Jump to content

Couple draws guns at crowd in St Louis


Euler

Recommended Posts

A search warrant just for the gun? Did they get red flagged? Or does the CA think the gun was used previously in a crime? A warrant requires probable cause....

 

The pistol appears to be a Jimenez (previously Jennings) JA-380. It's a good thing she never fired it. They're made of ZAMAK, have a reputation for exploding, and supposedly will only feed FMJ.

JA380-Cerakote-Satin-Aluminum-Back.jpg

 

$115 NIB on ArmsList, but banned for transfer in IL, anyway. No Loss.

That seems to be the best guess according to one forum I read, particularly because of the long ejector.

 

No surprise then that her Jennings/Jiminez "...was inoperable at the time of the protest and still is."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

No surprise then that her Jennings/Jiminez "...was inoperable at the time of the protest and still is."

 

https://abc7chicago.com/society/police-execute-search-warrant-at-home-of-gun-toting-couple/6313037/

CBS News is reporting the same thing, and that Patricia McCloskey knew it was inoperable when she pointed it at people.

 

Legally it could still be assault, which could still land her in hot (hotter?) water, because the people on the other side of the gun didn't know it was essentially a stage prop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that constitutes assault in a defensive situation where you’re putting on a show of force to prevent an unlawful intrusion. Then police officers are effed because making a felony arrest usually involves a firearm pointing at you.

 

Maybe coin a new term, lawful assault or justified assault, just like justifiable homicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO they certainly deserve to lose many, if not all, of those lawsuits, but they still get to keep their 2A rights until they're convicted of a felony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

IMO they certainly deserve to lose many, if not all, of those lawsuits, but they still get to keep their 2A rights until they're convicted of a felony.
Nobody is saying they dont have a right to self defense. I think many of us recognized from the beginning that these 2 liars and grifters would make bad examples to parade around the public as an argument for the common mans right to bear arms.

 

There have been drug dealers acquitted of shooting both police and rivals that have been (rightfully) acquitted using the self defense argument. Im not expecting them to do Tucker Carlson as upstanding citizens exercising their right to self defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

IMO they certainly deserve to lose many, if not all, of those lawsuits, but they still get to keep their 2A rights until they're convicted of a felony.

Oh I’m not arguing either side. Just shocked at how big of a D they both are with all their lawsuits. But like I said previously, they aren’t the poster children we want to parade on TV to try to sway folks to our side.

 

But many have with the reports of numerous gun stores offering free firearms to the couple. Surely we can be a little more picky on who we put up on a pedestal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, that’s the thing - despite whether we agree with their politics or not WE understand their rights ARE THE SAME as ours.

 

The other side of the argument believes that rights change depending upon who you are or who you support.

 

Whether we agree with their politics or not is irrelevant.

Rights are rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right! And rights are rights. Personally, I'd rather see national media attention focused on upset lefties defending themselves with firearms, than on rednecks doing same. I don't think that's rocket science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is saying they dont have a right to self defense. I think many of us recognized from the beginning that these 2 liars and grifters would make bad examples to parade around the public as an argument for the common mans right to bear arms.

 

There have been drug dealers acquitted of shooting both police and rivals that have been (rightfully) acquitted using the self defense argument. Im not expecting them to do Tucker Carlson as upstanding citizens exercising their right to self defense.

None of that has the slightest bit of relevance to this incident.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their poor character keeps being associated with them not deserving the right to self defense, thats not what anyone here is arguing. Its this manichaean mindset that BLM is bad and these McCloskey idiots are armed saviors standing up to the mob. Theres a lot more complexities including any malicious prosecution brought against them could easily be revenge for malicious prosecution theyve brought against others. Our legal system sucks, people get railroaded all the time. Its possible theyre getting railroaded not because of guns, but because theyre ********. Obviously I would agree, in a fair legal system even ******** deserve a fair trial.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that constitutes assault in a defensive situation where you’re putting on a show of force to prevent an unlawful intrusion. Then police officers are effed because making a felony arrest usually involves a firearm pointing at you. Maybe coin a new term, lawful assault or justified assault, just like justifiable homicide.

Sorry but, why the word assault at all? Brandishing maybe, as in Legal brandishing, Justifiable brandishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If that constitutes assault in a defensive situation where you’re putting on a show of force to prevent an unlawful intrusion. Then police officers are effed because making a felony arrest usually involves a firearm pointing at you. Maybe coin a new term, lawful assault or justified assault, just like justifiable homicide.

Sorry but, why the word assault at all? Brandishing maybe, as in Legal brandishing, Justifiable brandishing.

 

Brandishing is displaying a firearm. Assault is pointing it at someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

St. Louis couple charged for pulling guns at protest. Full story at link

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/20/st-louis-couple-charged-guns-373517

 

ST. LOUIS St. Louis top prosecutor told The Associated Press on Monday that she is charging a white husband and wife with felony unlawful use of a weapon for displaying guns during a racial injustice protest outside their mansion.

