A St. Louis prosecutor is investigating whether the white couple pointing guns at Black Lives Matter

It appeared that the McCloskeys were trying to intimidate the protesters. If so, I hope they face legal charges. The protesters were exercising their First Amendment rights.

 

It is a castle doctrine state so yes, they will be fine.

 

Their "first amendment rights" don't include the "right" to break down a gate and trespass or issue death threats. Listen to the video.

 

The appearances depends on who was reporting and the narrative being proffered.
One thing many forget when invoking rights such as a that defined by the 1A, is that rights do not have a hierarchy in importance; one right cannot be used to subvert the right of another. Thus, in exercising a 1A right, does not allow destroying another’s right to property, liberty, or life, or defense of life.

 

Pointing an actual weapon at someone and threatening to use it on them, such to put them in the apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact with their person is assault unless you have a form of legal excuse such as defense of self. Its not a gun control provision, its basic common law, just like a homeowner telling a guest to leave weapons at the door isn't a gun control provision, its the homeowner exercising their property rights. Use of a weapon in an assault as an aggravating factor is likewise not a gun control provision, its basic common law on assault. See how that works? Gun control provisions are laws banning magazines by capacity, weapons by arbitrary barrel length or action operation, or possession by persons in public or in private, requiring background checks or otherwise restricting sales or shipping etc etc etc.

There is nothing unconstitutional about an assault claim. You don't point a weapon at a whole bunch of people then state with counsel that there were only "2 bad actors" you were afraid of. Its dumb.

 

1st amendment rights don't cover trespassing vandalism and threatening

 

Pointing a weapon at someone is not ok absent a legal excuse that's not available to Patricia since she just had to run her mouth about only being scared of "2 bad actors" not the whole crowd.. Simply possessing a firearm and keeping it at the low ready is not brandishing as the term is used in this context, pointing it at someone the way you see Patricia do throughout the entire video is.

 

I said it was illegal, yes. That's not a normative judgment. If she could express the HOA's castle law claim she'd be fine. She can't do that so she's not, under the current statute. Tweak the statute and you can change this issue in future cases.
Making an analysis of law and fact and coming to a conclusion is not morally ratifying that conclusion dear. Surely you can try harder?


I said if you're going to be arresting people for violating the law, like the trespassers you offered, and you're going to use the video to do it then you're going to have to take Patricia too. I said that because if you don't, you're going to open the prosecutions of those trespassers up to claims of racial bias etc most if not all of the cases won't stick because of that, you'll lose the prosecutors you put on the case to scandal PR, etc. Whereas if you take Patricia too, who under the statutes as they currently sit pretty clearly opens herself up to criminal liability particularly with her 'only 2 bad actors' representation, you avoid all that.

But you didn't inquire about any of that, you just ASSumed. You know what they say about doing that right?

 

They were ALL bad actors. Peaceful protesters dont bust down gates and trespass.

 

They put up the gates and people broke them down to get in man. That's not a condition the HOA created.
They're not responsible for the crimes and torts of others and its hilarious to me that you would think they would be.
If someone breaks down my door and rapes a houseguest the liability is not on me as the property owner. Where on Earth are you pulling that from?

They put up a gate and a wall Professor, what further standard of "reasonable care" would they need? Are you saying that attacks on the subdivision by random 500 person mobs is a reasonably foreseeable event? FFS you want to talk about first year torts its almost the definition of a force majeure/civil unrest event. Unless you can show the HOA let them in, which I think it'll be hard to do since the ****ing gate was torn down to get in but you give it a shot, they are naked trespassers and the HOA didn't create the condition which means they cannot be held liable for the torts or crimes of the said naked trespassers.

Which would be fine, except the McClosky's had to go and open their big mouths about how they didn't feel threatened by any of the other 498 persons there, just the "2 bad actors". They'll have no credibility making that argument now, not after having their counsel release that statement.

So you're saying if the police ****ed off their jobs and didn't do anything because they thought "**** the Mayor's neighborhood" that would somehow be the Mayor's fault to be sued upon and it would be so egregious a tort as to breach her qualified immunity?
Maybe you need to go back to first year torts. Because you can't even go after a COP for ****ing off the job, they have no duty to rescue you or protect you etc. That's been litigated to death.

 

According to the McClosky's they considered only 2 persons out of the crowd of 500 to be "bad actors" and were only afraid of those "2 bad actors".

 

No, it's not their First Amendment right to tear down a gate, and issue threats! Therefore the couple exercised their Second Amendment right and protected themselves..

 

I think they should be given a medal. When I first read this I genuinely thought that was Gatewood or Todd etc making a joke but you're actually serious?

 

It was a mob who already were ALL breaking the law.

 

And no govt entity was trying to deny them their 1st Amen rights so you analogy fails. The couple in question do not have a legal obligation regarding the protestors 1st Amen rights.


“First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

 

And the McClosky's claim to not have been afraid of any but the "two bad actors".

 

Sure.

 

Who could have predicted the speed at which the back peddling starts. So, you do believe in restrictions or enhanced sentencing for using them in crime... How generous of you. Actually, not to nit pic here, but the constitution doesn't actually define assault. Just sayin. Creating criminal code of course is constitutional. You were telling us how no gun restrictions is your mantra, and yet here you are supporting exactly those things because you feelz they are necessary to further define sentencing and criminal activity. Gosh, the flexibility here. Perhaps, it's just best if you drop the legal analysis schtick.. It isn't helping your narratives.

