Police Execute Search Warrant, Confiscate Rifle St. Louis Couple Used to Defend Their Home

Mark and Patricia McCloskey achieved world-wide fame a few weeks ago by defending their home against what they believed to be a credible threat when a crowd of marchers trespassed in their neighborhood. Mark McCloskey armed himself with an AR pattern rifle while Patricia (clumsily) displayed a handgun, warning the “protesters” to keep off their property, some of whom reportedly threatened to burn their home and kill their dog.

Hyper-politicized St. Lous Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner — the same prosecutor who released everyone who was arrested for rioting and looting during the George Floyd protests without charges — let it be known that she was OUTRAGED by the McCloskeys’ behavior and would be investigating the incident forthwith.

That process took a step forward last night.

From ksdk.com:

5 On Your Side has learned St. Louis police officers executed a search warrant Friday evening at the home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the Central West end couple who confronted protesters with weapons in June.

Sources told 5 On Your Side that police seized one of the weapons, the rifle, from the couple and they told police their attorney has the pistol seen in photos.

No charges have apparently been filed against the McCloskeys. Yet. And there’s nothing that would prevent the couple from buying more firearms to defend their home (assuming they don’t already own others).

And additional firearms might be a very good idea. Marchers have already returned once, though they were kept out of the neighborhood that time by private security guards. How long will it be — now that the couple’s guns have been grabbed — before they’re back again?

comments

  1. avatar Mr. Tactical says:

    This is why I push so hard for people to have insurance, this is what I have, https://tracking.deltadefense.com/aff_c?offer_id=94&aff_id=18976&file_id=3760 I went with the elite package. They may have the means to pay for the defense, but the rest of do not. No shots fired, no laws broken, but still look where they are. One overzealous DA and you’re bankrupt. Remember, they have unlimited access to your money so they can fight you into bankruptcy.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Mr. Tactical,

      … no laws broken …

      How can you know that without thoroughly investigating this case and reviewing any evidence?

      There are three FACTS in this case that warrant investigation:
      1) The couple pointed firearms at people on the street.
      2) That is felony aggravated assault unless …
      3) … the couple had a reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily injury.

      Whether or not this couple broke any laws boils down to whether or not they had a reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily injury. As much as a I hate to say this, it could very well be up to a jury to decide that.

      The real problem here is NOT that the couple may have to go to court and appear before a jury of their peers. The real problem is that going to court costs on the order of $100,000 to $2,000,000 (if you end up having to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme court).

      The justice process should be simple, fast, and inexpensive — especially in a case like this. We all know that the couple committed felony aggravated assault. The only question is whether or not it was legally justifiable. Let the defense show why their use of deadly force was legally justifiable and let the jury decide if that was reasonable.

      Disclaimer #1:
      When this event originally happened, a frequent commenter on this website (Chip) indicated that Missouri law appears to allow use of deadly force to stop criminal trespass in this type of situation that this couple experienced. If that is true, then the couple was legally justified to used deadly force and this case should immediately go away.

      Disclaimer #2:
      I am not an attorney. The above is my opinion and is NOT legal advice.

      Disclaimer #3:
      The fact that I have to post a disclaimer stating that I am not an attorney and my comments are not legal advice prove how horribly attorneys have messed up what should be a simple criminal justice system.

      1. avatar Red says:

        If I were on a jury, I would convict them of nothing, period.

        No one arrests protesters making threats. Funny how that works.

        1. avatar anonymous says:

          To the left, if you have large mob, then everything is legal.

        2. avatar Bubba Wallace, fake noose of fake news says:

          “No one arrests protesters making threats.” You’re being nice, most don’t even get arrested for beating up people, committing arson and destroying property by other means, blocking highways…if they get arrested they get released! The guy who threw a fire bomb at the cops was released, throwing a firebomb at someone is an attempt to cause great bodily harm or death! I sh*t on our criminal justice system and on the cops who are betraying the people and the constitution. They are not only enabling the anti American “protesters,” in many cities they are actually protecting them, you defend yourself you’re screwed.

        3. avatar Zundfolge says:

          The problem is that there are plenty of people (likely a sizable number in St Louis) that will convict these people just because they’re white and gun owners. So while I agree that they’ll likely walk when all is said and done, I wouldn’t want to be the one betting my life, savings and freedom on that outcome.

      2. avatar A O says:

        “ We all know that the couple committed felony aggravated assault.“

        If it is found to have been a legal action, it will not be a felony, less an assault, therefore this comment is moot.

        1. avatar Cpt. Obvious says:

          I’m also no lawyer, but I’m fairly sure that exercising one’s 2nd amendment right of bearing arms .. to warn away a Destructive Trespassing Mob .. who were caught on videos Actively Threaten¡ng To KiII You .. isn’t “an aggravated felony assault”.

          Overcharges are the easiest ones to beat. Aside from the harrassment of Being charged, the crooked prosecutor’s exuberance to ‘get’ the home owners will be their best asset in the entire affair later being quietly dismissed.

      3. avatar BradP says:

        Except the “protesters” were on a private street, in a private neighborhood.

        Oh, and they were also ON the homeowners property.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          Then there’s that whole death threat thing…

        2. avatar California Richard says:

          +1 …. People seem to conveniently forget the facts of the case in favor of “facts”. Or as AOC put it: “There’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.” The police are being used for morality enforcement. Those cops chose their side, and, ironically, it’s the side of the people who hate the cops. Looks like that civil war isn’t that far off after all….. really sad.

        3. avatar anonymous says:

          And they “broke in” to get there.

        4. avatar Bubba Wallace, fake noose of fake news says:

          CA Richard, you are correct. With the exception of some law enforcement agencies and cops, generally your more rural areas and smaller agencies far away from the liberal sh*tholes, cops are not “with us.” It is obvious that many of them have no problem spitting on the constitution in order to keep receiving their paycheck. BLM “protester” blocks roadway and points an AR15 at a biker for no justified reason whatsoever, cops just watch. Peaceful people get assaulted by antifa and the likes, cops just watch. Thugs are blocking the interstate, no big deal, let’s just wait for a truck to hit a few of them so we can then arrest the driver, or let him get beat up by the mob. Enforcing red flag laws under suspicious circumstances? No problem. They look more and more like the gestapo or stasi.

      4. avatar Warwolf says:

        You should change your name to zero common sense. Fucking communist.

      5. avatar former water walker says:

        Geez uncommon you’ve apparently lost your freakin’ mind…the maoist blm scum illegally invaded their neighborhood. Period. Full stop(a “Chipism”). This is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Barr should intervene!

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Well, I suppose that’s better than a lot of other things that could be claimed as a “Chipism”. 🙂

      6. avatar Ron says:

        What find hilarious is a bunch of so called “gun people”, or gun owning, libertarian minded, pro constitution, pro 2A folks, are just laying into this couple and treating them like the enemy.

        I’d bet everything I have that if an angry mob would’ve approached one of the homes of the founding fathers, they’d have stepped out armed to confront them before they began storming the house.

        Some of you are talking about all this tactical shit you’d do on the balcony or roof or whatever.

        Yeah sure. Ok.

        Then the rioters will laugh at you stuck up there while your house is burning down.

        1. avatar possum says:

          one man alone does not an army make

        2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

          If I lived in that state, thank God I don’t, I would go take them another A R for a loaner. ( and plenty of mags )

        3. avatar KenW says:

          How many possums make an army?
          Speaking of Possums you should pick up this tee shirt.
          https://imgur.com/a/tPrSuhY

        4. avatar arc says:

          @Ed Schrade

          This needs to happen immediately because I got a feeling the non-government of St.Louis is trying to kill these people. It’s the one and only reason to disarm them, so the mob can come back and finish up.

          Have multiple hidden weapons people…

        5. avatar RidgeRunner says:

          Not the real Possum.

      7. avatar RGP says:

        You must be affiliated with BLM or Antifa.

      8. avatar ESQ-NH says:

        Clearly, you’re a FUDD and you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

      9. avatar JAMES HOLBEN says:

        “We all know that the couple committed felony aggravated assault.” NO WE DON’T! …and neither do you.

      10. avatar Debbie W. says:

        Let’s pile everything on people defending their lives and property against mobs that have proven themselves to be prone to violence. The mob even broke down a gate to enter what is private property.
        The only jackwipes are the cops who obeyed orders to confiscate rights and the douchebagger who ordered the raid. IMO cops who do things that are clearly unconstitutional are prone to place a knee on the neck of a cuffed man while fellow buffoons hold him on the ground until he dies of suffocation or enter the wrong home and murder an innocent woman, etc.
        Job or no job A good cop would have told the d a douchebagger to go to hell and do her own dirty work.

      11. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Here is a great example of why I put the Libertarians, Liberals, and the Left together. Back in the 1970s they all said that the KKK had a right to go on to a black persons property and protest by burning a cross on the front lawn. They made an argument that “the lawn is not property”. In their mind only the physical building, the house, was property.

        They said it’s no big deal with having a cross burned on your front grass. They said the grass would grow back anyway. The ACLU in the early 2000’s would go to the SCOTUS and defend 3 white men who burned a cross on a black man’s private property in Virginia. Virginia had made it a felony crime to burn a cross on the private property of another person.

        And you don’t have to be black to have a cross burned on your land without permission. Brent Bozell, founder of the MRC, Media Research Center, was 12 years old. When a cross was burning on his front lawn. Because His father supported civil rights legislation in the 1960’s.

        This is why I say the three L’s have never supported the concept of private property in the United States. And they their support of Prop 48 in california is just reinforcing that way of thinking.

        btw
        The 21 foot Rule. Math questions.
        1. If 100 people show up at my house. And I have a 21 foot long front lawn. How long does it take for those 100 people to rush to the front of my house and break in???

        2. Or if they burn the cross in the center of my front lawn. How long does it take to rush to the front wall of my house??? After they set the cross on fire.

        If you want to burn a cross on your own land. More power to you. It’s your land. Or wave a communist flag. I do like it when these kinds of people come out of their closet. If “land is not property” it does explain why, the three L’s think its ok, for illegal aliens to cross on to private land. And even camp, or squat there.
        Open borders???

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Back in the 1970s they all said that the KKK had a right to go on to a black persons property and protest by burning a cross on the front lawn. They made an argument that “the lawn is not property”. In their mind only the physical building, the house, was property.”

          That is an interesting claim, I would appreciate your source or citation regarding your claim.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to Miner49er

          “That is an interesting claim, I would appreciate your source or citation regarding your claim.”

          Go read a book on civil rights cases in the 1970’s. There are many out there.

        3. avatar Jason says:

          Hmmm,

          If there are many then it should be easy to cite one of them that makes this claim no?

        4. avatar Ton E says:

          Example # 34609 how you know jack and sh*t about libertarians.

        5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          You can also look up the number of rioters and attackers against civil rights workers. Who were never prosecuted in the 1950’s and 60’s, by local DA’s.
          What was that number???

        6. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to Ton E
          The Libertarian candidate for the Presidency, just announced support for, the group, Black Lives Matter.
          A self admitted marxist group.

          And people wonder why I say the things I say about Libertarians???

        7. avatar SQWRLZ says:

          100% wrong on Libertarian views of private property. Read a book on Libertarianism.

      12. avatar Bubba Wallace, fake noose of fake news says:

        If it is justified then it is not a felony aggravated assault. So no, we do not “all know the couple committed felony aggravated assault.”

      13. avatar anonymous says:

        There are three FACTS in this case that warrant investigation:
        1) The couple pointed firearms at people on the street.
        2) That is felony aggravated assault unless …
        3) … the couple had a reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily injury.

        You are getting beat up in the comments. Lets go through them.
        Their street. Might as well be their driveway. It is gated and belongs to them. People entered their property and yes, they pointed guns at them. Which is very impolite I might add. However, if a home invader is in your home, and you point a gun at them but don’t shoot them, is that brandishing/aggravated assault? No. And they have more than enough justification for it. The rioters “Protesters” broke in to the private property. Everything beyond that gate, was private property. They might as well be in your back yard. So they broke in to get there, threatened the home owners after entering, and would not leave when asked (trespassing).

        There is more to this than just they took a gun out and didn’t shoot people thus brandishing/assault. They need to prove men’s rea. Intent matters. And they have to prove it. And that isn’t going to happen because:

        A) A large angry mob broke their privately owned gate to enter their property.
        B) The mob threatened the home owners.
        C) The homeowners asked them to leave and they would not (trespassing).
        D) (Most importantly). This happened on this guys front lawn at his home, not the other way around!

        Context matters.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Their street. Might as well be their driveway. It is gated and belongs to them.”

          Nope, the street belongs to the homeowners association. The McCloskey’s don’t have title to the street so they have zero control or jurisdiction over the street, the HOA would have to make any complaint in order to have standing.

        2. avatar anonymous says:

          “Their street. Might as well be their driveway. It is gated and belongs to them.”

          Nope, the street belongs to the homeowners association. The McCloskey’s don’t have title to the street so they have zero control or jurisdiction over the street, the HOA would have to make any complaint in order to have standing.

