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

[Princessclab]

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.

You totally missed the point.....
Laws were being broken yet LE chose not to protect the homeowners in that private property neighborhood. They chose to not apply the law to the crowd, so LE does not always enforce and apply laws all of the time. Why did that happen?
Law breakers are only put into the legal system when and if they are brought into it by LE, the prosecutors are not out on the streets. LE decides all of the time which laws they chose to enforce

It was a large protesting group not just a singular someone arbitrarily walking by the front of the home. Nothing random about the group, they were in that group for a purpose. Perception of threat was very real IMO. A person cannot really decide for another on how much they feel threatened. No guns were fired.

The law was being broken by the protestors and the homeowners were unable to rely on LE for protection and enforce the law. What?
Where is the line drawn for what is and what is not enforced? Who gets to decide and what about the victims of the crime not being enforced?

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

You totally missed the point.....
Laws were being broken yet LE chose not to protect the homeowners in that private property neighborhood. They chose to not apply the law to the crowd, so LE does not always enforce and apply laws all of the time. Why did that happen?
Law breakers are only put into the legal system when and if they are brought into it by LE, the prosecutors are not out on the streets. LE decides all of the time which laws they chose to enforce
No guns were fired.

I agree points are really being missed here, but it is not BCLA. LE made decisions....."chose not to protect the homeowners"...and imply they deserve that due to it being a 'private property neighborhood. The last point being totally irrelevant to the facts. If you believe the law should apply equally to everyone all the time then the statement is almost like adding another a little something more that says THESE people at THIS place DESERVED protection. Law should not be time and place dependent? I am wrong and this was not your prior point? Then why do you add this about private property neighborhood?

"CHOSE" not to protect. To many of us the video makes clear there was nothing for LE to protect the homeowners from. The only evidence of a threat is the self serving statements of the couple of whom only one has decided to speak.....before being shut up by his second, presumably competent attorney who is not involved with moving/hiding evidence. Recalling that the one who did speak lied repeatedly on national tv as well.

There is no evidence the crowd broke any law. Even Mark M acknowledges this as he has a pre existing lawsuit to quiet title on the property he allegedly owns and controls. Private property here is not a fact yet, it is an allegation. It is a fact Mark M was not acting on behalf of or under the direction of the assosication. It is a fact that Mark M's quiet title suit would be strengthened by his 'successful' attempt to control that property and that property is not next to the house.

Firing a gun and threatening with gun are not the same thing. They have different criminal codes and are separate charges. Not firing a gun does not excuse anything else.

Again if you believe the crowd broke a law please find that law and link or post it. Repeating conclusions is not even arguing it is being stubborn. The Missouri Criminal Code is not that hard to find.

 

[CarolAnn856]

You totally missed the point.....
Laws were being broken yet LE chose not to protect the homeowners in that private property neighborhood. They chose to not apply the law to the crowd, so LE does not always enforce and apply laws all of the time. Why did that happen?
Law breakers are only put into the legal system when and if they are brought into it by LE, the prosecutors are not out on the streets. LE decides all of the time which laws they chose to enforce

It was a large protesting group not just a singular someone arbitrarily walking by the front of the home. Nothing random about the group, they were in that group for a purpose. Perception of threat was very real IMO. A person cannot really decide for another on how much they feel threatened. No guns were fired.

The law was being broken by the protestors and the homeowners were unable to rely on LE for protection and enforce the law. What?
Where is the line drawn for what is and what is not enforced? Who gets to decide and what about the victims of the crime not being enforced?

What law were the protesters breaking? I thought it had been determined that the street they were on was a legal passageway. And the gate they came through was not broken when they first entered, so I don't think the couple knew about that when they displayed / aimed their weapons. I'm not saying that a large crowd protesting through my neighborhood wouldn't concern me, but I sure as heck wouldn't do anything close to what that couple did in a million years. Perception of danger in the absence of danger doesn't allow people like that couple to break laws.

 

[cabanafrau]

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.

The standard for the use of lethal force is the breaking of any law? I don't want law enforcement operating under that standard, and I sure as heck don't want fellow citizens operating under that idea either.

