St. Louis couple who pointed guns at protesters indicted

Dutch Uncle said:
Your overcompensation tactics aside, those are facts for the court to decide. The McCloskeys have a right to defend themselves but they didn't have a right to brandish firearms. Also, while some of the pedestrians may have trespassed, the charges would stick if anyone who the McCloskeys threatened with their weapon was never trespassing.

Like the Rittenhouse shooting, I expect there will be a lot more video presented in court than has presently been released to the public. Also like Rittenhouse, I doubt they'll be convicted of the more serious charges, but am guessing they'll be convicted of threatening, brandishing or similar charges.

SSI_20200629172239_V.jpg
Click to expand...
As you said those are facts for the court to decide. I suspect they will be found not guilty. The prosecutor has over charged them. Under Missouri law they had the right to defend themselves against deadly threats.
 
AProudLefty said:
Any vet worth his salt would tell you that in order to defend yourself, you'd assume your position behind something, i.e. a window and let your "enemy" pass you by. Do not provoke them. Brandishing your weapons is a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

Both of them are Democrats. With unloaded weapons. Would you have expected any kind of common sense?
 
guno said:
and the stupid mo mo pointed a hand gun that didn't work to begin with , great way to get yourself killed
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me that Patricia fell for the MoMo Challenge. The whole I-knew-the-gun-wasn't-working BS will probably be revealed in court but I think she'll fess up she didn't know she'd fucked up putting her .380 back together.

Regardless, she brandished pistol that was real at passersby. If she pointed it at an innocent person, they'd have every right to draw their own firearm and shoot her down in self-defense.
 
AProudLefty said:
No they do not. Unless you have a source to prove that.
Click to expand...
Every home that I have own the property line starts at the street not the side walk. There is even grass between the street and the sidewalk. That means the yard continues to the street for sure. Plus in one video you can see protesters walking in their yard on the house side of the side walk. The protesters were without question walking in their yard even though it was clearly posted with three signs..
 
ExpressLane said:
Every home that I have own the property line starts at the street not the side walk. There is even grass between the street and the sidewalk. That means the yard continues to the street for sure. Plus in one video you can see protesters walking in their yard on the house side of the side walk. The protesters were without question walking in their yard even though it was clearly posted with three signs..
Click to expand...

A public sidewalk is an easement. Again, the court will settle it. I'm guessing Patricia, if not Mark, are going to have a conviction record.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
It wouldn't surprise me that Patricia fell for the MoMo Challenge. The whole I-knew-the-gun-wasn't-working BS will probably be revealed in court but I think she'll fess up she didn't know she'd fucked up putting her .380 back together.

Regardless, she brandished pistol that was real at passersby. If she pointed it at an innocent person, they'd have every right to draw their own firearm and shoot her down in self-defense.
Click to expand...
Everyone of the persons she pointed the gun at were trespassers.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
A public sidewalk is an easement. Again, the court will settle it. I'm guessing Patricia, if not Mark, are going to have a conviction record.
Click to expand...
This is a PRIVATE side walk. The whole street is private property hence the gated no trespassing. If it was a public street and sidewalk they could not have no trespassing. Anyway there is video footage of people milling around in their yard on the grass. There is no easement for a trespasser.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top