1 1
airdvr

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

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

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.

No, it is not irrelevant. Who is the HOA? i.e. who constitutes the Home Owners Association? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ryoder said:

No, it is not irrelevant. Who is the HOA? i.e. who constitutes the Home Owners Association? 

A representative of that group an official. Not a member. This comes up all the time when visitor to a common pool area is "tresspassed" by a homeowner when those guests are invitees of another homeowner. They can't do it only a official of the HOA or LE can trespass them. LE usually needs HOA direction to do it. Same thing for non resident cars parked on the roadway in front of a homeowners home. That homeowner can't have it towed only a HOA official can order the towing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Effect of No Trespassing Signs

The court recognized that the invitation to the public to approach a home (that extends also to police officers who come to conduct a knock and talk) is revocable.  The issue in this case was whether the presence of at least three no trespassing signs at the beginning of and along a driveway was sufficient to revoke the public invitation.  The court held that it was not.

In reaching this conclusion, the court took an exhaustive look at well over twenty appellate court decisions.  The court recognized that a number of courts have held that the posting of no trespassing signs has the effect of rescinding the invitation to the public to approach one’s front door without a specific invitation.  However, the court noted that a much larger number of cases have held to the contrary.  More importantly, the court found these latter cases better reasoned than the former group of cases.

The court was especially impressed with the decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Carloss.[4]  In that case, the defendant had posted a sign on his front door that said “Posted Private Property Hunting, Fishing, Trapping or Trespassing for Any Purpose is Strictly Forbidden Violators Will Be Prosecuted.”  The lead opinion in Carloss held that this sign was too ambiguous to “clearly revoke the implied license extended to members of the public, including police officers, to enter the home’s curtilage and knock on the front door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

She's actually got her finger ON the trigger while pointing it at protesters in the photos I saw. If nothing else, that's fucking shitty trigger discipline and is how accidents happen.

I doubt they'll be charged. If she'd had an ND and killed someone I reckon it'd be different.

 

 

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, yoink said:

She's actually got her finger ON the trigger while pointing it at protesters in the photos I saw. If nothing else, that's fucking shitty trigger discipline and is how accidents happen.

Are you kidding?  Every gun nut in America is dreaming of the day they can be her.  And if she fires prematurely, well . . . they should have known better.  Not her fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this day of photoshop and deep fakes, I find photographic evidence to be less and less convincing. And two wrongs don’t make a right, neither for the mayor, nor for the protestors. The mayor is a chickenshit asshole, the homeowners are aggressive assholes, and I kind of hope they find some charge to stick, and the protestors really should have stayed at the gates of the subdivision, highlighting the separation of the mayor from his city. 

The protestors will never win the hearts and minds of people like the gun couple. But if they lose some of our hearts and minds, and many of us are disposed to agree with them, it wasn’t a great choice. 
 

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2020 at 9:52 AM, airdvr said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/couple-recorded-pulling-weapons-protesters-outside-their-st-louis-home-n1232400

I say good move.  If you aren't willing to have the police this is the future of law enforcement.

Defund the police isn’t the same as abolish the police (although it’s easy to infer that from a lousy choice of words). It’s treat the police as an arm of the government (and if you’re conservative, remember that you supposedly dont want a government any bigger than you can drown in the bathtub).

it means quit adding funds to the police for mental health because it’s easier than setting up mental health. It means quit adding funds to the police for homelessness because it’s easier than setting up homelessness services. Likewise drugs abuse, and so many other things that we’ve been throwing money at the police to do because in this law and order rules age, we know fewer people will object than if we say we want to help those people.  
Once they’re back to patrolling streets mainly, then they don’t need all the military shit, and the US can go back to mothballing it in the desert, highlighting even more what a fucking waste war is. 
 

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear wmw999 made several good points.

I too am suspicious of photo-evidence during the age of photo-shop.

However - if video evidence of the wife pointing a gun at trespassers with her finger on the trigger is valid - then she is guilty of poor gun control and deserves a whack on her pee-pee .... or the female equivalent.