 

Dude that's LITERALLY the statement they had their lawyers put out. Are you unaware of that?

 

Again: Laws recognizing assault as a crime, more serious for the use of a weapon to accomplish it, are not gun control. You can tell they're not gun control by how they apply to ANY assault with ANY weapon.
Are you suggesting that American jurisprudence doesn't recognize the common law and that accepting the common law is somehow a violation of the Constitution? Our founding fathers would be shocked to hear you suggest such a thing, one of their main aims was to preserve the common law rights and remedies at law that the King had so abused.

Assault is recognized under the common law and has been since the 1300's at the assizes (early courts in the anglo saxon tradition from which we originally begin to derive our concepts of things like murder, assault, malice, intent, etc). The first recognition of the act as a punishable act in the common law came when a man hurled a hatchet or handaxe (the exact form of the weapon is somewhat in question though it is certainly an axe of some type of the sort a peasant would carry in the 1300s in England) at the door frame a woman (who was apparently screeching like a harridan at him about something) was standing next to not intending to strike her but simply to give her a fright. According to the testimony he gave. The court found that enough to punish, and so first the tort and later crime of assault became a concept in the common law.

When you threaten someone by putting a deadly weapon in their face, you have to have the commensurate legal excuse required to justify the behavior. Here, she needs particular facts which she can assert as an affirmative defense giving her cause to threaten someone with deadly force. Each person she points at has to open themselves to deadly force. Standing on the HOA's street and talking ****? Not enough. Making a direct threat against her? Would be enough. By her statement made with counsel? She was only threatened by "2 bad actors". That's not MY narrative. That's HER narrative.

 

All that to admit you actually don't understand torts... oh well. here's the law then. Take an employer. They interview, do back ground checks, they follow the law, yada yada. You'd think, like your continued reference to the wall, the gates, that said employer had in fact satisfied the reasonable care they can make to ensure hiring said employee is a good decision for them. But... shocker, employee turns out to be a serial rapist. Just as Michigan State or Penn State, or several other institutions that are now facing exactly this kind of liability what the most recent version of reasonable care is. And as in this case in St Louis, yes, an HOA can be expected to foresee (especially since the very unpopular mayor lives there) that her residence might then become a focus point for protests because... wait for it..... This has already happened around the country to several elected officials now. What makes the HOA then not negligent for not either a) beefing up security, or b) asking the nice mayor to leave. Either of which is a course of action the HOA could have taken here, but didn't. So, the end result is, like the aforementioned universities, seemingly, those institutions, and now this HOA can get hauled into court to defend their negligence. And like said universities, juries look really negatively these days when there is this kind of case brought. How much did Penn State pay out? MI state still has pending litigation. In all of these cases, reasonable care was the defense of those institutions, and the juries chose to decide that they were, in fact, negligent. Sorry that makes you mad, clearly, your need to resort to such language that could find you in contempt in a courtroom demonstrates your frustration at not being able to mount a sufficient argument here.

As for the police, who knows? I can speculate about it, and frankly why would they want to haul for the mayor here? It isn't like she was doing them any favors. One could also speculate that the mayor herself instructed the police not to engage. Lots of potential reasons. Perhaps she doesn't like the gun toters and wanted them to feel real fear. It is kind of fun going down this road though. And of course, depending on the real answers here, she actually could very well be liable given the answer. You point out that the cops don't have a duty to protect you. Why then, do especially democratic administrations in large cities employ so many of them? Just for their union dues? Do you suppose more employed cops who's unions then fork over those campaign contributions then have something to do with it? But screw the rest of the city... it isn't the duty of the police to serve or protect. You seem to want to dig lots of holes here today. perhaps you should stop already...

 

Penn State: Had knowledge of Sandusky's activities and did nothing. Its called snake pit liability because they essentially threw those kids in what they knew was a snake pit because of evidence they had over the course of years. THATS what opened them to liability is that complaints were made and they COVERED THEM UP. https://www.pasexabusecrimevictimsl...or the alleged heinous acts of Jerry Sandusky.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...y-case-could-tighten-the-budget-belt,1077227/
The idea that someone may get bit in a snake pit you knowingly send them into is the same as the idea that someone may get raped if you've caught the dude fondling little boys in the showers and did nothing about it but send him more victims.

Here, the HOA did not aid and abett the trespass. Again: Are you saying that random 500 person mobs are reasonably foreseeable there Professor?

Again: Its been well established that cops owe no duty to keep you safe etc. They can't be sued for not doing it = the mayor can't be sued for them not doing it, particularly if she didn't directly order them not to which you have exactly zero evidence of. That's not a normative judgment there, that's a statement of fact on where exactly the law sits today and how likely one would be to recover should they try such a theory.

Are you assuming I'm either pro police or pro union? Or pro democrat?

 

It was a large MOB who were all trespassing, listen to the death and arson threats. Are you unaware of that? You must not be a fan of the legal right to defend your property.

 

Is this DA an idiot? They were criminals who had broken down a security gate, property damage, and the trespassed on private property threaten a resident. That is NOT exercising their First Amendment rights that is violating the law. THAT is who she should be arresting.

 

It doesn't matter whether they were threatened by 498 people, or two people. None of them had the right to that private property space. Nor the right to destroy the gate. Prosecuting this couple, if it went through is even more license for more violence by protesters.

In 2020, in America, it seems that to be a criminal is to profit. To be a law abiding citizen is to be judged, possibly prosecuted and thrown in jail.