Warrant Served On St. Louis Couple Who Defended Private Property, Rifle Confiscated

I understand they're both lawyers...they'll be okay. What irony. When the police finally showed up at their home, it was to disarm them. It just makes me sick to my stomach..


Warrant Served On St. Louis Couple Who Defended Private Property, Rifle Confiscated
Law enforcement officials in St. Louis have allegedly served a warrant on the St. Louis couple who recently defended their home when a large mob of angry demonstrators allegedly trespassed onto their private property.

“5 On Your Side has learned St. Louis police officers executed a search warrant Friday evening at the home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the Central West end couple who confronted protesters with weapons in June,” KSDK News reported.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/brea...rivate-property-guns-confiscated-report-says/

 

The police exist to protect the criminals. Once you realize this simple truth, their actions start making sense.

 

Then why do city mayors have to order law enforcement to stand down rather than get involved?

 

The better question, I think, is why do law enforcement officers follow those orders?

I don't dispute that they often do it unwillingly and under orders from their superiors or civil authorities. I choose to hope that the police that disarmed the McCloskey's were not gleeful about the task, but they followed their orders anyways.

 

BTW, this probably deserves some mention in this thread:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...skey-case-for-politically-motivated-decisions

 

Isn’t pointing a weapon at someone considered brandishing in most — if not all states?

 

They're lawyers so I guess they would understand the law if someone was on their property.

 

Were the protesters on their property or were they on the street?

 

Republican be Republicaning

 

Walt, that's a good question.

 

This will probably be s rallying for the far right who will take this as a sign they have to get violent.

And I really really hope I’m wrong on this.

 

The thugs...er..."protesters" were on a common area in a private community and were making death threats at the couple.

So, yes. They (the thug "protesters") were on the McCloskey's property.

 

"They" started it.

Just sayin'.

 

I keep hearing this repeated, everything from they knocked down a gated community fence to they were making death threats — video shows the protestors walking through an undamaged open gate, no evidence of threats, no calls to 911, and they appear to be on a sidewalk — even if they were in their yard brandishing is still illegal. The McCloskey's Even acknowledged that the “threats” didn’t occur until they pointed the weapon at protestors.

 

A sidewalk that the McCloskey's OWN. Therefore, it's their property.

Can you provide ANY evidence that those thugs were invited there?

Link, please.

 

Read about the District Attorney that was responsible for this warrant.

another story that involved her here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...se-that-made-missouri-governor-resign.569128/


Also, the man in that video did not actually point his rifle at the mob of protesters that had broken down the gate and were on their property; that was his wife with her little pistol.
Yet ironically it ended up being his rifle police found and confiscated.

 

It'd be just as valid to say of Gardner: commie be commieing.

 

You guys own the sidewalks adjacent to your property?? That must get expensive for upkeep.

Up here the City owns the sidewalks, and our property lines end at the beginning of said sidewalk, but we are responsible for snow clearing.

 

From the GIS listing for property boundaries at their address they do not own the sidewalk. Most sidewalks do not belong to the residence.

Even if they own it that does not give them the ability to point a weapon at someone. Y’all are arguing castle doctrine without knowing what it actually does.

I am not looking up the legal definition of brandishing as I have posted it dozens of times only to have it ignored. Feel free to educate yourself.

 

The man was also pointing his weapon irresponsibly, fanning the barrel across the crowd. The wife was far more irresponsible, pointing at people and holding her finger on the trigger. The fact that the pistol was "little" doesn't matter. Also, the reason they confiscated the rifle and not the pistol is that they supposedly gave the pistol to their lawyer . . . who now claims he doesn't know the location of the pistol.

 

Rule of thumb; never point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them.

 

They don't want lawsuits filed against them. It gets expensive after a while.

 

My eyes went googly at that lie, but I see others have already shot it down...

Those 2 crack me up... the OP picture could be one of my pictures of the year 2020....

I don't think they are in legal jeopardy at this time, but it doesn't really matter, as Trump will pardon them if they ever are...

 

Read your post incorrect. I retract my statement.

 

I heard that answered both ways. I also understand that it was an association but depending on the type of an association and state law it will depend if the "iroad" is private or a town road. If the association is the type that the entire complex is association property then the road would be what is called a "common element" . A common element is coequally owned all owners as a per capita share of ownership. In that case the demonstrators were demonstrating on a private road not invited then that couple can make a case that they were protecting their property. If their association has elements defined down to EUAs or EUZs ( Exclusive Use Area or Exclusive Use Zone) and I saw that they appeared to be standing in what I surmise is their EUA and that is where the footprint of the house rests then they have exclusive use and then it makes that owner couple 's case stronger that they were defending their castle.

The practical side of this is that if they were outnumbered 100 to 1 and if ( a big if) the demonstrators were all armed then that couple would be stupid. You see just because you have a right to do something does not mean that you should do it.

I still think that Bonnie and Clyde were grandstanding.