          I doubt it belongs to any homeowner association. I own a property right near a lake in Oklahoma. “Our” road is a easement we all share, and it is a driveway to our properties. The city/county does not maintence the road. Even the post office refuses to deliver down the road. All our mailboxes are at the start of the road. If we wanted, we could block off that road with a gate. We in fact do NOT have a homeowners association or a private road association. We have a handshaking agreement to monitor the drive for strangers and inform them they are NOT welcome and trespassing if they do not leave. The road is our private property we all share. End of story. Now I don’t exactly know the McCloskey’s arrangement with the road, but I’m guessing it’s similar.

          “However, if a home invader is in your home, and you point a gun at them but don’t shoot them, is that brandishing/aggravated assault? No.”

          False equivalence, no one broke into anyone’s home or even attempted a home invasion.

          You are trying to construct a strawman argument, utilizing a mythical home invasion, but there was no home invasion and there’s been no evidence that anyone even attempted to enter their home.

          Negative. If it’s a strawman, it’s not a very good one. The road is a private drive. They might as well be in a driveway. That is fact. Literal fact. The point I was trying to make is – if you are in your home (or outside your home on your land, or backyard, or front yard, and you point your gun (on your private property) at someone threatening you, is it brandishing? I don’t think so. I think you are permitted to threaten people (with guns, and with bodily injury or death) who are threatening you on your property (front yard, back yard, or inside your home). That simple. Zero straw man.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          “However, if a home invader is in your home, and you point a gun at them but don’t shoot them, is that brandishing/aggravated assault? No.”

          False equivalence, no one broke into anyone’s home or even attempted a home invasion.

          You are trying to construct a strawman argument, utilizing a mythical home invasion, but there was no home invasion and there’s been no evidence that anyone even attempted to enter their home.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          There is no “homeowners association”. There is a private street association. They are not the same thing. The Private Street is a specific type of entity, that exists almost uniquely in St. Louis. (It also exists elsewhere, but is extremely rare.)

          The property is zoned as “Public Access: Restricted”, which means no public access without an invitation from a property owner.

          Further, applicable MO statute covers them as not only individual property owners but also as persons authorized by (collective) property owners to be present on the property.

          Further, based on videos, it appears that at least some of the trespassing mob actually walked onto their private property.

          Further, the trespassing mob threatened the couple.

          They are literally covered under all three clauses of MO Castle Doctrine.

        5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          fyi
          I have called the police on strangers who parked their car. In my neighbor’s driveway. The police came and told them to move their car. And explained it’s against the law to park in a driveway that’s not yours. Trespassing with a vehicle.

          Some people just don’t understand. Perhaps on purpose.

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          Chip, much of which you post is correct, the private street system is a strange plan.
          It seems it’s a holdover of St. Louis’ segregated past.

          But regardless, the McCloskey’s were not agents of the private street association, as a matter of fact they were involved in adversarial proceedings with the actual Trustees:

          “The McCloskeys and the trustees of Portland Place, the tony private street in a St. Louis historic district where they live, have been involved in a three-year legal dispute over a small piece of land in the neighborhood. The McCloskeys claim they own it, but the trustees say it belongs to the neighborhood.
          Mark McCloskey said in an affidavit that he has defended the patch previously by pointing a gun at a neighbor who tried to cut through it.”

        7. avatar Binder says:

          So, gated community nutcases, who would have thought.

      14. avatar anonymous says:

        Let the defense show why their use of deadly force was legally justifiable and let the jury decide if that was reasonable.

        They didn’t use any deadly force.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Yes, they intentionally used deadly force in order to intimidate the protesters.

          They both appointed their guns in a threatening manner at individuals who did not constitute an eminent danger to their safety or well-being.

          The protesters were on their way to exercise their first amendment right by protesting the elected official at their home, because the elected officials were unresponsive to their petitions.

        2. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Minor,
          Are you being intentionally stupid or is that the real you? Just exactly how were they supposed to know why the mob was there? The mob entered posted/private property illegally. The homeowners rightfully and legally told them to leave. The mob did not leave. At that point anything that happened was on the mob, not the homeowners.

          Your problem is you have no way to defend the criminal trespass so you try to justify it with information the homeowners could not possibly have known at the time the incident occurred. Go post where the non-thinking democrat idiots will sop it up with the gusto of a hippopotamus in a cabbage field!

        3. avatar Huntmaster says:

          The protesters had already demonstrated their ability and willingness to destroy a very heavy duty wrought iron gate adjacent to the house. If that doesn’t indicate a proclivity, what the hell does?

        4. avatar anonymous says:

          Yes, they intentionally used deadly force in order to intimidate the protesters.

          lol.

          Sorry. That’s all I have for your answer.

        5. avatar anonymous says:

          They both appointed their guns in a threatening manner at individuals who did not constitute an eminent danger to their safety or well-being.

          lol.

          We don’t know that! lol. If they hadn’t been on their front lawn with an AR15, they might have spray painted f***12, ACAB, and then threw a molotov through a window. Wouldn’t be the first time!

        6. avatar anonymous says:

          Yes, they intentionally used deadly force in order to intimidate the protesters

          There was no lethal force. They didn’t fire a shot. No lethal force.

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

        7. avatar Jeff says:

          “The protesters had already demonstrated their ability and willingness to destroy a very heavy duty wrought iron gate adjacent to the house. If that doesn’t indicate a proclivity, what the hell does?”

          I would have described the gate as flimsy rusted out POS. but ok. AND they just opened the gate and walked through. Watch the videos and stop repeating and embellishing what other people say.

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I really tire of this argument. The video covers only the first few seconds of trespassers going through the gate. The gate was intact before the trespassers went through it, and was observed to be broken after they had gone through it. That the gate was intact during the few seconds that some trespassers were video-recorded going through the gate does not mean that the gate was not damaged at a later point during which trespassers were going through the gate.

        9. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          In fact Chip, if they were able to enter the gate without damaging it and damaged it anyway doesn’t that indicate malicious intent on the part of the “peaceful protesters” and further substantiate the McCloskeys’ claim of perceived imminent danger?

        10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I assess it from the perspective of the reasonable man standard. The act of a group of hundreds of people breaking through a gate to trespass on private property, during a period in which similar protests around the country have resulted in considerable personal injury and destruction of personal property, reasonably justifies homeowners to be fearful of the trespassers. That some of the trespassers threatened them (including with weapons) in response to their demands to cease their trespass only further justifies that fear.

          I don’t know where this idea that trespass is inherently peaceful came from. Trespass on private property is prima facie evidence of malintent – especially with the disparity of force represented by a group of hundreds of trespassers. Breaking through / breaking down a gate is just further evidence of malintent, to any reasonable person.

        11. avatar Dave G. says:

          “…sop it up with the gusto of a hippopotamus in a cabbage field!”

          I can just picture that. He wins the grand prize for metaphor of the day.

        12. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          @Dave
          Should’ve used gobble, don’t know why sop came out. Wish I could take credit for it but I read it somewhere a long time ago.

        13. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Yeah I was trying to picture a hippo with a biscuit and a big old platter of cabbage gravy? Just didn’t work for me….

        14. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Now that I think about it, my wife forgot some boiled cabbage on the stove once and I’m pretty sure “sop” would be appropriate for how we found it! One day I’ll tell you about the beans and ham episode!

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

        “There are three FACTS in this case that warrant investigation:
        1) The couple pointed firearms at people on the street.”

        “…on the street” implies a public right-of-way.

        That was *not* the case. Every square inch inside that gated community was *private property* that the mob trespassed on.

        The mob smashed the gate (breaking) and went inside (entering). B&E is a felony crime. Having seen what was happening in their city when mobs descend on an area, they were rightfully alarmed and their actions were justifiable.

        Let a jury decide. There’s a *reason* why they weren’t arrested yet, ‘Miss Prosecutor’ has no case…

        1. avatar Jan923 says:

          That’s right Geoff….She knows she has no case. She is simply applying political harassment at this point. These resident should sue her and the city. After the harassment with the circus search warrant… they have a winnable case. It’s pure and simple harassment.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Yes: deprivation or rights under color of law.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          Nope. Breaking a gate absolutely does not fit within the felony statute of the jurisdiction. You must “Knowingly entering unlawfully or knowingly remaining unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure for purposes of committing an offense inside.”

          It’s meant to protect from someone breaking in your house, not your front yard.

      16. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        That “street” is a Private Street, and they are joint property owners of said private property. Applicable Missouri statute (I cited and quoted it in comments to the original article) allows the use of deadly force by the property owner (or an agent of the property owner) in response to trespass on private property.

        They broke no laws.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “That “street” is a Private Street, and they are joint property owners of said private property. Applicable Missouri statute (I cited and quoted it in comments to the original article) allows the use of deadly force by the property owner (or an agent of the property owner) in response to trespass on… “

          They don’t have title to the street, the street is owned by the homeowners association.
          They have no standing regarding the HOA property and they are not an ‘agent’ of the HOA.

          Obviously, the fact that not one home was damaged, much less entered, by the protesters even without armed guards waving their weapons and pointing at the protesters shows there was no eminent threat of death or Grevious bodily injury.

          They is in a heap of trouble.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          There is no HOA. What part of that are you failing to grasp?

          You keep treating the situation as if it is a publicly accessible HOA neighborhood. It isn’t.

        3. avatar anonymous says:

          Look Miner.

          I am a joint owner of a private street in Oklahoma. The city doesn’t maintenance it. And the post office won’t deliver down the street. All our mailboxes are at the start of the street. And it is an easement we all share to get to our properties. If we wanted, we could put a giant barricade there and a security guard or wrought iron fence.

          And it would still be private property! LOL And it would still be partially mine! LOL

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          The private street is not the McCloskey’s property, it belongs to the private street association and is governed by their board of trustees.

          The only individual that has standing under MO law to complain about a trespass is the property owner or a designated agent of the property.

          The McCloskey’s are actually engaged in an adversarial proceding against the real trustees of the property as I’ve noted in other comments. And McCluskey has pulled guns on other people to ‘defend‘ property they claimed as theirs.

          The McCloskey’s have no standing to complain about trespass on the street.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The property is jointly owned by all property owners. So, yes, they are owners of the property. But even if your argument is true, homeowners are covered under 563.031:

          2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

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

        6. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          The McCloskey’s are actually engaged in an adversarial proceding against the real trustees of the property as I’ve noted in other comments. And McCluskey has pulled guns on other people to ‘defend‘ property they claimed as theirs.

          Irrelevant and Argumentative

        7. avatar Miner49er says:

          “ or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property”

          Good, good, and right on point.

          But the McCluskeys did not have ‘specific‘ authority by the property owner to occupy the property, they had, along with other property owners in the subdivision, general authority to occupy the public street, and that only to come and go as a public thoroughfare.

          Only the private street association trustees and their formally designated agents, would have the standing to make a trespassing claim on the private street.

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You honestly think that whatever bylaws or other contractual arrangements between property owners and the board of trustees are in place don’t include specific authority for home (property) owners to be present in jointly owned areas of the Private Street?

        9. avatar Miner49er says:

          I do believe “include specific authority for home (property) owners to be present in jointly owned areas of the Private Street?”

          But I am not sure members of the private street association are actually property owners of the streets.

          The private street association is set up as a trust, and the property resides in the ownership of the trust itself.

          Then you have the beneficiaries of the trust, who would be the homeowners in the subdivision, and the trustees, who would be responsible for operating the private street association.

          Only the trustees would have authority under the trust to file a complaint of trespassing. The beneficiaries have no real authority over the trust or the property owned by the trust.

          It is all going to the courts, so we shall see what grade are legal marriage then ours decide.

        10. avatar Miner49er says:

          So my question would be, could one property owner in the subdivision forbid the entry of a guest of another property owner in the subdivision?

          That doesn’t seem reasonable, I would guess the bylaws would not grant any exclusionary powers to any of the property owners in the subdivision.

          And if that’s the case, all it takes is one property owner in the subdivision to say the protesters were my guests and the claim of trespassing would become moot.

          And the McCluskeys had no way of knowing whether the protesters were authorized guests or not, when they pointed their firearms at protesters on the street in a threatening manner.

        11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          A valid point. Had a single homeowner granted them permission to occupy the street, then they would have been legally present and not trespassing.

          If such were the case, certainly said homeowner would have come forward or otherwise would have been identified by now. Evidence against this being the case: the trespassers had to break through a closed and (IIRC) locked gate.

          (It is also reasonable to assume that such a homeowner would be required to grant that access, if not escort them while on the property, rather than the group having to break through a gate.)

        12. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          @Chip
          In addition unless the McCloskeys were informed by another homeowner that permission had been given to “protesters” to enter the property they could not have known that to be the case and since no “protester” when told by the McCloskeys that they were on private property made any attempt to inform the McCloskeys that permission had been obtained and from whom the McCloskeys’ defense of their home and property with weapons is still justifiable.

          I’m sure the CA is spending thousands of tax payer dollars having her minions searching case law and obtaining legal interpretations of existing law to find some obscure charge she thinks she can either make stick or is sufficient to bankrupt the couple though.

      17. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

        Did you even read what happened? You win the award for post most disconnected from reality.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          (smie)

      18. avatar Steph says:

        They weren’t pointing the gun at people on the streets- they were pointing at people threatening their home, their pets, their lives, ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY… did you not see the gates the vandals dismissed? This was literally someone’s yard… it doesn’t matter how big it is- they have a right to defend life and property

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Steph,

          … [the homeowners] were pointing at people threatening their home, their pets, their lives, ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY …

          How exactly did the mob explicitly threaten the homeowners’ lives? What statements or gestures in the video did the mob convey to the homeowners that the mob intended to maim or kill the homeowners?

