1 1
airdvr

Couple recorded pulling weapons on protesters outside their St. Louis home

Recommended Posts

What was the 'imminent danger'? 

You are aware that pointing a gun at someone without justification (which isn't present in this case) is "assault with a deadly weapon", right?


But they are rich & white, so they'll get a pass.

 

Prosecutor in St Louis:

St Louis elected its first black prosecutor, Kimberly Gardner, a criminal justice reformer, in 2016. Gardner said in a public statement on Monday that she was “alarmed” to see an incident “where peaceful protestors were met by guns and a violent assault”, and that her office was investigating the incident along with the police.

“We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation or threat of deadly force will not be tolerated,” Gardner wrote. “Make no mistake: we will not tolerate the use of force against those exercising their first amendment rights.”

 

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/29/st-louis-couple-point-guns-at-protesters?fbclid=IwAR2Ja0cH91SMIVX3fe545rYYC0GDdaph_TclP31LzojHhKJZe0i691P3MsE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Two ambulance chasing, trump supporting, gun loving lawyers. They both pointed their weapons at the protestors and he pointed his Ar-15 directly at his wife.

He wrote in a local paper, “the reason high-income people leave the city, and why I can’t talk my friends into moving in, is crime. Why live where your life is at risk, where you are affronted by thugs, bums, drug addicts and punks when you can afford not to. What St. Louis can do without are the murderers, beggars, drug addicts and street corner drunks. St. Louis needs more people of substance and fewer of subsistence.”

At no time did any of the peaceful protestors enter his property or threaten him. They were in fact on their way to the Mayors home which was nearby.

Missouri Law Suggests St. Louis Lawyers Could Be Prosecuted for Threatening Protesters with Guns

Under Section 571.030(4) of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, it is a crime when a person “[e]xhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.” Such a person “commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons,” which is defined as a class E felony. Such felonies carry up to four years in prison, one year in jail, and/or a $10,000 fine–but are subject to probation.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

From what I've read, this is a private neighborhood, and even the streets are private property. There is a single way in/out for vehicles on the South side at Lake Ave/Lindell Blvd. On the East and West sides of the community, there are locked iron pedestrian gates, (2 gates on the East, and 2 on the West). Take this Google Maps link, then click on the Streetview icon (yellow man), at the lower right, and you will see even Google Streetview cars do not enter the community:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Portland+Pl,+St.+Louis,+MO+63108/@38.6465148,-90.2691468,17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x87d8b52e7fc13547:0xf00fea7349f4ac1e!8m2!3d38.6474166!4d-90.2689436

Apparently, the protestors broke open one of the gates. So from my POV, the protestors were in the wrong. BTW the couples home is somewhere on the Portland Place loop.

Edited by ryoder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ryoder said:

From what I've read, this is a private neighborhood, and even the streets are private property. There is a single way in/out for vehicles on the South side at Lake Ave/Lindell Blvd. On the East and West sides of the community, there are locked iron pedestrian gates, (2 gates on the East, and 2 on the West). Take this Google Maps link, then click on the Streetview icon (yellow man), at the lower right, and you will see even Google Streetview cars do not enter the community:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Portland+Pl,+St.+Louis,+MO+63108/@38.6465148,-90.2691468,17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x87d8b52e7fc13547:0xf00fea7349f4ac1e!8m2!3d38.6474166!4d-90.2689436

Apparently, the protestors broke open one of the gates. So from my POV, the protestors were in the wrong. BTW the couples home is somewhere on the Portland Place loop.

I'd be surprised if the streets were "private property" most likely they are owned by a HOA. If Amazon Fed-ex, etc can deliver to any residence within the gated community. implied consent for the protestors to use the street would likely exist.

Subsequent to the protestors passing the lawyers house they went to the mayor's home and protested there. At no time did the mayor or LE attempt a trespass notice or eviction. Evidently the local prosecutor is investigating as is the Missouri BAR.

Lawyers who confronted protestors with guns are being investigated

Mark McCloskey & Patricia McCloskey: St. Louis Couple Pull Guns on Protesters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ryoder said:

From what I've read, this is a private neighborhood, and even the streets are private property...

...Apparently, the protestors broke open one of the gates. So from my POV, the protestors were in the wrong. BTW the couples home is somewhere on the Portland Place loop.

 

18 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

I'd be surprised if the streets were "private property" most likely they are owned by a HOA. If Amazon Fed-ex, etc can deliver to any residence within the gated community. implied consent for the protestors to use the street would likely exist.

