Rifle used by couple to stop democrat party terrorists confiscated....expect to see the protestors attack...

[Doc7505]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.

he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018

Correct!!!! If there was a mob of more than 100 terrorists in front of my property shouting epithets, threatening my family including my dog, I would certainly have stood out there with a weapon. In my case it would have been a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4Buck. The object being to hit more than one perpetrator at a time if they attacked.

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.
Missouri recognizes the "castle doctrine" and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your "castle." This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Antifa Terrorist have been saying that the suburbs are next.
So naturally the Dem Politicians want to disarm the suburbs.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

What will happen to the Couple now that the Antifa Terrorist and the BLM Racist know that they have been disarmed?

 

[Faun]

What property did they destroy?

View attachment 362156

I asked for what property was destroyed by the protesters who were going to the mayor's house; and you idiotically post a burnt down building with zero evidence that any of those protesters were involved.

They broke down the entrance gate and they trespassed on private property

The gate was open when the entered...

Dumb fuck if you didn't see the big black guy on the left side open the gate you're blind as a bat

Who said I didn't see him holding the gate open? The video shows they didn't break the gate down to get in, as some here are ridiculously asserting.

 

[Coyote]

Not only does Coyote have that right endowed by any of the above Coyote would not put up with that shit.even if whomever agrees with the protests.

Coyoyte would call any cop that he was unable to defund and demand that they rush right over and protect him

I am not for defunding police. I support reforms. By and large, I think police do a good job, but there is no question there are some serious problems.

 

[Shelzin]

What post was deleted?

 

[Faun]

The democrat party Circuit Attorney in St. Louis ordered the police to take the guns from the couple who stood up to the terrorists of the democrat party.......antifa and black lives matter....

This is how they did it in Germany in the 1930s....

The question to ask? Did the democrat party Circuit Attorney call the black lives matter and antifa terrorists herself, to let them know the couple is without guns....or did she use a cut out to do it....?

Law enforcement officials in St. Louis have allegedly served a warrant on the St. Louis couple who recently defended their home when a large mob of angry demonstrators allegedly trespassed onto their private property.

Fox News host Shannon Bream tweeted: “BREAKING: Warrant reportedly served on St. Louis couple who stood outside their home with weapons as protesters approached. We’re told weapon(s) seized. We’ve got the warrant and pictures for you at 11p – PLUS, Missouri @AGEricSchmitt joins us LIVE…”

Warrant Served On St. Louis Couple Who Defended Private Property, Rifle Confiscated | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Antifa was there? You sure about that?

Yep.......

Proof?

The weapons weren't illegal, the McCloskey's were defending themselves and their property. More than 300 people broke down a gate to private propety, threatened the McCloskey family by threatening to kill them.
They called the police multiple times and there was no response to their pleas of help, they had no choice in the matter.
Yet, THEY are the ones who get their guns taken away? What is wrong with this picture?
The fact that the gun(s) has been seized has no justification whatsoever. It is the Blue Plantation mayor of St. Louis harrassing this couple. The weapoans were not fired, therefore confiscation are not needed as evidence in any investigation.

​

How do you know they called the police multiple times? They came right out armed, doesn’t seem like muchtime elapsed. Can the police confirm this?

What property did they destroy?

View attachment 362156

I asked for what property was destroyed by the protesters who were going to the mayor's house; and you idiotically post a burnt down building with zero evidence that any of those protesters were involved.

They broke down the entrance gate and they trespassed on private property

The gate was open when the entered...

It certainly was closed until the terrorists broke the gate it off it's hinges...

The video I posted shows they entered the gate without breaking it off its hinges.

 

[Shelzin]

I want to make this very clear as to what I said, and the edited down version that was attributed to me.

I posted: " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime that means a person can use LETHAL force. "

What Shelzin edited down to was only, " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime "

WillHaftawaite Coyote flacaltenn Dont Taz Me Bro

*shrugs* I changed it. It doesn't matter to my point. Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

What I said still stands.

Altering quotes so as to change is against the rules, and in this case it clearly changes the meaning even if unintended. So, just don’t do it again.

Did you not read what I said later? It was already changed. Hell.. You could have looked at the edit to see that.

Your job sucks... I know. But still.

Edit: I even changed it exactly as he wanted it done. The whole point I left it out is because he said "THAT THEY USED LETHAL FORCE" and they most certainly did not. It was an irrelevant statement, so I left it out. It's amazing that someone who studied it for six years ... lol... Nevermind... Whatever.

 

[Faun]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.

he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018

From your link...

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."​

 

[SavannahMann]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.

he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018

Correct!!!! If there was a mob of more than 100 terrorists in front of my property shouting epithets, threattning my family including my dog, I would ceratinly have stood out there with a weapon. In my case it would have been a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4Buck.

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.
Missouri recognizes the "castle doctrine" and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your "castle." This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances.

You would be as stupid and wrong as they were. It is a terrible tactical position. No cover, no ability to reach cover in any quick manner. You would be exposed, and bullets fly both ways mate. One of Murphy's Laws of Combat is to remember, if the enemy is in range, so are you.