          In my opinion a raucous mob of trespassers who are walking past you and your home are not a credible, imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Would it be incredibly aggravating and disconcerting? Sure. And that does not justify using deadly force. Is the raucous mob of trespassers capable of causing death or grievous bodily injury to the homeowners? Of course. And that does not justify using deadly force either — otherwise we could use deadly force against every person who drives a car within 20 feet of us since every person driving a car could easily use it to maim or kill us. The mere capability to cause death or grievous bodily harm does not legally justify responding with deadly force.

          Tell me what the mob explicitly did to convey their intent to immediately maim/kill the homeowners. If you cannot provide that, then there was no credible, imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the homeowners and they were not legally justified to apply deadly force — intentionally pointing their firearms at the mob.

        2. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          uncommon_stupidity
          “In my opinion a raucous mob of trespassers who are walking past you and your home are not a credible, imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. ”

          Well, ya know, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. The mob had already broken at least one law. How could the homeowners know it would stop there?

      19. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Can you people calm down for a moment and consider the facts of this case?

        Intentionally pointing a firearm at someone is felony aggravated assault unless the person/people pointing those firearms at others were legally justified to use deadly force.

        No one is legally justified to use deadly force against another person (and pointing a firearm at someone is deadly force) unless the person pointing the firearm was in reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily injury. If the homeowners did not have a reasonable fear, they committed felony aggravated assault.

        The video of the incident makes it crystal clear that the homeowners pointed their firearms at the mob. Unless they were reasonably in fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm, they committed felony aggravated assault.

        Thus, all of this boils down to whether or not the homeowners had a reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm. Does the video or other other evidence establish that the homeowners had a reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily injury? From my cursory view of the video, I did not see that. In my opinion a mob — which crashed through a gate to walk down a private street without explicitly communicating any intent to harm the homeowners — does not represent a reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm. Maybe other viewers saw or heard explicit offensive threats to the homeowners before the homeowners presented firearms and started pointing them at the mob. Absent explicit offensive threats from the mob against the homeowners, I can see where it is righteous to have a jury decide whether or not the homeowners’ fears were reasonable.

        And to clarify further, most jurisdictions do not allow use of deadly force against trespassers — which is what the mob was doing. As I stated earlier, if Chip’s statement was correct that Missouri law allows use of deadly force against trespassers in that situation, then the homeowners did not violate any laws and the case should immediately go away.

        1. avatar Jan923 says:

          uncommon_sense… The Castle Law allows persons to protect themselves, the lives of their family, their property while at home,… and also extends to your vehicle… The unlawful entering of a private gated community by a group of angry people who smashed the gate and tore it down to enter… is a sure sign of Mal-Content. These residents had every right to be frightened for their lives and to protect themselves and their property from invasion with deadly force… This JOKE of a charge will go Nowhere.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Note: there’s not even a charge yet. This is a seizure for… evidence for investigation? (Why that is needed, when the entire encounter is video-recorded, I don’t know.)

          I’ve been trying unsuccessfully to find the search warrant online. I want to see the alleged probable cause.

        3. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          I would like to know that too Chip. I’d also like to know the name of the judge who signed it.

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Jan923,

          Breaking through a gate is vandalism — malicious destruction of property. Of course malicious destruction of property demonstrates mal-content. (People of good will do not intentionally damage other people’s property.) What that does not demonstrate is a credible, imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

          Is it aggravating and disconcerting if a group of people without any visible firearms break your gate? Absolutely. Does that mean you can legally open fire and mow them all down from 200 feet away? Absolutely NOT!

          The homeowners in this case were totally justified to possess firearms and quite possibly even to have them in hand, pointing at the ground or sky. They were not justified to point their firearms at the mob unless the mob first conveyed explicit offensive threats to immediately maim and/or kill the homeowners. The mere presence of the mob (at a distance and not advancing on the homeowners) and their collective ability to maim and/or kill is not enough justification to point firearms at them, at least not in a super-majority of jurisdictions in the United States.

          Were the homeowners legally justified to order the trespassers to leave? Most definitely. Where the homeowners legally justified to ask police to remove the trespassers after they refused to leave? Most definitely. Were the homeowners entitled to sue the trespassers for the cost of any damages the trespassers caused? Most definitely. Were the homeowners legally justified to attempt to physically remove the trespassers from their land? I believe so. If the trespassers resisted the homeowner’s attempts to physically remove them, would the homeowners be legally justified to escalate their force? Probably. And if the mob demonstrated that they were resolute about staying and began punching/kicking the homeowners in the process of trying to physically remove them — would that justify the homeowners using deadly force at that point? Perhaps, probably? I am not an attorney and this would be an interesting question.

          Do I condone what the mob did? Absolutely not! I am simply trying to get people to understand that a super-majority of jurisdictions in the United States will consider your actions to be criminal if you point firearms at trespassers who have not conveyed an explicit offensive threat to maim/kill you right then and there. Period. Nothing else is relevant in the law. (e.g. if the trespassers are raucous/rowdy, if they broke a gate to enter your property, and/or if they refuse to leave after you order them to leave)

      20. avatar BigMikeU says:

        Yano you do sound like an idiot that has no clue to what actually happened!!! They stated them selves and we all heard that they threatened the couple with Death,burning their house down and killing their dog!!! What else dose it take to feel threatened in your small mind?When hundreds of people break down a gate to enter and they are screaming and waving weapons around(bats/clubs/knives/bricks and more) and were already on their property!So they got their firearms to protect them selves with! They never left their property and not one shot was fired.Granted the woman in the situation NEEDS more training but other then that the scumbags in the street stayed in the street! You are an ignorant fool if you think that this couple should be charged with anything! If this kind of MOB came down my street i would have done the same exact thing!!!But for me,even though i live in a scumbag blue state i live in a “RED” county and the 1st to be N.J.’s 2A sanctuary’s! Already have almost 1/2 in the state following suit!When this disgusting blue state finally get a majority of 2A sanctuary’s we will make it LAW! No more will decent Law Abiding Americans take this crap anymore and people like you should start thinking about moving to the middle east or south America where Communism like you want it thrives at the cost of the lives of the people! Maybe you can go there and be a statistic?That would delight me!!! I’m fed up listening to pond scum spew there vile dim witted ideals!!! Just go’s to show the Lefts brain washing is working!!! Forever and Always may “only” GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! IF they dont allow this post to go threw then ill just have to unsubscribe! Lefties should be kept off this site!!!

        1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          If this kind of MOB came down my street i would have done the same exact thing

          Yeah, me too, right up the point where they started threatening to kill me, burn my house and have sex with my dog… I am a literal person, the only time I have ever uttered a phrase like “I’m going to kill you” it was already a sealed deal and in the process of happening so I LITERALY take a person at THEIR word when they threaten my life…

        2. avatar arc says:

          @maddmaxx
          I know the pain

          I often hear and read stuff literally and it can be a pain from time to time.

      21. avatar Michael Siddle says:

        Your lack of intelligence is breathtaking! Didn’t you watch the video? You would have to be brain dead not to be in fear of your life in those circumstances!

      22. avatar Jan923 says:

        If this homeowner feels threatened in any way …He has the right to protect the lives of him and his wife and their property… Thanks to the Castle Doctrine… He’s an attorney and should not hesitate one more second to sue this prosecutor in to submission… This is pure and simple political harassment.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Obviously the homeowner did not feel that threatened, or else he and his wife would’ve gone into their house and locked the door.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          This assertion is refuted by Missouri SYG statute 563.031(3).

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          AH! Run in the house and close the door! Because that worked so well for the US Ambassador to Libya! Good grief.

      23. avatar Ryan says:

        Have you not seen what these “PEACEFUL” protesters have done throughout other parts of the country Or have you been under a rock or you’ve probably been listening to the media outlets who are afraid to report on everything these “peaceful” people are fucking up in their wake. I probably would have met them in the same fashion so my property and everything on it wasn’t destroyed. There’s also nothing peaceful about throwing bricks through windows and robbing citizens and business owners blind not 1 thing. I thought in the United States that a homeowner had the right to defend his PRIVATE PROPERTY and those who sought to essentially invade it were trespassing

      24. avatar Hydguy says:

        Utter BS on your part. They broke down gates to a PRIVATE road. That is criminal trespass.
        So now that we have established that your first statement is full of BS, it automatically negates anything else you spew.

      25. avatar AC says:

        One might say that the problem is that what we have is a “criminal justice system” instead of a “victims justice system” wherein so much emphasis is placed on protecting the rights of the criminals that are actually guilty of committing the criminal act that all common sense is thrown out the window and the rights of the victims is grossly overlooked and ignored.

        I realize that under our system of justice we strive to protect the rights of those unjustly accused of a crime and that one is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. However, it seems that somehow the balance here in America has shifted over strongly in favor of those committing the criminal acts.

      26. avatar J Gardner says:

        Biased bloviating doesn’t gain credibility by spacing it well. In case you weren’t aware, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. No crime has been committed. Especially, no crime that needs justifying. Protecting your property from an assault of a person or a mob is legal in every state. You can stand on your property and hold a weapon at any angle and declare your intention to protect yourself. That is a fundamental constitutional right. As is peaceful protesting and assembly. However, that right is exhausted at the point of a fence being broken and trespassing begins.

      27. avatar Ing says:

        “We all know that the couple committed felony aggravated assault. The only question is whether or not it was legally justifiable.”

        I think you got yourself mixed up here. If it was legally justifiable, then it *wasn’t* felony aggravated assault.

        Yes, we all know the homeowners threatened the crowd. Another thing we all know is that every one of the protestors in the neighborhood were trampling other people’s private property, which puts them one step into the wrong. The protestors are demonstrably guilty of trespass; the homeowners *may* be guilty of unjustified threats, depending on how one evaluates the threat posed by a large crowd of angry trespassers.

        Another thing we all know by now is that the local prosecutor has made up her mind that the homeowners WILL be punished, whether they’re guilty of breaking the law or not.

      28. avatar JerryOne says:

        With knowledge of recent events and conduct of “peaceful” protesters in St. Louis and around the country, a reasonable person could definitely be in reasonable fear for their life and great bodily harm in that specific situation. The triad necessary for deployment of deadly force appeared to clearly be present……Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. For an in depth discussion of the triad and self defense law findings reference Massad Ayoob’s book In “Deadly Force.” In Missouri, we have strong Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws. One does not have to wait for personal contact/injury to deploy deadly force. However, Kim Gardner is a horrible stain on her brand, an embarrassment upon St. Louis citizens…….many just too stuipid, Useful, Idiot, Defective Citizens to realize it. She is up for re-election and is attempting to stifle her own personal legal situations. The law is the least of her concern. She a is a terrible example of a political douche bag. It would be heart warming to see her experience similar circumstances on her own turf.

      29. avatar Tommy357 says:

        @uncommon_sense: fact 1 is incorrect. That was not a street it was private property. More like their driveway. If a mob shows up in your driveway and refuses to leave, that’s a bit different from a mob passing by on a public street.

      30. avatar Grumpy Vet says:

        Wow, you’re an amazing fool! What planet did you come from? Uranus?

        They were on THEIR PROPERTY, defending themselves from a mob of HATEFUL individuals. They felt threatened and had EVERY RIGHT to protect themselves and their property.

        Those people had NO RIGHT to trespass! Come on my property like that and I can guarantee that I’ll shoot first and ask questions later.

        Idiots like you should not be allowed to use the internet!

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Obviously the homeowner did not feel that threatened, or else he and his wife would’ve gone into their house and locked the door.

      31. avatar Art out West says:

        Obviously the couple had a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. Look at the photos, they were scared shitless.

        There was a huge mob of rioters trespassing on their property. The rioters broke down their gate. Some of the rioters seem to have directly threatened them with death and/or grave bodily harm.

        We need to quit calling rioters and looters “protesters”.

        Those who peaceably assemble to seek redress are called protestors.

        People who damage or destroy property are vandals, not protesters. This includes the people tearing down statues that they don’t like.

        People who behave in a lawless manner are rioters, not protesters.

        People who trespass are trespassers, not protesters.

        People who steal stuff are thieves and looters, not protesters.

        People who assault others are criminal thugs, and likely terrorists, not protesters.

        The news media lies when it uses the word “protesters” to describe criminals.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Obviously the homeowner did not feel that threatened, or else he and his wife would’ve gone into their house and locked the door.

      32. avatar Sian says:

        Considering the riots and violence, videos of rioters attacking business owners and bystanders for no reason, fear of imminent bodily harm sounds like quite a reasonable argument.

      33. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

        Make no mistake. In many parts of this country, the true rule-of-law is gone. It’s rule of whoever holds power. The DA should be tried for violating his oath and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Period.

        These two own property and were defending said property when present threats of violence were made against them. This is not heresay. There is plenty of evidence (much of which recorded by those “protesting”).

        Yes, black lives matter. But everyone matters too, so that does’t give anyone the right to violate another’s rights.

        Where is the ACLU on this? Silent, as usual when it comes to situations that matter most.

