too long. The inevitable result of the NIMBY mindset. Eventually, those Leftists will attempt to throw us off the cliff.

      I believe the Left has overplayed their hand in 2020 and has ignited a patriotic fervor similar to what happened in 1980 when Carter was in his ‘malaise’ mode and Reagan was coming onto the scene. Trump was the first act of this new revival upon his 2016 election, but the events since then (Schumer, Pelosi, Waters, AOC, Socialist Squad, BLM, Antifa, Soros, Beto “Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15s” O’Rourke, destruction of historical statues & monuments, Money Printer Go BRRRR, and now the blatant attempts to destroy America’s entire foundation…those who wish to defend Liberty and God/Country/Mom/Baseball/Apple Pie are waking up and getting off the fence to take a stand.

      November 2020 is going to be a powder keg, no matter who wins the Presidency.

      1. avatar Kenneth Phillips says:

        The only the Democrats can win is if they stuff the ballot box. If that happens, you better have a gun, plenty of ammo, and know how to use it. Then we’ll have to take back the country by force. The question is, do we die on our feet , or die on our knees as slaves. And their is no doubt there will be dieing.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          They will stuff the ballot box. They’ve been doing it every election at least since JFK, and probably longer. But it’s more widespread and more brazen in recent years. And they will certainly put it in overdrive this year. If the election is as close as it was in 2016, I think they cheat enough to win. I hope I Haz is right. I’m not sure whether 2016 was America’s revival or America’s last gasp.

        2. avatar 45 Is A Traitor says:

          Oh, it was America’s last gasp for sure. That contemptible traitor Donny Dotard has made sure of that!!!

        3. avatar Someone says:

          @45…
          If that’s true, he should be impeached. Oh, wait…never mind.
          It’s fun to watch your helpless hissing hate.
          When Trump wins another 4 years, there will be epidemy of aneurysms amongst leftists.

        4. avatar jwm says:

          Someone. It;s going to be interesting to watch the melt down.

        5. avatar SKP5885 says:

          @ someone

          He was impeached. Just sayin.

        6. avatar tdiinva says:

          You seem to be behind the news cycle old man. The traitor mene died with the IG report and subsequent investigations. It turns out that Hillary was using Russian Assets and receiving Russian cash. And now “The Lincoln Project” has been caught with their hand in the Kremlin cookie jar. And then their is Joe fresh from the Burisma payroll in the pocket of the CCP

        7. avatar anonymous says:

          Where is Miner, Sam, and Chief? Aren’t they ready to usher in Biden and the equality police? Biden is going to select Beto as his anti-gun man. And while he is rubbing his wet hairy legs, or sniffing hair, or whatever biden does to biden his time, the left are going to be ravenous for pushing their polices. And gun rights aren’t one of them!

      2. avatar Justsomeguy says:

        Amen

    2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Are they still supporting Joe Biden?

  2. avatar MGD says:

    He’s a democrat. I wonder for how much longer?

    1. avatar blackice85 says:

      This is like an extreme version of ‘a Republican is a Democrat who was mugged’.

    2. avatar Lohengrin says:

      For a Democrat, he sure donated a lot of money to the RNC and Trump.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        When you’re an ambulance chaser you have to grease multiple palms. Oh uncommon? What’s WRONG with you? You’re on the wrong side here…

    3. avatar WARFAB says:

      Can’t help but think he’s ODing on red pills right now.

    4. avatar Cleophus says:

      Yeah, he makes his living, and funded the restoration of the fine house he was protecting from the mob by defending in court the same type of people who made up the mob. Can you say “IRONY?”

  3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Video makes it clear that McCloskeys threatened the mob when they pointed their guns at the mob. Did the mob shout threats to maim/kill the McCloskeys BEFORE the McCloskey’s threatened the mob? If so, where is the video that shows that?

    1. avatar Chuck says:

      Nobody started filming until the McCloskeys went and got guns AFTER they were threatened…..

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Not true. A couple of weeks ago when this story was fresh, I posted a link to one of the mobster’s Facebook vids that clearly showed they were all at the McCloskey’s residence well before they came out with their guns. That same vid also captured the audio of several threats to rush the McCloskeys and overpower them to take their guns and mess up their home.

        1. avatar Lohengrin says:

          So the crowd threatened to take the McCloskey’s guns BEFORE the McCloskeys had armed themselves? Please link to that video!

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The McCloskeys “arming themselves” on their own property is not a crime and is not something for which they were charged.

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          No. The mob trespassed and threatened, but of course could not and did not verbalize intent to take the McCloskey’s guns until after they saw the guns. There’s no reason why any threats would be made to take them before the guns were visible.

          I might go back and locate the vid link, but it’s from about two weeks ago, and I have a lot of comments & links posted here on TTAG. Would take a while, so it wouldn’t be until later today.

        4. avatar joeyj says:

          McCloskeys had started eating dinner on their patio when the mob broke the gate down and entered private property. Hence, the McCloskeys being bare footed.

    2. avatar hal_greaves says:

      The mob broke into their private place. The gate they walked through is the defacto front door to their neighborhood. You probably want to educate yourself on what that community and how Missouri castle doctrine is applied before you spout stuff you really have 0 clue about, because that’s just choosing ignorance at this point.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        hal greaves,

        Please enlighten us on Missouri castle doctrine, we are all ears.

        If the mob shouted threats to maim/kill the McCloskeys before the McCloskeys started pointing firearms at the mob, then the McCloskeys’ response was righteous and should be legally justified.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Read it yourself: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=563.031

          The trespass, alone, justified the use of deadly force – much less, the mere threat of use of deadly force – in self defense. See 563.031(2)(3).

          I’m really, really tired of disputing black-letter law with people who refuse to perform the simple task of reading the black-letter law.

        2. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          Still waiting for the case law cite where any court has considered property owned by a street association to qualify as owned “by an individual” as the law you keep citing reads.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The property owners are part of the Private Street association, and are jointly the property owners of the “public” parts (i.e. everything other than the exclusive-use home lots) of the Private Street.

          Regardless, RSMo 563.031(2)(3) covers them even if they are deemed not to be owners of the non-exclusive property, because, as property owners, they have specific authority to occupy the non-exclusive property.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          No, the land is titled in the name of the association, only the trustees and their designated agents have the right to confront anyone for trespassing on the associations streets.

          You can’t claim self-defense because someone is trespassing on the associations property.

          The McCloskey’s had actually been engaged in adversarial legal proceedings over what property the association owns as distinct from the property the McCloskey owned.

          The entity that owns the streets is the Portland place street association and no other individual or entity has control of their property or standing to complain about trespass.
          The entity that owns the streets is the Portland place street association and no other individual or entity has control of their property or standing to complain about trespass.

          The association employs security personnel, they chose not to complain about the trespass or employ security personnel on that day.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “No, the land is titled in the name of the association, only the trustees and their designated agents have the right to confront anyone for trespassing on the associations streets.”

          [Citation Needed. Still]

        6. avatar andrewinVA says:

          “I’m really, really tired of disputing black-letter law with people who refuse to perform the simple task of reading the black-letter law.”

          Welcome to the Internet

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        hal greaves,

        If Missouri law says that a property owner is legally justified to use deadly force on raucous trespassers and petty vandals who are outdoors and too far away to immediately attack the property owner, that is seriously messed up.

        If that is the standard, then property owners can legally kill a group of raucous teenagers who trespass onto someone’s property to throw toilet paper in their trees over 100 feet away from the property owner. While I enthusiastically support arresting and convicting trespassers and petty vandals, I condemn a standard that legally empowers a property owner to execute trespassers and petty vandals who pose no immediate threat to maim/kill the property owner.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Read. The. Statute.

