Rosenthal: St. Louis Home Defenders Show Brandishing Can Save Your Life

St. Louis couple gun home defense

Armed homeowners standing in front their house along Portland Place confront protesters marching to St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson’s house Sunday, June 28, 2020, in the Central West End of St. Louis. (Laurie Skrivan/St. Louis Post-Dispatch via AP)

By David “Rosey” Rosenthal

You’ve seen the news and are cognizant of current events. Hundreds of protestors storm onto your property as “mob mentality” rules. They’ve trashed a gate and some may be carrying weapons. Do you meet the threat with force of arms or do you find a safe place to hide where they can’t see or hear you, so they then feel unchallenged and empowered and commence to destroy your property…or worse?

This incident was what the Second Amendment is all about. It’s also a testament to the art of brandishing firearms to counter a threat. Not a shot was fired and everybody kept their “social distance.”

Did the St. Louis couple do everything “by the book” safety-wise? No, of course not. They’re not like us (gun people). Sweeping each other with a lack of muzzle awareness was a thing there, and some of the video is hard for 2A people to watch. At the end of the day though, you have to look at the results.

The 2A community as a whole is a great bunch of awesome people. This incident unfortunately brought out some really juvenile comments and criticisms, right down to the designer clothes they were wearing. We suppose if they had tactical outfits and looked more like operators, the trespassing mob would have somehow felt more afraid and left ASAP?

The fact of the matter is the couple’s bravado itself is what dissuaded the mob. Nobody wanted to be the first miscreant to catch a bullet. And that’s just how the forgotten art of brandishing works.

At its very roots it’s the original form of psychological warfare: The miscreant’s mind says “Is what I’m about to do worth catching a bullet?” Today’s firearm instructors teach how to run and hide in a safe room, grab your gun and a phone and wait for the home invaders to pour you a Molotov cocktail and burn you out. This couple of means chose to take a stand, and by doing so has taught the world a lesson. Especially those willing to grasp it instead of just sharing a meme.

We interviewed Charlie Cook from Riding Shotgun With Charlie, a firearms Instructor and podcaster who has interviewed many a mover and shaker in the firearms world (he interviewed me — episode #49 — over a year ago). With almost 80 gun people “riding shotgun” in his front seat, his finger is on the pulse of the 2A community. Here’s what Cook had to say:

Tony Simon summed it up a few years ago: “You’ve got a lawn mower, but you’re not into the lawn mower lifestyle. These people are gun owners, but they’re not into the gun owner lifestyle. They don’t have the training, clothes, gear, or an assortment of the hardware that we have. They don’t watch our YouTube channels or listen to our podcasts.”

Cook also added,

When we all gang up on these people and bash them for their poor training and handling, I assume the anti-gun folks see this, recognize this, and will start to push for mandatory minimum training, certain scores on qualifying targets for concealed carry, and anything else to get the government more involved and to have less people meet the BS training requirements that they enforce. So less people can own guns and it becomes more restrictive. Honestly, they’re probably like the 2.5+ million new gun owners we’ve gotten in the last few months. They bought a gun, learned a little bit, and thought they’d be OK. Did you see their house? Who would have ever thought “protestors” would have made it there?

The 2A community can’t be for constitutional carry, then turn around and hassle someone for not taking a training course. They may have taken enough training for the state to allow them to own and/or carry firearms. However, they successfully used a couple of firearms to defend their lives and their home. And no shots were fired. Yes, it was sloppy. We’ve shot more than they have. But most of us haven’t had to use a gun defensively.

We can make all the funny memes we want. But when their property was trespassed, they met disparity of force with the equalizer.

Brandishing can be employed where legal and is a decision by the gun owner NOT to be a victim. It’s simply another tool in the tool chest of a gun owner. It’s made on-the-fly as events unfold, and has been a part of our history since long before these United States came to be.

Be it a flintlock or a Colt AR-15, it can get the job done. History has proven this time and time again. The pages of NRA’s American Rifleman magazine are replete with decades of true stories of self defense situations in which no shot was ever fired.

May you all never have to brandish a firearm under while a microscope and face consequences for doing so. And thanks to our great friend Charlie Cook.

 

David “Rosey” Rosenthal is an NRA Chief Range Safety Officer and Editor in Chief of the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners’ Black Wire Media and Vice President of the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners.

comments

  1. avatar Steve says:

    I’m pretty sure she scared them more with that 380 and her techniques, more than he did with that AR-15… just sayin

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      That’s what I was thinking, from when I first saw this story. The husband’s posture isn’t polished, but he at least looks like he’s in control of his weapon. The wife, on the other hand, looks like she’s about to ND while she’s yelling back at the protesters in response to their threats. **She’s** the one I’d be more concerned about pissing off, if I were part of that mob. Getting shot is getting shot, and nobody wants to be shot by pissing off someone who’s clearly not in solid control of their weapon.

      But as the article states, the desired effect was achieved, liberty was sustained, and the mob was turned away. All without the threatened violence or a shot fired. A desirable outcome.

      I have a feeling that chinos, pink polos, and bare feet are going to replace the Hawai’ian shirts for some Boogabois, lol.

      1. avatar Keyword Spam says:

        Finger firmly on trigger, yelling, waving the weapon around frantically, muzzling pretty much everyone (including her husband).
        But no, we’re safety Nazis for criticizing her behavior. Fuck off. Dangerous behavior is dangerous behavior and should not be applauded. She can have the weapon ready without posing a risk to herself and her family.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          A gun is, by definition and default, always “dangerous”. That’s the entire point of having a gun. And Rule #1 by assumption, by the way.

          I take your hatred and Nazi reference, toss it to the side, and give you a big squeezy hug. It’s okay, bro.

          Kthxbai.

