mccloskey gun confiscation warrant
Courtesy Fox News
Previous Post
Next Post

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?

Previous Post
Next Post

360 COMMENTS

    • 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.

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

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

        • “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.

        • 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.

      • “ 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.

        • 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.

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

        Oh, and they were also ON the homeowners property.

        • +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.

        • 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.

      • 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!

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

      • 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.

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

      • 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.

      • 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???

        • “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.

        • 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.

        • Hmmm,

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

        • 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???

        • 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???

      • 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.”

      • 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.

        • “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.

          • “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.

        • “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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.”

      • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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!

        • 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?

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

          lol.

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

        • 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!

        • “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.

          • 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.

            • 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?

              • 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.

        • “…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.

          • @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.

            • 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….

              • 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!

      • “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…

        • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

        • “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.

          • 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.

        • 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

        • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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

        • “ 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.

          • 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?

        • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.)

        • @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.

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

      • 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

        • 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.

        • 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?

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

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

        • 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)

      • 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!!!

        • 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…

        • @maddmaxx
          I know the pain

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

      • 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!

      • 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.

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

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

      • 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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • “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.

      • 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.

      • @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.

      • 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!

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

      • 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.

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

      • 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.

      • 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.

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

      • 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

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

        • 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.

        • 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.

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

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

      • 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.

        • 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

          • @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!

            • 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.

              • 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.

              • 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.

              • 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?

      • 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.

    • 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)

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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!

        • 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.

  1. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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

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

          • 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.

        • 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.

    • @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.

  2. 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

    • 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.

      • 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.

  3. 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.

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

      • 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.

        • 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.

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

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

  4. 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!

        • 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…

        • 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. 🙂

        • “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* 😉

        • @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. 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.

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

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

  6. 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.

    • 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…

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

      • 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.

      • 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…

  7. 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.

    • 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,

        • 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.

          • 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…

        • 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.

        • @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.

          • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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).

    • 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.

      • “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

    • 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

  8. 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.

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

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

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

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

  12. 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!

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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 🙄