And another one gone, and another one gone...

[Tax Counsel]

They wouldn't have been arrested had they not been BLM protesters that they reacted to.

I disagree with that assertion. Rather, I think had it not been that situation the police would have had little hesitation in arresting them. Pull the gun out on fellow white people and you are more likely to be arrested in this country than a white person pulling a gun on a black person. That's just an unfortunate truth in this country.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

No, at least in the South and Midwest, you can generally protect yourself with a firearm when someone or (especially) many someones destroy iron gates to get on to private property.

 

[Tax Counsel]

No, at least in the South and Midwest, you can generally protect yourself with a firearm when someone or (especially) many someones destroy iron gates to get on to private property.

So you assert that in the South it would be ok to shoot someone merely for stepping on your lawn and chanting a slogan? If so, the South is more messed up than I thought.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

So you assert that in the South it would be ok to shoot someone merely for stepping on your lawn and chanting a slogan? If so, the South is more messed up than I thought.

Did the couple in St. Louis shoot anyone?

How were they supposed to know that the protesters weren't there to burn down their home like they had watched them burn other places?

I can count on one hand the number of times I have stepped out of my home in the last decade that I didn't have a gun on me.

The only place these people screwed up was pointing their guns at people. And from the video, I've seen it didn't seem to bother the protesters that much.

As an aside...

This is what they, I assume, are charged with. That section of the law seems to ban the use of a firearm. And the exceptions don't include any self-defense exceptions.

571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or

2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.

Also anyone heard any details of the tampering with evidence charge?

 

[Tax Counsel]

Did the couple in St. Louis shoot anyone?

No. But your statement was that "No, at least in the South and Midwest, you can generally protect yourself with a firearm when someone or (especially) many someones destroy iron gates to get on to private property."

The phrase "generally protect yourself with a firearm" implies actually using that firearm, i.e. pulling the trigger, not just holding the firearm in your hand.

And I agree that pointing the weapons at people certainly made it worse.

How were they supposed to know that the protesters weren't there to burn down their home like they had watched them burn other places?

Why did they assume they were there to attack them when many protests in this country had been peaceful? Because some members of the protest group were Black, perhaps?

Since the indictments are still sealed the details of the charges are as yet unknown.

 

[army judge]

I agree that pointing the weapons at people certainly made it worse.

Its always wise to stop, slow down, rethink that brilliant idea, before you do some more stupid sheet!

Dude's poor wife didn't even know how to hold her pistol.
If I recall correctly, the one she held was incapable of even firing.

If you carry an appropriate amount of insurance you need not shoot some useless bum, thereby disrupting many lives, and maybe ruining yours.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The phrase "generally protect yourself with a firearm" implies actually using that firearm, i.e. pulling the trigger, not just holding the firearm in your hand.

I'm sorry you inferred that. As mentioned I protect myself with a firearm every day and hadn't had to pull it from its holster in decades. But the way that law is written even that might be illegal.

Why did they assume they were there to attack them when many protests in this country had been peaceful? Because some members of the protest group were Black, perhaps?

Why would he assume that? Could it be because there were Tweets and Facebook posts made by those protesting for BLM saying they were going to leave the inner-cities and riot and burn in the "white" neighborhoods?

 

[Tax Counsel]

I'm sorry you inferred that. As mentioned I protect myself with a firearm every day and hadn't had to pull it from its holster in decades.

Had they simply had weapons holstered there wouldn't have been the same issue. But brandishing the weapons, pointing them directly at protestors with their finger on the trigger, and yelling "Get the hell out of my neighborhood" tells me that they were provoking the protestors, not merely ready to protect themselves. And what was their complaint about them being in their neighborhood? The protestors had the right to be on common areas; the McCloskeys weren't entitled to decide where these people could go other than to keep them off their own property.

At best they overreacted, IMO, and are lucky they didn't accidentally pull the trigger while pointing their guns at the protestors — they may well have killed someone. I always taught to never put my finger on the trigger of a gun unless I intended to actually fire the gun. And the reason for that is precisely because those kinds of accidents can occur once the finger is on the trigger. They were too careless with the way they handled the weapons.

 

[mightymoose]

Pull the gun out on fellow white people and you are more likely to be arrested in this country than a white person pulling a gun on a black person. That's just an unfortunate truth in this country.

That may unfortunately be true in some areas, but is certainly not true when speaking of the country as a whole.

 

[mightymoose]

And the exceptions don't include any self-defense exceptions.

Yes it does. It refers to 563.031.
The defendant must raise the issue of defense and the prosecution must prove the action was unreasonable under the circumstances.

 

[mightymoose]

Why did they assume they were there to attack them when many protests in this country had been peaceful?

Most likely because of the way they forced their way onto the property. If I remember correctly they broke the gate down. That is not an indicator of peaceful intention.

 

[mightymoose]

The protestors had the right to be on common areas; the McCloskeys weren't entitled to decide where these people could go other than to keep them off their own property.

It seems the roads in that housing area are private, owned by the residents, and there is appropriate signage outside at the entrances.
I would disagree that even a peaceful mob has any right to enter or remain on the property, and in fact they had a duty to leave when told and became trespassers.

Portland Place, where couple pointed guns at protesters, has long been home to wealthy St. Louisans | Joe's St. Louis | stltoday.com

 

[Tax Counsel]

It seems the roads in that housing area are private, owned by the residents, and there is appropriate signage outside at the entrances.
I would disagree that even a peaceful mob has any right to enter or remain on the property, and in fact they had a duty to leave when told and became trespassers.

But who had the right to eject the alleged trespassers from the common areas? My guess is that it wasn't the McCloskeys. In any event, IMO pulling out guns and pointing them at the protestors, finger on the trigger, was a threatening, provocative act and risked making things much worse. Just because a crowd is walking and chanting protest slogans does not make them a threat to personal safety. I believe they were in the wrong to do it. Whether they are guilty of an actual crime depends on exactly what charges are brought against them and what they offer in defense.

 

[Tax Counsel]

That may unfortunately be true in some areas, but is certainly not true when speaking of the country as a whole.

Based on my experience I believe it is true in more places than it isn't. Racism in this country is not limited to a few isolated spots. But you are correct that each community is a bit different. And St. Louis in particular has had a long history with racial problems and conflict.

 

[justblue]

FBI affidavit: Conspirators wanted to kidnap gov to remote Wisconsin location

 

[mightymoose]

But who had the right to eject the alleged trespassers from the common areas?

I would expect any resident may do so.
These were not guests of any resident who had any right to be there.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

But who had the right to eject the alleged trespassers from the common areas? My guess is that it wasn't the McCloskeys.

But I don't think they tried to eject anyone. They were protecting (incorrectly) their property.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I would expect any resident may do so.

I wouldn't make that assumption. They likely have no direct control over the common areas. That's probably up to the HOA to do that.

 

[Tax Counsel]

But I don't think they tried to eject anyone. They were protecting (incorrectly) their property.

They went overboard in trying to protect their property (if that was their real motivation, and I have my doubts about that) and as a result now find themselves charged with criminal offenses. I'm not terribly sympathetic to their plight; it is one of their own making. And considering that they are both lawyers they surely should have known the law on firearms in their state before they ever grabbed those guns for that confrontation.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I'm troubled by the way the law they are charged with violating is written. It is much like the hate crime laws where someone has to decide the motivation for the act. In this case,

" in an angry or threatening manner"