Missouri Gov. Parson: Trump Is ‘Focused On, Concerned About’ McCloskey Home Defense Case

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)

Last week, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner had police execute a search warrant and seize the rifle that Mark McCloskey used in the photo above when marchers trespassed in his neighborhood and reportedly threatened him and his wife last month.

Supposedly part of Gardner’s investigation into the incident, the warrant and gun seizure were nakedly political moves intended to both intimidate the McCloskeys and placate the far left constituency that Gardner serves and supports.

Now, according to multiple media reports, Missouri Governor Mike Parson says that President Trump himself is “focused on and concerned about” possible charges against the couple. Given the prosecutor’s track record, Trump’s involvement in the matter should pretty much ensure that Gardner brings charges against the McCloskeys.

Here’s the AP’s report:

By Jim Salter

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said President Donald Trump is focused on and concerned about the possibility that a white St. Louis couple could face criminal charges for displaying guns as they defended their home during a racial injustice protest.

Parson told reporters Tuesday that he had just been on the phone with Trump and U.S. Attorney General William Barr. The phone call came amid reports that St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, a Democrat, may file charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, both of them lawyers in their 60s. The couple wielded guns on June 28 as protesters marched by their Renaissance palazzo-style mansion on the way to the home of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson.

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.

Video showed protesters walking through the gate and it was unclear when it was damaged. The widely viewed video showed Mark McCloskey wielding a long-barreled gun and Patricia McCloskey standing next to him waving a handgun.

The actions of the couple have drawn scorn and ridicule from some, praise and support from others. Gardner’s spokeswoman said Tuesday that the case is still under investigation and no charges have been filed, though authorities executed a search warrant at the mansion late last week.

Parson, a Republican and a staunch Trump supporter, is also a former sheriff and state representative who co-authored Missouri’s “castle doctrine” law that justifies the use of deadly force when protecting one’s home.

Parson said he told Trump that it’s difficult to remove an elected official from office in Missouri, though he didn’t say if Trump had asked if Gardner could be removed.

“I think the president didn’t like what he was seeing, and the way people are being treated,” Parson said. “I think you’ll see some sort of actions.”

In an interview Tuesday with Townhall Media, Trump defended the couple, saying “they were going to be beat up badly, if they were lucky” and that their house was going to be ransacked and probably burned. He called talk of prosecuting them a disgrace.

It’s unclear what either Trump or Barr could do, but Parson said he expects that both “are going to take a look at it.”

Gardner noted in a statement Tuesday that she hasn’t decided whether to file charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey. She also said Trump and Parson continue to “play politics with the handling of this matter, spreading misinformation and distorting the truth.”

“It is unbelievable the Governor of the state of Missouri would seek advice from one of the most divisive leaders in our generation to overpower the discretion of a locally elected prosecutor,” Gardner said, adding that “It is also incredible that at a time when our nation is dealing with a rapidly spreading deadly virus and our State reported a record number of new infections, they are launching these dog-whistle attacks against me.”

Gardner became St. Louis’ first-ever Black circuit attorney when she took office after winning election in 2016. Her 3 ½ years in office have drawn strong support from the Black community, especially for reform efforts aimed at reducing incarceration and stopping the prosecution of low-level crimes such as marijuana possession.

But she’s also drawn scorn from others, accusing her of being weak on crime and motivated by politics.

In 2018, Gardner charged then-Gov. Eric Greitens with felony invasion of privacy for allegedly taking a compromising photo of a woman during an extra-marital affair. Greitens, a Republican, denied the allegation and the charge was eventually dropped, but he resigned in June that year.

St. Louis annually ranks among the nation’s deadliest cities, and 2020 is on pace for one of its deadliest years ever. Parson is planning a special session to address violent crime in St. Louis and Kansas City, and he said Gardner should be focused on crime, too, not the McCloskeys.

“That couple had every right to protect their property,” Parson said.

Trump “understands the situation in Missouri, he understands the situation in St. Louis, and how out of control it is for a prosecutor to let violent criminals off and not do their job and try to attack law-abiding citizens,” Parson said.

“The president said he would do everything he could within his powers to help with this situation, that he would be taking action to do that. I’m thankful that he’s getting involved in the situation, I’m thankful that he’s going to stand up for people on their legal rights and we’re going to move forward in this state,” Parson said.

comments

  1. avatar @ says:

    Cool, I like it when Trumpf takes an interest in thing firearms related. What will he ban now?

    1. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

      Just shut up, Leftist.

      You obviously would have been happier with Hillary selecting the last two SCOTUS picks… 🙂

      1. avatar @@ says:

        Because Trump’s picks have been such bastions of conservative thought and practice?

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

          Compared to potentially ‘Wise Latina’ Sotomayor 2 and Kagen 2?

          Whatever you’re smoking, can I have some from your bag?

        2. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

          It’s actually a blue pill, and you swallow it instead of smoking it. If you don’t like pills, then it comes in a liquid form we call “Koolaid”. If any of you Neanderthals bothered to go University like @@ and me, you would have taken the pills, which help you learn better, and gone to our wild parties where we mixed up Koolaid by the vat and all lined up to drink.

          Eric Swalwell 2020

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          You reveal your panties euro troll. In the US we don’t “go university” or “go hospital.

        4. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

          Rocket: “His people take everything literally. Any metaphors will go over his head.”

          Drax: “Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are too fast. I would catch it.”