          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:

            (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;

            (2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

            (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 Paul says:

          Too far away to be a threat? Get your eyes examined. They were well within pistol range. They were at point blank range for a rifle, and well within range of a shotgun. Oh, what’s that? You don’t want to talk about gun range? Alright – I can throw a rock that far. Or a molotov cocktail. And, if someone else distracts them with a rock or a homemade bomb, I can run that short distance in about three seconds. Look at that video again. The mob was well within range to inflict violence on these two people, even if none of them carried a firearm.

          Why do you make posts defending the mob? The mob could morally have been mowed down with a Ma Deuce the moment they walked through that gate.

        3. avatar Hal_Greaves says:

          1) Stop your emotional appeal to argument, it’s stupid and tired and everybody is tired of it, if all you have is appeal to emotion to support your case you’ve well already lost and also makes you look like a driveling, pathetic karen

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

          “A person has no duty to retreat:

          -From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
          -From their private property
          -If the person is any other location where they have the right to be”

          Considering what happened in Minneapolis, they have full 100% justification to do what they’ve done and to protect their property, especially one that legitimately breaks down private property that the couple themselves bought into. Nowhere past the gate, that was damaged by the way, was there any public property and in fact all of the roads, streets, sidewalks, lawn, etc belong to the community members, who all pay for it. So that is, by the definition of what the locale is, very much covered by the castle doctrine. You, yourself, admit they are, “Petty vandals” and “raucous trespassers,” which we all saw what said petty vandals did to Minneapolis.

          Furthermore, when the protesters returned, they protested OUTSIDE of the community, and did not enter in again. And continued to do so. Gee, I wonder why? You clearly do not understand what kind of place they were living in. Let me help you out:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_place

          The laws don’t really care what you feel, the -fact- is, they went onto the couples’ private property (Which belongs to them, as well as everybody else in said community) and as such the couple flexed on the protesters, based on the fear that the “petty vandalism” that happened in Minneapolis would happen in their neighborhood as well. Considering it also happened in DC, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, and a number of other cities, one can very well assume that these protests can turn deadly at any moment.

        4. avatar Mad Max says:

          Once a trespasser is confronted and ordered to leave the premises and refuses and continues to trespass in any threatening manner whatsoever, they are subject to the use of deadly force by the property owner.

          If a bunch of protesters come onto your property and you order them to leave and they leave forthwith, you cannot use deadly force.

          The concept is the same for “no guns” signs on private property where the signs do not carry the weight of law. If a person is found carrying a gun where the private property owners does not want anyone carrying, the private property owner asks them to leave, if they don’t, it’s criminal trespass.

        5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Chip,

          Read . the . ENTIRE . statute !

          You omitted subsection 1. in your post which is critical. The use of deadly force that you highlighted in subsection 2. is predicated FIRST on 563.031 subsection 1. which states that you cannot apply any physical force to someone unless you reasonably believe such force is necessary to defend yourself from what you reasonably believe to be the imminent use of unlawful force by such other person.

          Saying it another way, you must have a reasonable belief in the imminent use of unlawful physical force by an attacker before you can apply any level of physical force — including deadly force — in self-defense.

          Subsection 2. which you highlighted states the specific circumstances where you are legally justified to escalate from simple physical force to deadly force in Missouri.

          Thus, you cannot legally apply deadly force to someone who did nothing more than forcibly enter your property. That trespasser who forcibly entered your property must also present an imminent threat of physically injuring you as well before you can legally escalate to deadly force. And that “imminent threat” has to be “reasonable”, meaning that a jury would have to agree that that the trespasser represented an imminent threat of physically harming you. As I stated in the other comments, legal experts will tell the jury that a rowdy mob of unarmed trespassers who are well beyond 30 feet away from the property owner are NOT an imminent threat to the property owner.

          For reference here is the exact text of the relevant Revised Missouri Statute:

          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

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Ah, here it is, and I suspected this would be your point:

          “You omitted subsection 1. in your post which is critical. The use of deadly force that you highlighted in subsection 2. is predicated FIRST on 563.031 subsection 1. which states that you cannot apply any physical force to someone unless you reasonably believe such force is necessary to defend yourself from what you reasonably believe to be the imminent use of unlawful force by such other person.”

          Key words: “…use or imminent use of unlawful force…”

          Unlawful force (breaking and entering, trespass) had already been used. The hurdle posed by subsection (1) was already cleared.

        7. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Paul,

          What evidence do we have that members of the mob had firearms, Molotov cocktails, or b0mbs?

          Is it possible that members of the mob had those items? Of course. And it is entirely possible that no one in the mob had any of those items.

          Fear that a mob might have those items without any actual evidence that they have those items is NOT a reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm and fails to satisfy the legal justification to use deadly force.

          Look at it this way. You are standing in the road at the end of someone’s driveway — looking up their driveway at their closed garage door. That someone hurls insults and threats at you and heads for the side garage service door. Since they could have a car in the garage and a car can be a deadly weapon, can you legally shoot the person heading for the side garage service door? NO!!! They might be going into their garage to start their car and drive over you. Or they might not have any car at all in their garage. Or they might have a car in their garage and they are going into their garage simply to turn the lights off in their garage.

          Just as you cannot apply deadly force to an angry person who might have a car in their garage and use it as a deadly weapon, you cannot apply deadly force to an angry person who might have a concealed handgun and use it as a deadly weapon.

        8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Hal Greaves,

          I am posting facts and legal standards. That is most definitely NOT an appeal to emotion.

          As for mobs in other states, that is irrelevant with respect to the McCloskeys in Missouri unless the McCloskeys had evidence that the mob which damaged businesses and attacked people in Minnesota was the same mob on their private street.

          To illustrate the point:
          The next time that a driver in his/her car indicates intense anger toward me, can I legally apply deadly force to him/her since some other furious drive in some other state escalated to full-blown road-rage and attacked someone else? The answer is no.

          Hypothetical possibilities and vague similarities to other events are not a reasonable basis for a fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

          Oh, and Hal, I said nothing about “duty to retreat” or that the McCloskeys had a duty to retreat. Nice strawman distraction there.

        9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Chip,

          Sorry brother, you are wrong this time. (And it is probably the only time that you will ever be wrong because I know that are an intelligent and thorough person — that is a compliment by the way and not snark nor sarcasm.)

          The context of this statute is an aggressor applying or threatening to apply physical force against a human being (e.g. injuring, striking, or grasping a human victim), not when a criminal applies force on a structure (e.g. using tools to defeat barriers).

          This Missouri statute only justifies a defender to use physical force in self-defense if the defender has a reasonable fear of imminent attack of physical force on his/her body, and then goes on to specify further provisions for the defender to escalate to deadly force (one of those provisions being that a defender is justified to use deadly force in self-defense AFTER an attacker has expressed his/her intent to attack and proceeds to forcibly enter the defender’s property to carry out the attack).

        10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “The context of this statute is an aggressor applying or threatening to apply physical force against a human being (e.g. injuring, striking, or grasping a human victim), not when a criminal applies force on a structure (e.g. using tools to defeat barriers).”

          That could possibly be true, but the only place “unlawful force” is used in all of Missouri’s statutes is 563.031. So, there’s really no statutory context for foreclosing the definition of “unlawful force” to “force against a person“.

          For example: if someone attempts to set fire to my house – or, heck, my barn, since “dwelling” gets special provision – I would be justified in using force to repel that use of unlawful force.

