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

[sam_gordon]

You said brandishing a gun, which is not lethal force, you thought it was illegal. They have a right to have a gun.

Is anyone denying they had a right to have a gun?
Does having the right to have a gun give you the right to point it at someone (especially someone who is 20-30 yards away from you)?

 

[Princessclab]

FYI.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...495D60867494F2CD018D495&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

FYI.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...495D60867494F2CD018D495&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

This has nothing to do with what happened or the subsequent investigation.

Nobody disputes they had the "RIGHT" to defend their property.
Nobody disputes that prosecutors should just be able to take constitutional rights away.
Nobody disputes prosecutors should not just let violent offenders get away.

There were no violent offenders involved, no constitutional rights are at stake and no 'RIGHT" to defend property was removed. This is all distraction and trolling.

The investigation is on whether a gate was or was not broken down when the 'crowd' entered. IF the crowd entered peacefully or 'storming the bastille'. If the only two armed people on video aimed their weapons at people.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...3B6CA559E98D2866CCAC3B6CA559E98D&&FORM=VDRVSR

 

[Princessclab]

This has nothing to do with what happened or the subsequent investigation.

Nobody disputes they had the "RIGHT" to defend their property.
Nobody disputes that prosecutors should just be able to take constitutional rights away.
Nobody disputes prosecutors should not just let violent offenders get away.

There were no violent offenders involved, no constitutional rights are at stake and no 'RIGHT" to defend property was removed. This is all distraction and trolling.

The investigation is on whether a gate was or was not broken down when the 'crowd' entered. IF the crowd entered peacefully or 'storming the bastille'. If the only two armed people on video aimed their weapons at people.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...3B6CA559E98D2866CCAC3B6CA559E98D&&FORM=VDRVSR

You need to look at the whole picture and what is going on outside of just the mob going through the neighborhood.
You are contradicting yourself.

 

[bcla]

You need to look at the whole picture and what is going on outside of just the mob going through the neighborhood.
You are contradicting yourself.

Again, no law was broken by having the gun or even having the gun exposed. But without a clear physical threat to their safety (and not just a hunch that there might be one) waving that thing around is likely brandishing or assault.

It's pretty simple. No police officer is going to start pointing a gun at someone simply on a hunch that someone might break the law or even on the basis of a nonviolent property crime. However, they might undo the clasp or even had a hand on a gun if ready to confront someone. But not point.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Is anyone denying they had a right to have a gun?
Does having the right to have a gun give you the right to point it at someone (especially someone who is 20-30 yards away from you)?

I'll answer seeing as how she won't.
Cw4D presents easy answers to easy questions.
no.
no.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

You need to look at the whole picture and what is going on outside of just the mob going through the neighborhood.
You are contradicting yourself.

I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt to other posters as to being sincere or not. To quote a prior poster "buh bye".

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Interesting updates today, at least to me.

McCloskey is claiming they will be indicted soon. https://www.foxnews.com/media/mark-mccloskey-st-louis-rifle-rumor-indicted

And as predicted evidence is emerging that the use of the guns is part of the Mark M legal strategy to get 'ownership' of the property he is suing for. He has used the gun ploy before and offered it as evidence.

"The McCloskeys and the trustees of Portland Place are involved in a three-year legal dispute over a small piece of property. The McCloskeys claim they own it, but the trustees say it belongs to the neighborhood.

A judge on Monday ruled against motions from both sides to end the case without a trial. Details about the legal case were first reported Thursday by St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Mark McCloskey said in the affidavit that he and his wife purchased the home in 1988 and have taken several measures to improve the disputed piece of land.

The affidavit states they have “regularly prohibited all persons, including Portland Place residents, from crossing the Parcel including at least at one point, challenging a resident at gunpoint who refused to heed the McCloskeys’ warnings to stay off such property.”

https://fox6now.com/2020/07/02/court-record-shows-st-louis-couple-pulled-gun-before/
the two attorneys have been doing in St. Louis Circuit Court since 2017, defending a sliver of property in what they call the “private place” of the tony neighborhood where they live. The defendants in the case are the trustees of Portland Place, who say a triangle of land that the McCloskeys claim as their own actually belongs to the neighborhood.

https://fox6now.com/2020/07/02/court-record-shows-st-louis-couple-pulled-gun-before/

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

25. Between the time of acquisition of One Portland Place and the construction of the above-referenced ten foot wall, the McCloskeys regularly prohibited all persons, including Portland Place residents, from crossing the Parcel including at least at one point, challenging a resident at gun point who refused to heed the McCloskeys’ warnings to stay off such property.

37. Exhibit 20 is a copy of the February 9, 1998 minutes of the 1998 annual meeting of the homeowners of Portland Place wherein David Harris, an attorney with Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale who was a Trustee at the time, declared that the wing walls were the responsibility of the homeowners and not the Trustees. The minutes recite: Walls (from inside the sidewalk line) will need to be tuckpointed (at $8,000.00). David investigated the property lines at Recorder of Deeds. The property owners are responsible for maintaining walls up to sidewalk line.