      34. avatar Frank says:

        not a street, they were on private property, which they broke down a gate to gain entry to

      35. avatar Mr. L. says:

        Did anyone see the interview on Fox with the Missouri State Attorney General Eric Schmitt on the McCloskey case? Here’s what he said. “Under Missouri law, under the Castle Doctrine, the individual has really expansive authority to protect their own lives, their home, and their property, and I think the story here to watch is the local prosecutor, Kim Gardner,” Schmitt responded. “Kim Gardner has an abysmal record in prosecuting violent crime, has recently released and been complicit in the release of dozens and dozens of inmates who have been charged with violent crimes, and has a record of making politically motivated decisions not based on the law. So, this is certainly something to watch.”

        “One important factor here is this was a PRIVATE STREET. This was not a public street,” Schmitt continued. “These individuals were on their way to the mayor’s house, actually, which has been vandalized several times. This was on a private street, and if you listen to the McCloskeys, they felt threatened, that they were going to be attacked, and that it was made known to them. They made known to the protesters and the people who came by that this was a private street, and they said they were going to murder them and come into their house, and so, as I said, the Castle Doctrine in Missouri is pretty expansive; it allows you to defend your life, obviously your family’s life, your home, but also your property, and this was on private property.” http://dlvr.it/RbRXDK

      36. avatar Pariah says:

        Your moniker should be no common sense AND I smell a democrat! ” we all know”? Your a assmunch!!!!

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Oh, oh, ouch, that really hurt! I am going to curl up into a ball in the corner and cry now. Or not.

          Thank you for demonstrating the fundamental problem with the human race: their default behavior is to glimpse something, immediately form a position based on emotion, lash out at anyone who does not immediately agree 1000%, and never-ever review what happened to determine if they are in error.

          I will say it one last time:
          1) In the overwhelming super-majority of jurisdictions in the United States, you cannot legally deploy deadly force unless you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm. And imminent means imminent — occurring at the moment that you deploy deadly force.
          2) Intentionally pointing firearms at people is deadly force even if you do not pull the trigger.

          Whether or not the homeowner’s actions were legal in the overwhelming supermajority of jurisdictions in the United States all boils down to whether or not the homeowners had a reasonable fear of IMMINENT death or grievous bodily harm.

          In my opinion, unless the mob conveyed explicit offensive threats to maim/kill the homeowners BEFORE the homeowners started pointing their firearms at the mob, the homeowners did NOT have a reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

          Did the homeowners have a reasonable fear that something may happen? Sure. And something that may happen also may NOT happen — which means that the thing which may happen (maiming and/or killing) is not IMMINENT. Therefore, fear that something may happen is not a reasonable fear of something that is imminent and does not legally justify applying deadly force.

        2. avatar Xairwarrior says:

          You’re absolutely correct.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Spot on. As soon as he produced the rifle he should have engaged the nearest 30 people. Then his claim of imminent fear would be fine.

      37. avatar Jimmy Chilton says:

        What about the protesters that had weapon’s that were they were carrying. Plus the fact that they were trespassing .

      38. avatar Joseph says:

        there was a show of force, self defense,protection from bodily injury or death NOT use of lethal force “some one being shot”

      39. avatar JDM says:

        It is quite obvious that many of you do not know anything about trespassing on private property, which is exactly what BLM marchers did. The community in question is: 1 – A gated community. 2 – It is privately owned. 3 – The land is privately owned. 4 – The homes are privately owned. 5 – The street(s) is/are privately owned. 6 – The sidewalks are privately owned. 7 – The community is CLOSED to the PUBLIC. 8 – Entry into the community is by INVITATION ONLY! BLM marchers/rioters broke the law(s). They were NOT invited into and onto the private community. This community is a State registered and legal corporation which, along with the common areas, is proportionally owned by the homeowners. The owners of the home have the right to not only protect themselves, family members , guests and their property from and against ALL TRESPASSERS especially, in the face of trespassers who have proven themselves to be dangerous, destructive and life-threatening people. In addition, the home owner has an obligation to protect that which belongs to Corporation, as an owner of the Corporation, as well as, the rest of the ownership of the Corporation and community. if threatened.

        These BLM people have broken many laws of the City of St. Louis and the State of Missouri. They are the ones in the wrong, not the homeowners, This Judge has gone well beyond her authority as a Judge. She should be investigated.

        1. avatar James E Mcclelland says:

          The couple has a history of Brandishing weapons towards their neighbors;who are authorized to be in the compound.The Protesters at most were guilty of a class B misdemeanor, Trespass, $100 fine at most,so Lethal force was not appropriate

        2. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          @McLelland
          You are incredibly dense. The mob entered the property illegally. The couple knowing only that the mob had broken a law had no way of knowing the mob had no intention of breaking others or what their intended purpose was. When the homeowner told them they were trespassing on private property the mob threatened bodily harm, arson, & even the death of his pet. The mob is lucky at that point the homeowner exercised restraint and didn’t open fire!

        3. avatar James E Mcclelland says:

          No need to get personal,Misdemeanor Trespass,not in a dwelling Deadly Force is not appropriate.Also the 2 homeowners,were lucky that the 50+ Crowd ,who they said was armed an threatening,did not respond in kind.Further ,the narrative of fearing for their lives was false.the wife’s picture does the ot show a fearful woman but one filled with hate! 93 homes in the subdivision,but they were the only family a issue with the Traveling Crowd.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Your declaration of what is and is not appropriate use of force does not comport with RSMo 563.031.

          Missouri has ine of the strongest castle doctrine statutes in the entire country.

        5. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          You’re just too far gone to get through your communist programming. Which part of broke one law, when told threatened did you not understand? So glad you’re so good at reading facial expressions I would call that look fear mixed with false bravado. In short, it was a bluff.

        6. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Further, when confronted by the homeowners instead of threatening why didn’t the mob leaders attempt to explain that they meant no harm and were on their way to the mayor’s home to protest?

      40. avatar DearLC says:

        The Missouri code allows the display and brandishing of firearms as happened in this case. It further says that such is not subject to prosecution. The Missouri A.G. explained it a few days ago.

    2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      You must have insurance in Cook County, Illinois (tho, it’s not the law). If you loot, riot, rape, pillage, burn, you don’t need insurance, here. We have USCCA around here. Very good Wisconsin company. Nice people, too. (No, they don’t cover the riot and pillaging etc, just in case you were wondering. Hahah)

    3. avatar Sgt. Preston says:

      This DA needs to be fired and arrested for illegal warrant and confiscation of private property. This family only did what any concerned family would do, to protect their property froma riotous mob.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        PUH-leeze! I’ve been looking for this thread. Does ANYONE know what this “search warrant” was about? Was there a problem with some view of the gun? Was the man charged with a crime for which the rifle was evidence? ON WHAT BASIS was this family forcibly disarmed by the police whose salaries they pay? The same police who refused to even respond when this family was under attack by something beyond 300 violent thugs. I gather the mob returned after they were disarmed, but were further thwarted in their attempted arson and murder by the fact the homeowners had quickly retained private security who did not plan to take their shit. But I cannot imagine what basis could be claimed to take their guns and leave them at the mercy of that lovely crowd.

    4. avatar RandyJ2007 says:

      Nothing would tickle me more than for Trump to commute before it even comes to trial. There was no use of force… merely a display of defense.

    5. avatar Will Crump says:

      Not overzealous, but a criminally biased far-left sympathizer whose loyalties lie with violent criminals as opposed to law-abiding citizens. I hope and pray someone can find a sure-fire way to force her sorry, traitorous rear end out of office. She is an insult to the very notion of truth and justice.

      1. avatar James E Mcclelland says:

        Will Crump ,you are spreader of false narratives,the Crowd,was peaceably walking down the street when confronted,by the couple,there or 93 homes in the subdivision,yet no one was disturbed but the Mcclesky’s,who have a documented past history of Brandishing weapons toward’s their Neighbors.You are painting Protesters with a broad brush,Looters and Rioters,what was Looted that day,any other homesteads threaten or damage?Feared for their lives ,2 confronting a Crowd of 50,with only 30 rounds?The look on the Females face,as she pointed her pistol was not fear,but Hate.They are comfortable pointing weapons,when they don’t like conversation!

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Will Crump ,you are spreader of false narratives,the Crowd,was peaceably walking down the street…

          Speaking of false narratives, I’m going to stop you right there. Trespass on private property is, by definition, not peacable.

  2. avatar David B. says:

    So even though they exhibited VERY poor firearm handling “skills,” they had their protection confiscated because they were on THEIR property, defending THEIR home, defending THEIR livelihood and defending THEIR PRIVATE neighborhood from an advancing group of very vocal, potentially violent protestors? Yeah…this confiscation makes a lot of sense. NOT. What a joke. Did they make some mistakes, sure. We all would…and anyone who says they would remember every ounce of training in that moment is lying. This is a complete violation of so many amendments.

    1. avatar Missouri_Mule Esquire Emeritus says:

      Poor firearms handing skills are not a crime, wait for it, until you

      *571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:
        (4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or…(exceptions follow for defensive use)

      Better to fight a search warrant than an arrest warrant.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        So you are twisting the law to insinuate it’s against the law to defend one’s self. So in your opinion the man should have wrapped the rifle in a towel to disguise it and it would then be legal.

        1. avatar Missouri_Mule Esquire Emeritus says:

          Not “insinuating” anything. Just quoting the law.
          If the were in immediate danger why didn’t they pull the trigger?
          I am recommending better muzzle control and tactics

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Unless you are quoting that statute in the context of 563.031, you’re quoting it out of context. They were legally justified in using deadly force in self-defense.

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

        1. avatar Missouri_Mule Esquire Emeritus says:

          Then why didn’t they shoot anybody?
          Just trying to keep people safe while avoiding a warrant.
          Low ready? Holster? No towel.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          That’s… an odd question. It is a good thing that they defended themselves and their property without actually having to use deadly force.

          You never put lead downrange unless you have to. Demonstrating the willingness to do so is often sufficient – in fact, some 2/3 of all all DGUs do not involve discharge of the firearm.

          Again: that’s a good thing.

        3. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          Chip seems to be right. “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.”

          Mule- They didn’t have to shoot. The mob moved along. If they did shoot they were outnumbered and the family of the deceased would probably try to sue. Not good for lawyers to spend all their time in court if they aren’t getting paid.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      @David,

      This is exactly why my two “go to” guns (nightstand and EDC) have duplicates…in case for any reason the originals are confiscated and I never get them back. My entire gun inventory is split up and stored at two separate addresses, for any worst case scenario involving a warrant to search and seize from my home. This couple never violated any laws, never fired a shot, and weren’t charged…yet the Leftist C.A. still was able to somehow seize their main rifle.

      Kabuki theater. Smoke and mirrors. I hope the McCloskeys get their rifle back and the C.A.’s reputation disintegrates enough to dash any hopes of future employment in the LE field.

  3. avatar James Ivy says:

    Tha DA should be thrown out, the law is Black and White (and if you think I’m talking about race your a fu$#ing retard). They can get a warrant against these good American citizens but yet no charges have been filed of any sort. This country is will be upside down due to laws being mistreated and mostly blatantly ignored due to political bias, that my friends used to mean barred on grounds

    1. avatar Casey says:

      Kim Gardner is a local champion of approved-think. People in the city love her. People in the county are too scared of being thought to be racist to argue.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Activists are using the justice system to go after wrong-think in the same way that people are unfairly targeted for driving while black. And the justice process is part of the punishment. Instead of physically roughing you up during an arrest, they try to bankrupt you and ruin your life. These activists with power aren’t for equality before the law.

      2. avatar Sian says:

        She was literally, provably, fully funded by Soros. Another soldier in the culture war.

  4. avatar The NC Taxman says:

    WTF – this DA needs to be taken down permanently. What a violation of these homeowners rights. Hope they sue the crap out of the City and this DA personally as well as her office. Just sad that we even have to put up with the Radical Racist BLM and Antifa as well as the Democrats. Hope they Arm Up and if anyone else tries to come to their private property, target practice may be in order.

    1. avatar anarchyst says:

      They cannot sue the prosecutor personally as she enjoys “immunity”. Since 1982, the courts have ruled that “immunity” applies to all public officials.

      1. avatar KenW says:

        Finally, part of the Breathe Act that was recently proposed by the squad would be useful.
        Section 4
        Increase accountability for federal officials and police officers who have committed harms, specifically by measures that include:■Guaranteeing a private right of action for recovering damages when a federal official has committed a constitutional violation; and■Creating a grant program that offers States grant dollars if they strengthen mechanisms to hold police officers accountable when they have committed harm

        Other than that the proof of the need to reelect Trump to prevent this sort of nonsense act is a crock of shite.

        1. avatar KenW says:

          Someday I’m going to learn that tiny cellphone screens are not good to type on with crappy eyes.
          What I typed
          Other than that the proof of the need to reelect Trump to prevent this sort of nonsense act is a crock of shite.
          should have been
          Other than that this is the proof of the need to reelect Trump to prevent this sort of nonsense act because it is a crock of shite.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          To further clarify, since you still sound confused; MAGA!! TRUMP 2020!!! Vote early and often!

      2. avatar Ross says:

        The second amendment exist for this very reason to remove public officials for tyranny & oppression, just saying

  5. avatar Dennis says:

    So this is what it’s come to now? Some anarchist wanna-be in office has the power and the support to harass people defending themselves against the ones she’s refusing to prosecute! This s*t needs to stop NOW!

    1. avatar Warwolf says:

      Right, someone needs to take her ass out.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Like, on a date?