          Eric Swalwell 2020

        5. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          They are happy to pick the lesser of two evils and just lose their rights slower. For Trumps second term he will ban any NFA firearms / devices and all semi autos. He will give the leftist what they want along with whatever else he does not like that day.

          If Crazy Joe gets elected Republicans and judges may grow a backbone and actually stand up to him and we might get to keep some semi autos.

          Either way the gun owner is pretty much screwed but no one here wants to hear that

    2. avatar DERP GOP says:

      Whatever man remember that when Obama took our bump stocks by executive fiat? Or increased NICS funding in the same way. Oh, wait, that was Donny Bonespurs. What a complete joke…

      1. avatar Ad Astra says:

        Wow I geuss TDS also causes memory loss.
        How about when barry was letting guns walk across the border to drug cartels in ordervto try and get pr for another “assault weapons” ban until an atf agent blew the whistle? We know that got at least 1 border payrol agent killed and who knows how many Mexican nationals. Then used it as an excuse to start a registry of long arms sold in the boder states.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          So you’re complaining that, under Obama’s Administration, instead of banning things they sent guns all over?

          We should be so lucky under ‘pro gun’ trump.

        2. avatar DERP GOP says:

          Hey Hannibal: never underestimate the stupidity of the regular posters on this site. Especially that one 🤡 whose posts account for anywhere between 25-30% of all posts.

      2. avatar Alexander B. says:

        JoJo2020

    3. avatar California Richard says:

      Mybey Trumpf ban not-guod grammmer necxt and mandtate prufe reedeng? I dunt no?

    4. avatar Debbie W. says:

      Too bad the POTUS won’t ban slanderous and libelous clowns like you from pooping out their pieholes.

      1. avatar DERP Debbie W. says:

        POTUS Bonespurs would ban all dissent if he could because he’s a freedom hating, gun loathing bitchmade coward.

        1. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

          I can just visualize ‘Derp’ sitting there, realizing a real woman like Deborah will never willingly allow you to mount her, and your seething rage of realizing you will always be a pathetic little Incel masturbating *furiously* in your mother’s basement.

          (If you haven’t realized it yet, I’m not a very nice person… 🙂 )

        2. avatar Dave G. says:

          Geoff:
          “If you haven’t realized it yet, I’m not a very nice person…”

          Maybe, but we’re gonna give you a free pass in this one…

    5. avatar tdiinva says:

      This one is so blatantly a paid troll. Why does management not deal with him? If you ban blatant trolls then you cost the opposition money for no effect.

      1. avatar Mercury says:

        There’s no meaningful way to ban a troll here, pro or otherwise. Spammers you can just IP ban, because they don’t pay for VPNs. But trolls can just change IPs and use a new disposable email. The admins here would have to ban me at least 16 times for it to have any hope of sticking, for example, and all I have is a work VPN and a paid email service. It’s a whack-a-mole game that doesn’t even cost them a significant amount of money to play.

        That said I do wish they’d just delete obvious low-effort troll posts, of both the radical left and right wing theme. They don’t contribute to the conversation and do decrease the signal to noise ratio. It’s one thing to genuinely try and argue from a positron which is considered extreme in a particular forum, but another entirely to just be deliberately obnoxious.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          This is information warfare. Banning and removing obvious paid trolls impose a cost on the attacker the objective is to raise to cost sufficiently that it is no longer worthwhole to do and they will move on to an easier target.

        2. avatar Paid Troll says:

          Be quiet

    6. avatar General McKrystal says:

      Behold! My invincible new troll army has now shown is awesome might! Kneel before it’s awesome presence! You all now bear witness to it’s all powerful fury! How can you hope to beat hill- Biden when he has such a force like this! We will send out so many posts it will block the sun!!!!

      1. avatar CGA says:

        I only kneel to God and bow to no man. I expect it is that way with most who post here. Take your socialist/progressive/communist/fascist/etc. S*$T and go somewhere to your safe room and hold your comfort animal and drink your hot chocolate. If you don’t like it here and don’t like the current administration, you can always go someplace like Venezuela, Russia, China, or North Korea.

        1. avatar X marks the spot says:

          Obviously you don’t get humor.

  2. avatar Mad Max says:

    “It’s unclear what either Trump or Barr could do, but Parson said he expects that both “are going to take a look at it.””

    18 USC 242

  3. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    I cannot believe that their firearms were confiscated. That is very weird and dangerous.

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

      Optics. Political optics.

      (Ooooh, *yes*. That delicious sweet weight of picking up another case of ammo found on the porch…)

      1. avatar 9x39 says:

        Oooh, oooh, wat’dijja get? New toys and food for them are always fun. 😉

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

          1,000 9X19 Brass-case for 23c per round, shipped.

          And what do you know, it fits *perfectly* in a .50 cal ammo can!

          Not the best price, but not anal rape…

        2. avatar 9x39 says:

          Niiice! Considering the current situation, not bad at all. Standard or fat boy can? :p

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

          I *guess* you would call it the ‘fat boy’, it’s the China, er, Harbor Freight one.

          Years back I stumbled across an ammo can about 4 times (maybe larger) that size, can anyone recall what it’s called? I’d rather have another one of those for rifle ammo.

          The big-ass can looked like a much larger .50 cal can in most ways, hinge and all. I had 1 K rounds of 5.56 in there, with room to spare…

        4. avatar jwm says:

          Geoff. Look up 20 mm ammo cans and cans for linked 40mm grenades. Maybe one of those will fit the bill.

