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

[bcla]

My point still stands that whether the gate was broken or simply opened, the protesters where wrong and trespassing. If no one is going to enforce a closed gate or sign(not even sure if their was one here) then what’s the point of even having it?

There are rules and there is actual enforcement. They have a lot to lose by pressing forward with a simple trespassing charge. A poster in this thread who knew people there said that the general public walking there is generally of little consequence. Their private security patrols don’t even bother anyone just walking through. I guess they’re happy with the status quo.

 

[Hikergirl]

That day they weren’t actually congregating in the community. Not sure why they went through, but they did. They Mayor’s house is outside. They apparently had to use a pedestrian path to get there. One of the interviews with the UPI photographer has him saying they needed a security guard to open the gate that led outside.

Thanks for the info, I did not know the Mayor lived outside of that community.

Doesn't change my view of a mob of people on their way to a single person's home because they are angry about what that person did verses a mob just marching in a general protest.

 

[bcla]

Thanks for the info, I did not know the Mayor lived outside of that community.

Doesn't change my view of a mob of people on their way to a single person's home because they are angry about what that person did verses a mob just marching in a general protest.

Protesting in front of a personal home isn't all that unusual. That's actually pretty common, especially when someone does something controversial.

They had to go through this pedestrian path. I won't give her exact address (even though it's in public records) but she lives on Lake Ave, which is partially in the gated community and then continues outside after this pedestrian path. I read that the gate was locked and that one of the security patrols came by and opened the gate to let them out. Some said that they went that way because there were already blocked intersections to control the flow of pedestrian, as the police had already anticipated that there would be a protest in front of the Mayor's house.

This is the path from Portland Place to Lake Ave. I picked a business near where the Mayor lives.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/A...0x77052405b5927d65!8m2!3d38.6488!4d-90.270242

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

Doesn't change my view of a mob of people on their way to a single person's home because they are angry about what that person did verses a mob just marching in a general protest.

Not sure how that has any impact on what we're discussing here. The protesters were not going to be congregating anywhere near the suburban rambo's house so it would have looked exactly the same regardless of their end destination.

 

[bcla]

Not sure how that has any impact on what we're discussing here. The protesters were not going to be congregating anywhere near the suburban rambo's house so it would have looked exactly the same regardless of their end destination.

They overreacted badly - that's for sure. Getting ready for the possibility of mob violence is one thing. I would never fault anyone for that. I know there are were people on the scene treating them coming out armed as a sideshow and mouthing off at them, but it's not an excuse to point guns at anyone. There were far cooler heads in the crowd, including armed individuals who didn't point back even though it might have been considered justified.

There was probably a level of confusion, but even with that it was pretty obvious that nobody was coming at them. The organizers were yelling at people to move on. What is it they call it - "situational awareness"?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

It is another step down on morality when people are threatened at their homes by mobs for actions that the mob does not agree with. "Peaceful protests" were how this all started after the Floyd killing, and looting and arson followed. Do we want this in our neighborhoods? I don't know about you, but I don't want it in mine.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

It is another step down on morality when people are threatened at their homes by mobs for actions that the mob does not agree with. "Peaceful protests" were how this all started after the Floyd killing, and looting and arson followed. Do we want this in our neighborhoods? I don't know about you, but I don't want it in mine.

IMO walking down the sidewalk and having a nut case come out and starting screaming and pointing guns is the step down on morality. But maybe I just don't get the nuance here.

So if I understand you you are saying the crowd threatened Mark M despite Mark M now admitting there were no threats until he got his gun?

That you further do not consider pointing a gun at someone to be a threat when the pointer is a homeowner of a certain color?
That somehow the right to carry in Missouri vanishes when you are a 'white agitator'.
"Peaceful protests" actually started after the Floyd killing and is actually not an american tradition going back further than the Boston Tea Party?

 

[Skywalker]

Yet this is no longer the McCloskey story. Their lawyer has made clear it was not a mob, and it was not black people it was a few WHITE trouble makers that precipitated McCloskey's arming themselves. Outside of the original McCloskey story, which obviously false based on the video, there has been no allegation of a mob by anyone who was there.