48. At that time, Mark McCloskey reiterated his previously stated position that that the Parcel was the McCloskeys’ property and the Trustees had no right to it at all.
49. Subsequently, on May 8, 2004, Mr. Dolgin, on behalf of the Trustees, forwarded correspondence (see Exhibit 26) stating that the McCloskeys did not have permission from the Trustees to tuckpoint the wall.

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...-5cde-a85e-4e7d5a5eb356/5efd0a333cfe6.pdf.pdf
From the filed affidavit of Mark M
If the property owners are only responsible for maintenance up to the sidewalk line it sure implies they don't won or control past the sidewalk line
and this is an interesting twist, no survey

86. The McCloskeys did not have One Portland Place surveyed at the time of purchase and never saw any survey of One Portland Place, City Blocks 4907-A or 4908 until presented with such by Bob Dolgin on July 7, 2004.

 

[okeydokey]

You need to look at the whole picture and what is going on outside of just the mob going through the neighborhood.
You are contradicting yourself.

Calling them a mob shows your bias.

 

[bcla]

Charges filed. It says felony unlawful use of a weapon for "exhibiting". I suppose that's similar to brandishing. In particular the police chief has said the the mix of the weapon and their hostility disturbed him.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_73bfcc8c-6828-5b77-8a58-37cd10d97f4c.html

https://www.kmov.com/news/charges-f...cle_0777100a-cac9-11ea-8b3f-bf5d993f150e.html​

St. Louis Police Chief John Hayden last week said police applied for warrants but did not elaborate on what those warrants allege or who they are against. The guns were turned over to police as evidence.​

​

“The hostility is what I noticed,” Hayden said. “I don't want to see guns out when people are very hostile and angry at each other. Those are recipes for violence, so again we applied on warrant, there's been follow up information and we are waiting on the decision on the warrant application."​

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Charges filed. It says felony unlawful use of a weapon for "exhibiting". I suppose that's similar to brandishing. In particular the police chief has said the the mix of the weapon and their hostility disturbed him.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_73bfcc8c-6828-5b77-8a58-37cd10d97f4c.html

https://www.kmov.com/news/charges-f...cle_0777100a-cac9-11ea-8b3f-bf5d993f150e.html​

St. Louis Police Chief John Hayden last week said police applied for warrants but did not elaborate on what those warrants allege or who they are against. The guns were turned over to police as evidence.​

​

“The hostility is what I noticed,” Hayden said. “I don't want to see guns out when people are very hostile and angry at each other. Those are recipes for violence, so again we applied on warrant, there's been follow up information and we are waiting on the decision on the warrant application."​

This is pretty much what the facts show happened. I was disgusted and disappointed to see how a US Senator mislead so many people as to what happened when his hedging word choice demonstrated he knows better.

This 'crime' of course won't mean much on its own. It will matter in disciplinary action from the Missouri bar. As it should. More violations of bar rules than laws.

 

[bcla]

This is pretty much what the facts show happened. I was disgusted and disappointed to see how a US Senator mislead so many people as to what happened when his hedging word choice demonstrated he knows better.

This 'crime' of course won't mean much on its own. It will matter in disciplinary action from the Missouri bar. As it should. More violations of bar rules than laws.

It's gotten really weird with all the posturing by the Governor, claiming (before charges were filed or even that he had researched the case) that he would likely pardon them. It sounds like it would likely go to a diversion program but I wonder if loss of their guns would be a condition for doing so. Then there's the issue of their law licenses.

 

[TLSnell1981]

They weren't threatened.

I disagree.

 

[bcla]

I disagree.

Based only on their say so? Or the hundreds of people in the crowd who claim that they weren't threatened and all the video that includes zero threats against their safety?

The McCloskeys are lying, and it's pretty clear that they are.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Based only on their say so? Or the hundreds of people in the crowd who claim that they weren't threatened and all the video that includes zero threats against their safety?

The McCloskeys are lying, and it's pretty clear that they are.

Them vs. the mob.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

Curious question..... when did protesters become a mob? Based on posts here & on FB, it seems we literally went from using the word protesters to calling them a mob overnight. I'm guessing some "news" sources changed the narrative, but I really don't know.

 

[FanforDisney]

Based only on their say so? Or the hundreds of people in the crowd who claim that they weren't threatened and all the video that includes zero threats against their safety?

The McCloskeys are lying, and it's pretty clear that they are.


When you break down someone's gate, and rush their private property, you are not a protestor. You are a criminal.

The protest leader admitted that their protest group committed first degree trespass, a Class B misdemeanor with the potential of 6 months of jail time, yet the people protecting their private property are the ones getting charged.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I'm sure the mob was very comfortable. No looters or protesters were prosecuted for their crimes only the frightened couple having a family dinner outside. Google the attorney who is charging them. Hmmm...no wonder.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

They were a mob and the St Louis DA is as much a joke as the Atlanta DA.