Like many retired soldiers, I have zero tolerance with bumbling amateurs randomly waving firearms.

WI home-owners sprayed protesters with a garden hose?

WI home-owners threw smoke cannisters at protesters?

WI home-owners threw tear gas cannisters at protesters?

WI home-owners siced a guard dog on protesters?

WI home-owners siced (human) private security contractors on protesters?

Just to be clear: I am not supporting the lawyer/home-owners in this case. Anyone who knows me well knows how much I fear lawyers.

Both sides made mistakes during this video. We will have to see ALL the video before making our own conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2020 at 3:15 PM, Phil1111 said:

A representative of that group an official. Not a member. This comes up all the time when visitor to a common pool area is "tresspassed" by a homeowner when those guests are invitees of another homeowner. They can't do it only a official of the HOA or LE can trespass them. LE usually needs HOA direction to do it. Same thing for non resident cars parked on the roadway in front of a homeowners home. That homeowner can't have it towed only a HOA official can order the towing.

Gated Communities, Private Roads and Public Services: a Practical Guide

A general law city has exclusive control over its city streets, and private citizens cannot restrict access to public roads; therefore, all roads in a gated community must be private roads. The city can sell public streets to private interests by following certain procedures. Once the roads are private, however, the city cannot enforce traffic laws in the gated community, nor can it use public funds for any private purpose, such as road maintenance, trash collection, etc.

A general law city must maintain the public streets within its boundaries and has exclusive control over the highways, streets, and alleys of the municipality. It is specifically authorized to abate or remove an obstruction on its streets. Private citizens may not block access to a public county road by the installation of a locked gate; therefore, to have a gated community that restricts access to the public, all streets in the community would necessarily need to be private.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The investigation continues.


Depends on if you believe the cops or the McCloskey's attorney.

The cops say they executed a search warrant and seized the rifle he was holding.

Their second attorney (no reason why they are no longer being represented by the first one) says there was no search and they voluntarily gave the rifle to the cops. Apparently the pistol the wife was holding was given to their first attorney. 

A lot about this isn't super clear in the story, but hey, it's an ongoing investigation.
Story:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-seize-rifle-st-louis-couple-who-pulled-guns-black-n1233583?fbclid=IwAR1l-0O1XSS4B8uiecvNjxjmqskqz6IUyBNhOzFtKMwJcYK8bj5mIB0hPlc

Share this post


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

Depends on if you believe the cops or the McCloskey's attorney.

The cops say they executed a search warrant and seized the rifle he was holding.

Their second attorney (no reason why they are no longer being represented by the first one) says there was no search and they voluntarily gave the rifle to the cops.

I don't see any reason why the two statements have to contradict.

The police turn up with a warrant for that specific weapon, so he hands it over. That there was a search warrant is true, that there was no physical search is also true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jakee said:

I don't see any reason why the two statements have to contradict.

The police turn up with a warrant for that specific weapon, so he hands it over. That there was a search warrant is true, that there was no physical search is also true.

Thats true but its unlikely that the warrant solely named the rifle and not the handgun. Even so why would they give a lawfully owned handgun to their lawyer for any reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phil1111 said:

Thats true but its unlikely that the warrant solely named the rifle and not the handgun. Even so why would they give a lawfully owned handgun to their lawyer for any reason?

It is quite common for common criminals to surrender or sell weapons to their lawyers at the start of criminal cases.

That allows the accused to claim that he no longer owns any weapons, but with a reasonable chance of regaining the weapons if he wins the trial. Rest assured that lawyers charge a pretty penny for "holding" weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

It is quite common for common criminals to surrender or sell weapons to their lawyers at the start of criminal cases.

That allows the accused to claim that he no longer owns any weapons, but with a reasonable chance of regaining the weapons if he wins the trial. Rest assured that lawyers charge a pretty penny for "holding" weapons.

So what you're saying is some common criminals gave their handgun to a superior criminal?

From my experience , makes sense!