        2. avatar Hush says:

          Negative comments relative to this couple’s effort to stay off protesters does more harm than good in the form of ammunition for the left to throw back at POTG. Other persons besides POTG read TTAG and this should be kept in mind when posting comments and replies. The author made the case clear and I Haz a ? did too when he said, “But as the article states, the desired effect was achieved, liberty was sustained, and the mob was turned away. All without the threatened violence or a shot fired. A desirable outcome.”
          Once again, the desired effect was achieved!
          Training for the couple is another issue entirely.

        3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          Perhaps we’re seeing a little petty jealously here? As they have explained, they were facing imminent armed combat with a mob that had already burned and looted buildings. They knew the cops weren’t coming and so armed themselves and together faced down people who were quite clearly coming for them. As military historian John Keegan says, they were the pointed end of the stick. We’re talking about them because they showed courage in the face of real danger. They could have run out their back door and abandoned their property to the mob. But they didn’t and instead chose to stand and fight. That’s why the entire nation is talking about them.

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

        “I have a feeling that chinos, pink polos,…”

        I kinda doubt the Boog-BoyZ will be coughing up 90 dollars for a Brooks Brothers pink polo…

        https://www.brooksbrothers.com/Original-Fit-Stretch-Supima®-Cotton-Performance-Polo-Shirt/MP01321,default,pd.html

        *snicker* 😉

        1. avatar Travis Bickle says:

          Boog Bois ain’t gonna so shut, period.

      3. avatar Sian says:

        That Jimenez has never been fired.

        I can tell because its barrel isn’t blown out.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          You work with the tools you have when things go bad I guess, but my first thought was the Karen should have had more gun facing down a mob of trespassers with unknown intent.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Karen should have had more gun facing down a mob…”

          Have read that it is a thing with some gun owners that they really don’t want to shoot anyone, just scare them away.

    2. avatar Bake says:

      Fortunately, that gun has a twenty pound double action trigger.

  2. avatar Biatec says:

    Time to repeal the nfa. Repeal the gun control act of 68 , repeal the machinegun ban. Get rid of nics. RPGs, grenades and machine guns should be in every household.

    If you believe in freedom.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Yes, and yes. And I’d like to place my order now for an APC, please.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        APC? If you have the means, they’re rather easy to obtain. They might be hard to find at the moment, due to demand, but there aren’t regs on ownership. The Ma Deuce for the top will (likely) set you back way more dinero. And has some paperwork that has to be processed.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Lol, “easy to obtain”…”hard to find”. Oxymoron, no?

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          Yes dimwit. No restriction on ownership of an APC (as M113). At least not in free America. He is theorizing that demand may be up today meaning that it is harder to find one to buy than 6 weeks ago when the zombies started rioting. That clear enough for you? Moron.

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          neiowa,

          I take your bitter namecalling, toss it to the side, and give you a big hug. It’s okay, bro. It’s going to be okay.

        4. avatar 16V says:

          “Lol, “easy to obtain”…”hard to find”. Oxymoron, no?”

          Ummm, NO. Please, look up the definition of “oxymoron”, then learn to parse the written language. Ammunition (in a free state) is “easy to obtain” but can also be “hard to find”.

          I know you’re new, and I’m not here these days often enough for you to annoy me. But it appears that you do others.

        5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          16V,

          I’ve been perusing TTAG for several years, and a regular/daily commenter since early 2019. So…

          Look, everyone, chillax. Do any of you know how to find an APC? Perhaps yes? Okay. Great.

          My point – and it was a light-hearted one at that, since you all saw that I ended it with an “lol” – was that the choice of words “easy” and “hard” looked oxymoronic when used together. And yet the responses were derogatory name calling and putdowns. Really mature, people.

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

          16V, I haven’t found Haz to be one of the ‘problem children’ that TTAG tends to collect these days, but that’s just my observation.

          A ‘Ma Deuce’ is nice, but If I had the means, I’d like that 3-barrel .50 cal Gatling that’s floating around to “Reach, out, Reach out and *hurt* someone…”

          A 2020 version of the 80’s Libyan Toyota ‘Technical’…

        7. avatar 16V says:

          Thanks, I’ve been here (as playtime allows) since around the first month of Robert starting this site, like more than a few folks here. So in my world, you’re a new addition.

          As far as APCs go, yes I have ready access to a privately owned one. There’s also several within a few tens of miles of my metro. APCs pretty common piece of militaria, if you have money, room, and have all the interesting guns that you want to spend money on. Tanks are a bit different.

          Obviously you found some potential humor in what I wrote as a simple, straightforward observation. Whatever floats your boat.

        8. avatar 16V says:

          Hey Geoff!

          Hope you’re well and staying out of trouble! I guess Haz just set off my pedantry alarm, or something. I just want to sit all these kids down with a dictionary…

          Anyway, hope you’re prepared for the next round of insanity, not sure which is going to be first this time.

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

          “Anyway, hope you’re prepared for the next round of insanity, not sure which is going to be first this time.”

          In a much better position to be able to, this time, thanks to my old Trek being crushed while I was on it.

          Her insurance company paid for a replacement, a LeMond Buenos Aires steel-frame 15 years newer than my 1200. Grupo is decent, Ultegra, and the bike has as close to *zero* miles on it as it gets. The chain grease was still clean. Can’t complain, I’m comfortably ammo-ed up, and a handful of new guns, thanks to her… 😉

        10. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          16V,

          I’m disappointed that you chose to swoop in and disparage someone who was simply participating in good-natured banter with you. And then, without understanding the person, proceeded to make assumptions about his age and belittle him out of a sense of perceived seniority because you ckaim to have been here since the Farago years (though I don’t recall ever seeing your username). I’m nowhere near a “kid”, and am certainly much older than you label me.

          If this is how you treat others upon introduction, then I’m not impressed. Geoff, however, is one of those here whom I respect, so any modicum you receive from me will be solely because he seems to know you.

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’m disappointed that you chose to swoop in and disparage someone…”

          If’n you haint been swooped by someone, you ain’t playing ofin ‘nuf.

        12. avatar Ragnar says:

          16V is an old-timer here and has history of being abrasive. Maybe like me, he prefers to read more than talk.