 

[bcla]

You totally missed the point.....
Laws were being broken yet LE chose not to protect the homeowners in that private property neighborhood. They chose to not apply the law to the crowd, so LE does not always enforce and apply laws all of the time. Why did that happen?
Law breakers are only put into the legal system when and if they are brought into it by LE, the prosecutors are not out on the streets. LE decides all of the time which laws they chose to enforce

It was a large protesting group not just a singular someone arbitrarily walking by the front of the home. Nothing random about the group, they were in that group for a purpose. Perception of threat was very real IMO. A person cannot really decide for another on how much they feel threatened. No guns were fired.

The law was being broken by the protestors and the homeowners were unable to rely on LE for protection and enforce the law. What?
Where is the line drawn for what is and what is not enforced? Who gets to decide and what about the victims of the crime not being enforced?

You're missing the point. Trespassing is a far more difficult crime to establish than you'd think. At worst, the crowd was on community property, and so far there's been nobody who can definitively establish that the McCloskeys were allowed to declare a trespass. I'd say that the community's hired security would be empowered to do so, and one guard even helped move the crowd through. There are even some suggestions that the public has attained the right to pass through prescriptive use.

The same use of force laws would apply to pointing a gun at someone. It requires an imminent physical threat, no just some belief that they're out to get you.

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=563.031

 

[Princessclab]

I live in a private property home complex. Anyone that is not supposed to be there is trespassing and breaking the law. Basic law no matter what the other factors are involved.
Perception is reality no matter what others believe, perception of threat was real to these HO. Recent protests have turned into rioting and destruction if homes etc., this is where we are at. Not all, but people are scared and rightly so.
Law should not be time and place dependent; it is up to the legal/court system to establish lawfulness or not, not the LE on the street.

Lots of supposition here around this that is media driven, facts surrounding the incident are few.

Hope no one here doesn`t ever need to rely on LE for help and they don`t show because they didn`t think it was a true crime based on some bias or other factors.
Again, this is why there are some issues with LE in some places.
Stay safe all.

 

[skyblue17]

So, if someone came onto your property, you would shoot them?

If you were on someone else's property and perhaps didn't realize it (possible in some areas!), would you expect to be shot?

 

[CarolAnn856]

I live in a private property home complex. Anyone that is not supposed to be there is trespassing and breaking the law. Basic law no matter what the other factors are involved.
Perception is reality no matter what others believe, perception of threat was real to these HO. Recent protests have turned into rioting and destruction if homes etc., this is where we are at. Not all, but people are scared and rightly so.
Law should not be time and place dependent; it is up to the legal/court system to establish lawfulness or not, not the LE on the street.

Lots of supposition here around this that is media driven, facts surrounding the incident are few.

Hope no one here doesn`t ever need to rely on LE for help and they don`t show because they didn`t think it was a true crime based on some bias or other factors.
Again, this is why there are some issues with LE in some places.
Stay safe all.

Trespassing and breaking the law don't automatically means that brandishing a weapon is legal. Why does this even need to be said?? The threshold for perceiving a threat is much closer to there being an actual threat than you seem to think. The rest of your post makes no sense, so I won't even bother.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

... Perception is reality no matter what others believe' ...
Stay safe all.

Well it is just difficult to respond to this.
I believe in an objective truth that can be found by investigating, testimony, video.
I can not more strongly reject the idea that both the 'group' and it's perceptions and the McCloskey perceptions are reality and accurate.
To me the gate was either fine when the 'group' came in (GROUP CORRECT) or the gate was smashed down by a violent attack like storming the Bastille (McCLOSKEY).
There is no middle ground. Both are not right. One is right and one is a lie.

 

[cabanafrau]

I live in a private property home complex. Anyone that is not supposed to be there is trespassing and breaking the law. Basic law no matter what the other factors are involved.
Perception is reality no matter what others believe, perception of threat was real to these HO. Recent protests have turned into rioting and destruction if homes etc., this is where we are at. Not all, but people are scared and rightly so.
Law should not be time and place dependent; it is up to the legal/court system to establish lawfulness or not, not the LE on the street.

Lots of supposition here around this that is media driven, facts surrounding the incident are few.