Subsequent to the protestors passing the lawyers house they went to the mayor's home and protested there. At no time did the mayor or LE attempt a trespass notice or eviction. Evidently the local prosecutor is investigating as is the Missouri BAR.

My understanding (and if I'm wrong, I welcome correction) is that for that sort of place, the streets are owned by the HOA & the fees paid by the homeowners pay for the upkeep (fixing, plowing, ect). Technically, they are private property and the property owner can decide if someone is allowed or not. 

While people with legitimate reasons can legally be there, these protesters were trespassing. And they apparently vandalized a gate.
Those are both crimes.

However, neither of those is a valid reason to threaten the use of deadly force. 

Pointing a gun at someone (the woman) is 'assault with a deadly weapon'. Waving it around (the man) is 'brandishing'. 
Both of those are crimes. More serious ones. 

Their argument that they were 'in fear for their life' is pretty weak.

Did the protesters attack any other houses in the neighborhood? You know, the ones without armed idiots outside of them?

Or were these two afraid because there was a group of scary black people in their street, and they don't allow those kind of people in their neighborhood?

I think I see the woman as more frightening than the man. He's just holding the rifle, waving it around randomly.
She's got the pistol up to eye level (using the sights), with her finger on the trigger. Deliberately aiming it. At people.

Anybody want to guess what would happen if you pointed a gun at a cop like that?

I can see a pretty valid argument that someone on the street could have shot her, and legitimately claimed self defense.
She was intentionally pointing the gun at people, deliberately aiming it, with her finger on the trigger.

I'm as pro-gun as it gets, but these two were way out of line. 
I hope they get prosecuted.

I'm not super confident that will happen. They are white and rich. 
And in St Louis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

 

My understanding (and if I'm wrong, I welcome correction) is that for that sort of place, the streets are owned by the HOA & the fees paid by the homeowners pay for the upkeep (fixing, plowing, ect). Technically, they are private property and the property owner can decide if someone is allowed or not. 

While people with legitimate reasons can legally be there, these protesters were trespassing. And they apparently vandalized a gate.
Those are both crimes.

 

if the prosecutor says they were exercising their 1st amendment rights, i would say that would not be considered trespassing, since she is a lawyer.  they were marching to the mayor's house and are allowed to peacefully petition the mayor for a redress of their grievances.  pretty sure you're right on the streets being private property from what i've read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

More situations like this will be occurring in the near future. People are afraid and they are angry.

SHTF

You mean WHITE people are finally afraid and angry. People of color have been in that situation their whole lives. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

You are aware that pointing a gun at someone without justification (which isn't present in this case) is "assault with a deadly weapon", right?

They may have over reacted but they didn't break any laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DJL said:

They may have over reacted but they didn't break any laws.

 

Just now, kallend said:

That is not for you or me to decide,

I previously quoted the Missouri statute whereby pointing a firearm is considered a felonious assault. If its done " in an angry or threatening manner.” When done so without reasonable fear for your life. wolfriverjoe's interpretation of trespass is slightly more correct but on the streets owned by a HOA a single homeowner can't trespass people who are on their way to someone else's property for reasonable purpose.

Ultimately the prosecutor and a court will decide. But for any gun owner to act so stupid should be a felony. They clearly weren't in fear of their ;lives. In the end there will be enough video for the prosecutor to decide.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 minutes ago, normiss said:

If you're afraid of people walking on sidewalks, you might have mental issues

Holy fucking bias batman! :p

Really hard to take some of you people seriously.   I highly suggest you to look into communicative rationality and whether or not you actually believe the shit you say.

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kallend said:

That is not for you or me to decide,

I'm referencing the legal opinions of professionals in the field.  To be clear there is a city prosecutor looking into whether charges should be pressed but it seems unlikely that anything would stick according to lawyers familiar with the specifics.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/505241-st-louis-circuit-attorney-investigating-couple-that-pointed-guns-at

"Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, told the Post-Dispatch that Missouri's Castle Doctrine makes what the McCloskeys did legal, albeit dangerous.

Missouri's Castle Doctrine allows residents to use lethal force to get people off of private property."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, okalb said:

You mean WHITE people are finally afraid and angry. People of color have been in that situation their whole lives. 

This isn't about George Floyd.  It isn't about BLM.  It's about white privilege plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DJL said:

 

Missouri's Castle Doctrine allows residents to use lethal force to get people off of private property."