        1. avatar You Fuckin People... says:

          You know exactly what she means. Typical unhinged dickbeak. You know, wishing harm upon others (particularly government officials) on a website is almost as stupid as posting the fact you keep your guns ‘at two different addresses’. Almost…

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Hmm. Someone’s not a happy elf today.

          My response to Warwolf was clearly light-hearted humor. You should try it.

          And as if anyone really cares about (the real) me and where my (legally owned) stuff is, anyway. Or where those addresses are located. Or if I was only telling half the story and my stuff is actually split up among several locations, or if I’m actually just one of those online liars who just writes stuff that isn’t true to begin with, or…well, you just can’t know nowadays, right?

          I take your vulgar words, toss them aside, and give you a big hug. It’s going to be okay, bro. 🙂

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

          “You know exactly what she means.”

          Your butt-hurt is so *precious*!

          Look at you! Jumping up-and-down, shrieking and pitching a temper-tantrum like petulant two-year-old that doesn’t get the candy it wants while mommy is shopping.

          Whatever you do, don’t change a fucking thing. You are providing grade ‘A’ first-class comedy *gold*. Fuckwits like you make reading TTAG a pure joy!

          *snicker* 😉

        4. avatar arc says:

          @You ****in People…

          Nothing wrong with keeping guns at multiple locations, as long as they are hidden. If someone came along with a mine detector and combed my back yard, a lot of acres, all they would find is spent brass from the course of the last 100+ years, literally. I have found rimfire brass with “2-1” or diamond head stamp that was manufactured in 1921-1927. IIRC, by the western cartridge company. I think I have a .32 or .40 rimfire brass as well. Gota wonder what my great great grand parents were shooting at in their back yard.

          So many rednecks have lived on this land, camped, fences went up and down, houses went up and down, that the ground is so littered with nails, bear cans, scrap iron, barbed wire, spent brass, steel casings, screws, old electrical wire, propane tubing (I’m actually scrapping this, $), etc. Unless someone combed the place with a LIDAR system, there isn’t anything to find but trash. Needless to say, I don’t metal detect much in my back yard anymore.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Jesus! You’re telling me someone canned bears, back in the day? Who knew?

  6. avatar Cliff H says:

    Time to hire some professional, ARMED, security for their estate, which I believe is also listed as a landmark Building.

    Better coverage of the property, proper knowledge of confronting threats, and maybe give these two a few gun handling lessons on the side.

    Makes you wonder where the D.A. lives.

    1. avatar ESQ-NH says:

      At the very least, with proper training, perhaps they would have learned about bizarre boating accidents. That would cure any warrant confiscation issue. 😏

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      News report said they built the house some 30 years ago, maybe historic by somebody’s measure.

  7. avatar Leigh says:

    Remember…these folks support BLM…just a reminder.
    That may get things reduced…right?
    All part of a process.
    At least they have the multi-millions to hire the best lawyers.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      This case will prove that support for fascists does not protect you from them.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Proving the saying, be careful what you ask for you just may get it.

    2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      That may get things reduced…right?

      You can’t reduce what does not exist… There will (A) be no charges or (2) Any charges filed will be bogus and will be thrown out before any trial… How can you charge someone for violating another persons rights who are actually violating your rights… Missouri law is quite clear, the McKlosky’s were well within the law…

    3. avatar RGP says:

      I bet they don’t support BLM any more! Unless, of course, they’re really slow learners….

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Leftism is a mental disease.

        Not saying this applies to the couple or indeed it may, if it does hopefully they have learned their lesson of misplaced support and votes.

      2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        I bet they don’t support BLM any more! Unless, of course, they’re really slow learners….

        No, they are dedicated liberals “down for the cause” and I guarantee that they will be out on Nov 3rd voting for the Biden/Sanders/AOC party and the same loser, idiot, Marxists that are persecuting them right now…

  8. avatar FormerDallasRenter says:

    I once asked a truly scary buddy of mine, “what would you do if a team of men showed up to seize your guns?”

    I was expecting a highly-detailed technical answer, involving multiple guns, use of stairs and darkness, possibly a little RDX. Instead he replied, “I’d open up the door, smile, and give them half my guns… what the f*** are all your guns doing in one place?”

    Advice worth considering in times like these.

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      and give them half my guns…

      Just keep a couple of old cheap crap pieces around for that very moment NEVER keep the good stuff out in the open,

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        These are very good ideas.

        1. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          You are unwilling to use them at that time you will also be unwilling to use the remaining half when they return for the rest.

          The amount of BS all you spew about never giving your guns up is just that. Every single one of you will hand them over without a fight just the threat of violence. Pathetic and then you pat each other on the back about it.

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Every single one of you will hand them over without a fight just the threat of violence

          You are obviously speaking for yourself (must be that depression thing) because you have no fuking clue what anyone else will do in a given situation.. Just because you have no balls does not mean the rest of the world is a bunch of compliant pussys too… Want to find out what I’ll do? Whomever leads the charge to my front door will find that depression is the least of their problems…

        3. avatar Ad Astra says:

          ROTFLMAO. BS (very apt name btw) you are truly a clown. All you ever do is pop up and try to call out everyone else as being a keyboard commando, and some how you don’t realize thats exactly what your doing. Try looking up the psych condition called protectionism lol.

        4. avatar Someone says:

          @BS
          When the gun grabbers show up in large numbers at your door, it’s not the best of times from tactical point to use your guns. Unless you want to become a martyr for the case.

        5. avatar James E Mcclelland says:

          The Mcclusky’s have a history of Flourishing their weapons.Not a random gun grab, bad optics for the Couple,no valid reason to Brandish a weapon.

      2. avatar arc says:

        Exactly, some old Mossins make great bait, as does some stock-quality AR15s. Expensive, but for the plan to work, there needs to be at least one evil black rifle in the bunch, make it a cheap one.

        Throw in some cheap Chinese accessories to sweeten the deal.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Yup. Good advice, indeed. As I mentioned earlier above, my inventory has always been split and stored at two separate addresses, just in case (theft, fire, seizure, SHTF).

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’m too old for that shit. Open the door, give them half my shit with a smile, then as they carry it down the stairs shoot them in the back with some of the other half. It’s on, mofo. If we make it to the “surrender” stage, they may pay my bills for the rest of my life while I explain 2A and why did what I did, repeatedly, for any court, official, newspaper, or TV show wants to hear it.

  9. avatar Al says:

    All of you Thin Blue Line and Blue Lives Matter guys… look at who came and took it.

    1. avatar Mike V says:

      A lot will be on our side…but a lot won’t be as well.

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        “A lot will be on our side” uhh have you been living under a rock? There’s no future tense, the lines have already been drawn and the sides chosen. The job of law enforcement is to enforce the will of the state, and they’ve shown an extremely strong willingness to do just that, especially over the last several months. No patriot should view the police with anything but suspicion and distrust, if not outright hostility

    2. avatar Hahah says:

      The one on the left is the next deputy chief, the middle one bending over is the next lieutenant, and the right is going to Chief for some neighboring department.

      /s

  10. avatar KCK says:

    The mob was peaceful, the MC’s were violent, we will tolerate riots That destroy property but not The defense of property.
    Orwell could do no better than Gardner in that press release.

  11. avatar GS650G says:

    The message being sent is clear. Defend yourself and you’re screwed. At least with BLM sitting in the DA chair.

  12. avatar Mike V says:

    What gives, no charges, no arrests and yet they get to take away a right guaranteed by the constitution?

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

      Miss D.A. likely realizes she can’t steam-roll them, so the confiscation was a bone tossed to the mob…

  13. avatar Mike V says:

    Are they trying to prod us into doing something?

  14. avatar SomeDudeThatHasAnAssloadOfGreentip says:

    Kim Gardner, is a leftist piece of shit, that deserves a traitors end. The left is the enemy, they deserve no peace or quarter.

    1. avatar cgray says:

      Go get ’em, tough guy!!!

  15. avatar Steven says:

    These are things a few years ago we would joke about, time for talkin has about ended

  16. avatar Wally1 says:

    Search warrants are issued as an investigative tool when there is a suspected underlying crime. As of yet, no crime has been charged, however I believe they will be charged. So this should be a eye opener to all of us, Defend your life and you will probably be charged and go to jail. If they are charged, this couple need to demand a trial by jury. No way they would be convicted. They should also file a civil suit for malicious prosecution.

    Want this type of political corruption to continue? Keep voting democrat and this is what you get!

    1. avatar enuf says:

      They were not defending anything. There was no threat, there was no attack on them.

      This pair of wealthy, educated, experienced trial lawyers panicked badly. They should have kept their front door and its heavy security gate locked shut, not standing wide open. They should have been on that balcony of their mansion so prominent in the many photos and videos. Long guns at hand but in hand they’d have done great with video cameras. Or at least smart phones shooting video of the trespassers, capturing every face they could for a criminal complaint.

      They screwed up badly.

      1. avatar anarchyst says:

        You are wrong. The homeowners were not on a public street, but were in a “gated community” which is “private property”. The rioters (I refuse to call them protesters) broke down a gate to gain entry to the premises. The rioters were breaking the law, not the homeowners.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Yes, they were breaking the law and should have been arrested. But they never attacked that couple. Their home was not invaded, no damage was done to their home and no one attempted to enter it or harm a hair on their panicked chubby bodies. Nor was there ever any intention by anyone to do so, this was about the mayor not the wealthy ambulance chasers down the street.

          This is a case where both sides were in the wrong and deserved to be arrested and prosecuted.

        2. avatar Ron says:

          Enuf I’d like to see your house get threatened by an angry mob then watch as you do everything absolutely perfect in accordance to how social media dictate you should act 🙄

        3. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Enuf I’d like to see your house get threatened by an angry mob

          You must have it’s mommas house…

        4. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          “Broke Down”

          Understatement..The bent the one side in two and ripped it half out of the wall.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          Obviously the homeowner did not feel that threatened, or else he and his wife would’ve gone into their house and locked the door.

      2. avatar Warwolf says:

        No they didn’t. They did what any red blooded American should have done. Stood up for themselves. People like you whose testicles never fell will be on your knees begging for your life while your wife is getting ass raped by the “peaceful protesters”.

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

          “People like you whose testicles never fell…”

          I need to steal that, I have just the troll to use it on… 🙂

      3. avatar Wally1 says:

        Well enuf: You are very wrong. This was a private community, private property and the gate to the property was broken down by rioters. The rioters verbally threatened to kill them, their dog and burn down the house ( actually recorded by other rioters). . There were no peaceful protesters, they were no longer peaceful once they trespassed on the gated community property, thus committing a crime just being there. The home owners had every right to protect themselves from a violent criminal mob. I imagine you are a dem, For the rest of us, facts matter.

      4. avatar James Chant says:

        “They were not defending anything. There was no threat, there was no attack on them.”

        Well, except when the rioters threatened to kill them and their dog. Just a minor detail there.

        “They should have kept their front door and its heavy security gate locked shut, not standing wide open.”

        Yes. because the heavy security gate at the front of the gated community already worked so well to keep the rioters out. Opps! Wait a minute…

        “They should have been on that balcony of their mansion so prominent in the many photos and videos.”

        Yes. That way when the rioters broke in, they could have had the fun of trying to fight their way all the way down through their home against over-whelming odds. There is nothing that says tactics like placing yourself in a position where you don’t have a clear escape route.

        “But they never attacked that couple.”

        No. A mob of rioters with a current history of burning, looting, and attacking people only broke into their private gated community. A community that they paid to join for the extra security it was suppose to provide. Yup, absolutely nothing to worry about there.

        “Their home was not invaded, no damage was done to their home and no one attempted to enter it or harm a hair on their panicked chubby bodies.”

        Yeah. Because they stood outside armed with guns.

        “Nor was there ever any intention by anyone to do so, this was about the mayor not the wealthy ambulance chasers down the street.”

        Yeah, they should have known that because the rioters were carrying signs that said, “Don’t worry. We only broke in and trespassed for the mayor”. Oh, wait…
        How the hell were these homeowners suppose to know that, or even believe it if they did?

        Dude, are you on drugs? Or do you just lack common sense?

        1. avatar Jan923 says:

          James Chant…Guess you feel cozy and safe in your mom’s basement, huh ?

      5. avatar Tired of the bs says:

        Enuf
        Then why have no rioters been arrested? They were clearly trespassing, there were threatening the homeowners, it’s on video? Yet the pos da takes their weapon with no charges filed. I see many lawsuits coming. Thinking the state ag needs to get off their ass on this.

      6. avatar Miner49er says:

        They do not own title to the street, the street is HOA property. They have no standing to claim jurisdiction or control of the street, they are merely citizens who own property within the subdivision.

        And no other homes were threatened, vandalized or entered, even without armed guards brandishing their firearms in a threatening manner against the protesters.

        1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          And no other homes were threatened, vandalized

          Except the mayors’ house, it’s reportedly been vandalized several times…

        2. avatar Bohucka says:

          Have you read ANY of Chip’s posts, or do you only read the comments you agree with?

          There is NO HOA in that development!

        3. avatar Ad Astra says:

          The mob threatened o burn down their house. It’s in the video try pullin your head our of your shaft miner.

        4. avatar Dennis L says:

          “And no other homes were threatened, vandalized or entered, even without armed guards brandishing their firearms in a threatening manner against the protesters.”