Hope no one here doesn`t ever need to rely on LE for help and they don`t show because they didn`t think it was a true crime based on some bias or other factors.
Again, this is why there are some issues with LE in some places.
Stay safe all.

The idea of perception is reality no matter what others believe flies in the face of actual law. What a reasonable person would believe factors into consideration in matters where perception is in question. The threshhold of when it's appropriate to use lethal force is much higher than that. The brandishing of the weapons and making threats indicates this couple was ready to use lethal force, despite doing so being completely disproportionate to any perceived threat. A reasonable person who felt threatened by a mob would not come out and confront, even while armed. It would have been absolutely proportionate and reasonable if they felt threatened and took refuge in their home with their weapons at the ready.

 

[bcla]

I live in a private property home complex. Anyone that is not supposed to be there is trespassing and breaking the law. Basic law no matter what the other factors are involved.
Perception is reality no matter what others believe, perception of threat was real to these HO. Recent protests have turned into rioting and destruction if homes etc., this is where we are at. Not all, but people are scared and rightly so.
Law should not be time and place dependent; it is up to the legal/court system to establish lawfulness or not, not the LE on the street.

Lots of supposition here around this that is media driven, facts surrounding the incident are few.

Hope no one here doesn`t ever need to rely on LE for help and they don`t show because they didn`t think it was a true crime based on some bias or other factors.
Again, this is why there are some issues with LE in some places.
Stay safe all.

OK then. Go ahead and point a gun at the guy going door to door trying to sell internet service. Or at the kid in your neighborhood trying to steal a garden gnome.

The fact is, Missouri law didn't allow them to point a gun at anyone unless it was a direct threat to them or if someone actually tried to breach the building. All the speculation that the crowd was going to do anything to them was not sufficient.

I don't even blame them for having their guns out. Having it holstered or even in one's hands isn't illegal. Pointing it at someone (absent an imminent threat to their safety) is at the very least brandishing, if not assault. Even if it's not loaded or inoperable, it's still pointing a gun at someone. Granted most people didn't seem to think anything other than she was a joke, because she was. There were people in the crowd who did have loaded weapons, and there's an argument made that they could have legitimately used their firearms in self defense.

Even if someone is breaking the law on private property, that doesn't give license to use deadly force or the threat thereof. A security guard can't legally point a gun at an alleged shoplifter simply on the basis of the theft. And in this case trespassing is far from certain, as several of the homeowners in the association said the protesters were welcome and the security guard was rather accommodating to them as they were trying to get through.

 

[bcla]

The idea of perception is reality no matter what others believe flies in the face of actual law. What a reasonable person would believe factors into consideration in matters where perception is in question. The threshhold of when it's appropriate to use lethal force is much higher than that. The brandishing of the weapons and making threats indicates this couple was ready to use lethal force, despite doing so being completely disproportionate to any perceived threat. A reasonable person who felt threatened by a mob would not come out and confront, even while armed. It would have been absolutely proportionate and reasonable if they felt threatened and took refuge in their home with their weapons at the ready.

Legally they could even come out with their guns, even if they did look like a couple of cowboys itching for someone to do something. The point where it gets into the possibility of a crime happening is when Patricia McCloskey started pointing at people, giving them the impression that she was ready to kill someone.

I'm not surprised that nobody took them seriously. They were out there looking like they had no idea how to handle a weapon.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

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.

1. The protesters were not on their land. They were on land held in common by the neighborhood.
2. No. People walking by on the street are not a threat sufficient to pull a gun on them and point it at them. None of the protesters approached the house. None of them even approached the couple. There was no imminent threat to their person or property, let alone one of deadly force.
3. The protesters weren't currently violent, let alone quite violent. The threat was not real in the least no matter how much you'd like to imagine it was. And nobody if they are truly threatened walks out of the safe cover of the house to go stand in a completely vulnerable position where she could be quickly overwhelmed with a gun that doesn't work. You know who does? Those that want to go intimidate them some protesters and show em who is boss.
4. Yes the laws should apply to everyone. And assaulting them with a weapon should have landed her in jail.

Perception is reality no matter what others believe, perception of threat was real to these HO.

Perception is not reality when it comes to the law and justification of using lethal force. There is a standard. It was not met.