        5. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

          JWM, that sounds like that’s what it was. I recall 20 mm being on it, thanks!

        6. avatar 9x39 says:

          Geoff, check Sportsman’s Guide for those, they have them on sale currently. Wait one.

          40mm can’s are $17.09 if your a member, 18.99 if not.

          The fat .50’s are genuine surplus, I don’t think Harbor has them. They’re 7.25×12.5×8.5 compared to the standard 6x12x7 1/4. Cost about $10 more than. Frankly, the 40mm cans are a better buy.

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Whoops! Too much knowledge! Does anybody know if there is a 30 mm ammo can? Seems like there should be, feeding the Hawg has to be done somehow. Seems like that could be useful, if it’s not TOO big.

    2. avatar Neil says:

      Agreed. Politics that trample rights.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      this incident is a good example of why you should have plenty of guns hidden away….and putting them all in a safe just makes it easier to find them……..

  4. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

    Someone get that woman some competent firearm training, *please*.

    And the hubby.

    (Just heard on right-wing radio : “I can’t believe academia doesn’t realize they have become the church in the middle ages – Where those who dare disagree with the church are locked away in the tower.)

    1. avatar 9x39 says:

      More her than him, my estimation. I agree that they both need some serious instruction, and a lot of it. Low or high ready would’ve been a lot more appropriate, but heat of the moment and all of that.

      Hard to be judgmental considering the fear factor in play, facing down a violent mob.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Yup, heat of the moment.
        Sitting here visualizing if I had but a few minutes to grab what I might need to confront a violence prone mob.
        Not a lot of easy answers.

        I do know one thing. My booger hook wouldn’t be on the bang switch unless I was delivering pain pills. (Which, by the way, I scored. Found some Fiocci rubber buckshot. Now I’ve got a dedicated less lethal, pain management option.)

        1. avatar 9x39 says:

          I really want to comment on mine, because this is so very directly applicable. This has me chomping at the bit, but I’m forbidden from doing so, specifically by writ on social platforms by name.

          Damnit, I’m am sick of them pushing the dates back due to the Covid situation. Not just because of the desire to be vindicated & exonerated. Also, because it’s an ongoing situation, and I am disarmed, and it’s not just myself at risk. Further, to push law boundaries so this shit (hopefully) never happens to anyone again, and to see this scumbag bastard in prison where he belongs.

        2. avatar 9x39 says:

          Congrats on the riot rounds. Wish there was a pm system here, I’d like some myself. 🙂

          I meant to say so earlier. Sorry, got a bit self immersed in thought on my own current status.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Oh yes must have many hours of instruction before can exercise your 2nd. Bite me prog.

      1. avatar 9x39 says:

        Derp, no one implied mandated. I am far more freedom oriented than you, by all of your comments. Mostly trolling ones like this. You know what they say about assumptions? Because you just stepped all in that assumption 100%.

        1. avatar 9x39 says:

          Btw, get back to me when your on the front line of the fight like I am, in front of a court making a difference.

        2. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          Powerserge? Is that you? Making a court appearance to answer for gun crimes does not make you “fighting” for the cause. Committing gun felonies does not further the gun rights agenda but thanks for playing!

        3. avatar 9x39 says:

          Ha, wrong on every single count. But then, you’ve shown yourself to know fuck all repeatedly. Nice try, no cigar. Try an illegal misdemeanor arrest for a dgu against a legitimate threat, all of the terabytes of supporting video and audio proof will be a matter of public record soon enough. Piss up a rope.

        4. avatar 9x39 says:

          Good thing you use the moniker BS. Right on point, that one.

        5. avatar 9x39 says:

          Btw, we know Miner. Your writing is unmistakable.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Has anyone heard a basis for seizing this man’s firearm? No one seems to mention that, and it should be right up front.

      1. avatar John in AK says:

        The basis is simply procedural, and not necessarily nefarious.

        The principle rule for submission of evidence to a court is that it be ‘First and Best.’ ‘First’ implies direct bearing on the case, and ‘best’ implying of the highest quality and originality. In this example, having the physical firearms to present as evidence is far better than a video or photograph, AND the firearms were available to seize as evidence. Judges demand such evidence, and even sh*tty prosecutors know enough to obtain good evidence when it’s readily available.

        In this case, the firearms are ‘first, best’ evidence because they have direct bearing on the case, and their physical existence verifies at least in part witness testimony and video. As the firearms have a direct and proximate relationship to the possibility of a crime having occurred and tending to prove the elements of the offense, they have great evidentiary value, so it is imperative that such critical physical evidence be seized and protected should it be needed at trial. To not do so would be negligence and prosecutorial misconduct.

        It’s just procedure at this point. Or maybe not. In any case, it’s the right move to make, whether prosecuting or not.

  5. avatar GOP DERP says:

    These two 🤡 are just your typical Republicans.

    1. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

      I know, right!? Aren’t Republicans just the worst? How dare they stand up to a violent mob! They should have stayed in their house and died like we told them to! I’ll talk to the Speaker of the House and see if we can block Trump or maybe impeach him again for meddling in this.

      Eric Swalwell 2020

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        (smile)

        1. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          Don’t you have someone to assault because private property?

          It’s really a clown show today, why I read this blog.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        or observed Britain’s “back door rule”….which means if they come in the front door …you’re expected to run out the back…..

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          That’s not France?