Not sure why it matters that the trouble makers where WHITE. I didn't comment on whether or not they were WHITE or not. It seems to matter to you though. So let's be clear the bad apples were WHITE. And? My point is, the organizers may have known where they were headed and what they had planned, and if violence and looting were on or off the table, but the people in their homes do not know that.
I mean sure, they came off as kind of comical, but they were clearly in fear, and no one was harmed in the making of this latest public-shaming video, so all is good I guess.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

It is another step down on morality when people are threatened at their homes by mobs for actions that the mob does not agree with. "Peaceful protests" were how this all started after the Floyd killing, and looting and arson followed. Do we want this in our neighborhoods? I don't know about you, but I don't want it in mine.

People live in the areas the looting and arson occurred. It may look different than your neighborhood but they are someone's neighborhood.

And no, we don't want looting or arson in any neighborhood. We also don't want police killing people using choke holds and other methods that are well beyond the force necessary to detain. Both the looters and bad officers represent a small portion of the populations of their field so lets quit with the quotation marks around peaceful protests.

 

[Hikergirl]

Not sure how that has any impact on what we're discussing here. The protesters were not going to be congregating anywhere near the suburban rambo's house so it would have looked exactly the same regardless of their end destination.

LOL, who is "we"? This thread is 24 pages long with multiple posters discussing various things.
My post has nothing to do with what you are discussing since you aren't the poster I quoted and responded to with that statement.
Feel free to join that discussion if you want.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Not sure why it matters that the trouble makers where WHITE. I didn't comment on whether or not they were WHITE or not. It seems to matter to you though. So let's be clear the bad apples were WHITE. And? My point is, the organizers may have known where they were headed and what they had planned, and if violence and looting were on or off the table, but the people in their homes do not know that.
I mean sure, they came off as kind of comical, but they were clearly in fear, and no one was harmed in the making of this latest public-shaming video, so all is good I guess.

The McCloskys’ lawyer made the point of the white protesters being the problem. So they made the distinction.

I’d have to guess in an attempt to appear non-racist. Although usually any comment like this tends to have the opposite impression.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

IMO walking down the sidewalk and having a nut case come out and starting screaming and pointing guns is the step down on morality. But maybe I just don't get the nuance here.

So if I understand you you are saying the crowd threatened Mark M despite Mark M now admitting there were no threats until he got his gun?

That you further do not consider pointing a gun at someone to be a threat when the pointer is a homeowner of a certain color?
That somehow the right to carry in Missouri vanishes when you are a 'white agitator'.
"Peaceful protests" actually started after the Floyd killing and is actually not an american tradition going back further than the Boston Tea Party?

Actually, I am referring to going to the mayor's house to stand and shout over bullhorns that "you gonna lose your job".

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Not sure why it matters that the trouble makers where WHITE.
I didn't comment on whether or not they were WHITE or not. It seems to matter to you though.

You missed the point. The attorney for McCloskey thought this was important. From that I infer it is important to his clients. That and the fact it is big change in the story I do think it is important.

I do not believe I indicated you made that comment. My point to you is that you are using a story that even Mark M has changed. It was not a mob now. It was only white agitators. It was not an immediate break down of the gate and assault on Mark M. It was the white agitators following the initial charge.
There were no threats to Mark M until he came out with the wife and started screaming and aiming guns at people.

Wondering why is a very good question.

So you tell me. Why did they completely change their story?

 

[Kimberlyann11]

Were you marching to a specific's person's home because you were angry at what they had done?
Just curious as I see a general march different than a march with a specific target.
It sounds like you were passing through that neighborhood but not planning to congregate in it. I wonder if the police would have handled it the same way had you been planning to stay there in front of a specific persons home.
(you as in protesters, not just you).

This particular one we organized was just marching through, very similar to the march going through McCloskley's neighborhood. I think part of the difference in the reaction we got from the residents may be that this was planned quite far in advance and so anyone who was scared had a chance to get out for the afternoon. There was also a police presence so the more fragile residents could feel safe.