          I’d be interested in any precedent case law in Missouri that limits the definition of the term “unlawful force” as used (only) in 563.031 to “force against a person.”

        11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Chip,

          Here is a simple scenario that clarifies the meaning of the Missouri statue in question.

          A man on a public sidewalk looks through a gate of a fenced yard, sees a woman sunbathing 50 feet away in her yard, yells through the gate that he is going to rape her, and flashes a knife.

          In some jurisdictions the woman cannot claim a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm — in connection with that man’s verbal threat to rape her — until the man has broken through the gate AND closed to within 21 feet of her. Subsection 2. of this Missouri statute means that woman has a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm — in connection with the man’s verbal threat to rape her — as soon as the man forces the gate open and he enters her property.

          Now let’s change the scenario slightly. The man is unarmed, never threatens to or even hints at raping the woman, and drops his cell phone inside the gate just out of reach. He asks the women to retrieve it for him and she refuses. The man is annoyed and then tells the woman that he is going to retrieve his cell phone himself, forces the gate open, steps inside, and retrieves his cell phone. While the man did forcibly open the gate and entered the woman’s property, he never indicated any intent to physically harm the woman. Therefore she has no reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm and subsection 2. of the Missouri statute does NOT justify her using deadly force on the man.

          That is the correct reading/understanding of the entire Missouri statute.

          This Missouri statute does not say that forcibly entering a piece of land in-and-of-itself establishes a reasonable fear of imminent murder or great bodily harm. Rather, it says that a credible threat to maim/murder someone PLUS forcibly entering a piece of land is a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Think of the “forcibly entering a property” provision as a simple standard which concretely establishes that an attacker really is an imminent threat if he/she threatened the property owner AND proceeds to force his/her way onto the property. (Prior to forcibly entering the property, the attacker was not an imminent threat.)

        12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Chip,

          Last word … I have to attend to other matters.

          Here is the relevant verbiage in the statute:

          … [defender] reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself … from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person …

          Given that the title of this statute is, “Use of force in defense of persons,”, the only sensible understanding of the word “force” in this statute is physical force (whether offensive or defensive) against a human.

          The provisions under subsection 2. refer to unlawfully entering the property and do not mention the key word “force” anywhere — especially in connection with a breaching action such as defeating a door, window, or gate. I think you are conflating the general legal concept of “forced entry” with physical force (e.g. battery of some flavor) in this statute.

    3. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

      The evidence is the 911 call they made before or while getting their guns.

      However there is no way to prove that they where NOT threatened. And that’s what a DA should have to do.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Cuteandfuzzybunnies,

        What you described is not how a prosecution works in this instance.

        The McCloskeys threatened the mob. Unless they were legally justified to do so, they committed a crime. Thus, the prosecution and defense both have burdens of proof. First, the prosecution has to provide evidence that the McCloskeys threatened the crowd. The video that we have all seen is the evidence of that. Then, the McCloskeys have to provide evidence that the crowd FIRST threatened to maim/kill them which therefore justified the McCloskeys action in response to threaten the mob. If the McCloskeys cannot produce audio/video evidence to that effect, then all they can do is claim that the mob threatened them first. At that point it boils down to “he said, she said” and who the jury decides is most credible/believable.

        1. avatar c says:

          Let’s see. You hear a gate get smashed you look out your window and see the mob heading for your house and you run past your gun to get a video recorder because your not scared and you’re thinking perfectly rational. You frickin libs all suck.

        2. avatar Paul says:

          You don’t need evidence that the mob threatened to maim or kill them. You need evidence that the McClosky pair feared for their lives. Nothing more. You see it every time a cop goes to trial. “I feared for my life.” It works, and it works well. The fact that a mob had broken and entered into their property is all the “evidence” needed to support their reasonable fear for their lives. Case closed.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Unless they were legally justified to do so, they committed a crime. Thus, the prosecution and defense both have burdens of proof.”

          Read. The. Statute.

          The state bears the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, if the defendant injects 563.031(2)(2).

          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.

          Stop arguing what you think the statute says, or what you think it should say, and start addressing what the statute actually says.

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Paul,

          That “fear for my life” standard has to be both “reasonable” and that the attack was “imminent” — meaning that a jury has to agree that the defendant’s fear of imminent attack was reasonable.

          You may think that it was reasonable to have a fear of imminent attack from the mob. Others very well may not. The jury will decide.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “That “fear for my life” standard has to be both “reasonable” and that the attack was “imminent”…”

          In what world does a mob of 300 people, who had just broken and entered through a gate to your Private Street, who were 30 feet from your front door, not represent an imminent threat, or result in reasonable fear of an imminent attack?

          Beyond that baseline of inherent justification, when the McCloskeys started shouting, “Private property! Leave!” (as heard on the video), some in the mob responded by threatening them. At that point, not only was the threat inherent and implicit; it was explicit.

        6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Chip,

          In practice the defense has to do more than just scream out, “The defendant feared for his/her life — now prove us wrong Mr. Prosecutor!”

          In this particular case, the prosecutor can simply claim that the demonstrators were determined to demonstrate peacefully outside the mayor’s home — as evidenced by the fact that the demonstrators: walked past the McCloskeys home, never once attempted to harm the McCloskeys or vandalize their home/property, and did not damage any other homes (all of which did NOT have armed people outside guarding them). Thus the prosecutor will direct the jury to conclude that the McCloskey’s did NOT have a reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

          Unless the McCloskeys’ attorneys provide something more compelling, the jury could very well side with the prosecutors. Whether that comes true is anyone’s guess. My money is on a hung jury.

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “In this particular case, the prosecutor can simply claim that the demonstrators were determined to demonstrate peacefully outside the mayor’s home — as evidenced by the fact that the demonstrators: walked past the McCloskeys home, never once attempted to harm the McCloskeys or vandalize their home/property, and did not damage any other homes (all of which did NOT have armed people outside guarding them).”

          In practice, the defense merely need only establish reasonable doubt. Grounds for reasonable doubt:

          1) Mob of 300 people: disparity of force
          2) Evidence of intent to commit unlawful acts (i.e. they were unlawfully trespassing on private property)
          3) Evidence of intent to use unlawful force (breaking and entering)
          3) Proximity to their home (maybe 30 feet?)
          4) Evidence of intent to harm the McCloskeys and/or their home: shouted threats from the mob
          5) Reasonable belief in the potential for a seemingly “peaceful” mob (who were not, in fact, acting peacably, given the unlawful acts already committed) to turn violent: “peaceful” protests across the country that similarly turned violent – including protests practically within walking distance of the Private Street

          There is more than enough here to establish reasonable doubt.

        8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Chip,

          In what world does a mob of 300 people, who had just broken and entered through a gate to your Private Street, who were 30 feet from your front door, not represent an imminent threat, or result in reasonable fear of an imminent attack?

          In the video that I watched, the mob did not have distance/range weapons (which would allow them to inflict mortal wounds from a distance, e.g. archery or firearms). Thus, the mob could only inflict mortal wounds with their hands and feet which requires the mob to be at contact distance. As long as the mob was beyond contact distance (which includes a “buffer distance” to allow for the defenders’ reaction time if the aggressors suddenly rush the defenders), they could not possibly maim/kill the McCloskeys and there was thus no imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

          The only gray area here is how much “buffer distance” is necessary. Various self-defense and law-enforcement experts put that distance at something like 21 feet minimum and maybe even as much as 30 feet.