        13. avatar Biatec says:

          Haz is easily one of the most pleasant people on here. I would never assume ill-intent from him.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        APCs and even tanks are not illegal to own. Functional weaponry mounted on them can be a hassle for paperwork. But its still possible.

        The problem is there’s a limited supply of both available to the civvy market and apparently they get scarfed up as soon as they are available. You might be ahead of the game to order a new built ‘security’ vehicle sold to the private ‘security’ sector. Wheeled vehicles are cheaper and easier to maintain.

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

          “APCs and even tanks are not illegal to own. Functional weaponry mounted on them can be a hassle for paperwork. But its still possible.”

          TTAG showed that P-51 owner who was ‘sighting in’ his 6 -.50 cal machine gun setup on his warbird…

        2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          Sure wish I’d bought that WWII Diamler Armoured car when I had the chance. Put an antique license plate on it, you won’t even have to have a safety inspection, and can keep it in your garage until you need it.

    2. avatar The Huscarl says:

      These riots have been excellent argument for the civilian ownership of belt fed weapons.

      Btw if the states made a law declaring it legal for people to protect their livelihoods with lethal force, rioting would be a thing of the past.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I just wish the “gun community” would support belt fed weapons in the hands of the regular person.

        1. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          With people like you as gun rights supporters it’s not gonna happen. Be sure to vote for Trump a dozen times too in this next election. So we can kiss suppressors and possibly every semi auto ever made good bye and whatever else he does not like on any given day. You are your own worst enemy and elect people directly opposed to what you stand to claim for, its extremely ironic.

        2. avatar FiftycalTX says:

          So instead of voting to re-elect President Trump, you want to put in office that paragon of gun safety, stinky finger Sleepy Joe? Right. Genius level troll. Get the fuck out.

        3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to TheBSonTTAG
          I know I’m getting under your skin. You are very comfortable with only the police having MRAPS and machine guns.
          (smile)

    3. avatar gus says:

      it used to be that way before 1934. you could own a water cooled belt fed actual machine gun, gatling gun, cannon, anything. for the first 150 years of our country we had none of this silliness.

      1. avatar FiftycalTX says:

        Well, you’re in luck. Gatling guns are NOT NFA as they are not considered “machine guns” AND you can get one in 9mm. https://tippmannarmory.com/gatling-gun/
        Only $5k. 50 round mags are extra.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Damn…how did I not know this was a thing? I’m going to start saving right now.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Ing. Both demolition ranch and military arms channel have videos on this thing. I live in CA so I get effed, once again.

          I’d love to have one for the grandkids to play with.

        3. avatar Ing says:

          So that’s how I didn’t know this was a thing — I never watch videos. (They make me feel like I’m wasting time I could’ve spent reading, and I also hate being unable to skim and scan the content effectively.) I might break my habit and go look those videos up, though. I want to see that little beast in action.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          A power drill, some kergigery, a couple AR’s and you’ve essentially got the same thing but in 5.56 and with 60 rounds.

          Plus you can slap actual high cap mags on the rifles.

          Or you can just buy one and it’s still $1600 cheaper. Less the cost of the drill you add to the crank.

          https://www.google.com/search?q=dual+ar+gatling+gun&client=ms-android-verizon&biw=412&bih=731&tbm=isch&prmd=sivn&sxsrf=ALeKk01plURRtxupgDHGDhllxVB9XQB_Ww:1593719506640&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5wcDoq6_qAhXZGc0KHctdCnoQ_AUIIygC#imgrc=gOUJOF86S_2cGM

    4. avatar Connor M. says:

      Absolutely!

    5. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Wait… there are laws against my m203? Oh.

      Come and take them.

  3. avatar The Huscarl says:

    This is why I disagree with training/licensing requirements for gun ownership or carrying. Your rights to life and property exist independently of any amount of training to defend or exercise them. Should they be better trained? Of course. That doesn’t negate the rights they defended that day.

    1. avatar FiftycalTX says:

      Your right to carry should not depend on some state permission. However, to prevent unintended consequences like getting a life sentence for killing someone in an unjustified manner, everyone that carries a gun should be trained in what the LAW is. There are some pervasive old wives tales that WILL get you thrown in jail even for a justified shooting. And spending $50-250 to learn the law is well worth it.

  4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    In my humble opinion, the wife for certain — and maybe the husband as well — committed aggravated assault when they intentionally pointed their firearms with hostile intent at the protesters/trespassers. I do not believe that their situation justified that particular response.

    If the trespassers began communicating general (e.g. low-level) hostility toward the homeowners, then I believe the homeowners would have been justified to brandish their firearms. Note that brandishing does NOT allow for intentionally pointing a firearm at someone with hostile intent in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in the United States.

    And if the trespassers communicated their intent to inflict grievous bodily harm or murder the homeowners, then I believe the homeowners would have been justified at that time to intentionally point their firearms at the offenders.

    Caveat:
    A few days ago one TTaG commenter provided a citation indicating that Missouri law allows someone to use deadly force against trespassers. I did not verify that claim. If that is true, I believe that particular aspect of Missouri law is horribly wrong. (That would allow a homeowner to kill a child who was trespassing on their property — playing — and refused to leave after the homeowner ordered the child to leave.)

    1. avatar Dan W says:

      It should have been legal to mag dump the crowd. You break down a gate then threaten to kill the home owners and their pets and burn the place down and you deserve to be shot.

      1. avatar binder says:

        Big question is were the guns a response to the threats, or the other way around? Having someone point a gun at you kind of pisses people off. I swear these gated communities attract more than their fair share of bunker mentality wackos.

        1. avatar Jason says:

          I think a better question is “Did the mob provoke the armed response?” Though it seems to have a rather obvious answer.

        2. avatar FiftycalTX says:

          Some of the mob were committing felonies, trespassing while armed is considered the same as armed burglary. And the people are lawyers so I doubt they are ignorant of the castle law.

        3. avatar Andrew lias says:

          i lean towards the home owners otherwise we would have seen the whole video.

