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]

I have not checked Missouri requirements but my guess is that you do not get a real gun into a court house to be an exhibit by putting a spring in front of a firing pin. This is a nonsense claim.

Greater nonsense is the idea that a generic hand gun would have relevance to a law suit about a specific hand gun. It is a bad idea for Mark M to keep throwing out crap to see what sticks. It is no wonder they changed their attorney.

I've seen exhibits in courtroom photos showing a long zip tie going through the barrel. However, their claim is that this was a specific model where they were suing the manufacturer. Take their claims for what they're worth.

 

[bcla]

I thought originally it was that they were warned away from this route, advised that there was a couple with a history of such and such behavior and people within the organizing for the protest trying to tell people 'enter at your own risk' essentially.

Certainly later on those entering were told that the guns were out and to stay off their property. Nobody seemed to take the McCloskeys seriously though.

 

[Skywalker]

I don't think any one here has said they shouldn't have had guns (at the time). At issue is whether it was REASONABLE to point a loaded weapon at the crowd (mob, group, whatever). I don't think it matters whether someone broke down a gate, was marching on a street, used a bullhorn, was yelling, or where they were headed. Ask yourself ONE question... were the homeowners in imminent danger? To help you to that... was anyone actually close to them (no). Was anyone heading toward them (no). Was anyone aiming a weapon at them (no). So, what justifies them aiming a loaded weapon at people? Does breaking down a gate justify it? Does marching in the street justify it? Does being on private (which is in doubt) roads justify it?

Now, if you think they were valid in thinking they were in imminent danger, if you're walking down the street, are you ok with someone pointing a gun at you? Why? You're not a threat to them.

Well, context is everything lol. If I am "walking down the street" I am not okay with someone pointing a gun at me. However, if there is a climate of civil unrest, mobs, looting, violence, fires, property damage AND I am in a mob that broke down a gate to get into someone's community...THAT is a different kind of "walking down the street" and I can see how it could terrify someone, on a different scale than oh say, me walking my dog. At that moment, they didn't know if they were in imminent danger or not and all the Monday morning quarterbacking in the world won't change that.

 

[sam_gordon]

At that moment, they didn't know if they were in imminent danger or not

I'd argue that they DID know.
First, the crowd was at least 50 feet away from them.
Second, no one was pointing a weapon at them.
Third, they had guns in their hands.

Is it that much of a leap to realize IF anyone did decide to attack them, they had time to bring their weapons to bear? I'm not faulting them for having the guns. I'm not faulting them for bringing the guns outside. They are flat out WRONG to point the guns at other people that are not posing an imminent threat.

 

[Ms.Minnie]

Well, context is everything lol. If I am "walking down the street" I am not okay with someone pointing a gun at me. However, if there is a climate of civil unrest, mobs, looting, violence, fires, property damage AND I am in a mob that broke down a gate to get into someone's community...THAT is a different kind of "walking down the street" and I can see how it could terrify someone, on a different scale than oh say, me walking my dog. At that moment, they didn't know if they were in imminent danger or not and all the Monday morning quarterbacking in the world won't change that.

Very well said.

 

[bcla]

I'd argue that they DID know.
First, the crowd was at least 50 feet away from them.
Second, no one was pointing a weapon at them.
Third, they had guns in their hands.

Is it that much of a leap to realize IF anyone did decide to attack them, they had time to bring their weapons to bear? I'm not faulting them for having the guns. I'm not faulting them for bringing the guns outside. They are flat out WRONG to point the guns at other people that are not posing an imminent threat.

I would fault Mark McCloskey for thinking that his wife should get anywhere near a handgun. He handled his weapon poorly. She handled it abysmally, whether or not it was loaded or operable. She's being used as an example by those who would normally applaud the use of a firearm in self-defense as how not to handle a firearm.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Well, context is everything lol. ... AND I am in a mob that broke down a gate to get into someone's community...THAT is a different kind of "walking down the street" and I can see how it could terrify someone, on a different scale than oh say, me walking my dog. At that moment, they didn't know if they were in imminent danger or not and all the Monday morning quarterbacking in the world won't change that.

Again, you are making up a hypothetical and passing it off as reality. So much for providing context.
Watch the video, the lock and gate were not broken. There was no invasion. And bonnie and clyde, also famous gun nuts from the area had their guns out before the protesters got there. Moreover, the protesters, unlike B&C provided advance notice.

Again, McCloskey has recanted this story. Why do you refuse to believe him on this particular change of story?

 

[okeydokey]

Again, you are making up a hypothetical and passing it off as reality. So much for providing context.
Watch the video, the lock and gate were not broken. There was no invasion. And bonnie and clyde, also famous gun nuts from the area had their guns out before the protesters got there. Moreover, the protesters, unlike B&C provided advance notice.

Again, McCloskey has recanted this story. Why do you refuse to believe him on this particular change of story?

It's incredible isn't it.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

AND I am in a mob that broke down a gate to get into someone's community...

For the 50th time, this didn’t happen. Gate was open when the first protesters went through.

 

[sam_gordon]

Well, context is everything lol. If I am "walking down the street" I am not okay with someone pointing a gun at me. However, if there is a climate of civil unrest, mobs, looting, violence, fires, property damage AND I am in a mob that broke down a gate to get into someone's community...THAT is a different kind of "walking down the street" and I can see how it could terrify someone, on a different scale than oh say, me walking my dog. At that moment, they didn't know if they were in imminent danger or not and all the Monday morning quarterbacking in the world won't change that.

So now it's ok to make up facts to help prove your point? Since when were the homeowners "IN a mob"? The "mob" (if you want to call it that) was at least 50' away. Could the "mob" have turned violent and attacked them? Sure. But for all I know, you or your dog will attack me while we're walking down the street. So, it's ok for me to aim my gun at you. Got it.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

... and another one has run its course.