St. Louis Couple Charged for Defending Home

This is nuts. They were on their own property with their own, legally purchased and legally owned, guns. So now we can’t even defend our own homes?

Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the couple that drew national attention last month after footage of them pointing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters outside their home went viral, have been charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon, The Associated Press reported.

The charges come after investigation circuit attorney Kim Gardner launched a probe into the couple late last month over the June 28 incident.

47 Responses to St. Louis Couple Charged for Defending Home

  1. Mar says:

    Kim Gardner is a hack who really doesn’t the law.
    This won’t even go to trial.

  2. jjf says:

    I’d be OK with putting the NRA’s gun safety rules into law.  Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.  Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. These two weren’t following the rules, right? Where’s all the talk about responsible gun ownership?

  3. Jason says:

    The talk about responsible gun ownership is overridden by a mob of hateful people in the act of felony trespass.

     

    Johnny, put up or shut up, would you still want to charge these two home owners if they had responsibly held their guns?   We both know you would since you have a raging case of Liberal Privilege.

  4. dad29 says:

    Who got shot here?  Was there a discharge from either weapon?

    Just curious.

  5. jjf says:

    Dad29, at your favorite range (and we know you have one) what happens if you point your gun at someone?  What happens if you’re spotted with your finger on the trigger when you’re not shooting?

  6. dad29 says:

    While we’re at it, Jiffy, your leap to conclusion has a problem.

    …to issue the charges, prosecutors must prove the guns were capable of lethal force–but they weren’t. Last week the McCloskeys former attorney Al Watkins said he turned over the pistol that Patricia McCloskey pointed at the mob because she worried about her personal safety. Watkins noted that the handgun he gave to the police wasn’t really kept for self-protection. It wasn’t a working gun. It was only used as an exhibit in the McCloskeys’ own law practice for a lawsuit against the handgun manufacturer.

    …Mark McCloskey had the safety of the semi-automatic rifle engaged and did not finger the trigger. Per KSDK, A source familiar with the investigation told them that police did not find any ammunition at the McCloskey’s home, and the rifle was not loaded when they seized it. So neither firearm was capable of lethal force….

    See:  https://lidblog.com/dismiss-against-the-mccloskeys/

    Whoopsie!!  I guess “finger on the trigger” is not operative here.  Best find a new something-or-other to lie about, Johnny Boy.

  7. Jason says:

    Jiffy, I don’t know if Dad has one, but at any that I have been at, you won’t end up with a felony charge.   Duh.

  8. jonnyv says:

    1. This won’t make it to any sort of court.

    2. They had every right to be on their property with their weapons (assuming legally owned). They don’t have the right to point their weapons at people when their lives are not in danger.

    3. These 2 are blithering idiots. Had they accidentally shot someone they would have been legally liable because their lives were not in danger, regardless of what they THOUGHT. This group of people broke a gate to get into this community and marched down the street in front of their home. From everything that was said, there was no attempt at any sort of personal property attack or destruction. other than the gate lock.

    Unless there was something before the video that we are not seeing, these 2 people over reacted. But, not as much to bring felony charges against them.

  9. jjf says:

    Well, actually…  JonnyV, the way that woman was holding her weapon, she could’ve hurt herself for sure if she pulled the trigger – and her finger was on the trigger.  But I’ll wait for any gun fetishist to confirm what I saw.

  10. Mar says:

    Silly jjf thinks the NRA safety rules are actually laws.
    jjf is an experiment in Artificial Stupidity.

  11. Jason says:

    Go ahead and wait dummy. We are talking about the incorrect charges and if it will ever see a courtroom, while you’re talking about something else.

  12. dad29 says:

    marched down the street

    Sorry, Johnny, that “street” is private property in a gated community.  And Missouri has a “stand your ground” law which you might wish to review.

    Finally, see my post above.  Miracles happen, but guns without ammo RARELY fire rounds, any more than “prop guns”……….

  13. jonnyv says:

    Stand your ground doesn’t give you a right to just shoot someone because they are near or on your property. If someone is cutting thru your lawn at 2am, you can’t just walk out and shoot them because you FELT nervous.

    “If a person is in a place where they are permitted to be, whether it is their home or in public, they have the right to use deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another innocent party—even if they potentially had the opportunity to safely retreat.”