  6. avatar MouseGun says:

    So, disarm the public at large while the elite’s pet mob rapes and pillages?
    And on top of that they think that feeding the productive members of society to the marauding hoards will satiate them indefinitely, and the monster they created and enabled won’t come after them next.
    Are we reliving a violent revolution of the past, and some distopian nightmare of the future?
    This is going to end in guillotines and/or firing squads, but I don’t know who’s going to be on the receiving end.

    1. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

      There are two other elements to this story that can’t be overlooked:

      1. The cops are going along with this.

      2. The Mccloskey’s are defending the cops who are going along with this.

      The cops are siding with the mob. Whether they want to or not, whether they hate the mob or not, whether they disagree with the prosecutor or not, whether they think this is a miscarriage of justice or not is all irrelevant. Their actions spell out what side they have chosen and they’ve chosen to side with the violent mob.

      The Mccloskey’s are sheep at heart. They’re defending the cops who are stepping on their throats and violating the constitution. It’s probably a response to the general respect they have for law enforcement, which is admirable and a reflection on them as citizens, but THESE cops doing THIS work is absolutely abhorrent and they shouldn’t be praised at all by the McCloskey’s.

      1. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

        *edit*
        Sorry… I don’t know what came over me. I was trying to fall asleep and took this mysterious red pill. I woke up and saw I wrote the above comment while I was out of it…. man, that was a crazy trip. I hope I don’t do that on election night, or I might vote against myself and vote for Trump.

        Eric Swalwell 2020

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          (smile)

        2. avatar 9x39 says:

          <3 ya Eric. Don't slip & accidentally nuke the pillagers, that would break my little heart. Really. I mean it. Very seriously indeed.

          Or not.

        3. avatar ChoseDeath says:

          NotEricSwalwell. Bro, you’re my favorite poster on here now, I read all your stuff in his whiny little voice and it’s hilarious! Thanks for the laughs man, I really appreciate it.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Not bad, Eric. Also, good point, I hadn’t thought of it that way.

    2. avatar Paul says:

      Don’t worry about who is giving, and who is receiving. Just remember, “Father, for what we are about to receive, we give thanks.” All you can do is, stand up and be counted. The sheep won’t be counted – they’ll just be consumed.

  7. avatar Mainer_ExCop says:

    How does she get away with this? Is there no accountability? Look up corrupt in the dictionary and ger picture is there.

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

      “How does she get away with this? Is there no accountability?”

      She is doing what those who have elected her want her to do…

    2. avatar Dude says:

      The gun owners are white. That is what is called justice, excuse me, I mean revenge. They’re interchangeable these days.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      She was elected by the riot demographic.

    4. avatar California Richard says:

      “How does she get away with this?”

      Remember: the lists were written by clerk typists and delivered by mail men. The orders were enforced by municipal policemen who answered to elected mayors and town councils. The trains were run by conductors, engineers, and steam fitters. The tracks were maintained by laborers. The camps were provisioned by truck drivers. The ovens were designed, manufactured, and delivered by businessmen, steel workers, and brick layers. The officers and guards were drawn from the population. It takes a system and large community to screw the Mccloskey’s, not just one prosecutor….. or, so I’m told by the left who scream about systemic racism in systems run by leftists.

      1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        👏👏👏👏

  8. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    This is another way to control the people. They are doing like England, if you use a firearm for self defense, the Marxist government ( state or local ) will prosecute you and let the criminal go free. This is a safer strategy than trying to go around forcibly removing all firearms though that will eventually come about.

  9. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    What can Trump do about it?? Just like he couldn’t send in the feds to deal with the rioting, he can do little here. This is just the Missourah governor passing the buck. As usual, so called “conservatives” are weak. All Parsons has to do is say he will pardon the McCloskey’s when the time comes. But he doesn’t have the f*ing balls to say, or do it.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      The Feds can come into the case on a civil rights violation for each of the homeowners. That is a Federal offense.

  10. avatar Dude says:

    “they are launching these dog-whistle attacks against me”

    It’s funny how it’s always the democrats that hear these dog whistles.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      If you’re always hearing dog whistles, you probably are a dog.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        blewdog.

  11. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    As I have said before the Libertarians Liberals and the Left, do not support the concept of private property.
    The only things they care about are Shooting up crystal meth to improve their sexual experience in public. And they want the government to pay for the meth in government supported “Injection Centers”.

    They also support government funded marijuana “medical ” dispensaries.
    ‘They are very weak on gun civil rights. Also they are very weak on supporting the 1st amendment.

    Libertarians have called the McCloskey family racist for defending their home against a mob.
    No. They were not protesters. They were and still are criminals, who broke into, and invaded the families private property.

    1. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

      Yep! “Libertarians” are worse than the so-called “conservatives.” Spineless, dope-smoking hippies that falsely conflate freedom with hedonism. Kinda like liberals, only worse. Conservatives are little better, and have sold out their constituents to fatten their bank accounts.

    2. avatar ARLibertarian says:

      You are mistaken.

      Libertarians are the most stalwart of supporters of private property rights, and the rights of the individual above the power of the state.

      Perhaps you should know more about us before spouting off.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        False. Libertarians supported California proposition 47 which effectively legalized petty theft. How does that square with protecting property rights?

        1. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          Citation please? Oh wait you don’t have any and will just whine like a child when asked for one.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          I don’t play the citation game for trolls paid or unpaid. You can look it up yourself.

      2. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

        Wasting your time, these people have no intention of actually reading what the Libertarian platform is even though it’s been posted numerous times and is in direct conflict with the BS that comes out of their mouths.