          An aggressor can be foaming at the mouth furious, holding a big knife in hand, and screaming verbal threats to stab/slash a defender: if that aggressor is standing 50 feet away from the defender, he/she is NOT an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the defender. And even if the aggressor is standing only 30 feet away from the defender, many/most jurors would NOT consider the aggressor to be an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Legally speaking, that hypothetical aggressor does not become a credible, imminent threat of death or great bodily harm until he/she is within the magical distance that corresponds to the defender’s human reaction time — which various court cases have claimed is about 21 feet and sometimes slightly farther.

          Thus, the McCloskeys can say, “We had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury from the mob — now prove us wrong Mr. Prosecutor!”. And the prosecutor will prove them wrong when a video analyst shows the mob was well beyond 30 feet away and a self-defense or law enforcement expert witness tells the jury that unarmed aggressors are NOT an imminent threat of anything when they are beyond 30 feet away.

        9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You and I fundamentally disagree that a knife-wielding madman 30 feet from your house – much less, a mob of 300 people 30 feet from your house – does not represent an “imminent” threat.

          Imminent means “about to happen”. It does not mean “happening this instant” or “capable of happening this instant”.

        10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Chip,

          Okay, last “last” word.

          I readily admit that I consider a mob of rowdy people only 30 feet away to be a significant potential threat. Are they an imminent threat? I am not sure. I can see that either way, hence my predictions of a hung jury.

          Alas, what you and I think does not matter. What matters is what prosecutors, expert witnesses, and juries think. And in that regard, how much distance is necessary before a rowdy mob is no longer an imminent threat is anyone’s guess in the courtroom.

      2. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        Oh my fucking God, people, DO YOU NOT SEE HIM COMPLETELY AVOIDING CHIP?! You are arguing with a True Believer, and he’s intentionally not engaging the resident expert on these topics. Stop wasting your time! And God bless you Chip!

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          ChoseDeath,

          Assuming that you were referring to me, you can read my comment that includes the subsection of the statute which Chip failed to post. That subsection of Missouri statute refutes Chip’s claim that a property owner in Missouri can use deadly force on someone who forcibly enters his/her property even though the trespasser is far enough away such that the trespasser is NOT an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the property owner.

          Chip is normally spot on. In this particular case he happens to be in error. I suppose that there is a first for everything. (It happens to the best of us.)

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Just to be clear, I wouldn’t consider myself the “resident expert” on this or any other matter of law. (The TTAG commentariat includes lawyers to whom I defer in that regard.)

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @uncommon_sense: I haven’t come to that comment yet, apparently. I’ll look for it.

        4. avatar ChoseDeath says:

          uncommon_sense
          I did not see that. Now that I have I would like to withdraw my complaint of you not engaging Chip with apologies. And I substitute it with you and I unequivocally disagree on this situation. Have a great day.

    4. avatar James W Crawford says:

      Given the context of previous vandalism, looting and arson (fire is a deadly weapon) by rioters, the fact that the mob broke through the gate gave everyone in the neighborhood just cause to respond to an ongoing attack. I would not have condemned them if they had opened fire on the intruders.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        James W. Crawford,

        I can picture some people on a jury taking your position. And I can picture other people on a jury taking the position that the general context was not sufficient to justify threatening the mob.

        As I stated earlier, I think this will end in a hung jury (meaning the jury will not be able to come to a consensus either way for guilty or not-guilty) if it goes to trial.

        1. avatar Hal_Greaves says:

          Nobody here cares what you think, because it’s clear thinking isn’t something you do well.

    5. avatar Paul says:

      There are two broken gates at the front, making it patently obvious that the mob was violent, and seeking to become more violent. The mob was most obviously NOT delivering wine and roses along with a catered banquet meal.

      Take your progressive BS and pack it where the sun don’t shine.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Paul,

        I am advocating that we cannot legally use deadly force until someone is attacking us and has the ability to maim/murder us. Last I checked that does NOT make me a Progressive. Pro tip: insulting people who do not agree with you is a cherished Progressive tactic.

        Assuming that the mob was belligerent, actually broke the gate, and was trespassing (which I believe is almost certainly the case):

        While that is obviously a crime and would be unnerving and possibly even infuriating, it is not an attack to maim/kill the McCloskeys and is not sufficient reason to legally justify the McCloskeys threatening to kill the mob.

        1. avatar zerofoo says:

          You are wrong – legally and morally.

          Missouri has a “stand your ground” law with no duty to retreat.

          https://www.uslawshield.com/3-critical-stand-your-ground-rules-mo/

          Morally, you have the right to defend your life and property with lethal force. Yes – I believe you have the right to shoot people that want to steal your property.

          When you are born, all you have is your labor. You exchange that labor for property during your entire working life. Taking property without consent or compensation is the same as taking labor without consent or compensation – it is no different than slavery.

          If you want to attempt to enslave me – it may cost you your life. And that is morally right.

        2. avatar Cale15 says:

          Uncommon_ sense so are you gonna wait till someone is actually raping your wife your wife or kid before doing something about it?

        3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          specific verbal threats (you can hear them, repeatedly) exacerbated by intimidation from a physically insurmountable mob means it was time to start plugging, regardless of location.
          in mo, it just happens to be legally justified as well.

        4. avatar WARFAB says:

          Such a stance regarding self defense gives criminals way more advantage than they naturally have as the aggressor against law abiding citizens. If someone else decides to attack you without warning, you’re already behind on reaction time and the OODA loop.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          “If you want to attempt to enslave me – it may cost you your life.”

          History shows it may not be all that difficult.

          A bunch of old white guys managed to enslave millions of African Americans for 250 years without any real consequence.

          And to this day the descendants of those who enslaved all those folks are still benefiting from the fruits of their labor stolen at the point of a gun.

        6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          zerofoo,

          Those are some humdinger strawman distractions.

          I did NOT say that the McCloskeys had a duty to retreat.

          I did NOT say that the McCloskeys had any obligation to let people steal their stuff.

          I did NOT advocate for slavery.

          You are really barking up the wrong tree. Actually the wrong forest on the wrong continent.

        7. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Cale15,

          Before I can legally use force to repel an attacker, an attacker must:
          1) Explicitly convey his/her intent to attack
          2) Have the physical strength to carry out the attack
          3) Be close enough to attack

          The most relevant question is, “How close is too close?” If the attacker has a firearm and we can see each other, then that is too close. If the attacker has an edge weapon or bludgeon, then legal theory says the attacker is too close when he/she is within 21 feet (and possibly a bit farther away, maybe up to 30 feet). If the attacker is “too close” I will use physical force to stop the attacker.

          This really gets ugly if the attacker has no visible weapons and the attacker and defender are somewhat evenly matched in terms of size, strength, and speed. If that is the case, most jurisdictions only allow the defender to engage in hand-to-hand fighting techniques for self-defense — and the defender most likely has to wait for the attacker to come to the defender if the defender wants to stay on solid legal footing.

        8. avatar tdiinva says:

          Not-Z49er: It was black West Africans who did the actual enslaving. They had been selling other black Africans to white Arabs for a couple of centuries and started selling them to Europeans when the market opened up.

          Know your history.

          Black lives don’t matter to white leftists. We know that because the attack on the police had already cost several hundred additional black lives in past 6 weeks. In fact more black Children have been murdered by black on black violence in the past month that unarmed blacks killed by the police in the past 18 months and Not-Z49er doesn’t even know their names.

        9. avatar Miner49er says:

          “It was black West Africans who did the actual enslaving”

          Number one, no one would’ve enslaved anyone if there wasn’t a market for the product.

          But more importantly, here in America the African-Americans were being beaten, maimed and killed by exclusively white folks, there is no getting around the fact of their guilt.