    The key here is “IN SELF DEFENSE”. And at no point in the video were they in any sort of danger, regardless of how they felt. No one approached them or was menacing by any aspect of the law. Stand your ground doesn’t apply to property, only in SELF DEFENSE.

    They actually came outside with their weapons drawn.

    And there is actually a law about waving your gun at people, even if you have the right to own the gun and on your property. They were charged with the proper law. Now, I still feel this will go NOWHERE. But, by the letter of the law, they are being charged legally.

  14. Mar says:

    jonnyv, the thugs showed violence by breaking down a gate and then trespassing a private street.
    There goes your argument.

  15. jjf says:

    And JonnyV, note how the gun lovers here won’t even comment on the poor handling questions.  Trump-ism is a nasty virus!

    Or as they say here:

    But according to Saint Louis University Lawyer John Amman, the couple’s actions could possibly be classified as an assault by putting protesters in fear of their safety.

    “People have a right to threaten force if they are threatened,” Amman said. However, if a group of protesters is walking by a home and not doing anything to the homeowners specifically, then they don’t have the right to threaten lethal force without an imminent threat.

  16. jonnyv says:

    Sorry Mar, I don’t think that would stand up in court. Again, if you have a fence on your property and someone breaks your fence door to cut thru lawn, you can’t just SHOOT THEM. You have to actually be threatened (not just “feel”) or in the act of self defense.

    Of course, a really good lawyer can get rich people away with a lot. But based on what I can see in the video, these people do not look like they were threatened at all. And they came OUTSIDE of the safety of their home, showing that they were not afraid for their life.

  17. jjf says:

    JonnyV, they were living the gun-lover’s dream.

  18. Mar says:

    Jonnyv, I disagree. This group already had shown they were violent.
    In addition, there were numerous rioting and looting St. Louis that night and other nights.
    Plus, there were no police were around.
    Finally, there were supposedly verbal threats directed at the couple.
    When you add up these 4 items, a normal person would be scared for their life and property.

  19. Jason says:

    >And JonnyV, note how the gun lovers here won’t even comment on the poor handling questions.  Trump-ism is a nasty virus!

     

    Johhny Foust, showing off his weaponized autism for everyone to see.  Just keeps yelling as loud as he can!

  20. jonnyv says:

    Mar, we can argue about how they felt until the cows come home. Neither of us are lawyers and it would be fruitless. Anything that happened off camera is speculative. I am going solely based on what we see on the video. But one thing you said, “and property”. You don’t get to use Stand Your Ground because you fear for your property. It is strictly a self defense statute.

    If there are 3 idiots with baseball bats destroying your car parked on the street in front of your house, you don’t get to run out with a gun and shoot them.

    These two people are idiots. The woman specifically doesn’t know how to handle a weapon and was very loose with it. They have been charged based on the letter of the law (and nothing will come of it).

  21. jjf says:

    Where’s all the gun lovers who can tell us what they were taught in their concealed-carry class?  Anyone?  Feeelings!  Whoa-whoa, feeeelings!

  22. Mar says:

    Someday, jjf, you might be relevant.
    But not now.
    And still waiting for one of your racist jokes your readily admit you tell.
    I need a good laugh.

  23. Jason says:

    >Where’s all the gun lovers who can tell us what they were taught in their concealed-carry class?  Anyone?  Feeelings!  Whoa-whoa, feeeelings!

    Johhny Foust, showing off his weaponized autism for everyone to see.  Just keeps yelling as loud as he can!

  24. dad29 says:

    Well, let’s quote “experts”, then, Johnny:

    Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that although it’s “very dangerous” to engage protesters with guns, the homeowners broke no laws by brandishing or pointing weapons at them because Portland Place is a private street. He said the McCloskeys are protected by Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.

    At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn,” Walker said, calling the state’s Castle Doctrine a “force field” that “indemnifies you, and you can even pull the trigger in Missouri.”

    Yes, I know that ‘stand your ground’ and ‘castle doctrine’ are two different things.  And yes, YOU don’t know whether the criminal trespassers were carrying weapons (which could include bottles, clubs, bricks, rocks) which could gravely injure or kill either of the McCloskeys.

    We note, again:  the weapons were useless except as clubs; and no shots were fired.  You’re right; they’re not going to court, although the prosecutor there is dumb as a driveway and a vicious racist…..

    (BTW, do you notice a fly buzzing around this thread?)