 

Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced the charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who are both personal injury attorneys in their 60s. They also face a misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree assault...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That did not last long
"Within hours of the ruling, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a brief seeking to dismiss Gardner’s charges against the McCloskeys on the grounds that their Second Amendment rights are being violated."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/missouri-ag-moves-to-dismiss-charges-against-couple-who-pointed-guns-at-crowd/ar-BB16YOPR?ocid=msedgntp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

St. Louis couple charged for pulling guns at protest. Full story at link

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/20/st-louis-couple-charged-guns-373517

 

ST. LOUIS St. Louis top prosecutor told The Associated Press on Monday that she is charging a white husband and wife with felony unlawful use of a weapon for displaying guns during a racial injustice protest outside their mansion.

 

Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced the charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who are both personal injury attorneys in their 60s. They also face a misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree assault...

 

Funny thing. Gardner fails to say why MO's castle doctrine fails to apply in this case. When the racial injustice protesters trespassed on private property. And reportedly threatened the McCloskeys.

 

Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

St. Louis couple charged for pulling guns at protest. Full story at link

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/20/st-louis-couple-charged-guns-373517

 

ST. LOUIS St. Louis top prosecutor told The Associated Press on Monday that she is charging a white husband and wife with felony unlawful use of a weapon for displaying guns during a racial injustice protest outside their mansion.

 

Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced the charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who are both personal injury attorneys in their 60s. They also face a misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree assault...

 

Funny thing. Gardner fails to say why MO's castle doctrine fails to apply in this case. When the racial injustice protesters trespassed on private property. And reportedly threatened the McCloskeys.

 

Go figure.

 

Since when does the law matter to these folks, only their anti American agenda and get rid of Trump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing. Gardner fails to say why MO's castle doctrine fails to apply in this case. When the racial injustice protesters trespassed on private property. And reportedly threatened the McCloskeys.

 

Go figure.

 

Its not quite that simple.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/tony-messenger/messenger-this-wasn-t-the-first-time-the-mccloskeys-pulled-a-gun-to-protect-property/article_fc2a31b1-5f7b-55d5-83e3-8b3ca1211c7c.html

 

Obviously the pro gun vs BLM sides each have an agenda, but you also cant discount the neighbors agenda. The neighbors have a lawsuit disputing the property and the gate as common ground, the McCloskeys claim its their property. The neighbors claim the protestors are welcome to protest on the common grounds. Whether the gate was or wasnt broken by protestors it wasnt initially broken to enter the neighborhood.

 

So of course the neighbors collectively want this to play out that the welcomed BLM protestors were threatened on the private neighborhoods common ground, not the McCloskeys private property. There is a distinct legal difference.

 

All the people in the neighborhood have money, power, and are politically connected, including the mayor that the protestors had originally shown up to protest. Its not just a singular prosecutor on an SJW mission (although that plays well for her resume).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Funny thing. Gardner fails to say why MO's castle doctrine fails to apply in this case. When the racial injustice protesters trespassed on private property. And reportedly threatened the McCloskeys.

 

Go figure.

Its not quite that simple.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/tony-messenger/messenger-this-wasn-t-the-first-time-the-mccloskeys-pulled-a-gun-to-protect-property/article_fc2a31b1-5f7b-55d5-83e3-8b3ca1211c7c.html

 

Obviously the pro gun vs BLM sides each have an agenda, but you also cant discount the neighbors agenda. The neighbors have a lawsuit disputing the property and the gate as common ground, the McCloskeys claim its their property. The neighbors claim the protestors are welcome to protest on the common grounds. Whether the gate was or wasnt broken by protestors it wasnt initially broken to enter the neighborhood.

 

So of course the neighbors collectively want this to play out that the welcomed BLM protestors were threatened on the private neighborhoods common ground, not the McCloskeys private property. There is a distinct legal difference.

 

All the people in the neighborhood have money, power, and are politically connected, including the mayor that the protestors had originally shown up to protest. Its not just a singular prosecutor on an SJW mission (although that plays well for her resume).

 

 

Thanks for the link. I didn't see anything about the neighbors welcoming the protesters. I'm sorry if I missed it. Different article maybe?

 

If you haven't, scroll through the comments. Doing so has helped me remember why I gave up commenting on the Post's current events forum years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link. I didn't see anything about the neighbors welcoming the protesters. I'm sorry if I missed it. Different article maybe?

 

Letter from neighbors condemning McCloskeys

https://twitter.com/andybankertv/status/1278776726013775872?s=21

 

Video of the protestors walking through the undamaged gate

https://twitter.com/alexiszotos/status/1277607426934616065?s=21

 

Supreme Court case determining you are allowed 1st amendment rights on some private property, for instance sidewalks in a private town/neighborhood that is not restricted. If the gate wasnt locked (dont know) an argument could be made for 1st amendment rights since its a sidewalk owned by the neighborhood association, not an individuals residence or yard.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

 

Im not determining innocence or guilt. Just pointing out its a lot more complicated than if a mob breaks down your residences door. Im also not saying that protestors can trespass into gated residences, but a residence has different legal protection than a private common area.