        They just wanna keep voting Republican and can’t figure out why they keep losing rights.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          As I have said before. I have been a subscriber of Young Rippa for years now. But sadly there aren’t enough Libertarians like him. At least he supports using deadly force if necessary to protect private property.

          “Libertarian Party’s Presidential Nominee says you MUST be anti-racist” video 17 min long

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to TheBSonTTAG
          You voted for the Libertarian William Weld in 2016 correct???

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          I think he is pulling a Moby because he doesn’t know that Proposition 47 decriminalized more than just petty theft. It decriminalized virtually faux Libertarian hobby horse from drugs to child prostitution.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Last time I looked into Lib party they were pushing outright firearm confiscation as a major part of presidential platform, all I need to know, adios.

        5. avatar 9x39 says:

          Yeah Larry, not my kind of Libertarian-ism at all either. Mine is Founding Fathers type, exactly as written in the documents this country was founded upon. Not necessarily the way they lived their personal lives (slaves in particular being the point), which is irrelevant to the overview. Only that which is codified as the base law of the land matters. Freedom, which precisely stops where another’s Rights begin.

          As such, that makes me opposed to both parties, though one decidedly less than the other. Neither one is on the side of freedom, therefore, no friend of mine.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Chris T in KY,

      They [the raucous mob] were and still are criminals, who broke into, and invaded the families private property.

      Plainly true for all to see. The “fly in the ointment” here is coming to a consensus on a righteous response from the homeowners to the raucous mob that allegedly broke a gate and then trespassed on their private street/property.

      Assuming that the raucous mob did not have any visible distance weapons which they could use to maim/murder the homeowners from 30+ feet away:

      Many people on this site think that the presence of the raucous mob (which broke/spilled onto private property) and their ability to “bum rush” the homeowners, who were over 30 feet away, justified the homeowners using deadly force.

      Many other people do not agree that the homeowners were justified to use deadly force because the raucous mob was incapable of maiming/murdering the homeowners from 30+ feet away.

      It looks like we will find out soon enough how this plays out.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Early press reports said the mob pulled out guns. I don’t know how many of the mob had guns. There is a lot of video out there. I believe Mr. McCloskey said he saw some of them with guns. Your “protest sign” can make an excellent improvised weapon.

        I wonder if all the video will “mysteriously” disappear???

        As I previously stated the three L’s support whites burning a cross on the private property of a black person. I stand by my statement that the Libertarians Liberals and the Left do not support private property rights. Their recent support of prop 48(?) in California only reinforces my belief.

        Libertarians called Joe Horn in texas a racist who shot two illegal aliens. Who robbed his neighbor’s home. And then tried to rob his home. Libertarians also called the land owners who defend their property using AR-15s, racist as well. When their land, in Arizona, was invaded by illegals crossing over from Mexico.

        fyi
        I also believe the three L’s support book burning. And if you ask me why? I will tell you.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I don’t mind you burning some manner of a protest on my property if you don’t mind me blasting away with a 12 Ga pump as soon as you light that match.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to LarryinTX
          (smile)

      2. avatar joeyj says:

        Uncommon_sense……do a little research of the justifications for use of deadly force. The requisite triad for use of deadly force in every jurisdiction in the US appear to have been clearly present…..Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. Disparity of numbers were clearly present as Ability. Tueller’s famous study has become standard fare for establishing opportunity…..single attacker covers 21ft in 1.5 second. Jeopardy covers the verbal threats of burning their home and injuring the couple. Plus, couple’s current knowledge of recent destruction, burning, injury by distinctly like BLM groups not far from their location. One does not have to wait to be assaulted, injured before resorting to deadly force. Only reasonably being in fear for lives, grave injury.
        Missouri also has specific strong Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws. Criminal Trespass is at play also. They used the threat of deadly force to prevent deadly force being used against themselves……apparently successfully. Other than being a sorry example of self defense skills, the McCloskeys have a strong case. But, let’s observe your skills when facing down a potentially deadly mob. But, being in the right does not protect one from a corrupt public prosecutor.
        Gardner is a sorry example for the first black St. Louis Circuit Attorney. Up for re-election, she is fighting her own scandals for lying and aiding felonies in an earlier case. She is a prime example of a bad brand elected by Useful Idiot, Defective Citizens.

      3. avatar Mr. L. says:

        Missouri doesn’t have a specific distance as to when someone and or an angry mob who has broken into a fenced in property that has no trespassing signs displayed who are threatening harm to the property owner and or are carrying dangerous instruments or shorter range firearms. Missouri has an extremely strong stand your ground and castle laws. Example. If some farmer is out working in a field and sees someone walking towards him at 100 yards away carrying a dangerous instrument like a baseball bat and or an axe. Same as if the person is yelling that they are going to harm said farmer. If the farmer believes he is going to be harmed, told them to leave and he has a rifle, but they keep coming towards him, then he can easily articulate that threat and stop said threat with a rifle. Add to that that there was a mob who some were armed and threatening harm, then there’s no issue of using the force necessary to stop the threat. Since I live here in Missouri, am a retired law enforcement administrator and have seen incidents where a firearm was used to stop a threat like the example I gave, then there you have it. Before giving a statement, please read Missouri’s trespassing, assault, stand your ground and castle laws so you can make a more informed statement. If the Missouri Attorney General, Governor and now the President of The Unted States have made statements about the St. Louis prosecutor over reaching her authority, then that should be a hint in itself. Plus, these are some high profile liberal civil rights attorneys who she is trying to make an example of. If she proceeds and she loses, which she will because their attorney will get a change of venue to a rural Missouri court, then she risks being held accountable civilly along with being disbarred from ever being able to practice law again and jailed for unlawful prosecution.