  25. Merlin says:

    Dad has a 214. Don’t worry about what he learned in a concealed carry class.

  26. Mar says:

    Hey Dad, can you provide the link. Seems jjfs link doesn’t provide the same first part of the quote even if it is from the same guy.

  27. jonnyv says:

    dad, you may be right with MOs Castle Doctrine. That one goes further than most of them that I have read. Clearly further than typical stand your ground laws.

  28. jjf says:

    See, it comes down to Dad29 and his ilk just itching to shoot someone.

  29. Mar says:

    Did anyone see jjf make an intelligent statement anytime soon?
    Nah, didn’t think so.
    jjf, maybe you should go back learning how to use a data base.

  30. Jason says:

    >See, it comes down to Dad29 and his ilk just itching to shoot someone.

     

    Johhny Foust, showing off his weaponized autism for everyone to see.  Just keeps yelling as loud as he can!

  31. dad29 says:

    Besides the DD 214, Dad also read Ayoob’s book on the topic of CC and deadly force.

    Somebody get a flyswatter, please!

  32. jjf says:

    Or as he often puts it, “Buy more ammo.”

  33. Mar says:

    I think we should start a pool as to when jjf provides an intelligent post on a subject.
    Further, we should post odds: will jjf say something racist first or something intelligent?
    I say -200 he will say something racist. +500 he will say something intelligent.

  34. jsr says:

    “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.

    “It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner — that is unlawful in the city of St. Louis,” Gardner said.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/st-louis-couple-charged-for-pulling-guns-at-protest/2020/07/20/942fa80c-cacb-11ea-99b0-8426e26d203b_story.html

    “On behalf of all Missourians who wish to exercise their right to keep and bear arms in self-defense of their persons, homes, families, and property, the Attorney General respectfully requests that the Court dismiss this case at the earliest possible opportunity.”
    https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/522140479/attorney-general-schmitt-files-brief-defending-missourians-second-amendment-rights

    I really doubt the McCloskeys are going to be convicted.

    It does not matter how poor of gun handling skills they exhibited as that is not what they are charged with.

  35. jjf says:

    So Dad29, did you get your 214 before I was born?

  36. jjf says:

    Hmm…

    In the videos seen by millions, racial justice demonstrators do not actually appear to step onto the property owned by personal injury attorneys Mark McCloskey and Patricia McCloskey–so Parson’s reliance on the law he helped craft appears to be off-base here.

  37. dad29 says:

    The lawyer you cite didn’t seem to quote any applicable ‘gated community’ laws.  But that’s OK.  The McCloskey’s didn’t retain him.

  38. Mar says:

    Racial justice demonstrators?
    Otherwise known as thugs.

  39. Mar says:

    jjf probably doesn’t know what a DD214 is.
    I earned mine.

  40. jjf says:

    So many ex-military!  So many CC!  But not one person steps up to say what the couple was doing wrong when it comes to handling guns?

  41. Jason says:

    But Dad, I’m sure Johnboy’s source is trending!

  42. Mar says:

    And still, nothing intelligent from jjf.

  43. Mike says:

    There are pictures showing that some of the “peaceful protesters” were part of the same group that earlier that day attacked people at a prayer rally. This lends credence to the McCloskeys story of being threatened. That video of “peaceful protesters”? All of the video I have seen is from the protesters side and doesn’t show what happened to cause the McCloskeys to feel threatened enough to produce weapons for their protection.

    What jjf posted above applies to the McCloskeys as well as the rioters. “People have a right to threaten force if they are threatened,” Amman said.

  44. jjf says:

    Mike, if one person yells something you interpret as a threat, and there’s a crowd walking by, can you keep your loaded weapon aimed at everyone?

  45. Jason says:

    > there’s a crowd walking by

     

    Let’s try to be intellectually honest Johnny – hard for you I know – but this crowd wasn’t “walking by”.  They broke down a gate, trespassed on private property, yelled, screamed, verbally assaulted and accosted home owners.

    Since you can’t seem to put 1 and 1 together, it’s already been stated here in this very thread many times….  the charges will fail, and these people were within their rights as defined in MO law.  It’s been discussed, linked to, and put to rest.  But here you’re proving yet again that you’re too stupid to know that.

  46. Randall Flagg says:

    Jason:

    I have read the private property they were defending wasn’t theirs.  If that is true, then the charges would be warranted.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.