 

Again, the McCloskeys have a lawsuit disputing whether the gate and sidewalk is a common area or their private property. It wasnt deeded, but they claim by personally maintaining they have squatters rights to take common area/access from the neighborhood association and block neighbors easy access to their homes. Talk about neighbors from heck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the link. I didn't see anything about the neighbors welcoming the protesters. I'm sorry if I missed it. Different article maybe?

Letter from neighbors condemning McCloskeyshttps://twitter.com/andybankertv/status/1278776726013775872?s=21

Video of the protestors walking through the undamaged gatehttps://twitter.com/alexiszotos/status/1277607426934616065?s=21

Supreme Court case determining you are allowed 1st amendment rights on some private property, for instance sidewalks in a private town/neighborhood that is not restricted. If the gate wasnt locked (dont know) an argument could be made for 1st amendment rights since its a sidewalk owned by the neighborhood association, not an individuals residence or yard. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Im not determining innocence or guilt. Just pointing out its a lot more complicated than if a mob breaks down your residences door. Im also not saying that protestors can trespass into gated residences, but a residence has different legal protection than a private common area.

Again, the McCloskeys have a lawsuit disputing whether the gate and sidewalk is a common area or their private property. It wasnt deeded, but they claim by personally maintaining they have squatters rights to take common area/access from the neighborhood association and block neighbors easy access to their homes. Talk about neighbors from heck.

Thanks. I would point out that the letter was put out after the fact. The protesters didn't have an invitation during the occurence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but at worst thats misdemeanor trespass, and if on the neighborhood associations grounds it would be the neighborhood association agreeing to bring those charges. Theres enough names and footage on social media so its not like the protestors were anonymous. Its clear that the neighborhood not only wont charge them, but welcomes them into their neighborhood. Of course the motive may be less woke SJW and more f* the McCloskeys.

 

Which brings us up to the next point, assuming the gate and land is not the McCloskeys but neighborhood association common ground, where is the forceable felony? Their most credible witnesses are the neighbors they are using the legal system to de facto attempt to steal land from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCloskeys charged with felonies for waving guns during protests

 

 

Mark and Patricia McCloskey each face a single felony count of unlawful use of a weapon — exhibiting. Charging documents say he pointed an AR-15 rifle at protesters and she wielded a semiautomatic handgun, placing protesters in fear of injury.
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said he will seek dismissal of the charges and called them a case of “political prosecution.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but at worst thats misdemeanor trespass, and if on the neighborhood associations grounds it would be the neighborhood association agreeing to bring those charges. Theres enough names and footage on social media so its not like the protestors were anonymous. Its clear that the neighborhood not only wont charge them, but welcomes them into their neighborhood. Of course the motive may be less woke SJW and more f* the McCloskeys.

 

Which brings us up to the next point, assuming the gate and land is not the McCloskeys but neighborhood association common ground, where is the forceable felony? Theyre most credible witnesses are the neighbors theyre using the legal system to de facto attempt to steal land from.

 

Trust me, I'm not "pro-McCloskey" per se. I'm "pro-right to self-defense".

 

"If" the gate they entered through was locked, it's forcible entry. If they set foot on the McCloskey's property in a threatening manner, the castle doctrine certainly applies.

 

Back to the gate: it would seem reasonable that a neighborhood like that would have video surveillance. If there's video of the gate in question, this could get interesting....one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a picture of the gate being destroyed, but I'm not sure when that happened.

I saw video where the rioters were coming through the gate and it was still on its hinges and intact, so it's possible the gate was broken later.

 

Still, weren't the rioters threatening the couple? Taking into consideration all the looting, burning and damage they were causing over the previous days, wouldn't it be prudent for the McCloskey's to assume the same might happen to them once the rioters got through the gate and into their private neighborhood?

 

They took a defensive stance with their firearms to mitigate any trouble and it seemed to work. Nothing they did was illegal IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is "setting foot on the McCloskey's property..." a true test of Castle Doctrine? The violence playing out that week often involved mobs throwing rocks, bricks, frozen bottles of water, urine, Molotov cocktails, and verbal threats. Gunfire was a possibility.

 

With mob action, could the sense of feeling threatened occur prior to someone setting foot inside their actual property line? They were not talking one suspicious person around the neighborhood (George Zimmerman), but the unwelcome threat came to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video makes it look like the gate was just opened. If that is the case, why was it also destroyed? If the mob that trespassed onto the property were there just to chant, the gate should have been left alone. Seeing a mob come through an open gate only to destroy the gate, I'd be pretty concerned about them encroaching my house just the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...