Now I've seen everything: St Louis couple comes out of their house and points guns at protesters marching in front of their street

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Which link? I think the Post-Dispatch gives a certain number of free views, but those will be reset by cleaning cookies. Most of the links are free to anyone.

The one posted by Flightlessduck to the Stlouis today kept asking me to either take a survey or subscribe.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Oddly enough, having weapons training is not a prerequisite for owning a gun. Just a fact.

Oddly enough, studying the issues isn’t a prerequisite for voting either. Also a fact.

 

[bcla]

This article goes into more detail:

http://www.stlamerican.com/news/loc...cle_176354ec-c3ad-11ea-8112-c3e110b6cd04.html​

Watkins said that the hand gun he held for the McCloskeys and handed over to police was not a gun that they kept for self-protection. Watkins said the hand gun had been rendered inoperable for use as an exhibit in the McCloskeys’ own law practice. Watkins said that the McCloskeys used it as an exhibit in litigation against the handgun’s manufacturer because it was defective.​

He still didn't explain exactly what made it inoperable, although it could mean that a part was removed, like the firing pin.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...deo_bf584083-1074-5a60-91d9-c3f890b58f5c.html
Not sure what to make of someone pointing around a gun that won't work. Especially given there were reportedly protesters who were carrying guns.

 

[bcla]

The one posted by Flightlessduck to the Stlouis today kept asking me to either take a survey or subscribe.

Oh - that? I get the survey sometimes, but didn't see it for that article. It's kind of random how it pops up.

 

[WillAustin]

Oddly enough, studying the issues isn’t a prerequisite for voting either. Also a fact.

But one that doesn't apply to the thread.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

But one that doesn't apply to the thread.

I guess I didn’t get the memo

 

[cabanafrau]

It's possible to commit armed robberies and other felonies by simply pretending to have a gun. The legal threshold is tripped by things like reasonably putting someone in fear.

There would also be a question of whether or not the handgun was in fact inoperable at the time it was being brandished, not whether it's inoperable at the time it's in the possession of their attorney or turned over to law enforcement. The fact that it's alleged to be defective isn't a defense in this incident, one, as it logically doesn't make it safe, otherwise why would their client have had a lawsuit against the manufacturer; and two, it still can be used in a manner to reasonably make others believe they are at a very high risk for death or serious injury.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

This has really become a story of strangeness in a strange land. I would not bet at fifty fifty odds that the correct hand gun has been handed over to the police nor would I bet on when and how it became inoperable. The friendship between the former attorney and Mark M make me wonder if this is legit at all.

Given the prior story linked here which seems accurate and true about how belligerent and aggressive the couple are; Mark M will not see reality here. Reality is that he is in serious trouble with almost no path to avoid the Bar and the punishment coming from there, much less any criminal. I see criminal coming much like the 'Applebees' incident. Yet instead of starting to act rationally to minimize his downside which is nearly certain, he has doubled down on hitting a home run.

IMO Mark M heard the crowd and being smart and decisive got the guns to use as evidence in his case for quiet title. A brilliant move considering the importance of 'defending' and keeping others off. It is important to recall Mark M also fought the association over these things. But the reality of what happened and the video are all back firing on him.

Outside of physically going to look at the existing case files at the court I can not find any documents regarding those other cases. If anyone has found them please link them. I live in Chicago so going there is not happening.

 

[Princessclab]

Ok, still wondering things.
Am I reading this wrong, a person cannot defend their person and property if they believe they are being threatened? Especially when the offending party is blatentently breaking the law?

How are the previous legal and other personal actions of the accused relevant and have any legal bearing with any current issues?

Seems like some laws here apply to some but not others. They need to apply to all regardless of the current social situation; this is what got us into trouble in the first place.
Hmmm......JMO.

 

[bcla]

Ok, still wondering things.
Am I reading this wrong, a person cannot defend their person and property if they believe they are being threatened? Especially when the offending party is blatentently breaking the law?

How are their previous legal and other personal actions relevant and have any legal bearing with any current issues?

Seems like some laws apply to some but not others. They need to apply to all regardless of the current social situation; this is what got us into trouble in the first place.
Hmmm......JMO.

They weren't threatened. She was randomly pointing that handgun anywhere and everywhere. Nobody on the street was interested in them except as a sideshow. They were all on their way elsewhere.

I certainly wouldn't be able to greet people on my front porch by pointing a gun at them. There has to be a legitimate (and not just speculative) threat against my safety such as a weapon drawn or a move towards me.

It's not illegal for someone to be ready with a weapon on their own property. However, pointing it at someone generally requires the same standards for actual use of lethal force. I believe in Missouri their laws would allow it if someone was attempting to breach an actual dwelling or tried to charge them. That never happened. If anything, Patricia McCloskey is far more trouble, even if all she was doing was pointing an inoperable gun.