        4. avatar jwm says:

          You’re the guy that thinks the bump stock is a machine gun, binder. You’re the sneaky kind of leftist. You don’t go full retard like miner but you still try to swing the conversation to the left.

        5. avatar binder says:

          jwm They skirt the definition. At least I don’t spout the dribble about them be ineffective range toys.

        6. avatar binder says:

          And more like to the center. But what the hell, looks like party paramilitaries are making a comeback. So What way are we going to swing, hard right or hard left. And don’t kid yourself into thinking that the hard right is anymore “pro constitution” and freedom than the left. Damn I was really hoping for Ted Cruz, but given a chance, he would make Christianity a state religion.

      2. avatar Jeff says:

        They didn’t break the gate down, why can’t people see that? That photo of the damaged gate was from after the incident. This mob was not after the homeowners. IF pink shirt guy would have just “kept his shirt on. lol” and kept his head down the protestors would have passed right on by. Maybe they were justified in their actions legally, but was that smart in a real world situation? If a pack a zombies is walking past your position do you provoke them? Nope.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “They didn’t break the gate down, why can’t people see that?”

          We believe truth over fact!!

    2. avatar Jason says:

      So how many children are allowed to “play” on your property before anything can be done? Can they yell profanities at you? Sell drugs? Engage in sex acts? How to you define a child? 26? As is the case for health insurance. Do you believe in property rights at all? Not every trespass deserves a bullet, but a rowdy mob comprised of hundreds of people screaming at you is certainly a threat. There is nothing wrong with a law that allows a homeowner to act as these did given the circumstances. Its not like they shot anyone.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Who knows what all is true, here? What the gent seems to be saying is these thugs crashed through the gate, screaming and yelling hate and murder, when he and his wife appeared, armed, the screaming included that he and his wife and dog were about to be murdered, after which their house would be burned down. I think they did real good, at that point I would have opened fire, shooting to kill everyone in range. Front, back, sides, anything available is a target. They said they were going to kill me and my wife, I was terrified. And I would do the same thing again, please note I am HERE to defend myself in court, I am not in the ground.

      1. avatar binder says:

        “at that point I would have opened fire” And this is EXACTLY why we cant all have cool toys.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        Maybe you’re right!

        When posters on TTAG state unequivocally that all Democrats should be hung or all leftists should be shot, those are direct threats worthy of a lethal force response.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Bring it on.

    4. avatar tdiinva says:

      What too many people fail understand is that the rules have been suspended if not abolshed. BLM and their supporter have shown a willingness to use violence against people they don’t like. A mob that breaks into private space has deadly potential. They are not some guy who is might steal your lawnmower. See Provo Utah. Every encounter with a the mob has the potential to escalate. Act accordingly. The tradition of shooting looters is not based on property rights. Looters get shot because they are attacking the civil order. We are witnessing what happens when you allow a mob to run free.

    5. avatar Anymouse says:

      They almost certainly committed a crime, whether Missouri calls it brandishing, assault, menacing, creating a disturbance, etc. People also commit a crime when they shoot an attacker (homicide). However, there are defenses built into the laws that allow finding of innocence, such as self-defense or arson of an occupied building. If you feel that your ir another’s life is in danger, take whatever actions you feel necessary and justified in taking, but be aware that you may still have to face a jury and justify your actions as reasonable and excusable. If the police and prosecutor in your area are reasonable, you may not have to face a trial, but don’t count on it. You may be 100% in the right and did everything properly, but you may still need to answer for it in court. This is why people join LawShield, USCCA, ACLDN, etc.

      1. avatar TrueRedhat says:

        “They almost certainly committed a crime, whether Missouri calls it brandishing, assault, menacing, creating a disturbance, etc. People also commit a crime when they shoot an attacker (homicide).”

        This is 100% false. Under Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, the mob broke the law by invading private property. The homeowners can have their day in court but the “burden of innocence” (no such thing) is not theirs to prove. The corrupt DA will need to prove they committed a crime. Using deadly force in self defense is not a crime either, despite what the talking heads on CNN say.

      2. avatar Umm . . . says:

        Rather than fantasizing about high-hanging fruit like MG laws, etc. this “affirmative defense” BS – legally defining the most sacred of rights as a wrong you can get away with if you were scawed – is the most egregious infringement, well worth a fight.

        Getting off on a technicality is great if you’re already a scumbag criminal. For a respectable citizen, life as you know it ends with arrest, and continues to spiral down from there.

        Ironically, unjust as they are, gun laws are actually well-written in this regard. They don’t give MG-armed soldiers a route to exoneration (after years of humiliation and millions in fees); they specifically EXCLUDE lawful use from the definition of wrongful use, so that the troops can never be arrested in the first place for doing the right thing.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I just know there is something coherent in there. Gittin’ old is not for sissies. I miss being able to understand blither.

          And on that note, everyone has probably heard the term “disgruntled employee”. Anyone ever seen a gruntled employee?

        2. avatar Umm . . . says:

          Sam,
          I agree with many/most of your comments here, and have even gotten a kind word or two from you in the past. I’m not sure what you found hard to understand, much less “blither”.

          Well-written laws define offenses clearly, so as to exclude the legitimate exercise of rights as well as other behaviors that do not infringe rights or cross lines the legislators intended to protect. One middling example of a murder law is UCMJ Article 118, which includes the element “That the killing was unlawful;” which together with ROE that very clearly define what is lawful, precludes arrest for legitimate use of force. Some free states’ murder laws go a step further and explicitly exclude self-defense from the definitions of unlawful killing in their own Elements sections.

          On the other hand, laws that define all killing as murder and then admit defensive force as an “affirmative defense” – again, not because it is a right, but because of one’s EMOTIONAL STATE at the time – are gross infringements, tantamount to:

          -Defining all firestarting as arson, but letting you go eventually if you can prove you used your own pilot light to start your own stove or water heater;

          -Defining all intercourse as rape, but providing a path to acquittal for defendants with express written consent from their wives;

          -Arresting all drivers everywhere who exceed the downtown Washington DC speed limit for reckless driving, but releasing those who can prove they were driving on interstate highways, etc. etc.