Well, I had to look it up. WI's is quite different, and much more restrictive.

However, MO's says you don't have to retreat. 
These idiots actually came out. They advanced. That's a very different situation.

 

And the protesters were NOT on their property. Not that I can find. They were out in the street.

So I think the application of Castle Doctrine is not going to work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Missouri's Castle Doctrine allows residents to use lethal force to get people off of private property."

That's a rather odd way to address that problem, and wouldn't actually resolve it. Seems to me it would actually keep them ON your property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

The first video shows protesters walking on the front lawn of that mansion.

It also shows a broken gate = trespassing.

We will have to see all the video before reaching our own conclusions.

 

Back in the good-old-days, protesters waited until the mayor arrived at City Hall before protesting. Picketing the mayor's house is so "tacky."

 

I understand why the mayor released names of "defund police" protesters. Why anyone would get upset about publishing names of protesters is a mystery to me. If you participate in public protests, you can expect your name to be published in open press. 

But publishing protesters addresses was going too far.

Edited by riggerrob
Add a sentence
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidewalks aren't considered "front lawn", nor even the homeowner's property.

How does the gate appear broken? I just see it open, which is how a couple of local stations there reported and that it is usually wide open. After the thug couple became viral, images were produced showing the right side bent around the handle area.

I'm not sure if it's provable what state the gate was in or when.

The internets have provided public information that enables them to show up in the face of those those speak out against. It usually seems fitting to be, at least when the person started the disagreement with public comments. Reply in kind.

This same source of information is how people in viral videos are outed, typically those are justified due to the video of them doing wrong. Protesting isn't though.

I wonder what kind of sammich she had with cheap yellow mustard though. I would have expected Grey Poupon, but that is so 80's now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, I had to look it up. WI's is quite different, and much more restrictive.

However, MO's says you don't have to retreat. 
These idiots actually came out. They advanced. That's a very different situation.

 

And the protesters were NOT on their property. Not that I can find. They were out in the street.

So I think the application of Castle Doctrine is not going to work. 

Every duty-to-retreat law I've read, applied only when you were not on your own property. And yes, they advanced, but they were still on their property.

The protestors were on a private street, and every entrance into the community to reach that street has "No Trespassing" signs. There are closed gates on all pedestrian entrances. Only the South entrance lacks a gate, but it still has a "No Trespassing" sign. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 minutes ago, normiss said:

How does the gate appear broken? I just see it open, which is how a couple of local stations there reported and that it is usually wide open. After the thug couple became viral, images were produced showing the right side bent around the handle area.

 

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-st-louis-rioters-threatened-couple-guns-attorney

 

Broken-gate-2.jpg

Edited by ryoder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Every duty-to-retreat law I've read, applied only when you were not on your own property. And yes, they advanced, but they were still on their property.

The protestors were on a private street, and every entrance into the community to reach that street has "No Trespassing" signs. There are closed gates on all pedestrian entrances. Only the South entrance lacks a gate, but it still has a "No Trespassing" sign. 

 

This may help you.

Private street is irrelevant. If they were not trespassed by a representative of the HOA or the police they had every right to be there.

 

1 minute ago, ryoder said:

That gate means nothing. It doesn't belong to the homeowner it belongs to the HOA. Who broke it? When was it broke?

Were the gun toting lawyers in direct line of sight to see that gate? How did any damage to that gate threaten the homeowners who left the safety of their home to threaten constitutionally protected right of peaceful protestors?

I'm not attacking you but there is allot of b.s. in the media all smoke and mirrors. Most of it coming up from FOX and the lawyer for the armed homeowners.

There are two facts. The guns and were the homeowners threatened. All the rest is b.s.  Once the stream of protestors started past their home it would be obvious they were not the target of any danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, told the Post-Dispatch that under Missouri’s “Castle Doctrine,” homeowners can use deadly force to remove unwanted people from their property, including the lawn.

“There’s no right to protest on those streets,” Walker said. “The protesters thought they had a right to protest, but as a technical matter, they were not allowed to be there. … It’s essentially a private estate. If anyone was violating the law, it was the protesters. In fact, if [the McCloskeys] have photos of the protesters, they could go after them for trespassing.”

Same source again: https://www.crimeonline.com/2020/06/30/assault-investigation-underway-against-protesters-after-lawyer-brandishes-ar-15-at-group-on-private-estate-report/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1