          And white folks had no problem gleefully enslaving the children of the African-Americans here, for decades enslaving newborn babies into a life of pain and suffering.

          Stop making excuses for evil.

    6. avatar Debbie W. says:

      common moron…No secret these mobs have established themselves as serious lawbreakers that pose a threat everywhere they go. No one with a lick of common sense would zero in on and blame the victims or potential victims of such mobs. In other words, you are a nut and it would be fitting for such a mob to come to your door…pucker up.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Debbie W.,

        No secret these mobs have established themselves as serious lawbreakers that pose a threat everywhere they go.

        So, the “mobs” that have been totally peaceful were not actually peaceful and all future “mobs” cannot possibly be peaceful because all mobs are serious lawbreakers everywhere they go? Please explain.

        The law is simple and clear: the only time that you are legally justified to use deadly force is when you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. And when would a person have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm? When a person or a mob DEMONSTRATES THEIR INTENT AND ABILITY RIGHT THEN AND THERE to maim/murder a victim.

        “Demonstrating intent” usually includes an aggressor who:
        verbally threatens someone, or
        uses hand gestures to mimic harming someone, or
        rushes toward someone with a menacing demeanor, or
        advances on a victim after the victim tells the aggressor to stop

        And “ability” means that the aggressor is physically able and close enough to maim/murder a victim.

        Finally, “right then and there” means just that. The more distance and time between an aggressor and a possible victim, the harder it is for a possible victim to claim that they had a fear of imminent attack.

        If pointing out these details of the law and truth make me a “scumbag” or whatever other insult you can think of, so be it.

        1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

          You also can’t use the ” nothing happened ” so they had no reason to point weapons excuse, pointing weapons is why nothing happened.

    7. avatar zerofoo says:

      “Did the mob shout threats to maim/kill the McCloskeys BEFORE the McCloskey’s threatened the mob?”

      Yes.

      They forcibly trespassed. That itself demonstrates violent intent. The McCloskeys did not initiate force – they responded to it.

    8. avatar Ron says:

      You think the left would allow a video contrary to the narrative to appear? Ha!

    9. avatar Mitch says:

      Looks to me like a lot of “commenters” around here are actually leftist deep trolls. Comment for long periods of time in a seemingly pro second amendment way, then suddenly start spouting leftist ideology come election time.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Not me, I’m a progressive all the way!

        And to be clear, posting an opinion at odds with others is not trolling, it’s the American way.

        And y’all are totally full of it, you are ignoring the facts as seen on video.

        The protesters did not break down the gate to enter, the gate they entered was standing wide open as multiple videos show.

        The protesters are on the street, owner of record of the street is the Portland Place street association, who made no complaint of trespass on that day.

        Let us watch how it proceeds through the legal system, the proof is in the pudding.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “The protesters did not break down the gate to enter, the gate they entered was standing wide open as multiple videos show.”

          You have video showing the entire, 300-person mob passing through the gate? Please produce it.

          Facts in evidence:

          1) The gate was closed, and standing, before the trespassing mob broke and entered through the gate
          2) The initial trespassers did not damage the gate, as seen in some videos
          3) When photographed after the trespassing mob had finished passing through, the gate was damaged/bent in half

          I doubt that you can show evidence that the trespassing mob is not responsible for the damage to the gate. You can only say that the initial trespassers did not damage the gate.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Only if you consider Nazis Progressive. Well Hitler did establish single payer, ran a fairly egalitarian social order and supported the Palestinians.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Mitch,

        If you are referring to me as a Leftist deep troll, you are really off the mark (like, in the next galaxy).

        I do not support the mob that is the subject of this post allegedly damaging a gate and trespassing.

        I DO support their right to peaceably assemble and petition government for a redress of grievances.

        And, I DO support the righteous use of deadly force.

        I am simply trying to educate people when our laws justify deadly force. And based on the comments, people are in dire need of a better understanding.

        Thus far, commenters think it is legal to use deadly force when:
        — someone resembles someone else who was a criminal
        — someone wants to maim/murder you even though he/she is incapable of doing it
        — you are super-duper angry at someone
        — you really despise someone
        — someone else stole something
        — a mob of people are rude and obnoxious
        — a mob of people are trespassing
        — someone might have a hidden weapon and evil intent
        — you have irrational or unfounded intense fear

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Wow, you just summed it up rather nicely.

      3. avatar tdiinva says:

        No, not deep cover lefties, just people who are trying to play by rules that no longer exist. The reason that Fascist Revolutionaries usually win is that supporters of the rule of law cling to it long after it had been voided by mob action. With the exception of one person we are all trying to justify or oppose what the McKloskeys did on the basis of rules that no longer relevant. The one exception believes that there is no right to oppose the mob. That is how Fascists think.

        1. avatar Ron says:

          Excellent point.

    10. avatar your huckleberry says:

      You mean like this?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=9hawV-yThN0&feature=emb_title

      From an old TTAG article in Lansing, MI. You want to see an example of actual threatening in a total bs situation, look at this. Guy says he is scared by one guy on a motorcycle, while guy on motorcycle is outnumbered and has a rifle sticking feet from his face with the safety off and shooter’s finger on trigger.

      Funny how everyone is so worked up over this couple when the above situation is obviously drastically more serious. Or is it not since we are obviously living in strange times?

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        The guy on the motorcycle is obviously provoking the citizens blocking the street.

        Were the citizens wrong to block the street, yes of course. Should the one who pointed the rifle been arrested, absolutely.

        But he wasn’t, because the police on the scene recognized the man on the motorcycle was provoking a confrontation intentionally.

        Reasonable citizens avoid areas where there is civil unrest, and civil unrest is more common in a representative democracy with the freedoms we hold dear.

        You know, the folks in that video were just guarding their neighborhood, something like the McCloskey‘s in their little hood.

        The difference is, the protesters were just marching by, while the gentleman on the motorcycle is clearly attempting to provoke an incident.

        1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

          Public street vs private street big difference.. Motorcycle guy had every right to be there the other thugs not so much. Big difference no matter what kind of crap you spout.

  4. avatar John E> says:

    In Minneapolis they just found remains in a Pawn shop that was burned in the first riots? Harmless though right?
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/charred-body-found-in-destroyed-minneapolis-pawn-shop-months-after-riots

  5. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    Prosecutor ‘Keeps Criminals Safe From Us’

    Wow! That sounds pretty hard core! Elect Pink Shirt to Congress!

    “I’m not locked in here with you; you’re locked in here with me.”

  6. avatar Yang says:

    He is a lawyer and works for a firm, so he has resources.

    If the Circuit Attorney is not bringing criminal charges why does he not file civil charges against everyone who violated his property rights? Force the law breakers to have to hire attorneys, go to court and face civil penalties that could be in the thousands of dollars if not more. He will probably only get a small fraction of any judgement in his favor, but he will handicap those that wronged him and his wife for the rest of their lives. That may be the only way to punish those bad folks.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      And the McCloskeys will be able to get the names and addresses of the mob how exactly?

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Well, there is at least one person listed in the police report as a victim.
        This isn’t a crime against society like drug possession.

        There’s the target(s).

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      “why does he not file civil charges against everyone who violated his property rights?”

      Because it’s not his property, the owner of record is the Portland Place street association.

      Only the trustees of the association and their designated agents have standing to file a trespassing complaint.

      If the McCloskey’s thought unauthorized people were using the streets, their legal remedy is to complain to the Portland police street association, and whose name the property is titled.
      It’s a McCloskey’s thought unauthorized people were using the streets, their legal remedy is to complain to the Portland police street association, and whose name the property is titled.