          And Burn Loot and Murder isn’t a violent terrorist group. And black people never commit crimes. And Idi Amin was not a tyrant. And there is no record of genocide in Rwanda history. And the checks in the mail. And I promise not to… Um okay Minor 69er I totally believe what you say.

      7. avatar Justsomeguy says:

        You are wrong. Badly wrong. These people were standing up for themselves just as each and everyone of us should do. No damage was done by the mob other than the trespass which is literally walking all over the law, but neither was anyone injured by the homeowners. Their show of force was appropriate as a warning and their restraint was warranted, because the crowd did not attack them.

  17. avatar Goof “Talk. LOTS of Talk...” PR says:

    Durrr, keep your powder dry. Durrr, here comes the Boogaloo. Durrr, come and take them.

    After all, the full weight of the federal government is no match for my sweaty fat ass!

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

      Trolls like you whose testicles never dropped are a source of endless delight for me.

      A true cornucopia of endless things to mock mercilessly .. 😉

      1. avatar Goof “Talk. LOTS of talk...” PR says:

        Your mockery is amateur and your unoriginality is comical. You think you’re some kind of enforcer on this site, and it’s hilarious. Please keep it up. I’m sure I’m not the only one who entertained by your ineptitude 🤪

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

          Now that insult had all the originality of a leather bar with a name like “The Man Hole”.

          (Translation – *Zero*.)

          How many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, anyways? 😉

  18. avatar Ron says:

    This is why I said what I said weeks ago.

    Get out of the cities. Right now is actually the most dangerous time for you.

    Right now the left has the power of the mob and the state. They will allow the mob to take over, but if you defend yourself from the mob they will prosecute.

    As police are continually vilified and defunded, there will come a breaking point where they will be no longer relevant. That’s when the mob is at its zenith, and becomes the new power player in the cities.

    However, it’s all downhill for the mob from there. Because as seen in Chazistan, now it’s the mobs job to take care of everyone. And no one will be coming to help the mob when people start killing them off. Eventually, the mob will actually likely be taken over by a gang or cartel, along with the city government. At that point, there will be little to no organized government forces left to retaliate against gun owners/conservatives/anyone not leftist.

    But we have awhile before that takes place, so stay out and get out of the cities now.

  19. avatar enuf says:

    “… Confiscate Rifle St. Louis Couple Used to Defend Their Home …”

    False, the police did not take a rifle that couple used to “Defend Their Home”. Their home was never under any threat. They are the ones who over reacted and made threats. There was no home defending needed and in fact none took place. You cannot defend your home in the absence of an attack, all you can do is posture and pretend and act out.

    A whole lot of people should have been arrested that day. The trespassers, the gate vandals and the McClosky’s.

    1. avatar D Y says:

      “Their home was never under any threat”

      What generated that statement? If voices from a mob say they are going to kill you, or burn down your house (as stated by the homeowners), is that not sufficient to warrant securing a firearm for defense?

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Didn’t you get the memo? When the righteous mob shouts that to you, you’re supposed to apologize, kneel, and clean their shoes. Do you even CNN bro?

        1. avatar possum says:

          like that’s what’s going to happen when angry chainsaws descend on my perssimon tree

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

          “like that’s what’s going to happen when angry chainsaws descend on my perssimon tree”

          There are times when being infected by rabies has a upside. The chainsaw people leave you the fuck alone… 😉

        3. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          There are times when being infected by rabies has a upside.

          Yeah but the lifespan of the infected animal is a real bitch…

        4. avatar hawkeye says:

          Barbed wire, possum. Or any kind of heavy steel wire–run a few strands up and down the trunk. Not around, because it’ll be easy for the sawyer to circumvent and harder for you to climb over. Chainsaw teeth really dislike wire, and not many folks know that carbide-toothed saw chains are available. Oops, I guess they do now…

    2. avatar Ron says:

      You strike me as the kinda guy who eats his own.

      Even if this couple did everything exactly right, you’d still bitch.

    3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      ok???

    4. avatar anonymous says:

      False, the police did not take a rifle that couple used to “Defend Their Home”. Their home was never under any threat. They are the ones who over reacted and made threats. There was no home defending needed and in fact none took place. You cannot defend your home in the absence of an attack, all you can do is posture and pretend and act out.

      Disagree. Your level of fear will be different from theirs. And I mean a reasonable level of fear here. Maybe you would have waited until they started kicking in your door. Or you would have waited until they broke your windows or threw molotov cocktails to start shooting. To the these homeowners, that level of fear was when they broken down the gate and entered the private property. The law doesn’t exact out what is “over reacting” or not. If they were in fear of their lives and property, then they were justified. And context matters too. Where did this event happen? Right on their front door of their home. The McCloskey’s weren’t at the protesters homes. No. They were at his home. They broke a gate to get in. They trespassed on private property. Context matters.

    5. avatar anonymous says:

      A whole lot of people should have been arrested that day. The trespassers, the gate vandals and the McClosky’s.

      The McCloskey’s probably called the police. But the police will not come. If there are 100 protesters. The police will not come. They have to gather numbers and suit up in riot gear. It will take a long time for them to get there. The McCloskey’s were on their own.

  20. avatar dph says:

    If they only had those 2 guns they are not very bright.

    1. avatar anonymous says:

      Two guns is enough. Because who in the crowd, wants to be the first ones to rush them? That’s why two are enough.

      But I agree with you from another perspective. If you have hundreds of leftist zombies, groaning, drooling, and gnashing teeth. You need lots of ammo, and the weapons to house them.

  21. avatar Nickel Plated says:

    Let this be a lesson to anyone who thinks cops are on their side. Cops have their masters, and like good dogs, they listen to their masters.

    1. avatar possum says:

      dogs? nah. mindless wanna be gestapo that just love to incarcerate,,,,, grrrrrrr, makes my skin crawl

    2. avatar Ad Astra says:

      Some are some aren’t. You don’t hear it much on the news but there is an epidemic of blue flu going around. NYCPD has even had to start denying retirement requests.

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        There is, but it’s not because cops have suddenly decided they don’t like trampling on peoples rights! They’re just no longer certain their masters have their backs, even though that’s always been the implied agreement between the political class and the enforcer class

        1. avatar Ad Astra says:

          I don’t claim to have the ability to read minds or see into people’s souls. That’s the sort of hubris that leftards have.

  22. avatar Prndll says:

    The ridiculousness that is Twitter and social media in general…

  23. avatar anarchyst says:

    The police officers who executed the warrant are their own worst enemy. The prosecutor should have been unable to find any police officer who was willing to serve the warrant and should have executed the warrant herself.

    1. avatar cgray says:

      Every single police officer in the United States of America would have happily served that warrant, and then happily picked up their paycheck.

    2. avatar possum says:

      eggsactly, making enemy’s of the law abiding could make the law abiding your enemy.

      1. avatar Sasha says:

        Not when you take all their weapons and they are just all bark with no bite.

        1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Not when you take all their weapons and they are just all bark with no bite.

          Apparently they were “no bite” BEFORE the cops came for their stuff, Their Attorney says he has the hand gun which is/was in an inoperable condition… What is more stupid waving a gun around at an angry mob OR waving a non-working gun around at an angry mob?

  24. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt says Gardner is a political hack who couldn’t indict a “ham sandwich” (not really, but the implication was obvious).. He took time to explain the Mo “Castle Doctrine” provides an expansive authority to individuals in the defense of their homes, lives and property… Said Gardener has an “abysmal” record in prosecuting violent crime and has either released or been complicit in the release of dozens of violent felons… She has a record of making politically motivated decisions with no basis in law.. McCloskey’s were within their rights to defend themselves on their property from individuals trespassing on a PRIVATE street… Schmitt says he has no idea what law Gardner would use to prosecute those people… Personally I see a lawsuit for prosecutorial harassment in her future…

  25. avatar Shire-man says:

    Should have waited for the mob to come to the door and just started firing through it Biden style.
    If Biden is a proxy of Obama then it’s great dear leader himself who declared we should let fly through closed doors and any prosecutor coming after you would be rayycisss.

    1. avatar Ron says:

      Now that’s an idea.

      Fire through the door Biden style then when the mob retreats, celebratory fire into the air chanting BIDEN! BIDEN! 🤣

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      “Should have waited for the mob to come to the door and just started firing through it Biden style.”

      They would’ve been waiting a long time as the mob did not approach anyone’s door.

      Their neighbors did not present weapons yet no one approached their homes, isn’t that interesting?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        How would you know that? I saw no video of neighbors, don’t have any idea how far away nearest neighbor might be. Judging from what I could see, 3-5 acre lots would not surprise me. I also never saw evidence they ever made it to the mayor’s house.

  26. avatar Dan says:

    The purpose in seizing their guns was to let the previous mobs, and future mobs, know that the family is now not armed, so now they can be harmed at will. This is a dangerous development for our society in general. The message is that the family should have let their home be looted, their family pet killed, and whatever else they wanted to do. How dare the family defend themselves. Again, a dangerous development for our country.

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      know that the family is now not armed

      How does confiscation of two guns used in the action in question equate to an unarmed home? You could take a dozen guns from my home and I would still be only seconds away from enough firepower to take care of any mob assailing my property, in fact it is to my advantage that they would think I was unarmed…

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “ it is to my advantage that they would think I was unarmed… “

        Exactly, the tactical advantage of surprise is very useful.

        But if you’re looking for small minded ego gratification go ahead and start waving your guns around, pointing him at people in a threatening manner, just like the good tacticool poser.

  27. avatar 24and7 says:

    i would immediately have several more to replace it.. the day after the incident took place..and mucho ammo

  28. avatar WI Patriot says:

    This is disturbing on so many levels…opens the door to further “confiscations”…

  29. avatar Steve says:

    Pretty sure Missouri has an AR-15 law bill 1108

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      Introduced Bill Title: Establishes the “McDaniel Militia Act,” which requires every person between 18 and 35 years of age who can legally possess a firearm to own an AR-15 and authorizes a tax credit for a purchase of an AR-15.
      Unfortunately, HB 1108 has absolutely no chance of passing.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        You sure? Can’t I vote by mail?

  30. avatar Ark says:

    Welcome to morality policing. Rioting and burning is a-okay, but display a firearm and we’ll come take your shit.

  31. avatar MB (the real MB) says:

    This is a fishing expedition, nothing more will come of the gun issue. The police and the D.A. failed to protect them, told them they were on their own. They did what needed to be done without killing anyone.. The gun was legally purchased, and not fired, but used to protect by intimidation. There is nothing in the law that says once you present a firearm, you have to fire it at your intended target, if the target decides discretion is a better choice than death. These homeowners showed remarkable restraint, and accomplished their goal of protecting their property from known criminals and nobody died. I doubt all you keyboard commandos who have nothing but criticism for them could have done better, and some of you, judging by some comments would be in jail or dead. The action by the D.A. is punitive and shows the D.A> is incapable of comprehension of the law.

  32. avatar Abigail says:

    Citizens last line of defense is jury nullification. Educate yourselves on your right as a juror. http://www.fija.org
    Fully Informed Jury Association. Juries have the ability to judge not only the facts in a case but the law being used against the defendant. If the jury sees that the law is being used in an overzealous improper way they have the right to acquit.

  33. avatar Cale15 says:

    Once again the cops are no fucking good

    1. avatar anonymous says:

      Had the cops (and the mayor) prevented the destruction of property by the protesters, then the McCloskey’s wouldn’t have to defend their homes in an amateur way.

      1. avatar SoCalJack says:

        Going off topic here. Where are the pictures of the protesters in front of the mayor’s house? The Missouri couple, wanting to defend their lives and home, are being used as a leftist media distraction.

  34. avatar Dog of War says:

    Well these peole are lawyers, they need to be immediately fill suit against which ever commie loving scum-bags signed the order for this illegal seizure of property.

  35. avatar rt66paul says:

    Lucky for them, they can afford to hire private security, either for themselves or for the gated community.

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      I recall seing that they did have private security when the protesters showed up a second time. https://nypost.com/2020/07/05/st-louis-couple-stay-on-balcony-as-protesters-return-to-mansion/
      Note the guys on the balcony, no slinged rifles showing, but you can definitely see “stuff” around their waists.

  36. avatar NORDNEG says:

    So far I’m on Warwolf’s side of this argument…
    time to get real with the ,I got this job because I’m special, people.

  37. avatar joe says:

    This is what corrupt social justice looks like; violent mobs good, defending yourself from them, bad.

  38. avatar Darkman says:

    This is why perimeter defense is so important. As well as having a clear KZ. When the Gestapo comes for you. You either fight for your Freedom or you Kneel for your Surrender. So many of the POTG talk big on the Interweb but, when the Shit gets Real. Nothing but, more talk. It is clear to see in what direction Freedom and Rights are going. It may not be in your state,county or neighborhood. YET. Will you wait for it to knock on your door? Or will you meet it where it begins? Regardless of where that may be. Keep Your Powder dry.

    1. avatar Darkamn says:

      Silence is the same as Inaction.

    2. avatar Wally1 says:

      Amen brother, let them come and take it. i already have had a good life, bring it.

  39. avatar Tired of the bs says:

    Anybody here from Missouri know if the ag can legally remove the da ?

  40. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    I’ll say on thing, dude REALLY likes him some pink shirts…

    1. avatar Mike V says:

      Oh man, not again!

