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

[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."​

Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state
Look up Missouri's Castle Doctrine law
GAME SET AND MATCH
You lose

LOL

Dumbfuck, I quoted YOUR source.

Dear dumbfuck Stand your ground no obligation to retreat That is what the castle Doctrine is
Meaning in Missouri you have the right to defend your property and any other place you are at.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, stand your ground beyond your property requires one to be facing an imminent threat of "death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony." Not only wasn't that mob threatening them until they themselves were threatened -- you can't be the initial aggressor and then claim a stand your ground defense. Mark McCloskey was the initial aggressor when he brandished an AR-15 at a crowd of people before they threatened him.

§563.031​

​

A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:​

​

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor;  except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:​

Every time you post, you say something stupid.

There was an imminent threat the rioters who were trespassing you dumbfuck

Trespassing is a misdemeanor and not an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. Even worse for you retards -- Mark McCloskey confessed he pulled his gun before he even felt threatened.

Hogwash.

LOLOL

Idiot.

 

[Shelzin]

Don't think I am. The McCloskey's were already subjected to a search warrant ... they had to turn in the AR-15 Mark McCloskey brandished that day. Now they have to turn in the hand gun Patricia McCloskey pointed at people with her finger on the trigger. They had to lawyer up and assault charges could be forthcoming.

Could be forthcoming? Not that sure of your stance?

 

[Faun]

the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

It does not matter who owns the gate except that it does not belong to rioters who tore it up

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

You know you're in the wrong here, right?
And you realize that these endless attempts to bullshit your way into being believable are failing, and are going to keep failing right?

So my question is, how long are you going to keep this horseshit up?
Just curious.

LOL

You should contact the McCloskey's attorney and reassure him his clients are in no legal trouble.

LOL....they werent charged with anything ya chucklehead.

LOL

Once again, you're reading comprehension issues deal you a low blow -- I never said they were charged. But charges are being considered by the CA.

Couple who brandished guns at protesters are under investigation

St. Louis Prosecutor Kimberly Gardner said Monday that Mark McCloskey, 63, and his wife Patricia McCloskey, 61, are being investigated after brandishing guns at protesters on Sunday.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Faun]

Don't think I am. The McCloskey's were already subjected to a search warrant ... they had to turn in the AR-15 Mark McCloskey brandished that day. Now they have to turn in the hand gun Patricia McCloskey pointed at people with her finger on the trigger. They had to lawyer up and assault charges could be forthcoming.

Could be forthcoming? Not that sure of your stance?

Of course I'm not. Can you see into the future? I can't.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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."​

Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state
Look up Missouri's Castle Doctrine law
GAME SET AND MATCH
You lose

LOL

Dumbfuck, I quoted YOUR source.

Dear dumbfuck Stand your ground no obligation to retreat That is what the castle Doctrine is
Meaning in Missouri you have the right to defend your property and any other place you are at.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, stand your ground beyond your property requires one to be facing an imminent threat of "death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony." Not only wasn't that mob threatening them until they themselves were threatened -- you can't be the initial aggressor and then claim a stand your ground defense. Mark McCloskey was the initial aggressor when he brandished an AR-15 at a crowd of people before they threatened him.

§563.031​

​

A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:​

​

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor;  except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:​

Every time you post, you say something stupid.

And where did you get these statutes?
In the vast majority of stand your ground states you can be in fear of your life in a parking lot.

We're talking about Missouri, not a vast majority of states. And despite you're own reading comprehension issues, I already pointed out the law supports stand your ground defense when it's to counter an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. This event was not that. Mark McCloskey pulled out his gun before he was was even threatened.

You march into my neighborhood in light of whats going on I'll feel threatened.
Hell,they were burning down businesses a few blocks away.
Why wouldnt I think I was next?

 

[Shelzin]

Of course I'm not. Can you see into the future? I can't.

No... But the past is a great indicator of future events. It's not illegal to threaten someone on your own land in this type of situation. Feel free to share if it has happened.

Edit: I would suggest using Missouri cases. Apples to apples and all of that.

 

[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....

The homeowner admitted he pulled his rifle out before any threats were made against him or his wife. Try harder next time.

That's fine.. Leftists dont generally KNOW much about DGU (defensive gun use).. But in 80% of SUCCESSFUL DGUs -- just SHOWING you're armed, solves the problem.. Like it did THIS time..

Self defense is like that.. The potential attackers aren't looking for more than they can handle..

And YES -- disregarding a private lane and property sign and an uninvited DEMONSTRATION of dozens of people IS a valid reason to make a DGU....

 

[flacaltenn]

For the clueless...