 

[WillAustin]

They were threatened. 100%. No question.

 

[bcla]

They were threatened. 100%. No question.

The organizers who were on the scene disagree with that assessment. The video I saw showed people mouthing off at them but mostly everyone was encouraged to just move along.

 

[WillAustin]

The organizers who were on the scene disagree with that assessment. The video I saw showed people mouthing off at them but mostly everyone was encouraged to just move along.

Organizers. That’s who I’d trust. Any thought that we’d trust a mob of protesters is ridiculous. No reason to believe anyone In that situation would be in the right as a default. Ridiculous.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

The organizers who were on the scene disagree with that assessment. The video I saw showed people mouthing off at them but mostly everyone was encouraged to just move along.

A large group mouthing off would be considered threatening to most people.

 

[bcla]

Organizers. That’s who I’d trust.

There are lots of them. They have video. Lots and lots of video. I've seen quite a bit of it and there's no audio that demonstrates a threat made against the McCloskeys. Most of the neighbors stayed inside and watched the show. Nobody vandalized any house, although I can't say I approve of whoever decided to mess up the gate later.

Mark McCloskey was caught in several lies already, including that the crowd broke down the gate to get in, which he claimed was why he got his gun. I saw clear video showing that the first four people entered an unbroken (they claim unlocked) gate when he was already there with his gun.

 

[bcla]

A large group mouthing off would be considered threatening to most people.

Ridiculing someone from 50 feet away is a threat? What I heard in the audio was more in the line of "We're not here for you!"

 

[Princessclab]

They weren't threatened. Yes, they were 100% threatened, I agree with WillAustin. She was randomly pointing that handgun anywhere and everywhere. This seems like a subjective observation, did she say that? What evidence is your statement based on? Nobody on the street was interested in them except as a sideshow. They were all on their way elsewhere. Yet they were breaking the law technically so it does not matter what other people on the street were interested at all. Why was this allowed and the people in this neighborhood not protected?

I certainly wouldn't be able to greet people on my front porch by pointing a gun at them. There has to be a legitimate (and not just speculative) threat against my safety such as a weapon drawn or a move towards me. Why would they want to greet people in front of their home that are breaking the law and have no right to be there? It was a perceived threat which I believe is considered credible under the law. If the offenders were not supposed to be there, under the law, why would anyone believe a mob showing up was nonthreatening?

It's not illegal for someone to be ready with a weapon on their own property. However, pointing it at someone generally requires the same standards for actual use of lethal force. Perceived threat is very reaI, especially when it is a large group of people that are protesting; protests are unpredictable and currently quite violent and can impair the safety of those not protesting. That precedence has well been shown. I believe in Missouri their laws would allow it if someone was attempting to breach an actual dwelling or tried to charge them. That never happened. Not true, the protesters did breach private property and therefore their dwelling. If anything, Patricia McCloskey is far more trouble, even if all she was doing was pointing an inoperable gun.

Please see my answers in bold above.
Again, the laws need to apply to everyone, not make allowances that are determined by LE. This is a good part of the current problems.

 

[bcla]

Please see my answers in bold above.
Again, the laws need to apply to everyone, not make allowances that are determined by LE. This is a good part of the current problems.

Law enforcement don't make that decision. They might investigate. It would be up to a prosecutor or grand jury to make a charging decision. If it gets that far the defendants might settle, although the final sentencing would be up to a judge. If it goes to trial a judge could rule in a bench trial or a jury in a jury trial.

But yes the laws apply to everyone. However, the use (or threat) of lethal force has to be justifiable. It can't be speculation that a group is going to do something just because they're walking in front of a house - even if it's a private road. Again - I can't justifiably point a gun at someone walking in front of my house (or even on my walkway) because I think they might try to hurt me. They would have to do something that clearly shows intention of harm. And she was pointing that thing everywhere, including at her husband and people just randomly on the street walking by.

I'll bring up cases where shopowners had weapons to protect their property. They wouldn't point on the speculation that someone might rob them. They typically stand with the gun pointed down but could justifiably point it if someone charges them.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Ridiculing someone from 50 feet away is a threat? What I heard in the audio was more in the line of "We're not here for you!"

In today’s climate, if a large group of protesters started ridiculing someone from a distance, then I would understand their need to defend themselves.
They weren’t there for them after they were met with armed resistance, that’s for certain.

 

[bcla]

In today’s climate, if a large group of protesters started ridiculing someone from a distance, then I would understand their need to defend themselves.
They weren’t there for them after they were met with armed resistance, that’s for certain.

They weren't there for them at all. It's been quite well established that they were on their way to the Mayor's house.