          In some cases the “affirmative defense” theoretically places the burden on the prosecution to prove you were not defending yourself under certain circumstances, but the difference is miniscule. Again, as someone noted just the other day, “The process [of arrest, bail, paying a lawyer, having one’s name dragged through the mud, etc.] is the punishment,” quite apart from the question of conviction vs. acquittal.

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

      “If the trespassers began communicating general (e.g. low-level) hostility toward the homeowners, then I believe the homeowners would have been justified to brandish their firearms.”

      According to the husband, that’s what happened. His story is that when the gate was torn down down and the people entered, he informed them they were trespassing and asked them to leave.

      The crowd then threatened to kill his dog and assault him. That’s when he and his wife got their guns…

    7. avatar Mr. L. says:

      I watched the full video of this where a protestor began filming at the gates. 1. There are no trespassing/private property signs clearly posted at the entrance to the property. 2. The gates were closed. 3. There are additional no trespassing/private property/private property signs inside the gates. 3. Mr. McCloskey could clearly be heard repeatedly telling the trespassers that they were on private property, were trespassing and they needed to leave when the trespassers breached the gate. 4. The trespassers were armed with various weapons. 5. After the trespassers would not leave and kept advancing do you see Mr. McCloskey come out of his house armed. Since I live in Missouri and am a retired law enforcement administrator, I can say without a doubt that Mr. McCloskey clearly fulfilled the no trespassing law under Missouri RsMo. 569.140 because: 1. The property was fenced/gated. 2. He communicated to the trespassers that they were trespassing. 3. The property was posted in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of the trespassers. Missouri has a very strong stand your ground law. Missouri Rsmo. 563.031 and 563.041 clearly state when necessary physical and or deadly force can be used. If numerous persons who some are armed and are threatening harm to him and or others on his property, then he has the right to approach them armed and tell them to leave. It’s just that simple. https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-self-defense-laws.html

  5. avatar enuf says:

    More nonsense and exaggeration. Those two wealthy ambulance chasing lawyers were never in any danger and their mansion was never under any threat. Their antics could have been constructive and helpful, but instead they made a situation worse.

    1. avatar BigMinds says:

      Yeah, they just watch the protestors burn down buildings and you don’t think they where worried they were next. The villians brake open a private gate and invade your private property with guns and people by the hundreds….people, by the hundres. This is not a couple bad people walking down the street minding their own business, they had guns and body amour. What would you do , give it to them to burn down and kill you…..fool!
      You must have been one of the protestors and now your butt hurt over someone standin up for themself.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Except none of that happened. No arson, no looting, no home invasion took place.

        If any of that had taken place and they’d gone the “Roof Korean” route I’d be cheering for them.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Maybe none of that happened because they went front-lawn lawyer instead.

        2. avatar Montana Actual says:

          There was no looting or rioting in Seattle? Huh… You mean those great citizens of CHAZ pulled out to trespass on the mayors property and you know their goal was to be “peaceful’? Huh… Also, for all you know, the only thing that stopped these people from getting any closer was these two stellar examples of the 2nd amendment. If they had stayed inside and someone decided to throw rocks or break windows, or have a limited field of view from a balcony or roof top allowing people to get around them, then where would they retreat to? Sorry enuf, but your what if game is slacking. The whole “there was no threat” argument ended when they broke down a gate to their community, 10 feet in front of their front door.

        3. avatar enuf says:

          Montana —

          This did not happen in Seattle or “CHAZ” or “CHOP”.

        4. avatar Montana Actual says:

          No shit. How far do you think they were apart? Where do you think the protestors came from and why? Pull your head out of your ass.

        5. avatar FiftycalTX says:

          People., these home owners are receiving death threats NOW. Is there anyone in the area that can help? I would load up but I am 1000 miles away and I may be too late. How about t? Can anyone help?

        6. avatar gus says:

          I would love to help but I’m not on vacation. I have my own things to do. besides, they are lawyers, so there is more than a 50/50 chance I won’t even want to hear the sound of their voices after a day or two.

        7. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Of course they are receiving death threats… From a bunch of cowards who would never do anything than make a threat online. I’m willing to bet they have already hired private security.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      enuf. Wealthy makes them the enemy? Can’t wait for the redistribution day?

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        enuf works at taco bell, he makes he taco’s, miner handles the drive through, and chief sensor cleans the toilets.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I want you to prove they were not in danger. What a stupid statement to make, after the fact.

    4. avatar CWT says:

      Saying that they were never in any danger is akin to saying someone will never have a fire in their home. Even more so considering the events of the last few weeks.

  6. avatar Ralph says:

    How dare they threaten violence against a violent mob? As we all know, violent scvmbags must be given room to destroy. Or maybe that’s only the law in black neighborhoods.

    Anyway, no thugs were injured during the making of this photo op. Sigh.

  7. avatar Sam I Am says:

    After all the trashing for not being POTG-level gun handlers, most here are missing the absolute heinous mistake (crime) committed….brandishing a Jim and Ez .380 pistol. Either the woman has absolutely no taste or knowledge of firearms, or her husband thinks so little of her that he gave her disaster waiting to happen (and she thought it was cute). Looking at the residence, they both should be brandishing insanely customized and expensive weapons.

    Being rich, and owning cheap guns is simply unforgivable.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I can identify with that.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I can identify with that.”

        As in you agree the gun is an insult, or that you bought your wife an El Cheapo pistol, too? (My Beretta Neos at $239 is not an El Cheapo, it’s just diminutive, maybe)

        1. avatar jwm says:

          239 is cheap Sam. That’s Taurus territory. I paid double that for my Ruger single six.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I paid double that for my Ruger single six.”

          But Ruger gets a lot of bad press for their politics. Beretta is not on anyone’s diletente list. Beretta is quality, even at flea market prices.