Of course, it is cool to step out there and stare the crowd down. But in this case, they had more people facing them, then they had ammunition. Assuming three rounds per person, a low rate of hit to stop ratio, it is usually much much higher, but we'll give them every benefit of the doubt. They could have stopped perhaps twelve of the hundred. The crowd was also armed, which means they would be shooting back. No cover, not enough ammo, and exposed to possibility of criminal prosecution by waving the bang stick around.

They should be in the next edition of the movie dumb and dumber.

 

[Doc7505]

What violence did those protesters commit...?

on that particular day?

They broke down a gate and swarmed onto private property

but on previous days during the same riot they looted and burned buildings just blocks away

They entered through an open gate...

Obviously it was destroyed during their protest and threats towards the McCosky's.

 

[Doc7505]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.

he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018

From your link...

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."​

That is exactly what he did. He remained on his property and warned them to stay off his property. He held his ground and was prepared to protect both he, his wife and dog. Obviously the No Tresspassing sign was torn down...

 

[Lewdog]

I want to make this very clear as to what I said, and the edited down version that was attributed to me.

I posted: " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime that means a person can use LETHAL force. "

What Shelzin edited down to was only, " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime "

WillHaftawaite Coyote flacaltenn Dont Taz Me Bro

*shrugs* I changed it. It doesn't matter to my point. Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

What I said still stands.

Altering quotes so as to change is against the rules, and in this case it clearly changes the meaning even if unintended. So, just don’t do it again.

Did you not read what I said later? It was already changed. Hell.. You could have looked at the edit to see that.

Your job sucks... I know. But still.

Edit: I even changed it exactly as he wanted it done. The whole point I left it out is because he said "THAT THEY USED LETHAL FORCE" and they most certainly did not. It was an irrelevant statement, so I left it out. It's amazing that someone who studied it for six years ... lol... Nevermind... Whatever.

If you don't have an intention to use lethal force, you don't point loaded guns at them then. You left it out to make it seem like I was saying trespassing isn't a crime. You admitted you knew better a few posts later. No use backtracking now.

 

[flacaltenn]

I posted: " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime that means a person can use LETHAL force. "

Why do you want moderation in here?? Stop paging us for comment or --

we'll just weigh in as members...

Trespassing is NOT enough.. You have to have been given a THREAT to your safety or life.. And according to statements given BY the homeowners -- in the presence of their lawyer -- those verbal threats including killing them, burning the home, killing their dog and "breaking on entering" a posted private drive...

Sufficient enough for me... And clear enough mortal threats...

YOU of all members should RECOGNIZE a "specific mortal threat" since you are always finding them in posts on USMB.. How COME you can't take THESE threats as seriously as some hot wind you saw on the InterWebs??? Can't understand that... And NOBODY (yet) was injured or killed....

 

[Doc7505]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.

he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018

Correct!!!! If there was a mob of more than 100 terrorists in front of my property shouting epithets, threattning my family including my dog, I would ceratinly have stood out there with a weapon. In my case it would have been a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4Buck.

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.
Missouri recognizes the "castle doctrine" and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your "castle." This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances.

You would be as stupid and wrong as they were. It is a terrible tactical position. No cover, no ability to reach cover in any quick manner. You would be exposed, and bullets fly both ways mate. One of Murphy's Laws of Combat is to remember, if the enemy is in range, so are you.

Of course, it is cool to step out there and stare the crowd down. But in this case, they had more people facing them, then they had ammunition. Assuming three rounds per person, a low rate of hit to stop ratio, it is usually much much higher, but we'll give them every benefit of the doubt. They could have stopped perhaps twelve of the hundred. The crowd was also armed, which means they would be shooting back. No cover, not enough ammo, and exposed to possibility of criminal prosecution by waving the bang stick around.