  12. avatar GS650G says:

    What good is a pardon after you’re bankrupt from legal bills?

  13. avatar Nanook says:

    No one is controlling these mobs and it’s not about race anymore. Why would the leftist twit order a search warrant? The police should have refused to confiscate any weapons from the couple. The People of Missouri need to rise up and stomp this leftist twit of an attorney into the ground… These Soros/Obama plants (Gardner) need to be rooted out of these liberal cities and run out of the Country.

  14. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    One may think that if ones duty is to the Constitution and the rule of law they might have interest in the unlawful full acts of Marxist Kim Gardner.

  15. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    The Governor is the one who needs to be involved as it will be state charges not federal so President Trump has no involvement other than political pressure. The Governor could shut it all down just by talking pardons.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      The feds can make a case anywhere, anytime, that they see a person’s civil rights being violated. In this case, Gardner is violated two white people’s civil rights, for racist reasons.

  16. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    fyi
    The McCloskey family are registered democrats. Very wealthy democrats. And I’m ok with rich people. They keep me employed.
    (smile)

    1. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

      I brought that fact up not long ago, and was firmly “corrected” by the forum’s resident Karens.

    2. avatar C.S. says:

      Campaign contribution notes show them donating to local Democrats, however they’ve also been making regular donations to Trump. Their political affiliations, however, don’t matter.

      As for Gardner, just have the IRS do a tax audit on her the way Obama used to do to people and organizations he didn’t like… smh

    3. avatar former water walker says:

      Meh…it was reported on FOX the missus gun was fake. A prop as it were. And Mister Mc is awfully chatty virtually EVERYWHERE. I think POTG are being played😕

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        From what I hear, they use that handgun in their court cases to sue gun companies or at least a gun company. I don’t really believe their lawyer’s story because that’s a good argument for dropping charges, but the law doesn’t really say it’s okay to point guns at people if the gun doesn’t have a firing pin. They could get in trouble for threatening people with the AR because the woman knows her gun doesn’t work (if that is true) but her husband could open up with his AR. Not surprising the husband is the only one I see doing interviews.

        They appear to be typical lefties who want guns for themselves and black people to stay away from their gated community. It looks like they make a living by suing people. They are liars that’s for sure, they make up so many stories.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          They just might be “Guns for Me”, “But not for you”, kind of Liberal Gun owners. We will see. But their private property and lives were threatened by a mob.

          mob
          /mäb/
          See definition:
          noun
          a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.

        2. avatar Chief Censor says:

          @Chris T in KY

          They weren’t threatened until they brought out the guns and started pointing at protesters that were not there for them.

          The protesters were passing by to go to the mayor’s house to protest her doxing American citizens for daring to call for police reforms and a change in tax dollar use. Most of the protesters may have been white… They were not there for black lives matter necessarily or to go after “whitey.” It was all over the mayor reading out loud the names and addresses of people during a live stream who wrote her about fixing the police. She was trying to intimidate protesters by giving out their personal details to those that dislike black lives matter.

        3. avatar SoCalJack says:

          Chris, this Missouri couple situation is odd. Like a media distraction. You mentioned there not being being much video on the protesting. I’ve wondered why there’s little/no video of the protesters at the mayors house, the reason this all happened. At this point, this all needs to be leveraged for 2A rights.

        4. avatar Dude says:

          Good point Jack. I have a feeling the mayor is thankful for the McCloskeys taking the heat off her.

        5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to SoCalJack
          I have not seen any video of a protest at the mayor’s home anywhere, on the internet. And the Mr. McCloskey has publicly said the mayor’s home is not in their neighborhood. And no person has come forward to say he is wrong.

          I’m starting to think the real target of the protest was the McCloskey family. Or at least the very wealthy families that live in that part of town. BLM has protested in wealthy residential areas before.

          This is the first time a rich person has come out with guns to protect himself against a mob. It seems to have surprised EVERYONE.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Are you certain they are *still* stolid Democrats? That looked to possibly be a viewpoint-altering experience!

  17. avatar Dennis says:

    Yeah, he’s concerned all right! Concerned that yet another pandering governor is persecuting the people he’s supposed to be protecting!

  18. avatar BootsOnGround says:

    When in doubt, which I have none, always resort to common sense. The McCloskey’s had every right under God’s laws and federal law to protect themselves. They were not outside picking a fight with firearms to harm or intimidate anybody. They came under the threat of an attack. The threat came to them at their door steps, and under the threat of physical harm and fear for their lives caused by anarchists who broke into their private property, they had every right to defend themselves and their property by displaying their weapons to the anarchists. The mob did not respect the McCloskey’s lives. In fact, they were agitated and displayed obvious intentions to harm the couple and perhaps even burn down their house. However, there is one thing these criminals did respect and that was the possibility of bullets coming out of the AR rifle Mr. McCloskey possessed. The anarchists may be violent criminals, but they are not stupid. They knew the consequences of bullets coming out of an AR rifle. As a result, the weapons displayed by the McCloskey’s is the only reason they were unharmed and still alive today. Here lies the perfect reason for our 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

  19. avatar Debbie W. says:

    So what if the couple wasn’t a couple if rambos? They took a stand and did the best they could and now they are being roasted for it by a nitwit democRat. The kind of democRat that gets elected when people who talk guns like tough guys and whine like snot nosed kids because a candidate doesn’t fit their mold so they stay home and don’t vote. These gun talkers are excuse filled slackers who ride in the wagon while others pull.