        3. avatar FiftycalTX says:

          I’m sure the rioting savages would much prefer to have been shot with a more expensive piece. Jesus, what a stupid fucking argument.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’m sure the rioting savages would much prefer to have been shot with a more expensive piece. Jesus, what a stupid fucking argument.”

          New here?

        5. avatar jwm says:

          I was not aware of any argument. I was just discussing firearms prices.

          Sam is packing a .22. If I wanted to start an argument I would bring out the immortal caliber wars.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam is packing a .22. If I wanted to start an argument I would bring out the immortal caliber wars.”

          I would have to be a complete bystander to that. I have no illusion that a .22wrm/magnum/jhp/hyper velocity/black talon round would challenge the .32apc, or higher. But I really enjoy reading about the caliber war.

          I do, however, consider the .22lr to be the last resort after running out of rocks.

        7. avatar Pito says:

          What oil should I run in my F150?

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “What oil should I run in my F150?”

          Mine burns a quart per week, so it doesn’t matter.

    2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      So they should have hidden their firearms until the mob got closer and then just whipped them out and began firing ? Brandishing which is a stupid term, is the last warning to a miscreant that if they don’t back off then they will be shot. I like the last chance warning than shooting with no warning.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “So they should have hidden their firearms until the mob got closer and then just whipped them out and began firing ? ”

        Not following. Not germane to my comment. Intended for someone else?

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      I have to wonder how their trip to the gun store went, assuming that’s what they did (or do the wealthy have FFLs come to them?).

      Did the guy see an M16-looking gun and go for it because it looks the most assaulty while the woman saw a James Bond type pistol and figured that was the best choice because it hits “with a delivery like a brick through a plate glass window”?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…the woman saw a James Bond type pistol…”

        It may be a Bond type pistol, but reputation for the Jim and Ez seems to be it will hit the user in the face like a brick.

  8. avatar James M. says:

    You don’t have to break down the gate, you just have to open it with out permission is forced entry, you know that is privet property.Then a mob forces their way onto someones property is not legal. The ‘GATE’ means stay out you are not welcome with out my permission, and they did not have anyone’s permission to come through the gate, they in-vad-ed the properties. Under this these people do have the RIGHT to defend themselves!!!! Who cares how they handle their guns, the results were evident . KUDOS to them. Now the left wing liberal socialistic so called NEWS MEDIA tries make them the wrong doers. And the Left Wing Liberal want to arrest them for defending them selves. Give me a break.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      It’s more complicated than that. As I understand it, the gate was to the community, not the McCloskey’s yard. The protesters would be trespassing on the HOA’s property unless they crossed the sidewalk onto the McCloskey’s property. I don’t know if their property was also marked as no trespassing. Castle doctrine and such doesn’t apply to somebody else’s castle. Like a citizen’s arrest for a shoplifter at a store you’re patronizing, you could be opening yourself to a bunch of liability for defending property that isn’t yours.

      1. avatar pieceworker says:

        Sorry, the street and sidewalk are owned in common by the neighborhood.
        St Louis is a little unusual in this.
        At any rate, the CRIMINAL trespassers were clearly a threat based on numerous other instances of peaceful protests resulting in looting and burning in St Louis.
        Suppose the protestors had chosen a different private property to invade such as Monsanto (many folks don’t like Monsanto), Boeing (formerly McDonnell) or Budweiser, and had marched a few hundred yards on the property to demonstrate outside the headquarters building.
        Do you think security officers would not have the right to defend that private property?

        1. avatar Anymouse says:

          Security guards are employees and their employer is civilly liable for their actions, but the guards could be held criminally liable. They could chose not to follow orders and risk losing their jobs. As an unrelated private citizen, would you chose to defend Monsanto against a mob?
          How does ownership in common work without an HOA? Who files a lien or lawsuit if someone damages the property and doesn’t pay? If someone allowed to be there has their property damaged or are injured because the streets were negligently cared for, do all the residents get sued?

      2. avatar pieceworker says:

        Just a followup: The streets and sidewalks in most HOAs are maintained by the public.
        If you are thinking about Portland Place as an HOA, you are probably reaching wrong conclusions.
        Random: If you Google Map Portland Place and KIngsHighway in St Louis, you can go to street view to see the normal state of the gate and private property signs.
        Note: Google Maps does not show blue lines on the street of Portland Place because the Google Mapping cars apparently respected the the private property.

  9. I think the wife did the right thing by having her finger on the trigger while yelling back at those bozos. the Walther she is holding will not accidently go off . while the trigger pull is not as bad as some let out to be, it is still something that requires a deliberate pull.and she is letting those scumbags know that she is ready to do just that. and I certainally think she is justified . and I think the commie scumbags knew that and because of her , kept their distance. and I will not say anything bad about what they did. they were scared, and threatened and acted rightfully. and got by without a shot fired. my compliments to them. ( even if shots were fired, one less commie scumbag makes the world a little better).

    1. avatar onestab says:

      Still looks like a Lorcin to me.

      1. avatar onestab says:

        Lorcin made a good paperweight.

    2. avatar Sian says:

      It’s a Jimenez. I’d be surprised if it will even fire with all the purse-smut it’s guaranteed to have in it.

      1. avatar gus says:

        even without the purse sludge she probably shoot it 3 or 4 times and it jams

  10. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    Giving a verbal warning while keeping the muzzle of the firearm pointed at the ground is the proper way to do it. It would have sent the same message.

    And yes, they need training. And we can criticize them for it. You don’t buy a car if you don’t you know how to drive, otherwise you’re a menace on the roads. The same standard applies here, even moreso, because firearms are a right with corresponding responsibilities.

    Get off your high horse.

  11. avatar ROBERT says:

    I used to say, “The Second protects the First.” WRONG!!!
    It should be, “The Second protects us from ABUSE OF THE FIRST!”
    —- The First Amendment gives us the right of PEACEFUL PROTEST. —-

    1. avatar Sian says:

      A piece of parchment doesn’t give us rights.