They should be in the next edition of the movie dumb and dumber.

~~~~~~
That is why a shotgun in this case would have been the proper tool. Peole tend to run when one shot hits three or four at a time in a mob.

 

[Shelzin]

If you don't have an intention to use lethal force, you don't point loaded guns at them then. You left it out to make it seem like I was saying trespassing isn't a crime. You admitted you knew better a few posts later. No use backtracking now.

As someone who has studied law... You know the difference between "using" and "threatening"...

I always knew what you were saying... I left it out because the rest of the quote meant nothing to the point. THEY NEVER USED LETHAL FORCE.

I'd tell you not to back peddle... But you aren't honest enough to admit you're wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

I want to make this very clear as to what I said, and the edited down version that was attributed to me.

I posted: " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime that means a person can use LETHAL force. "

What Shelzin edited down to was only, " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime "

WillHaftawaite Coyote flacaltenn Dont Taz Me Bro

*shrugs* I changed it. It doesn't matter to my point. Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

What I said still stands.

Altering quotes so as to change is against the rules, and in this case it clearly changes the meaning even if unintended. So, just don’t do it again.

Did you not read what I said later? It was already changed. Hell.. You could have looked at the edit to see that.

Your job sucks... I know. But still.

Edit: I even changed it exactly as he wanted it done. The whole point I left it out is because he said "THAT THEY USED LETHAL FORCE" and they most certainly did not. It was an irrelevant statement, so I left it out. It's amazing that someone who studied it for six years ... lol... Nevermind... Whatever.

If you don't have an intention to use lethal force, you don't point loaded guns at them then. You left it out to make it seem like I was saying trespassing isn't a crime. You admitted you knew better a few posts later. No use backtracking now.

The moron had his WIFE pointed at more than he was pointing at the protestors... Several analysts have pointed at that "irony" and I chuckled because it was true.. That's what happens when a big lib with little training tries self-defense when armed..

A homeowner does not get to decide what laws do or do not apply to them when it comes to using lethal force.

You're spewing bullshit here on "lethal force".. Or INTENT to use lethal force which isn't really a crime at all.. At the worst, under some jurisdictions, that's called "brandishing"... And under Missouri law, on your OWN property, when you have been threatened, that's NOT a crime..

He's a fucking high level famous attorney you moron..

And if you DRAW a weapon, it should be loaded and prepared to BE USED if necessary.. Ask any gun school teacher..

 

[Lewdog]

I posted: " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime that means a person can use LETHAL force. "

Why do you want moderation in here?? Stop paging us for comment or --

we'll just weigh in as members...

Trespassing is NOT enough.. You have to have been given a THREAT to your safety or life.. And according to statements given BY the homeowners -- in the presence of their lawyer -- those verbal threats including killing them, burning the home, killing their dog and "breaking on entering" a posted private drive...

Sufficient enough for me... And clear enough mortal threats...

YOU of all members should RECOGNIZE a "specific mortal threat" since you are always finding them in posts on USMB.. How COME you can't take THESE threats as seriously as some hot wind you saw on the InterWebs??? Can't understand that... And NOBODY (yet) was injured or killed....

Why page moderators to a thread? Because if the wrong moderator sees the report first, nothing gets done and the other moderators don't want to step on the toes of the one that made the decision and nothing gets done about the rule being broken. At least if I page 4 or 5 of you to an obvious rule being broken then I know all of you saw it and it wasn't just cleared by one mod and ignored by the rest.

The owners were caught in a lie. They said they came out with their guns because they heard all these threats towards them. No, they did not... they came out with the guns from the very start before anyone could even threaten them. It's common sense. Just because no one got hurt THIS time doesn't make it okay to point a LOADED gun with your finger on the trigger at UNARMED citizens who are not even close to you to be an immediate threat. That would be like saying it is okay to drive drunk as long as you make it home and no one got killed in an accident. I know you don't agree with me on pretty much anything anymore, and I think you have become nothing but a conspiracy theorist that has lost all touch of reality that a scientist is supposed to have, but you aren't stupid and you know better than to make comments like that.

 

[Shelzin]

but you aren't stupid and you know better than to make comments like that.

I thought the same thing about you at one time.

 

[Lewdog]

I want to make this very clear as to what I said, and the edited down version that was attributed to me.

I posted: " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime that means a person can use LETHAL force. "

What Shelzin edited down to was only, " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime "

WillHaftawaite Coyote flacaltenn Dont Taz Me Bro

*shrugs* I changed it. It doesn't matter to my point. Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

What I said still stands.

Altering quotes so as to change is against the rules, and in this case it clearly changes the meaning even if unintended. So, just don’t do it again.

Did you not read what I said later? It was already changed. Hell.. You could have looked at the edit to see that.

Your job sucks... I know. But still.

Edit: I even changed it exactly as he wanted it done. The whole point I left it out is because he said "THAT THEY USED LETHAL FORCE" and they most certainly did not. It was an irrelevant statement, so I left it out. It's amazing that someone who studied it for six years ... lol... Nevermind... Whatever.

If you don't have an intention to use lethal force, you don't point loaded guns at them then. You left it out to make it seem like I was saying trespassing isn't a crime. You admitted you knew better a few posts later. No use backtracking now.

The moron had his WIFE pointed at more than he was pointing at the protestors... Several analysts have pointed at that "irony" and I chuckled because it was true.. That's what happens when a big lib with little training tries self-defense when armed..

A homeowner does not get to decide what laws do or do not apply to them when it comes to using lethal force.

You're spewing bullshit here on "lethal force".. Or INTENT to use lethal force which isn't really a crime at all.. At the worst, under some jurisdictions, that's called "brandishing"... And under Missouri law, on your OWN property, when you have been threatened, that's NOT a crime..

He's a fucking high level famous attorney you moron..

And if you DRAW a weapon, it should be loaded and prepared to BE USED if necessary.. Ask any gun school teacher..

Just because someone is a high level lawyer doesn't mean he doesn't do stupid shit. It happens ALL the time. Bill Clinton was a high level lawyer. Hillary was a high level lawyer... In fact "high level lawyers" often feel like they are above the law and can get by with more than others... And YES, you need to do some research or at the very least read the link I provided for the state of Missouri where it says there is a difference in making a threat of hurting someone of committing deadly force, and actually having the immediate capability to use deadly force when making the threats.

Also if you paid attention, I clearly stated the difference in being armed, and pointing the weapon at people with your finger on the trigger. Those are two totally different situations.