  20. avatar LifeSavor says:

    Did anyone see the quote from the Chief of Police in which he expressed his concern about the hostility the McCloskey’s displayed? (Article on The Gateway Pundit).

    He was concerned about their hostility.

    Not the hostility of the mob who broke through the gate and was threatening to burn down the McCloskey’s home and kill them. The McCloskey’s hostility.

    That Chief should be de-funded. He can probably find a job with Antifa or BLM.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      There is video showing the protesters walking through a gate not breaking it. I read reports that the people that run the gated community left it open for protesters if they wanted to pass through. The gate was broken at a later time and there is no proof I have seen of who did it.

      The protesters were not there for the gun toting lawyers. They were passing by when a man came out with an AR and started yelling at them about private property. The protesters didn’t understand that not all roads are owned by the government as they shouted, “our streets.” When the couple came down to wave around their guns the protesters got angry and started yelling at them. Some protesters were trying to get people to remember why they were there, which was to protest the mayor for doxxing citizens.

      Of course Republicans and FOX lie about the story to stoke racial division between white and black Americans by saying black lives matter protesters are going after all the white people in the suburbs. The protesters didn’t know those people existed until they pulled guns on the protesters. Obviously they returned to protest against the lawyers for pointing a gun at them and threatening to shoot them over a misdemeanor trespass of a gate community.

      You can’t bring out deadly force and threaten people with it then claim to be the victim when people threaten to defend themselves against you for whipping out guns. That would be felony murder if the gun totting elitists had shot a protester. They should have just stayed on their porch, sipping some tea, with their gun on their lap.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        a threatening trespass occurred…[large group]…so where were the cops?…who should have responded immediately when called….tell me again why we pay taxes…….

      2. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Sorry, Chief,

        Not buying your accounting. Have read too much about this event. Not going to argue with you.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        You’re correct. If the mob broke the gate, then their broken bodies should be lying next to it. Or you’re not doing it right.

      4. avatar UpInArms says:

        ” the couple came down to wave around their guns the protesters got angry and started yelling at them ”

        This is a point that I don’t see raised in these discussions. Had the McCs simply made an appearance on their front porch with their weapons at low ready I don’t think there would be any issues. The mob hadn’t really made a move toward them when the McCs started waving their weapons around, and the wife actually left her position and advanced on the crowd. At that point they became the aggressors, and I strongly suspect that if the DA is looking to hang these people, that is the hook they’ll be hung on.

        The McCloskeys did the right thing by making it known they were willing to defend themselves. But the way they did it broke just about every rule in the unwritten book. I don’t think that’s sufficient reason to go after them — the mob bears its share of blame in this woeful tale as well as the McCs. It’s a good object lesson for the rest of us to get it clear in our heads what to do before we actually have to go do it.

  21. avatar MB says:

    This whole thing shouldn’t be politics in any way, but it is. The circuit court clown is confused, she releases rioters, then goes after this couple. If I understood correctly, the warrant ordered the seizure of the AR style rifle, but not of the handgun? If that’s the case, just another proof this is just motivated by the circuit court clown’s bias. The circuit court clown should be more professional and consistent, and President Trump should not have to get involved, but we now live in a sh*thole, banana republic so nothing makes sense anymore. You’re either a leftist dummy, or a right wing dummy, you’re not allowed to be a normal American anymore, that’s evil.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      They were there to get both guns but the lawyer took possession of the handgun and claimed it was not operable. He then stopped representing the couple for some reason. Maybe the fact he got involved with the criminal matter by taking possession of the gun so police can’t get to it and possibly tampering with the evidence? Heck, the lawyer could have committed a crime after the fact and realized he got caught. Eventually the handgun was turned over to the police.

      I assume there hasn’t been any charges because the DA is not sure what to charge based on the story that the gun was not assembled in functioning order. There are still crimes to charge them over even if the gun wasn’t capable of firing at the time she pointed it. If they go for a crime based on the pointing of a gun, they would have to prove the gun worked at the time, but the lawyers made sure to stop the police from getting the gun initially.

  22. avatar ARLibertarian says:

    They were displaying unsafe gun handling.

    Those muzzles should be pointed down unless they intend to shoot.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Which is impolite, as opposed to illegal.

  23. avatar tdiinva says:

    There is a lot the President can do. He can order the US Attorney to investigate whether has connections with BLM/Antifa and whether she has conspired with them to allow the destruction of private and public property thereby violating the Civil Rights of US persons. That is a felony under the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The law was passed to provent local officials from directly or indirectly violating the constititional rights of US citizens.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      fyi
      “That is a felony under the Civil Rights Act of 1866.”

      It was originally called “the Klu Klux Klan Act”. It was America’s first War on Terrorism. They don’t teach that in your H.S. history class these days. As usual the American military was very effective at killing terrorists. But they were withdrawn. And the Posse Comitatus Act was passed to prevent the military from being used as a police force.

      And at the same time the individual states began passing racist gun control laws. And gun control is still racist in 2020.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Racist and Democrat, but I repeat myself …

  24. avatar doesky2 says:

    What Trump should be doing is ordering the DOJ to do a civil right violation investigation on Gardner about releasing rioters which endangers the inner city saintly class. Investigate her actions for various racial biases and in general and just have the DOJ crawl through he herpes infested fish-smelling underwear. Essentially just hang the whole weight of the DOJ to sit on her shoulder and scrutinize and critique every f’n decision that she makes.