      1. avatar gene says:

        Preach! It limits the Gov’t.

  12. avatar stredford says:

    In a perfect world once the law was knowingly broken by the facist terrorists they should lose all rights to any legal recourse. Its like the burgler who is trips on a loose step and is injured during a breakin and turns around and sues the homeowner because they can no longer work. Once the decision is made to willfully ignore the cosequences of going down the path of breaking the law all bets should be off. Personal land is like a soverein nation in a land of free people. They knew what they were doing and didnt stumble through the smashed gate accidentally. If thats not the law and how it is interpreted legally, then it should be. Any time an analagy of “what if it was a young child” is used, the argument is weak! It wasnt a youg child it was mob of noisey, angry threatening facists, rewarding their tantrum behaivior only perputuates their escalation.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “Personal land is like a soverein nation in a land of free people.”

      Someone should hurry up and tell the property tax collectors and zoning boards about this.

    2. avatar Dude says:

      In a perfect world those protesters would have been immediately arrested. Every one of them. You have to be firm with children or they’ll continue to act out. Sometimes the police have to pick up the slack left by the parents.

  13. I take it all the other undefended homes in the neighborhood were vandalized and robbed?

    1. avatar gus says:

      not after that!

  14. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Most gun owners aren’t trained. It’s hard to get 250 million gun owners trained. So they do what they can. And this couple did it right. They used their guns and didn’t have to shoot anyone. That AR-15 was very impressive. Especially to a crowd that didn’t know anything about guns. Except there was a gun pointing at them with a VERY LARGE magazine attached to it.
    And that part they understood very well.
    (smile)

    He definitely needs to send his wife to a class first. Then he can go. And we I think have one of the best self defense videos ever. No shots fired using a civilian owned “weapon Of war.”
    I can just imagine the ad campaign for gun retailers. Sadly however most current gun ranges can’t accommodate the 5.56mm.

    1. avatar pieceworker says:

      You know it is possible that many of these ‘leftists’ believe that an AR-15 is an incredible weapon of war and that if our defender (after stepping past his wife!) began firing, he could sweep the crowd killing a hundred every second, including the magic .223 bullets going through several people before their evil energy was dissipated.
      While I have no knowledge of the makeup of this crowd, I suspect that those in most protest groups that turn violent are more familiar with handguns. Even they might perceive AR-15s as having magic killing power. Reminder: per the FBI less that 400 deaths due to rifles. 6000 or more deaths from handguns in gang/drug homicides. Apparent underlying reasons: long guns are too hard to hide for gangsta-s.
      Wow, I had not thought that through: If a violent protest spills into a suburban/rural area, the protestors are liable to have handguns. The locals will have long guns AND are far more likely to have had real training.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Even if it was a long time ago. He had some type of formal training with rifles. A person who looks confident with his or her gun against a criminal. That bad guy knows he is in trouble.
        And the crowd knew they were in trouble. When a defender who seems to know what he was doing. At least to an uneducated mob. He Came out with an AR15 and that tells everyone its time for you to leave ASAP.

        To be honest I’m not sure just having hand guns would have been enough deterrence against a mob of 100 or more criminals. Don’t forget. The Auto Ordnance company marketed the Tommy Gun to large landowners. For defense against large gangs of cattle thieves.
        Now it seems that having a full auto weapon is not such a bad idea. If a few hundred criminals decide to invade the place where you live. That “cheap” bump stock now seems like a good idea to have now.

      2. avatar Sian says:

        I like to remind them that when our government decides a bunch of people need to stop breathing, they don’t send an infantry squad with M-16/M4 rifles. They use bombs.

        In military doctrine, men with automatic rifles exist to take and hold territory. It is never the first, second, or third choice if the objective is ‘kill everyone’.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It is never the first, second, or third choice if the objective is ‘kill everyone’.”

          That’s when you call in Duke Nukem to light the way for generations. Bomber pilots penetrate deeper, and drop heavier loads. Who needs precision weapons when anywhere in sight of the target will do?

          As to the land of endless beaches, let ’em grow food through glass.

  15. avatar strych9 says:

    I was always told as a kid that rule #2 of gun safety was “Never let the muzzle cover anything that you are not willing to destroy.”

    So… was she really breaking that rule or was she signalling that she was, in fact, willing to fuck some people up? You be the judge.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      In the case of a mob action I see no reason why you can’t point directly into the mob. You still need to have trigger finger discipline. As I have said before. The mob is a weapon. And it is well armed.
      I think we need to deal with the possibility of a mob situation at your home. If your in a rural area this mostly likely won’t concern you. But city dwellers have different concerns now in 2020.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        My point here is that it could be argued that no rules were in fact broken vis a vis the mob.

        If she was “point shooting” and “willing to destroy” a member of the mob then arguably she’s treating the gun as if it’s loaded and therefore the only question is the backstop/what’s behind the target which has always been a bit of a squish rule in the context of a DGU anyway.

        All of which is to say that “POTG” might have some strategic or tactical disagreements with what was done or may critique things a bit, but outright shitting on these people is unwarranted unless you can read minds.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…shitting on these people is unwarranted unless you can read minds.”

          One of the means of 2A advocates “proving” they are law-abiding, responsible gun owners is to quickly denounce anyone who seems to feed the anti-gun propaganda. POTG are quick to destroy their “heretics” as a form of actual and virtual virtue signaling. We are better than our media image because we quickly cull the dishonorable, unlike the opposition.

          The knee-jerk reaction is understandable, but useless. Fact is the vast majority of gun owners are not formally trained, yet we don’t have legions of dead from violations of “the rules”. Indeed, the worst of it comes from “professional” gun owners who kill innocents, such as the woman killed by a firearms instructor when he used her at the fictional attacker during a skills demonstration. And other such calamities by trained professionals (thinking the 9yr old girl who killed an instructor who let her see what it was like to shoot a machine gun).