Trespassing in Missouri: What You Need to Know | Missouri Legal

Trespassing in Missouri laws can be complex. General information regarding trespassing and breaking and entering in Missouri can be found here.

www.missourilegal.com

Entering a person’s property without their permission or staying there without their permission is considered trespassing in Missouri and is illegal. Similarly, breaking and entering into someone’s property with the use of force (even if it’s just pushing a door open) without the owner’s permission is, at the very least, considered breaking and entering, which is considered a misdemeanor.


There are many factors that can weigh into a trespassing case. One of these is whether or not the person’s property had clear markers to keep trespassers out. In Missouri this could include any of the following markers or signage:

• A fence in installed
• Telling the person or persons who are attempting to trespass that they can’t enter the property.
• A sign that says “No Trespassing”

*******************************************************************************

Well put a big check-mark after the 3 SATISFYING conditions for WARNING trespassers.. ALL 3 were clearly violated...

And IF the homeowners ARMED UP before the threats, YOU (WE) don't know if they yelled over the fence and ASKED them to leave before arming up.. But I'll bet a stack of money that they DID....

 

[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."​

Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state
Look up Missouri's Castle Doctrine law
GAME SET AND MATCH
You lose

LOL

Dumbfuck, I quoted YOUR source.

Dear dumbfuck Stand your ground no obligation to retreat That is what the castle Doctrine is
Meaning in Missouri you have the right to defend your property and any other place you are at.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, stand your ground beyond your property requires one to be facing an imminent threat of "death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony." Not only wasn't that mob threatening them until they themselves were threatened -- you can't be the initial aggressor and then claim a stand your ground defense. Mark McCloskey was the initial aggressor when he brandished an AR-15 at a crowd of people before they threatened him.

§563.031​

​

A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:​

​

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor;  except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:​

Every time you post, you say something stupid.

And where did you get these statutes?
In the vast majority of stand your ground states you can be in fear of your life in a parking lot.

We're talking about Missouri, not a vast majority of states. And despite you're own reading comprehension issues, I already pointed out the law supports stand your ground defense when it's to counter an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. This event was not that. Mark McCloskey pulled out his gun before he was was even threatened.

You march into my neighborhood in light of whats going on I'll feel threatened.
Hell,they were burning down businesses a few blocks away.
Why wouldnt I think I was next?

He said himself he wasn't threatened when he brandished his gun...

"The threats happened probably after we got the guns."​

 

[Faun]

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....

The homeowner admitted he pulled his rifle out before any threats were made against him or his wife. Try harder next time.

That's fine.. Leftists dont generally KNOW much about DGU (defensive gun use).. But in 80% of SUCCESSFUL DGUs -- just SHOWING you're armed, solves the problem.. Like it did THIS time..

Self defense is like that.. The potential attackers aren't looking for more than they can handle..

And YES -- disregarding a private lane and property sign and an uninvited DEMONSTRATION of dozens of people IS a valid reason to make a DGU....

Brandishing a firearm no doubt causes others to typically back off. That doesn't give anyone the right to pull a gun on someone when they are not being threatened. That's an assault in Missouri.

 

[Mac-7]

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

The rioters are capable of much more than breaking a gate and trespassing

they have left burnings behind in their wake

but dont bitch at the homeowners for protecting themselves

blame the mayor

presumably all the cops on duty were protecting her house

which is why none were around to protect the home owners

 

[Faun]

For the clueless...

Trespassing in Missouri: What You Need to Know | Missouri Legal

Trespassing in Missouri laws can be complex. General information regarding trespassing and breaking and entering in Missouri can be found here.

www.missourilegal.com

Entering a person’s property without their permission or staying there without their permission is considered trespassing in Missouri and is illegal. Similarly, breaking and entering into someone’s property with the use of force (even if it’s just pushing a door open) without the owner’s permission is, at the very least, considered breaking and entering, which is considered a misdemeanor.


There are many factors that can weigh into a trespassing case. One of these is whether or not the person’s property had clear markers to keep trespassers out. In Missouri this could include any of the following markers or signage:

• A fence in installed
• Telling the person or persons who are attempting to trespass that they can’t enter the property.
• A sign that says “No Trespassing”

*******************************************************************************

Well put a big check-mark after the 3 SATISFYING conditions for WARNING trespassers.. ALL 3 were clearly violated...

And IF the homeowners ARMED UP before the threats, YOU (WE) don't know if they yelled over the fence and ASKED them to leave before arming up.. But I'll bet a stack of money that they DID....

Trespassing is a misdemeanor and in itself is not a permit to pull a gun on someone.

 

[Mac-7]

He said himself he wasn't threatened when he brandished his gun...