      Or, they can play Barney badass, brandish their weapons in a threatening manner, and be charged with a felony.

      Which is what we have here today, the way they want it. Well, they get it.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        “Only the trustees of the association and their designated agents have standing to file a trespassing complaint.”

        [Citation (Still) Needed]

        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.

        They do not need to be agents of the street association. They do not need authority to file trespassing charges. They merely need to have specific authority to occupy the non-exclusive property, which I guarantee that they have.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Frankly, I’m interested to see what actual lawyers, prosecutors and judges in Missouri have to say about the incident.

          It’s fun to sit back and debate from the safety of our bunkers, I am sure we will all be surprised by the outcome.

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    Kim Gardner is the best prosecutor money can buy.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      How much did you pay Ralph?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        George paid.

        1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          Come on Ralph. You failed at an opportunity to say something funny like Tree-fiddy.

          We know that George Soros and Bloomturd buy everything(one) blue.

  8. avatar Arandom Dude says:

    Based and wealthyboomerpilled.

    Gotta wonder how much longer they’ll be Democrats.

  9. avatar LifeSavor says:

    I never understood why the Mccloskey’s went ground-level with the model rather than taking the high-ground in their balcony.

    1. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

      Because they haven’t taken the trouble to get trained. I thought that was clear.

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        JB,

        Right. But, it just seems so simple to figure out….haven’t they watched cowboy shows, war movies? 🤔

        1. avatar jwm says:

          I got all my combat and gunfight training from watching John Wayne. I’m fully trained up and unbeatable. 🙂

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @jwm,

          Balance that out with some John McClane and John Wick, and you’ll be good to go. 😉

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @LifeSavor,

          The McCloskeys have become the poster children (for lack of a better term) for the average Mr. & Mrs. America who are **not** trained and simply own a couple of guns. Holding off a mob while interrupted from their dinner, the husband is barefoot and in classic office chinos/polo, the wife is acting as backup with poor/untrained form. Clearly not “operators” who were just waiting for the opportunity to put all their tacticool gear to good use, but rather just homeowners who found a mob of 100+ agitators at their property. And the McCloskeys are (were?) proclaimed Democrats and former BLM supporters, too boot!

          This is a good thing. It allows the maximum swath of viewers to identify with them. Soros pays big money for his PR campaigns, but this one was a massive freebie for POTG.

        4. avatar ChoseDeath says:

          Bah! Rank amateurs. Bronson and Stallone all day.

        5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Chose,

          I dunno about that. I don’t really get the itch to re-watch any Bronson (slightly before my time) or Stallone (rise to stardom during my childhood) movies, but right now I’m thinking of grabbing the popcorn and watching the John Wick trilogy again. 🙂

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          “the average Mr. & Mrs. America”

          Sure, the multi millionaire trial lawyers are average Mr. and Ms. America…

          You folks could not be any more out of touch with the vast majority of American citizens.

          Here in West Virginia, the average yearly salary is around $36K. And very few of these rural folks live in a home that is on the national register of historic places.

        7. avatar Dude says:

          Miner,
          Way back in 1980, you could make an inflation adjusted salary of $50k by working in a meat processing plant. Now it’s about half that. Why do you think that is? Hint 1: It has nothing to do with minimum wage. Hint 2: Why have meat processing plants been in trouble with the law lately?

        8. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Miner,

          Yo…go back and read my statement again. I mentioned nothing about the dollar value of the property, the clothing, or the guns. I simply mentioned that the McCloskeys aren’t the “militia” type so often vilified by the MSM, but rather are typical American gun owners who know which end goes “bang!” but don’t seem to be trained.

          YOU inserted your disdain of their wealth into the discussion. Any bullet flying across a field knows not & cares not about the wealth, skin color, or political affiliation of its target.

        9. avatar Dude says:

          Speaking of wealth, it would be funny if it came out that their rifle was an automatic. I just want to read the reporting on that. Heads would explode.

        10. avatar ChoseDeath says:

          @Haz
          Haha, I’m early, early 30’s my friend, I just love the classics. Death Wish man, especially 2 and 3! Great stuff.

      2. avatar chuckers says:

        She did look likesomeone who didn’t have a clue how to handle a weapon. Watching the way guns and ammo are flying off the shelves right now makes me very nervious. People like that prosecuter and the thugs she loves might want to stop and think about what could be coming down the road, the next ime there may not be a warning just a lot of lead flying when the kick in the door. If he gets propoer training he could take out quite a few of the thugs before they clear out.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          The husband said early on that his wife didn’t know anything about guns, but she was afraid.

    2. avatar TommyGNR says:

      That’s because you weren’t there.

    3. avatar John E> says:

      Why did they stage outside the walls against the White Walker army during the Battle of Winterfell? Why did the last season of GOT suck so bad, these are questions we may never have answers to.

    4. avatar James W Crawford says:

      Because their front door is not fortified. If they are on their balcony when the mob breaks down their front door, they will be trapped. No amount of firepower will protect them if the mob torches their house.

    5. avatar Paul says:

      There IS a problem with the high ground, often enough. Cowboy movies aside, the guy in the high ground often loses mobility. Occupying the high ground is just great, if you have troops to hold the ground below you.

      Been there, done that. I prefer to be at ground level, or someplace that I can reach ground level in only a moment. The fourth of fifth step up a flight of stairs, alright. The balcony is too high to jump from, especially now that I’m an old man.

    6. avatar jwtaylor says:

      If the goal was to shoot as many people as possible, then the balcony would be the place to be.
      But, as they have proven, if the goal was to protect life and property, then the ground floor outside was the right choice.
      Traping yourself in a top floor balcony is a surefire way to get your house robbed and then burned to the ground underneath you.
      The Romans mastered the concept of defense in depth, and it is as fundamental now as it was then.
      Stillness is death.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        There’s a valid strategic and tactical debate here and it varies with location and circumstances.

        However, let’s not suggest that these two people were actually engaged in a deep defense strategy. They’re not exactly small unit tactics instructors and they weren’t going to fall back repeatedly in an attempt to inflict maximum casualties as they drew the mob in. Such a thought never occurred to them. This also brings up the question of “Draw the mob into what?”.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Oh no, I don’t think they had any real tactical experience a draw on.
          But if someone says they don’t understand why they didn’t stand on the balcony, it’s because their whole goal wasn’t to just kill people. But to keep their home safe, which is exactly what they did.
          Also, defense in depth is a about maintaining mobility more than inflicting casualties.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        “if the goal was to protect life and property, then the ground floor outside was the right choice.”

        Oh yes, standing outside their home, not availing themselves of the locking doors and the ability to retreat to various rooms is the very best bet for defense.

        That’s great advice, while you’re being assaulted immediately abandon your emplacements and run outside with your weapons, that’s the best way to defend.

        Also don’t bother wearing any facemask, the virus is just a democratic hoax.

        And Donald Trump is a great businessman, that’s why you should take the opportunity to invest in his Trump University, trump airlines, trump casinos, trump vodka, etc.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Bitter, frustrated and angry. The next four years should see you right over the edge.

          Thank you for all the support you generate for Trump.

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          When you’re not bald faced lying you’re showing your ignorance. Keep it up. You’re guaranteeing four more years.

          And hey, remember when you said…

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Bitter, frustrated and angry.“

          I’m sorry you feel that way, but self-awareness is the first step towards recovery and better mental health!

    7. avatar enuf says:

      Because they are elitist, snowflake morons, that’s why.