          Enough with the “safety” commentary. The first dozen readers who point out rules violations are sufficient to make the point.

  16. avatar former water walker says:

    I support the pink shirt couple 100%. If only my local 5-O had shot a few looters/and or rioters on May 31!!!!!

  17. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    Whatever issues there were with this couples sacrilegious and heretical disregard of the NRA gun safety rules and Coopers gun safety rules, the fact remains that they did not shoot each other, themselves, or any “peaceful demonstrators”, and they did keep savages off their property.

    It would appear that they were safe enough.

  18. avatar joe says:

    We should judge the actions of the property owners, not based on the “positive” outcome, but on their mistakes which could have ended badly with a ND. I am not advocating for any government mandate on training but all gun owners would have been vilified for the poor weapons handling skills of the wife, if she popped off a round. So, yeah constructive criticism is warranted. Hopefully they will get some training but I applaud their mindset.

  19. avatar Montana Actual says:

    I saw a good meme the other day. It goes:

    Picture of a militia open carry protesting | Show me the real second amendment
    Picture of some “boog boys” open carrying outside of CHAZ | I said the REAL second amendment
    Picture of Ken and Karen on their front lawn | Perfection

  20. avatar Hannibal says:

    In the chop zone there were a lot of private security hired because businesses didn’t want to have their stuff stolen or destroyed. These guys weren’t police (at least not on-duty) but were often ex cops or military. They had ARs, pistols, and plates. They didn’t wave their guns at people; they didn’t have to. Because they looked like they meant business. And the ‘protestors’ moved onto a different place to loot.

    There’s a lesson in that somewhere.

  21. avatar Duane says:

    Will all the perfect people please raise their hands.

    1. avatar Jethro Hillbilly, The Third, Esq. says:

      Slowly raises hand.

      1. avatar FiftycalTX says:

        NO, I am Spartacus!

  22. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    This Is something everyone had better consider. When you hate the police. Want cops defunded. Or want then m abolished.

    “When there is no police”
    https://gunfreezone.net/when-there-are-no-police/

    And there was a time in american when we had no police. And we had no need for prisons either.

  23. avatar pieceworker says:

    Has any NRA-Certified trainer in St Louis contacted them about training?
    1) They kind of need some.
    2) It might help them as part of their defense from the racist prosecutor(only going from
    a few youtube vid of her comments).
    3) It could be good public relations for NRA, the trainer of St Louis POTG.
    4) Although there is a high wall between their home property and Kings Highway,
    it looks to be easily scalable by evil-doers.
    They may want motion detectors/cameras on the east side of the house.
    Also, they may need, at least temporarily, some armed defenders as house guests.
    5) I do not quite see how to do it, but it would be nice to know that their Portland Place neighbors can defend themselves.

  24. avatar sagebrushracer says:

    I don’t know, maybe “accidentally” popping one off into the lawn right away, and then loudly apologizing and claiming you don’t know where the safety is while muzzle sleeping the entire crowd would be a pretty good deterrent.

  25. avatar DerryM says:

    Reportedly, the McCloskeys’ have subsequently received “credible death threats” and have been told a violent mob will come again this weekend (July 4-5) and burn them out and do serious harm to their persons. They called the St. Louis PD and some Private Security Companies and got no callback from St. Louis PD and no Private Security Company would take them as a client. {Reportedly, the last Private Security Company the spoke to advised them to “Flee!” The Governor of Missouri has not offered any help or even acknowledged their situation, as yet. They plan to defend themselves and their home by themselves, as of last report.

    All this reported by Tucker Carlson on his show Thursday Night, July 2, 2020. Mark McCloskey and his Attorney appeared on Carlson’s Show Wednesday Night, July 1, 2020.

    Mark McCloskey Claimed in the Wednesday appearance on Carlson’s show that his Law Practice centers around helping Black Americans in Missouri with Civil Rights and discrimination litigation and Legal Representation. He stated that after the original incident he received “many calls” from his former clients expressing concern and support for him and his wife, Patricia. Hopefully, some of those people and some other brave and good-hearted Missourians will come to their aide, or Missouri’s Governor will find his spine and send help.

    Keep an eye on this story. It may be quite telling for future reference.

  26. avatar Markd says:

    Fact They were NOT peaceful, the protesters Made threats against them directly their home threats to burn down and kill their animals,They violently broke down a gate to gain entrance, ALL of which give you the legal right to defend yourself! The opinions expressed such as no training ect do any of you clowns know they have no training or are you ASS U Me (ing). Brandishing should be first choice NOT trigger pull! IF brandishing causes those VIOLENT PROTESTERS to change their minds and MOVE along isn’t that far superior to bullets released!!!!! P.s. side note they both should have had AR-15’s even better. To UNCLE CREEPY JOE BIDEN this is exactly why you need an “AR-14”.

  27. avatar Chuck says:

    Well written and argued. One of the best articles I’ve read on TTAG. Thank you Sir.

  28. avatar Angry Dad says:

    So much for the gun grabbers’ claim that you don’t need an “assault rifle” or it’s semi-auto clone to defend your property, house or family! I am convinced that had he only, say, a 12 Ga. pump shotgun, that the mob would have been considerably less disinclined to rush them – that’s the point of mobbing together, after all, but that AR-15 spoke volumes about how many would not survive any such mob assault. Imagine that, one rifle, astutely employed, paralyzes a mob. Not only have the BLM riots and protests spelled the end for the time being for any anti gun legislation, the McCloskeys have personally illustrated why guns are a necessity in a world of mob action and defunded police, and have at one stroke put the end to any assault gun ban. Bravo!

  29. avatar Woppers says:

    Brandishing can safe your life? BS-TTAG. It’s irresponsible gun owners making responsible gun owners look bad. This couple broke basic rules of firearm safety and should have their guns taken away. Unless there was someone among the protesters armed or with a weapon threatening them imminently, there was no reason to aim a weapon at all. The MO law says something like- exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner. Both did that from what I observed in the video and they appeared to aim into a crowd of people.

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