Just being outnumbered by rioters 50 to 1 is a threat

 

[freyasman]

the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

It does not matter who owns the gate except that it does not belong to rioters who tore it up

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

You know you're in the wrong here, right?
And you realize that these endless attempts to bullshit your way into being believable are failing, and are going to keep failing right?

So my question is, how long are you going to keep this horseshit up?
Just curious.

LOL

You should contact the McCloskey's attorney and reassure him his clients are in no legal trouble.

Why?
I don't think he's worried about anything but how to spend his cut of the lawsuit settlement.
Sit back and watch.... we'll see who walks out of the gun smoke when it's over.

LOL

Oh? What settlement? Who are they suing?

You don't think they're going to file a lawsuit against the protest organizers? Or the city? Or the police department?

Do these seem like the kind of folks who won't fight back to you?

 

[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....

The homeowner admitted he pulled his rifle out before any threats were made against him or his wife. Try harder next time.

That's fine.. Leftists dont generally KNOW much about DGU (defensive gun use).. But in 80% of SUCCESSFUL DGUs -- just SHOWING you're armed, solves the problem.. Like it did THIS time..

Self defense is like that.. The potential attackers aren't looking for more than they can handle..

And YES -- disregarding a private lane and property sign and an uninvited DEMONSTRATION of dozens of people IS a valid reason to make a DGU....

Brandishing a firearm no doubt causes others to typically back off. That doesn't give anyone the right to pull a gun on someone when they are not being threatened. That's an assault in Missouri.

Just quoted you the law on trespassing in Missouri.. A PROTEST MARCH coming on to your lawn IS a valid time to for DGUse... If ONLY as a show of force.. But any gun defense instructor will TELL YOU to be locked and loaded nonetheless...

 

[Faun]

He said himself he wasn't threatened when he brandished his gun...

Just being outnumbered by rioters 50 to 1 is a threat

They pulled their guns before they were threatened. Have someone explain time to ya.

 

[flacaltenn]

For the clueless...

Trespassing in Missouri: What You Need to Know | Missouri Legal

Trespassing in Missouri laws can be complex. General information regarding trespassing and breaking and entering in Missouri can be found here.

www.missourilegal.com

Entering a person’s property without their permission or staying there without their permission is considered trespassing in Missouri and is illegal. Similarly, breaking and entering into someone’s property with the use of force (even if it’s just pushing a door open) without the owner’s permission is, at the very least, considered breaking and entering, which is considered a misdemeanor.


There are many factors that can weigh into a trespassing case. One of these is whether or not the person’s property had clear markers to keep trespassers out. In Missouri this could include any of the following markers or signage:

• A fence in installed
• Telling the person or persons who are attempting to trespass that they can’t enter the property.
• A sign that says “No Trespassing”

*******************************************************************************

Well put a big check-mark after the 3 SATISFYING conditions for WARNING trespassers.. ALL 3 were clearly violated...

And IF the homeowners ARMED UP before the threats, YOU (WE) don't know if they yelled over the fence and ASKED them to leave before arming up.. But I'll bet a stack of money that they DID....

Trespassing is a misdemeanor and in itself is not a permit to pull a gun on someone.

Bullshit.. It's defense of property and self... Two things that LEFTISTS don't understand.. And apparently the protestors don't KNOW or care about FENCES, Private property signs. gates or requests to LEAVE...

That's a confrontation that ONLY successfully resolves --- WHEN THEY LEAVE... Which is what should have happened if they weren't ignorant lemming leftists....

 

[Mac-7]

LOL....they werent charged with anything ya chucklehead.

they have not committed a crime

 

[Faun]

the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

It does not matter who owns the gate except that it does not belong to rioters who tore it up

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

You know you're in the wrong here, right?
And you realize that these endless attempts to bullshit your way into being believable are failing, and are going to keep failing right?

So my question is, how long are you going to keep this horseshit up?
Just curious.

LOL

You should contact the McCloskey's attorney and reassure him his clients are in no legal trouble.

Why?
I don't think he's worried about anything but how to spend his cut of the lawsuit settlement.
Sit back and watch.... we'll see who walks out of the gun smoke when it's over.

LOL

Oh? What settlement? Who are they suing?

You don't think they're going to file a lawsuit against the protest organizers? Or the city? Or the police department?

Do these seem like the kind of folks who won't fight back to you?

Sue for what? Sue protesters for being on their street? Sue the city for protesters being on their street? Sue the police department for protesters being on their street? There are mixed reports about the police in this matter. I've seen both the police were called and the police weren't called during this episode.

 

[Mac-7]

They pulled their guns before they were threatened. Have someone explain time to ya.

i just explained it to you

50 potentially violent protesters are there to intimidate aka threaten others