    8. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Their front door and ground level windows was the funnel point not the balcony… IMHO anyway.

      As the mob breaks the thresholds start stacking them up. Of course that infers that the couple had enough ammo to get the job done.

      I bet the police would have shown up then! Although I understand since the local gov has been throwing them under the bus for last couple months.

  10. avatar Jeff says:

    Just when we thought it could not get any worse the local prosecutor levels felony charges against a couple that defended their home. We now see the main difference between democrats and republicans. Civil disorder and anti-gun prosecutions or the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Recently the media is making a full court press that anyone who votes for Trump is a racist. Will this scare people off as it is intended or will Americans that have a job and pay taxes vote for Trump?

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      “Recently” the press is painting Trump supporters as racists??? What cave have you been in the last 4 years???

  11. avatar Roymond says:

    It is soooo past time to bring back tarring and feathering of corrupt/moronic public officials!

  12. avatar Brodirt says:

    Here’s an idea; any person who is elected for public office must forever make public all of their finances; top to bottom from passbook savings to pensions to offshore accounts. If they are ever found to have received improper compensation of any kind or any amount they both forfeit their pension and make themselves civilly and criminally liable for their corruption.
    Its high time elected office stops being a direct line to cash in.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      “Here’s an idea; any person who is elected for public office must forever make public all of their finances; top to bottom from passbook savings to pensions to offshore accounts.”

      Well you know, everybody from Jimmy Carter through Ronald Reagan to George Bush one and two, Clintons, Obama and Biden have all released their tax returns along with detailed financial statements.

      Unfortunately cadet Donald ‘bone spurs‘ Trump refuses to release his tax returns, because they will show he took a $130,000 business deduction for hush money for his porn star prostitute.

      Remember when he made the campaign promise to be the most transparent president in history, ha ha, fooled ya!

  13. avatar enuf says:

    “Mark McCloskey and his wife defended their St. Louis home from a violent mob of criminal trespassers and hoodlums using their guns on June 28th.”

    Wrong, false and a flat out bald faced lie. You cannot defend against a non-existent threat. You may posture, prance about, generally over react and stage a show, you may even panic, but there is no defense to offer when there is no threat.

    The McCloskey’s are snowflake elitists, NOT poster children for the natural born right of Self Defense or the enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Wow. So TDS is not your only illness.

      1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        No. He and uncommon_sense are both batshit crazy.

    2. avatar John E> says:

      I view 300 masked anarchists in my front yard as posing an imminent threat, hell 3 masked protesters I would consider and imminent threat.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Nobody was in his front yard. He and his wife tried to confront people walking down the street, not in their yard.

        No threats were made, they are liars pure and simple.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          “No threats were made, they are liars pure and simple.”

          Do you have proof of this, or is this just how you feel?

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Dude, the person making the claim has the burden of proof.

          If you claim threats were made against the McCloskey’s, the burden of proof is on you to produce evidence of these threats.

          Clearly, the video shows the McCloskey’s brandishing their weapons in a threatening manner, aiming directly at the protesters repeatedly so there is evidence for the claim the McCloskys threatened the protesters.

          You have presented no evidence to support your claim of threats against the McCoskeys by the protesters, so it is just empty speech.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Dude, the person making the claim has the burden of proof.

          If you claim threats were made against the McCloskey’s, the burden of proof is on you to produce evidence of these threats.”

          Nope; that’s not how the statute reads. Injection of 563.031(2)(2) via 563.031(5) requires the bare minimum of evidence. Essentially, the McCloskeys need only say “they threatened us” and/or “I feared for my life.” At that point and with nothing more, per 563.031(5), the state bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the assertion is untrue.

        4. avatar Dude says:

          Miner,
          I was replying to enuf, who very confidently stated, “No threats were made, they are liars pure and simple.”

          How would he know that without proof?

  14. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “There you have it. Kimberly Gardner isn’t a traditional prosecutor advocating for the innocent and prosecuting the criminals. Thanks in large part to George Soros’ generosity, she works as a social justice warrior masquerading as a prosecutor. She releases violent criminals while prosecuting the innocent.”

    For her crime against the people, she needs to be removed from office, jailed and when released she wouldn’t be able to hold any public office, even that of dog poop collector.

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      Seriously. I think she should get whatever sentence she called for for the wrongly accused, and then be released under your terms. You know how to stop a bully. I’d imagine 99% of us here do. You break their face (metaphorically, physically, as necessary), otherwise they just keep coming.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      “she needs to be removed from office, jailed and when released she wouldn’t be able to hold any public office”

      Yes, no need for those pesky trials with a jury, those constitutional protections are just for white people?

  15. avatar WARFAB says:

    Anyone else catch McCloskey’s quick comment that there will be “revelations” forthcoming about the inspection of the rifle?

    1. avatar JUSTPASSINTHRU says:

      I’m guessing the Rifle is a plastic facsimile,,,, at one point Mr. McCloskey grips it with his right hand far up the foregrip in a way that suggests it’s either a very light Rifle or he has some sort of “Gorilla-Grip”.

    2. avatar edward kenway says:

      Wait until the evidence report comes out regarding the wife’s pistol.
      Rumor has it the forensic investigator found her semi-auto inoperable because the firing pin and spring was improperly inserted – then was re-assembled into working by the investigator after it was taken as evidence.
      Doesn’t reflect well on the wife’s proficiency with a gun and if true, doesn’t look good for prosecutors, either.
      https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/gardner-staffer-ordered-crime-lab-to-reassemble-patricia-mccloskeys-gun/63-be112149-d06c-4f54-a225-6545e74b5c2d?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

      1. avatar edward kenway says:

        Oh, and if that’s not enough, read further down to find the pistol was intentionally rendered inoperable as a “court room prop” to be used as evidence against a firearms manufacturer.
        WTF, really?
        This story just gets better and better every day.

      2. avatar WARFAB says:

        Awkward question: did Mrs. McCloskey know that her pistol was inoperable?

        Either way, it appears that Mr. McCloskey knew.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Is knowledge of the (in)operability or (in)capability of the weapon to discharge a round an element of the crime that has been charged?

          It sounds to me like the police altering the evidence will result in a “not guilty” verdict, if not dismissal with prejudice.

        2. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Actually Chip, I don’t think they altered evidence. They simply showed that properly assembled they gun was capable of firing. If they had destroyed the lab report that would have been a serious issue. Gardner, who should take up gardening at the pen, will claim that the defendants altered the weapon after the original trial to return it to working order and then changed it back after the incident and before giving it to their attorney. They will claim that it could have been in working order at the time of the incident.

  16. avatar Hannibal says:

    “McCloskey answered by saying he chose to stop the 300 Black Lives Matter and Antifa intruders from coming into his house to break things, set fires and kill him and his wife.”

    Ah yes, the “It’s coming right for us!” defense from Southpark.

    How many other houses did the ‘mob’ burn that day?

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Several hundred thousand homes were burned to ash by the trained dragons unleashed by the trespassers. In fact, if not for the McCloskey’s fighting off the blood thirsty hordes of Orcs and Lycans, The Alien Vampire Zombies would have overrun our mid-western region and the USA would now be split in two by an invading Communist army from Cuba in the South and China in the north.

      This was all part of the conspiracy to keep Obama in the White House as President For Life!!!

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Jade Helm was just the beginning!

        And the identity of Q is…

        John Wayne is McQ

        Remember the movie, where he played a hard-nosed-detective named Q on the mean streets of San Francisco. Was he gay?