    1. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

      You might get that wish it looks like. That would be a good move I hadn’t thought of.

  25. avatar Kap says:

    not being their I cannot tell you where their muzzles were pointed. as far as I’m concerned they showed remarkable strength of will by not dumping a half dozen or more, these were home invaders broke a gate and marched chanting kill whitey; burn them out rape the women, trespass on private property, their house their property their lives,

  26. avatar MLee says:

    Charging is easy, convicting another thing entirely. I’m not researching that states laws but HERE in Washington State, if you put on a self-defense case and win, the state has to pay defense costs. Let’s hope it’s the same for McCloskeys.

    I’ll tell you one thing, my AR wouldn’t have been found by the cops if I were the McCloskeys, It would have been “elsewhere”

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      Nope. Bad move. That’s called ‘Tampering With Evidence’ and ‘Hindering Prosecution,’ and both are felonies when the underlying crime alleged is a felony. Get convicted on one of those, and Presto! there’s no need to prosecute for the underlying crime. It just makes the job of convicting you easier.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        To my knowledge, there is no “underlying crime charged” (felony or not), or even a hint of one. Therefore there would be no problem with having taken said AR along on a fishing trip. A better reason for not doing so is that the AR was not used in any crime, likely has never been fired, possibly never loaded. So why hide it? My objection to its confiscation is the clear intention to leave these people defenseless after their home has *just been* invaded and their lives threatened, and sure enough here came the criminals again, but the homeowners had contracted private security, so there are no deaths so far. But hiding the gun would also preclude its use to defend their lives, so why?

  27. avatar Judy says:

    Eric Swalwell Liberals always telling everyone how smart they are, if you really were you wouldn’t have to tell everybody. It is your socialist party that created these American hating thugs with all your race hustling, entitlements, handouts and the lib mayors and governors are forcing the police to defend the mob, not Trump. In your great intelligence your party wants to get rid of law enforcement, take away people’s guns, and prosecute the ones who defend their property from lawless thugs.

  28. avatar Randy Jones says:

    I do not understand how a warrant was issued to pick up the firearm is no charges were brought forth. There has been no formal charges and there has been no mention of red flag laws. and why was it just the one AR? I am guessing they have more than just the two firearms, but it seems like all would have been seized if it was a red flag or a felony charge against them. Was this warrant even legal? If not and rioters come back and damage the house or curtilage, can the city be held liable for damages?

  29. avatar That PA is the poster child for racial discrimination says:

    That DA is the Chicago mayors twin garbage can!!!

  30. avatar Country Boy says:

    @ SWALWELL:

    You and @@ didn’t go to college. Both of you went to a communist indoctrination center.

    And you’re both too stupid to know the difference.

  31. avatar CGA says:

    Missouri has the castle doctrine law, The firearms were legally owned, they were protecting their property and lives, they were threatened by the “protesters” who broke down the gate to the community, so what law was broken and what leg does the circuit attorney have to stand on? I don’t see one and the warrant that was sworn out would be invalid, which would constitute unlawful search and seizure. Maybe the attorney should be arrested for crimes against the Constitution. I hope she is and gets a nice long sentence.

  32. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Missouri Gov. Parson: Trump Is ‘Focused On, Concerned About’ McCloskey Home Defense Case”

    As is are we all…this case carries a lot of implications for future cases…

  33. avatar Ralph says:

    “Gardner noted in a statement Tuesday that she hasn’t decided whether to file charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey.”

    It must have been a written statement, because it would be impossible for her to speak coherently while fellating George Soros.

  34. avatar Coolbreeze says:

    I’m glad these two successfully discouraged an attack on themselves, but given the body language, trigger (un)discipline and demeanor shown in the photo, I dont want to go shooting with them. Got the job done though and that’s a big plus.

  35. avatar J. Smith says:

    Always a democrat until you get mugged….maybe the McCloskeys learned a valuable lesson….but i doubt it some people you just cant reach, and we have a failure to communicate. Good luck. Reap what you sow.

  36. avatar RW says:

    That striped shirt makes her look fat.

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      More likely it’s the fat that makes her look fat. Just sayin’.

  37. avatar Hannibal says:

    “Given the prosecutor’s track record, Trump’s involvement in the matter should pretty much ensure that Gardner brings charges against the McCloskeys…”

    That’s something I hadn’t considered but it’s probably true. And since a federal pardon does not apply to state crimes, his involvement might end up hurting them a lot more than it’ll help.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, that’s fine, too! They still get to see their liberal buddies in action, work on figuring out where they have gone wrong all their lives. Trump can do the right thing, while his opponents pay the price. How could it get better? I wasn’t actually worried about them other than as an example of liberals run amok, particularly against other liberals.

  38. avatar The Grey Man says:

    “Hell is coming to breakfast” ….. Everybody ready?

  39. avatar Montana Actual says:

    So… if these people are prosecuted, will there be a rally in MO? I know if I lived in MO I would already be organizing there. Anyone from MO prepared to set up month long camp sites inside the city hall’s, the capital, etc etc? Not outside, inside. Claim them as public places for the people. No… ok then. This is why they keep taking from gun owners and not murderers who execute people inside “autonomous zones”. We let 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