St. Louis couple point guns at protesters

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2020, 08:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: For the tenth time.


YOU CAN'T SHOOT PEOPLE FOR SIMPLE TRESSPASSING.  IF YOU DO YOU GO TO JAIL.  


YOU CAN STAND AS AN ARMED GUARD ON YOUR PROPERTY, BUT YOU CAN'T POINT A GUN AT PEOPLE AND THREATEN THEM IF THEY ARE NOT A THREAT TO YOU.


It is not "absurd".  It is the established law.  If you don't believe me then go stand in your yard and aim a gun at everyone walking by your house.

For the 11th time

NO ONE WAS SHOT


THEY CLAIM THEY WERE THREATENED


But the folks that broke the law said they didn't threaten so we gots to believe them



Are you sure about the law? Is it a federal law, a Missouri state law, or just something you're using from your experiences in TN.

I'll aim a gun at anyone who illegally enters my private property. These protesters were on private property. How hard is that to understand?

[fredtoast]

(07-16-2020, 12:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But the folks that broke the law said they didn't threaten so we gots to believe them

Tresspassing does not involve deception.  You can't use crimes like tresspassing, speeding, or jaywalking to prove that people are liars (based on rules of "impeachment" evidence) 

The McClosky's are the only ones we know for sure are liars.

So please tell me why we should believe the McClosky's?

[fredtoast]

(07-16-2020, 12:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For the 11th time

NO ONE WAS SHOT


THEY CLAIM THEY WERE THREATENED

I keep talking about shooting someone because the threshold test is the same for threatening someone with a gun.


Are you saying the McClosky's would have been justified in shooting and killing one of these protestors?  If not then they would not have been justified in threatening to shoot someone.

Aiming a gun at someone and threatening to shoot them when they are not threatening you is against the law.

[fredtoast]

(07-16-2020, 12:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll aim a gun at anyone who illegally enters my private property. These protesters were on private property. How hard is that to understand?

How hard is it for you to understand that even though the road was private property it was not the McClosky's private property.  If someone else in the neighbor hood gave a person permission to come visit them the McCrosky's could not stop them.  They did not have "exclusive" rights to that road.   

There is a big difference between "exclusive private property" like their home or yard, and "private community property" like a road running past their home that other people use every day.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2020, 03:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How hard is it for you to understand that even though the road was private property it was not the McClosky's private property.  If someone else in the neighbor hood gave a person permission to come visit them the McCrosky's could not stop them.  They did not have "exclusive" rights to that road.   

There is a big difference between "exclusive private property" like their home or yard, and "private community property" like a road running past their home that other people use every day.  

It damn sure wasn't the property of those that were walking on it.

You have alreadt decided the McCloskey's are lying; while you have no proof. You seem to cling to "The gate wasn't broken' because there's a video of folks entering an unbroken gate. What we know with complete certainty is that the gate was broken and it very easily could have been broken prior to the McCloskey's noticing and/or arrival.

They are the first house upon entry; is it reasonable to assume they were treated a little different that others down the street?

But for some reason you want to defend those we know committed a crime and blame those just trying to eat dinner.

[fredtoast]

(07-16-2020, 04:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You have alreadt decided the McCloskey's are lying; while you have no proof. You seem to cling to "The gate wasn't broken' because there's a video of folks entering an unbroken gate. What we know with complete certainty is that the gate was broken and it very easily could have been broken prior to the McCloskey's noticing and/or arrival.

Actually we can only be 100% certain of one thing.  The McCrosky's lied their asses off when  the called the police and claimed the protestors broke down the gate to get in.

They are proven liars.

(07-16-2020, 04:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But for some reason you want to defend those we know committed a crime and blame those just trying to eat dinner.

I have no idea what this even means.  If all they did was eat dinner then none of this would have happened, and the protestors did nothing to stop them from eating dinner.

[fredtoast]

(07-16-2020, 04:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They are the first house upon entry; is it reasonable to assume they were treated a little different that others down the street?

I don't know what this means.

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2020, 04:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually we can only be 100% certain of one thing.  The McCrosky's lied their asses off when  the called the police and claimed the protestors broke down the gate to get in.

They are proven liars.



I have no idea what this even means.  If all they did was eat dinner then none of this would have happened, and the protestors did nothing to stop them from eating dinner.

If they go outside and see a broken gate with a mob walking though. You'll call them liars when they assumed the gate was broken upon entry?

If no one would have broken into their property all they would have done is eat dinner. The mob initiated the contact. The McCloskeys wern't prowling the streets looking for folks to point guns at.

As I've said it typically victim blaming and most likely because they are white and rich.

[fredtoast]

(07-16-2020, 04:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If they go outside and see a broken gate with a mob walking though. You'll call them liars when they assumed the gate was broken upon entry?