        1. avatar enuf says:

          John Wayne made two of that sort of movie. McQ in 1974 and Brannigan in 1975. They were not his best work.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Hannibal,

      I have not yet seen evidence that the mob shouted threats to maim/murder the McCloskeys before the McCloskeys pointed firearms at the mob. Assuming that is true, I am honestly incredibly shocked and disappointed at how many people think the McCloskeys were legally justified to use deadly force against a mob for being rowdy and trespassing.

      And I laugh at the comments of people who say that I am emotional and/or stupid. My work and business involves matters that would lead to dozens, hundreds, and possibly even thousands of deaths if I were emotional and stupid. Quite the contrary, I have almost been fired from jobs, had bad performance reviews, and had co-workers shun me for insisting on doing what is right, correct, and necessary to minimize the probability of lost lives rather than being dumb or doing what is exciting, easy, and/or cheap.

  17. avatar Miner49er says:

    “As the mob breaks the thresholds start stacking them up.”

    What an interesting window into the thought process of you folks.

    You have created a completely delusional situation with no basis in reality.

    This creates an opportunity for you to feel righteous indignation and obsess over how effective your particular firearms and combat philosophies would be in your fantasy situation.

    After a few minutes of this self aggrandizing discussion, you conclude that you, like Donald Trump, “know more than the generals“ and would offer the perfect defense of your multi million dollar mansion, if you only owned one.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Just to clarify, the main argument has been that they were outside with guns. Is this not so?

      The only point I was making is that they should be inside behind locked doors. If the mob does not breach the thresholds then no worries.

      If the mob does decide to breach, the natural choke points are the doors and windows, not the balcony.

      I don’t think even you would be so foolish as to break into a inhabited dwelling. although I might be wrong about that as evidenced by your usual silliness.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “The only point I was making is that they should be inside behind locked doors.”

        I completely agree!

        In the very fact that they felt safe enough to exit their still secure home and parade on their front lawn, pointing their firearms at the protesters going by on the street, proves they did not have a reasonable fear of injury or death.

        They willingly abandoned a secure place of safety in order to maliciously threaten the protesters walking by on the street, that’s why they were charged.

        Don’t worry, there’ll be a sweet plea-bargain, probably something like disorderly conduct and it will all be swept away because of the large political contributions the McCloskey’s have made to mostly Republicans, including President Donald Trump.

  18. avatar 1SFGSFC says:

    Fellow Patriots,

    I think it is past time to take our country back. We tried the soapbox. We tried the ballot box. Now we need to try the ammunition box!

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Take it back from who exactly?

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      You know I always heard that SFG, ABN stood for ‘School for girls and big ninnies’.

      1. avatar oo rah says:

        “Minimum Intelligence Not Expected or Required”.

        If the jump boot fits, wear it. More than likely you never did or could qualify, so STFU, REMF.

  19. avatar enuf says:

    Watch now: A closer look at the Portland Place confrontation
    https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/watch-now-a-closer-look-at-the-portland-place-confrontation/video_3da6ee55-ce57-584c-916d-be29d5aba0e0.html
    ———————–

    The local news has a lot of video and interviews, has taken a close look at this incident.

    1. McCloskey’s have been complaining about the gate for years, that it was falling apart.

    2. Video shows hundreds of people walking thru an intact gate. McCloskey claims he saw them break it down, video proves that is a lie.

    3. Video shows people go thru the gate and instantly continue on the street. Never on the McCloskey’s property, never engaging with the McCloskeys’

    4. Video shows McCloskey was instantly outside and yelling at the protesters, instantly brandishing his gun. His wife does worse, immediately going out and pointing her handgun at people.

    5. Numerous videos show protest organizers telling people to stay in the street, to keep moving and leave the McCloskey’s alone. No one makes any threats in any videos.

    Mr and Mrs McCloskey deserve to lose their right to keep and bear arms.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      “….to keep moving and leave the McCloskey’s alone. …”

      Seems like the firearms had their intended effect then. To keep those ‘Protesters A/K/A Rioters’ away.

      I’m not seeing the problem here.

      1. avatar edward kenway says:

        Peace through superior firepower seems to work. Leftist bullies and NGO-funded “fellow travelers” despise ownership of private property and the right to defend it because it nullifies their moral justification for redistributed theft.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          You do realize you are describing Mark and Patricia McCloskey, don’t you? They are the leftist elitists in this scenario. It is as if the high ranking “Party Members” were upset to see the common population outside their dacha.

        2. avatar edward kenway says:

          “You do realize you are describing Mark and Patricia McCloskey, don’t you? They are the leftist elitists in this scenario.”

          No, they aren’t.
          The inept McCloskeys are great examples of well-paid ambulance chasers being prosecuted by the same broken system they work for.
          Your Jedi mind tricks regarding class division doesn’t work on me, nor does it change the fact the McCloskeys had every legal right to deter potential vandals and trespassers threatening them on private property.

      2. avatar enuf says:

        Of course you don’t. To maintain your delusion you pretend the entire incident was all about the McCloskeys, instead of the mayor. Every scrap of video, and there’s a lot of it, show the McCloskeys being completely ignored, nobody is going near their property at all. Everyone is just walking down the street to reach the mayor’s mansion.

        No attack was planned, attempted, contemplated or threatened against any home on that street. The McCloskey’s fears were entirely imaginary.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          What delusion do I need to maintain?

          I don’t care who the homeowners are and don’t care where the Rioters were going. Don’t care about the mayor or whatever cause the Rioters were crying about.

          And I certainly don’t care about the charges they may be facing as I believe them to be politically motivated in nature.

          A mob of Rioters walking down the road I live on would find more than just one household actively armed and watching.

          What you are possibly not getting is that societal services are breaking down in metro areas. When Fire/Police can’t or won’t respond then final safety/protection is up to the individual.

          Any man-made laws preventing that are null and void.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          “more than just one household actively armed and watching.”

          And that would be just fine, no crime there.

          But when you point a weapon at anyone marching by, then you would probably be guilty of brandishing and/or assault.

          You can’t point guns at people just because they say things that annoy you or make you feel uncomfortable, there has to be a credible threat that any reasonable person would recognize.

  20. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Missouri AG is in the process of dismissing the charges…gardners hear will be on the block soon, along with her liberal ass…

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      “Missouri AG is in the process of dismissing the charges”

      Hey Wisconsinner, I will wager you 1/5 of Woodford reserve that the Missouri AG will not dismiss the charges.

      How about it, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        He said he wasn’t dismissing charges because that would be an illegal act and an usurpation of the DA’s authority. He said he wrote a letter asking for the charges to be dropped. That man is playing politics to get white Republicans mad at the first part black DA in that area so Republicans can win reelection. The governor is doing the same.

        The governor said he would pardon them after they get convicted of the crime. He won’t pardon them now because he may reduce reelection chances. He believes Republicans are very low IQ.

        Why wait a year from now when they get convicted and sentenced? Why not pardon them the day before elections?

        Republicans are not a party of law and order, they are a party of selective enforcement. They do not care about the constitution nor state laws. They don’t care about gun safety nor a polite society. They only care about their party or European-Americans making America “great again.” They will go on and on about “black on black” crime and Democrats while ignoring the opposite side. They were anti mask when Trump told them to be, now that Trump saw his polling numbers he decided to be pro mask and social distancing. Yet Republicans have been pulling guns, stabbing people, beating people up, etc, because Americans asked them to wear a mask so everyone can go about their lives.

  21. avatar borg says:

    It seems top me that the prosecutor is a racist since she is choosing whom she prosecutes on the basis of their skin color.

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