 

[Princessclab]

So, if someone came onto your property, you would shoot them?

If you were on someone else's property and perhaps didn't realize it (possible in some areas!), would you expect to be shot?

No one was shot, lethal force is defined as deadly force so this argument is not relevent in this situation.

 

[Princessclab]

Trespassing and breaking the law don't automatically means that brandishing a weapon is legal. Why does this even need to be said?? The threshold for perceiving a threat is much closer to there being an actual threat than you seem to think. The rest of your post makes no sense, so I won't even bother.

IMO, your post doesn`t make sense. I believe the law allows gun possession, it is a Constitutional right in the USA. Are you not from the US?
If a person feels threatened they are threatened, no one else gets to tell them otherwise. It is subjective.

 

[CarolAnn856]

IMO, your post doesn`t make sense. I believe the law allows gun possession, it is a Constitutional right in the USA. Are you not from the US?
If a person feels threatened they are threatened, no one else gets to tell them otherwise. It is subjective.

Are you just being obtuse on purpose? I obviously said none of what you wrote. Buh-bye.

 

[Princessclab]

1. The protesters were not on their land. They were on land held in common by the neighborhood.
2. No. People walking by on the street are not a threat sufficient to pull a gun on them and point it at them. None of the protesters approached the house. None of them even approached the couple. There was no imminent threat to their person or property, let alone one of deadly force.
3. The protesters weren't currently violent, let alone quite violent. The threat was not real in the least no matter how much you'd like to imagine it was. And nobody if they are truly threatened walks out of the safe cover of the house to go stand in a completely vulnerable position where she could be quickly overwhelmed with a gun that doesn't work. You know who does? Those that want to go intimidate them some protesters and show em who is boss.
4. Yes the laws should apply to everyone. And assaulting them with a weapon should have landed her in jail.


Perception is not reality when it comes to the law and justification of using lethal force. There is a standard. It was not met.

Nope, no lethal force was used. Pointing a gun is not lethal force. It is only considered an assualt if there was no perceived threat, which there was.

 

[Princessclab]

Are you just being obtuse on purpose? I obviously said none of what you wrote. Buh-bye.

It appears you are quite confused.
You said brandishing a gun, which is not lethal force, you thought it was illegal. They have a right to have a gun.
They were just pointing which can be considered an assault but is based on perceived threat, so not an assault.

 

[bcla]

Nope, no lethal force was used. Pointing a gun is not lethal force. It is only considered an assualt if there was no perceived threat, which there was.

It could be considered brandishing or assault. The reason why the law on lethal force was brought up is because the exceptions made for lethal force allow for brandishing.

And what's a perceived threat? I see a big guy looking like Dwayne Johnson ringing my doorbell. I do I perceive that as a threat? Speculation of what a group might do to you is not the same as doing something that by law can be met with shooting or at least pointing a gun.

 

[cabanafrau]

IMO, your post doesn`t make sense. I believe the law allows gun possession, it is a Constitutional right in the USA. Are you not from the US?
If a person feels threatened they are threatened, no one else gets to tell them otherwise. It is subjective.

It appears you are quite confused.
You said brandishing a gun, which is not lethal force, you thought it was illegal. They have a right to have a gun.
They were just pointing which can be considered an assault but is based on perceived threat, so not an assault.

You might find the standards for self defense even solely via physical, hand to hand means surprising. Hint, simply claiming I felt threatened doesn't cross the threshold without supporting evidence that reasonably supports the belief.

A person who gets into a disagreement at the supermarket with another person and responds with punching, kicking and clawing doesn't get a pass simply by claiming they felt threatened. They don't even automatically get a pass even if they actually did feel threatened. The entirety of circumstances is looked at, the evidence is looked at, and then whether or not a reasonable person would infer an imminent threat of serious harm is evaluated.

The standards for use of lethal force are higher, rightfully so. Going into your home, retrieving guns, brandishing those guns and making threats to others is reasonably construed as a readiness stance to deploy lethal force.

As an American I can promise you that nowhere in the Constitution, second amendment most assuredly included, does it hand out the right to be judge, jury and executioner like it's M&Ms.