  41. avatar possum says:

    Does the Bureau of Land Management really matter that much?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Ah heerd theys rayciss!

  42. avatar Ralph says:

    This is what Democrat America looks like, people. The wolves will run the country, most of the people will be sheep, and as the Japanese say, “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” The McCloskeys stuck out by resisting the mob and you can see the result.

    It won’t be long until we find out whether 2A is real or a pipe dream.

    1. avatar possum says:

      The two A is a pipe dream. They way I read it we all should be able to have any weapon so needed. But no, we get AR’s and shotgunms

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Possum you would be correct.

  43. avatar Blackwater says:

    If they want to play games, let’s play. Time to pick up a couple of SBR’s, put your beach outfits on and grab your favorite beach towels and go sit on the front porch and let’s play. Just a family headed to the pool, right? Look at the one making the most noise and smile and wait for flash

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Ooofff.

  44. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    This is why you don’t brandish like these two ill-trained gun owners did. There is so much they did wrong. Does it deserve a warrant or an arrest? I don’t know, but every one of us has to think this through BEFORE it happens, so we don’t give the gun-grabbers in the DA’s office any reason to do what they’re doing in this case.

    1. avatar D Y says:

      There is nothing you can or cant do to keep the anti-freedom people from coming after you. Guns bad. Regardless of context.

      What possible motivation can they have for coming after the rifle? Not the pistol that was handled most carelessly, but the rifle. No charged crime, not even close to a clear cut law violation. This is punitive political theater. There is zero downside for the DA to do this. She wouldn’t be the DA if she wasnt in line with the politics of that area, and since you cant sue her, what lesson can be taught by the victims of this event?

  45. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

    The lesson in this: don’t live where the mob can be easily activated because the same location will also likely have a Communist as the DA. Yes we need to start calling them that since that is what they stand for, even when they deny it.

    1. avatar possum says:

      not communist, dicktatorship

      1. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

        Not gonna dispute the Possum, but in practice there is but a whisker of difference between the two since neither of them gives the average citizen with no connections the shaft.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Any attempt at communism inevitably ends up a dicktatership. The communism fails, of course, but the dictatorship remains along with the end result of communism, everybody works like a slave or is murdered so the dictator can live like he’s rich. Ask North Korea! Or Cuba. Or Venezuela.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      I have long referred to them as Commiecrats/Democommies as that is what they are.

  46. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    All they’ve done is try and disarm the couple.

    1. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

      To facilitate the mob going in to destroy their home, rob them blind, and kill them if they haven’t fled! The left have been trying to turn this whole mess into a slow grinding Kristallnacht with some level of success.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “To facilitate the mob going in to destroy their home, rob them blind, and kill them”

        Please help me to understand why the other homes were not destroyed, robbed or the occupants killed even though they did not have two crazy gun waivers to guard them.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          What other homes?

  47. avatar ChoseDeath says:

    Marching orders out to the masses
    The agenda set by the extraordinary
    Rules of engagements not for the radical
    No conditions needed for chaos

    The flames of discontent
    Now they will burn
    Instigate, occupy
    Bedlam is here

    Time to punish the few who succeed
    Level the playing field, claim your equity
    Shown by the organizers is proof enough
    Possessing the knowledge that they’re fucked up
    The goal of disorder and the notch of arrest
    Fills your back-story and who you detest
    Will there be a time to pay for this shit?
    Maybe after the earned professorship

    The flames of discontent
    Now they will burn
    Instigate, occupy
    Bedlam is here

    With the moral equivalence of Satan
    Channeling karma back in their face
    Rabble rousing has fired up the morons
    Directed to push until they’re disgraced
    Make it known to disagree is not allowed
    No diversity of thought is tolerated
    Now they are whom is hiding in the closet
    Fear of reprisal from phony hatred

    This banishment is not fitting
    Must be made to suffer
    Swarmed upon, hordes of fools
    It’s the end of an era
    The guiding of hostilities
    Of utopia rising
    It’s the end of the debate
    Witness the silencing

    Prepared gangs of radical combatants
    Armed with the PC banner to surround
    Parading out disgraced goliaths
    Showing the rich knows no bounds
    With the help of the loyal media
    The cost of dissent shown as an example
    Must be nice for the Kool-Aid drinkers
    One-way rules, the unwanted are trampled

    -Dying Fetus, “Ideological Subjugation,” 2017.
    The album is called One Wrong To Fuck with. Just thought I’d share.

  48. avatar Bubba Wallace, fake noose of fake news says:

    When I first saw this thing it looked staged to me. You have the perfect shot from the photograph, the way the husband and wife were aiming their firearms in a very “Hollywood” stance, it all looked like a scene from a movie.

  49. avatar Steve says:

    Okay let me get this straight, black lives matters call the cops on the two for pulling guns? And the cops went and seized the guns? And black lives matters hates cops and wants to get rid of them, or worse ?……. that’s Thunderdome… no way I’m living in that City that state or wherever that kind of thought pattern exists !!!!! This is happening quick boys, if you get into a verbal dispute with your wife and the police have to come to your house they confiscate guns, your guns. Why don’t they take the other killing devices knives etc…just your guns

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Actually, the homeowners were the ones who called the police, and in the official police report and investigation, the homeowners are the complainants and the alleged victims, and the trespassing mob are under investigation for trespassing and assault/intimidation.

      Yesterday’s action was brought about by a rogue Circuit Attorney.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        On the basis of *what*, Chip?

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Your guess is as good as mine. I want to see the warrant, and the probable cause that it alleges and that must exist for such a seizure.

  50. avatar John says:

    Always wondered why other country cities were destroyed Somalia Etc. and now I see where the cities are headed….

  51. avatar Contra says:

    This is how soviets make an example of someone.
    So, not police were there to protect them, but no problems showing up to take their guns.
    This is a communist indirection folks.
    Tyranny tyranny tyranny.

  52. avatar slimjim says:

    Anybody that wonders how all those German Jews in the 30s and 40s got disarmed and eventually exterminated- this is exactly how it starts. I’m not one for hyperbole, but this is scary as hell.

    1. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

      Oh most the posters here would put themselves on a cattle car for summer camp if Trump issued an EO stating it.

      Even more would probably jump off a bridge if the media told them it would prevent Coronavirus.

      It’s both entertaining but also extremely depressing.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        It’s both entertaining but also extremely depressing.

        I see you didn’t take my advice, must be a masochist, oh well, suffer (or enjoy) or whatever blows your skirt up…

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          (smile)

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Learn from history or repeat it.

  53. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    Quote: “…the couple had a reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily injury.” How about 19 people murdered by “peaceful BLM protesters” across the country? How about 220 buildings burned in Minneapolis alone? Don’t forget the mob had already broken the gate to trespass on the homeowners’ private property. Plus the mob was making verbal threats against them and their property.

  54. avatar Asdf says:

    How how do you make a hardcore Democrat who is sympathetic to AntiFI and the protests into a devout Republican?

  55. avatar hawkeye says:

    Everybody’s jumping on the prosecutor with both feet, and likely rightfully so. But, didn’t a judge need to sign off on that warrant? If so, either the prosecutor knows something we don’t know, or the judge is worthy of similar ire.

  56. avatar N Texas says:

    Glad they protected themselves from scum bags out threating and destroying private property.
    very true have insurance if own weapons , scum bag protesters need to be rested for their actions and threats

  57. avatar James W Crawford says:

    Good book for everyone to read to understand the situation.

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

    Time for the kinless to revolt!

  58. avatar JUST THE FACTS! says:

    You can carry guns on ur own land….especially if ur behind a gate inside a gated Community with or without 500+ angry violent terrorist mob with history of burning & looting who are threatening U.

    The one that should be in jail is @$$ wipe St. Louis Circuit Prosecutor Kim Gardner.

  59. avatar Hannibal says:

    Anyone who didn’t expect this is nuts. And anyone pulling this stunt is nuts. Note that no one on that street had the mob break down their door or loot their residence. Yet these two yahoos went outside to confront a mob. They weren’t defending their house, they were ‘defending’ a gate. As a practical (not legal) matter, they played a stupid game… and it’s not the first time according to their own accounts.

    Speaking of those own accounts, that’s where the legal issues come into play. Missouri has weird laws on trespass (it’s not burglary because no one tried to get in the house itself) allowing for force to defend property… but there’s a clause that refers to other areas of the law. It’s not as simple as some may think it is. And this couple was apparently also in a property dispute over the ‘private street’ which may not actually belong to them.

    They may end up walking away from this. But it was a stupid, stupid move… especially in a place where the prosecutor actively will try to get them.

    1. avatar Waylon says:

      Cuck.

  60. avatar Richard Jones says:

    What was the justification for confiscating their firearms? They’ve not been charged with any crime. What was the basis for the search warrant? It’s not against the law to possess legally acquired firearms. There is due process in taking property. Have the firearms been returned and if not why? Again, there so far has been no crime charged. I hopr the city gets the snot sued out of them.

    1. avatar slimjim says:

      That’s why I said this is scary as hell. No crime, no charges, no due process… and no problem for “the state” to deny these citizens their RKBA at the whim of DA and judge. It *should* get dismissed quickly, but I no longer trust in what “should” happen, and who knows what could happen in the mean time.

  61. avatar Jeff says:

    Unfortunately state sanctioned harassment is allowed against gun owners. This prosecutor released rioters and wants to charge people who defended their home. If you want to side with the prosecutor on this then please do, it is currently your right. Just remember though that the next time this happens it might be you and your fellow gun owners might be willing to sell you down the river. We stand united or we will hang separately.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      The people (gun owners, pro 2a) around this country should be surrounding the department who enforced this warrant. Plain and simple.

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        I meant county. Surrounding areas, people close by. Where is this? St. Louis?

  62. avatar enuf says:

    On the one side of it, Mr. McCloskey is a left-wing lawyer, supporter of BLM. In his history are two incidents, one where he threatened a neighbor for walking across community land he disputes ownership of and is suing the association for, and another time a neighboring synagogue had bee hives outside his wall (not on his side of it) and he trespassed to destroy the bee hives and threatened to to sue if they did not remove every scrap of the wreckage that he created.

    On the other side is a great deal of video of that day where he and the wife got all panicked and acted out. Video of protesters/trespassers walking thru an open, undamaged gate. Video of others in the crowd moving back and forth keeping the crowd moving away from the McCloskey’s and their out of proportion display. No video caught any threats or violence directed at the McCloskey’s.

    Their behavior was over the top and unreasonable. They were never threatened, nor was their property threatened. Possibly state law covers much of what they did but not what the wifey did, not when all those people were constantly moving away.

    They were not defending themselves, they were not under and threat or danger. They are left wing snowflakes with guns who are trying to defend their bad behavior as if they stood off a horde of terrorists with Molotov cocktails.

    The McCloskey’s are full of shit and deserve to lose their guns and their right to own guns.

    More the Mrs. than the Mr., so far as this latest incident goes, but both of them.

    1. avatar Waylon says:

      Spoken like a true cuck.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Yeah right. Spoken like a non-partisan, non-“Party Member” who takes the facts for what they are doesn’t force-fit facts to fit an acceptable narrative.

        Had so much as one of those people attacked them I’d be cheering for them opening fire. Just as I have supported other citizens and police in the right.

        But facts are facts and when someone is in the wrong they deserve to be called on it. Whether it’s cops being brutal thugs or citizens or criminals doing wrong. Fuck all politics and these efforts to spin bad deeds just to support a platform.

        They may be within the bounds of the law but they are lousy representatives of the Second Amendment, the good sense of Castle Doctrine and the natural born right of self defense.

        1. avatar Ad Astra says:

          “Ooohh ooohhh look at me i don’t have a political party i am soooo morally superior to you all!”

          That’s all i got from your text.

        2. avatar Montana Actual says:

          “They may be within the bounds of the law….”

          Say that again?

  63. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    This black female prosecutor is just as racist as the white local DA’s in the 1950’s and 60’s. She is also refusing to prosecute criminals who attacked people just because of their skin color. Innocent store owners had their hard work destroyed. It happened back then. And it’s happening again now.

    I suggest the riot victims get a lawyer. And ask the federal government to intervene. As this was done in the 1960’s. When the local government failed to protect innocent american citizens.
    She is refusing to help everyone. Black, white, etc. Except she does help criminals. President Trump should ask the justice department to investigate this DA. And all the local DA’s. For their refusal to enforce the law and not prosecute rioting criminals.

  64. avatar Alan says:

    One wonders as to what the basis for a warrant was.Warrants are issued by a judge, based on sworn statements by those who seek the warrant, correct me if I’m in error. One might also ask or inquire as to where the police were.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Police were clearly not doing their jobs.

  65. avatar strych9 says:

    This comment section is mindblowing, it says so much about POTG and not much of it is good.

    Christ, if there was ever a comment section crying out for a soundtrack in the forbidding wastes that are the interwebz gun community, well fuck if it’s this one.

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

      Well, one dances with one that brought them…

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Pick your dates better. Or just walk out on them.

        1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          . Or just walk out on them.

          Good advice… TAKE IT….

        2. avatar Mitch says:

          Up the rear!

  66. avatar Montana Actual says:

    Fuck these Tyrants. What a bunch of punks. They let all this shit go on there and they confiscate this couples weapons? Now that is something to riot about. The police should have told whoever that warrant came from to fuck off.