For what it's worth, my state had armed protests outside both the state capital building and the Governor's mansion a few months ago and the cops were peachy with it.

 

[bcla]

You missed the point. The attorney for McCloskey thought this was important. From that I infer it is important to his clients. That and the fact it is big change in the story I do think it is important.

I do not believe I indicated you made that comment. My point to you is that you are using a story that even Mark M has changed. It was not a mob now. It was only white agitators. It was not an immediate break down of the gate and assault on Mark M. It was the white agitators following the initial charge.
There were no threats to Mark M until he came out with the wife and started screaming and aiming guns at people.

Wondering why is a very good question.

So you tell me. Why did they completely change their story?

That almost seemed like the old “but I have black friends” trope.

 

[bcla]

Actually, I am referring to going to the mayor's house to stand and shout over bullhorns that "you gonna lose your job".

It’s a protest. You’ve never heard of protests calling for the resignation or removal of a politician?

 

[bcla]

Not sure why it matters that the trouble makers where WHITE. I didn't comment on whether or not they were WHITE or not. It seems to matter to you though. So let's be clear the bad apples were WHITE. And? My point is, the organizers may have known where they were headed and what they had planned, and if violence and looting were on or off the table, but the people in their homes do not know that.
I mean sure, they came off as kind of comical, but they were clearly in fear, and no one was harmed in the making of this latest public-shaming video, so all is good I guess.

The big issue is that people simply can’t take speculative action based on fear of the unknown. If that were the case, I could point a gun at people on the sidewalk in front of my house if I fear they might break into my car. I could have a gun in a holster or in my hand. He was never appointed to guard community property. That was delegated to the private security hired by the HOA.

McCloskey has told many half truths and flat out untruths. There were organizers right there from the start who were there trying to defuse the situation even though some were intent on mouthing off at the couple. They’re far more believable. The crowd was loud and disruptive. They may even have been trespassing and a little bit destructive. But I don’t believe they did anything that warranted pointing a firearm at anyone. Mr McCloskey may have a case that he never intentionally pointed his rifle at anyone. But Mrs McCloskey clearly did. I think she’s in far more trouble than he is. But he should shoulder part of the blame for giving a firearm to someone who didn’t know the first thing about proper handling or legal use.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

This particular one we organized was just marching through, very similar to the march going through McCloskley's neighborhood. I think part of the difference in the reaction we got from the residents may be that this was planned quite far in advance and so anyone who was scared had a chance to get out for the afternoon. There was also a police presence so the more fragile residents could feel safe.

For what it's worth, my state had armed protests outside both the state capital building and the Governor's mansion a few months ago and the cops were peachy with it.

I think you touched on a very important issue. You stated that y’all planned it in advance and gave notice. I am still curious if this was a planned march or more like a flash mob type thing.

 

[bcla]

I think you touched on a very important issue. You stated that y’all planned it in advance and gave notice. I am still curious if this was a planned march or more like a flash mob type thing.

It was obviously organized on short notice with notices on social media. There’s a basic principle that protests for current events don’t require a permit. The police heard about it and were prepared. Maybe not for this exact route, but they were already waiting where they were blocking vehicle traffic. I heard the blockade may have been a reason for choosing this particular route.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

It was obviously organized on short notice with notices on social media. There’s a basic principle that protests for current events don’t require a permit. The police heard about it and were prepared. Maybe not for this exact route, but they were already waiting where they were blocking vehicle traffic. I heard the blockade may have been a reason for choosing this particular route.

I appreciate your response but I have a couple questions.
What does that mean that “There’s a basic principle that protests for current events don’t require a permit”? They are either required, or they’re not. Simply not enforcing it doesn’t mean that it’s not required.
Their are a lot of laws like this and it rubs me the wrong way, but that’s a discussion for another day.

To your second statement-
So if I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying that the police knew about it, blocked the area off from traffic where they were going, but the protestors decided to go around the police blockade and go through a neighborhood where they were not suppose to go.