Yes.  I call people liars when they tell lies.

Even rich white people

The police report said the couple "observed a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with 'No Trespassing' and 'Private Street' signs."


Daniel Shular, a local reporter, took one of the videos and said he watched the entire roughly 10-minute long incident unfold. About 500 protesters were cutting through Portland Place, according to Shular, to bypass road closures nearby that blocked access to the mayor's home.


"A door next to the gate at Portland Place was unlocked and protesters went through it to cut through the neighborhood to get to Krewson's house," he told CNN.



 Shular he did not witness a gate being broken.


"It looked like the gate was unlocked," Shular told CNN. "I didn't see anyone try to break it."

In a video livestreamed on Facebook, the left gate door is held open by the first protesters that enter the private street. 

[*bfine32*]

Charged with a felony and a misdemeanor:
https://news.yahoo.com/st-louis-couple-charged-pulling-205432913.html

Quote:St. Louis’ top prosecutor on Monday charged a white husband and wife with felony unlawful use of a weapon for displaying guns during a racial injustice protest outside their mansion.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who are both personal injury attorneys in their 60s, also face a misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree assault.

Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner told The Associated Press that the McCloskeys' actions risked creating a violent situation during an otherwise nonviolent protest.

[GMDino]

They have nothing to fear...the governor has already promised a pardon.  No reason to even have a trial.  

The Missouri couple seen in a viral video brandishing guns at protesters outside their home have been charged, the St. Louis circuit attorney said. The state's governor has said he'll pardon them if they're convicted. https://t.co/8spshmh4kZ

— CNN (@CNN) July 20, 2020

 

[Benton]

Not a big surprise. You, generally, can't threaten violence against someone for walking across your property

[fredtoast]

I did not realize the political history of the St. Louis DA who charged them. This is going to be a HUHGE shitshow.

It is a case where it will be difficult to get a conviction and from what I know about the McClosky's the will not even consider any sort of plea deal.

[*bfine32*]

(07-21-2020, 10:24 AM)Benton Wrote: Not a big surprise. You, generally, can't threaten violence against someone for walking across your property

You can't?

[Benton]

(07-21-2020, 10:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You can't?

Depends on local and state law. Hell, their HOA could prevent brandishing a firearm without sufficient reason. As to specific state, county, city and subdivision statute, no, I can't speak with certainty.

But, yeah, generally you can't threaten people for walking across your communal property. If they're armed or threatening you, generally, yes. If they're just walking with a shotgun mic, no.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-16-2020, 04:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually we can only be 100% certain of one thing.  The McCrosky's lied their asses off when  the called the police and claimed the protestors broke down the gate to get in.

They are proven liars.

Quote:This is false.  Just because some protesters were seen entering an undamaged gate does not exclude the possibility that others damaged the gate in question.  What is an undeniable fact is that a gate was destroyed and it didn't destroy itself.  Everything else you state is speculation being falsely touted as fact.

Quote:I have no idea what this even means.  If all they did was eat dinner then none of this would have happened, and the protestors did nothing to stop them from eating dinner.

While I agree with most that their reaction was extreme, and likely unwarranted (I wasn't there so I won't speak definitively, unlike some others), none of us have any idea of the tone of, or words used by, the protesters.  Living in a gated community and then witnessing a large mob of people pass by your window would be very unnerving to say the least, especially in today's climate.  So, while again not excusing their extreme reaction, your characterization of the events smells just a tad disingenuous. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-21-2020, 10:53 AM)Benton Wrote: Depends on local and state law. Hell, their HOA could prevent brandishing a firearm without sufficient reason. As to specific state, county, city and subdivision statute, no, I can't speak with certainty.

But, yeah, generally you can't threaten people for walking across your communal property. If they're armed or threatening you, generally, yes. If they're just walking with a shotgun mic, no.

Property you brought into a marriage?

[GMDino]

(07-21-2020, 10:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I did not realize the political history of the St. Louis DA who charged them.  This is going to be a HUHGE shitshow.

It is a case where it will be difficult to get a conviction and from what I know about the McClosky's the will not even consider any sort of plea deal.

(07-21-2020, 10:53 AM)Benton Wrote: Depends on local and state law. Hell, their HOA could prevent brandishing a firearm without sufficient reason. As to specific state, county, city and subdivision statute, no, I can't speak with certainty.

But, yeah, generally you can't threaten people for walking across your communal property. If they're armed or threatening you, generally, yes. If they're just walking with a shotgun mic, no.

I'd imagine, not knowing the specific laws and not being a lawyer, that the DA is citing the right law to charge them but like another Fred said "Relax, don't do it"...especially if the governor has already promised a pardon.