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
53 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

Don’t worry Ron. As long as they aren’t controlled  by The Sons of Zion you will be safe.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


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

Yes, I am OK with that.  I don't see anyone pointing a gun at someone else with their finger on the trigger while screaming that they're going to kill them.  I otherwise know nothing about the legality of doing that particular thing on that particular piece of property but it doesn't seem like local authorities cared.  Are you disappointed that what appears to be a perfectly legal gathering isn't getting the press you wanted it to? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only am I OK with it, I’m thrilled. People who traditionally have to ask for permission (even to occupy their own space) are taking the same space and rights as people like the Charlottesville gun rights protesters. 
What don’t you think is OK?
Wendy P. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disappointed

22 minutes ago, DJL said:

Yes, I am OK with that.  I don't see anyone pointing a gun at someone else with their finger on the trigger while screaming that they're going to kill them.  I otherwise know nothing about the legality of doing that particular thing on that particular piece of property but it doesn't seem like local authorities cared.  Are you disappointed that what appears to be a perfectly legal gathering isn't getting the press you wanted it to? 

Probably disappointed  that "John Bankhead, a spokesman for the Stone Mountain Memorial Association, said the protesters were peaceful and orderly. "

Everyone knows that Blacks, dressed in "paramilitary-style clothing, carried rifles, including military-type weapons, and some wore ammunition belts slung over their shoulders." Is the signal for SHTF.

Parading in military garb, gang colors, is reserved for the right, for Crips and Bloods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

Completely support this. The second amendment is there for all citizens.

Can you imagine if they had taken over a State building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Not only am I OK with it, I’m thrilled. People who traditionally have to ask for permission (even to occupy their own space) are taking the same space and rights as people like the Charlottesville gun rights protesters. 
What don’t you think is OK?

Well I'm pretty sure I recall some here bitching/mocking it when white people do it, and the shit storm of law enforcement it would bring if blacks did it.

Furthermore, wrt to the fatigues, do you think Bill will come here and say:

"they feel that they absorb some valor - valor they can obtain no other way - by making themselves look like soldiers."

If it was a predominantly black church congregating back in march/april, would you have said "lock them in and feed them through the mail slot?"

Would wolfriverjoe have said to document them, deny them medical treatment and leave them for dead?

 

I thought you people were all about equality. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you see me (not liberals in general, but me) whining about the Charlottesville rally? That was one with a serious focus on keeping it orderly and lawful, as well. 
Each of us liberals is an individual, too. Just as each conservative is. 
I was at a protest a little over a week ago; there was a counter-protest, of course. But one of the open-carry unmasked guys from the counter-protest accompanied my (ICE) protest down the street; alongside us, keeping his distance. We chatted for a minute - he disagreed with the substance, but supported the right, too. Ergo no yelling at us, no aggressiveness, no attempts to be a looming menace. 
Was he welcomed? Of course not. But neither was he excoriated; mostly just ignored. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Furthermore, wrt to the fatigues, do you think Bill will come here and say:

"they feel that they absorb some valor - valor they can obtain no other way - by making themselves look like soldiers."

What fatigues? Video from the linked articles seems to show everyone dressed in black shirts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jakee said:

What fatigues? Video from the linked articles seems to show everyone dressed in black shirts.

Maybe he's referring to the white winger armed occupier protestors? They did have some military type garb on, for the reasons he stated. They also screamed in people's faces for the added intimidation factor, unlike the Stone Mountain protestors who simply marched peacefully.

I don't think any of the Coreece's were actually in the military though, so his understanding of "fatigues" could be off a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jakee said:
50 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Furthermore, wrt to the fatigues, do you think Bill will come here and say:

"they feel that they absorb some valor - valor they can obtain no other way - by making themselves look like soldiers."

What fatigues? Video from the linked articles seems to show everyone dressed in black shirts.

Ok, the actual question to bill was:

"Ask yourself, why are they all dressed up in homemade war suits, toting military looking weapons, and looking ready for the call to a homemade war? "

I was hoping "fatigues" would've been a simpler way of saying all that while still getting the point across.

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