  67. avatar Xairwarrior says:

    Well, now I am really glad I have insurance for these types of situations. I hope it turns out good for the couple. This is definitely political and that DA should not have done this to the couple. I was not there and if an angry mob trespassed on my property in today’s local climate. All they would get is one warning shot from a window upstairs and that’s all. I would not be in a photo or video waving my AR around. I would retreat a room and observe from a window.

  68. avatar Edward Currie says:

    Kim Gardner the black panthers can openly stand on they porches with gun in plain view of the media and nothing happens .Missourians Don’t let these ex Democrats lose or you will all lose . get bow and arrows if you do . i wish i lived in a state where i can own a gun . Kim is leaving you all open to a massacre . impeach her fast and protest for this couple .

  69. avatar Will Drider says:

    Since the pistol was reported by their lawyer as “inoperable” but couple use it as a form of deterrence: Id say they don’t own other firearms.

    Can the buy a firearm now? Read Form 4473 Q11b AND the Explanation for 11B. Circut DA Garner as made statements and the Search Warrant was approved by a Judge or Grand Jury both of which would require the probability that a crime(s) have been committed. Does that meet the threshold of “information” as defined on the form and restrict future purchase? I don’t know, McColsky’s can figure it out.

  70. avatar Frank says:

    wonder how well the “just following orders” line is working out nowadays

  71. avatar Gideon Rockwell says:

    This is the Marxist Police State in action. Already in Seattle White City Employees are attending re-education and indoctrination classes to learn to be ashamed of their whiteness and to learn to bow and scrap before their Black Marxist Masters. Reminds me of South Africa and Mozambique after the Marxists got control. Next things will start looking like Cambodia under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, which is what B.L.M. and ANTIFA are under the Democrats. Anyone who supports or votes for Democrats from now on is supporting Marxism.

    1. avatar Titanium says:

      In addition to keeping our guns, I recommend that patriots start to set up shortwave pirate radio networks. Along with using VHF(with frequency hopping). The reason is simple: unlike internet and satellite communications, the HF band travels in all directions and makes it impossible to determine the location of the transmitter. Combine that with digital encryption and you have true peer-to-peer communication that the government has no control over. Shortwave radio was instrumental in subverting communist tyranny in the “east block” during the cold war.

      That being said, it makes ya think more and more about shopping on the black market when it comes to firearms. If you have guns don’t let the state know you have em.

      1. avatar Fake Name says:

        Radiowaves can be transmitted omnidirectionally, but it’s a relatively simple process to track their source through triangulation, where the receiving station takes an azimuth of where the signal is the strongest. With as few as two receiving stations, but preferably three, you just go to where the azimuths converge to find the transmitter.

        The Nazis did this way back in WWII to find resistance cells that used radio to communicate.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        In the future, when writing such, please keep in mind that VHF and HF are not the same thing, made your post sound silly.

  72. avatar James E Mcclelland says:

    As the false narratives of the Mccloskey’s is being asserted as gospel,yes !.protesters were trespassing on the private street 2The trespassers was not on the Mccloskey’s personal property but the sidewalk and the street3.There was no verbal interaction until conrfronted by the armed couple,the verbal response being not on their personal property but sidewalk and street 4.They feared for their Life,Lie.The look on the wife’s face as she brandished her pistol ,was not fear! But Hate .5.They gave false narrative that their,they had no Police response,Lie!Million dollar homes and the same neighborhood as the Mayor,police response would be quick fast and in a hurry!

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      It is a Private Street. The street and the sidewalk are the private property of the homeowners.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        Unfortunately there are those who are “smarter” than you, so no matter how many times you say it or how many times you cite the statute that governs that situation THEY will ignore it and continue to talk the same bullshit right wrong or otherwise but I do admire your patience in trying to get the point through their thick heads….

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          It really amazing how some people just go out of their way, to ignore the facts in a case. They were never protesters. Call them criminals, invaders, rioters, but not protesters. They broke down a private gate and trespassed onto private (sidewalks & driveways) land. Never call them protesters.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      James, your comments are only valid if you were there, so were you? Otherwise, to each of your “statements”, what makes you think so? And, if you were there, have you informed the police of your criminal behavior?

      1. avatar James E Mcclelland says:

        The Couple appears to have told several whoppers.Lets look at the law,The Couple belong to the HOA,which is in a trust ,there fore the common area’s sidewalk ,street or under the Dominion of the Director of the HOA,he along could request Trespass charges against the Crowd for being on the street and sidewalk,not the Mccloskey’s! being cursed out,does not give one license to Florish and Brandish Semi-auto weapons.The possibility of a charge of Felonious Assault or Flourishing and Brandishing an misdemeanor.Their is another issue that might have prompted the search warrant,This is not the Couple’s first incident,of Flourishing.This being a Million dollar hood,neighbor’s don’t take kindly to weapon’s in their face over a verbal conflict.

  73. avatar Tinhat says:

    Justice is no longer blind it is a weapon tt be used against those that the Judges and prosecutors want too. Then it is blind when those of the correct political views commit crime. If this keep up it will be time to cast off the government that oppresses the rights of the govern

  74. avatar George Washington says:

    IT’S TIME TO WAKE UP AMERICANS…..
    TAKE YOUR COUNTRY BACK BEFORE THE “MOB OF JOGGERS” COMPLETELY DESTROY YOU AND YOUR BLOODLINE…..
    WAKE UP AMERICANS!!!!!!

    1. avatar adverse6 says:

      Get in the boat men……..

    2. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Nice try trying to constantly make it about race. Why don’t you just KYS and do both sides a favor?

      1. avatar James E Mcclelland says:

        Montana What Bloodline got do with it?Please explain!

  75. avatar adverse6 says:

    Bozos with firearms. Perfect examples of how not to do it.

  76. avatar Class action suit against this racist prosecutor says:

    Karma, da,da

  77. avatar Major Havoc says:

    It doesn’t matter whether or not the mob was on the street or the front lawn. You can have your guns outside on your property or anywhere for that matter

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Including downtown inside the state senate, read 2A, which has never been amended.

  78. avatar Miner49er says:

    McCloskey’s attorney made an interesting statement about the handgun used by McCloskey‘s wife.

    ”Watkins stood outside his Clayton office building Saturday afternoon and held the handgun wrapped in a plastic bag. He said the gun was “inoperable” and had been used as an exhibit in several cases against the manufacturer — litigation that Mark McCloskey had handled at his firm.“

    It seems as if attorney McCloskey is a gun grabber lawyer.

    “several cases against the manufacturer — litigation that Mark McCloskey had handled at his firm”

    I am really glad to see all these folks on TTAG supporting an attorney who sues gun manufacturers for product liability, the irony is so precious!

    1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

      There you go making another stupid statement minor no one here (TTAG) wants a defective weapon and manufacturers who make them need to pay a price. Making them pay for producing defective products is not “gun grabbing”. Think before you type.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Everyone, even including *you*, has the right to keep and bear arms, and to defend themselves. Regardless of what you do for a living. Or what color your skin is. It’s good to see you finally figured that out, most everyone else here has known it for a long time.

  79. avatar Miner49er says:

    The McCloskey’s are quite the pair, some on this list might categorize them as suit-happy litigious activist attorneys, here’s some local reporting:

    ”The McCloskeys have filed at least two “quiet title” suits asserting squatter’s rights on land they’ve occupied openly and hostilely — their terms — and claimed as their own. In an ongoing suit against Portland Place trustees in 2017, the McCloskeys say they are entitled to a 1,143-square-foot triangle of lawn in front of property that is set aside as common ground in the neighborhood’s indenture.
    It was that patch of green protesters saw when they filed through the gate. Mark McCloskey said in an affidavit that he has defended the patch before by pointing a gun at a neighbor who had tried to cut through it.

    This court record shows the McCloskeys challenged a Portland Place resident “at gun point” who they said encroached on their property. 
    The McCloskeys have filed many other lawsuits. They sued a man who sold them a Maserati they claimed was supposed to come with a box of hard-to-find parts.

    They became involved with the Portland Place homeowners association, but soon were embroiled in group politics. According to a Post-Dispatch report from 1992, Patricia spearheaded an effort to enforce an obscure state law banning unmarried couples from living together. Fellow members of the homeowners association accused her of using the provision as an excuse to stop gay couples from moving in, which Patricia denied.

    Patricia was ousted from the homeowners association the following year over disagreements about the neighborhood rules.

    Patricia McCloskey’s booting seems to have begun a decades-long stretch of hostile relations with the association, which the couple have since battled in court four times, in three cases as plaintiffs—most recently over the group’s alleged failure to maintain the private sewer system. That matter remains in litigation, but suits the two brought in 1995 and 2017 wound up dismissed without prejudice.
    A lawyer who represents the association and multiple individual members either declined to comment or could not be reached prior to publication.
    In 1996, after relations with the Portland Place homeowners association had apparently soured, Mark McCloskey took issue with the Central West End Association when the group included a picture of their stately home—alongside 25 others—in a poster of the neighborhood.”

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      And this is important to me because??? How does ANY of that crap change the fact that a bunch of Marxist assholes threatened to kill them AND their dog and burn their house AFTER they destroyed a gate to gain entrance to a private community? I don’t give a shit who they are it doesn’t make them ineligible to defend themselves and their property..

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        I know you like the mental picture of them tearing the gate down and flooding the castle grounds but that’s not what happened.

        The gate was broken long after, as the video shows.

        And regarding the McCloskey’s brandishing their firearms in a threatening manner, let’s look at what that means.

        The claim is that, absent the McCloskey’s pointing the weapons at the protesters, the protesters would have attacked their home and burnt it down.

        The problem is, there are 94 houses in the subdivision, and yet none were attacked, vandalized or burnt down.

        And none of the other houses had armed guards, brandishing lethal weapons, in order to avoid attack. Yet, none of the other houses were attacked. How can that be, if the mob was such a threat?

        Answer, the mob was not a threat.

        And any verbal threats to the McCloskey’s came after they had pointed their firearms at the protesters in a threatening manner.

        No worries, it’s headed for the courts so we’ll see what greater legal minds than ours determine.

        And I hope somebody from TTAG in St. Louis County will research to determine the details of Mark McCloskey’s legal actions against firearms manufacturers. It looks like a Walther to me, did McCloskey sue Walther?

        1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Look, if you were standing right there watching this crap from beginning to end and recorded EVERY word said by both sides then by ALL means educate the ignorant masses and present your evidence, If all you have is he said they didn’t say and a bunch of pieced together video that really does not show shit then maybe it’s time to give this one a rest and just STFU about it.. I’ve seen the same video, and read all the articles and I (along with most everyone else here disagree with you) Get off your I’m smarter than you bullshit because you’ve said all there is to say ad nauseum and I guess I’ll have to start ignoring you if you can’t come up with something new and compelling… I’ve heard enough of your bloviated, repetitive bullshit… Bottom line the fucking “protesters” were trespassing and you have no way of knowing what that homeowner was thinking or feeling….

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The gate was broken long after as the video shows.

          Citation needed for “long after”, since the video only shows the beginning of the group’s trespass, and not the full passage of the trespassers through the gate.

          The claim is that, absent the McCloskey’s pointing the weapons at the protesters, the protesters would have attacked their home and burnt it down.

          The problem is, there are 94 houses in the subdivision, and yet none were attacked, vandalized or burnt down.

          And none of the other houses had armed guards, brandishing lethal weapons, in order to avoid attack. Yet, none of the other houses were attacked. How can that be, if the mob was such a threat?

          Answer, the mob was not a threat.

          The legal standard is reasonable fear: would a reasonable person have similar fear under the same conditions, including having the same knowledge. The future actions of the trespassers and any future threat to other homes or homeowners was not known to the McCloskeys at the time that they claim that they were threatened. Thus, that the trespassers failed to threaten or harm anyone or anything else is irrelevant.

          And any verbal threats to the McCloskey’s came after they had pointed their firearms at the protesters in a threatening manner.

          Good luck proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the McCloskeys were the initial instigators. The McCloskeys claim that they didn’t point their weapons until they were first threatened. Beyond that, they have a very solid case that the mere presence of a trespassing mob of hundreds of people constituted more than enough grounds for reasonable fear of personal harm or destruction of property – regardless of who said or did what, or when.

          No worries, it’s headed for the courts so we’ll see what greater legal minds than ours determine.

          I am unaware of any charges yet having been filed against the McCloskeys. It is not certain that it will actually go to the courts – though I’m sure the rogue CA is doing everything she can to try to make that happen.

  80. avatar Fucktard says:

    To have that weapon confiscated violated the Missouri king of the castle law. This law gives the landowner if he feels his life or property is in danger, they can shoot someone while they are on there property IF they are threatened. These rioters threatened to burn the house down and to kill there dog. To me that is a credible threat. If you do not feel that is a threat especially in this day and age, I would have done the same thing. This mob broke thru a cast iron gate system, destruction of private property. They threatened to burn there house down and kill there dog. The weapon should be given back to the home owner he did not discharge any rounds. He used it to let the mob know he is not messing around.
    Hats off to the home owners. They were protecting there home, if you don’t see that then tour the left and your day will come and it will be soon.

  81. Hi mates, its fantasic article on the topic of teachingand fully explained,
    keep it up all the time.

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