Latest posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
25,278
Posts
495,151
Members
27,698
Latest Member
Macdonaldebere
What's New?

Wow... Just wow..

Tuffoldman

Tuffoldman

VIP Member
May 23, 2011
887
534


Now don't get me wrong I don't just read Fox News and accept everything they say these two just popped up and they were pretty political and a hot button subject at the time. This just goes to show if you try and protect your property you either go to jail or you give up a lot of your rights. What a freaking mess!
 
69nites

69nites

VIP Member
Aug 17, 2011
2,055
635
Weird that their firearms are being destroyed despite them not losing the right to own them.

Your car doesn't get destroyed when used in a misdemeanor offense.

I'm actually not opposed to the crime they were convicted of. They were muzzling people with their fingers on the trigger.

No different than I feel about police. Low ready until you're ready to shoot.
 
Wallyd

Wallyd

VIP Member
Dec 10, 2013
583
242
I don’t understand any of this. They are entitled to protect themselves and their property from a mob making forced entry. Yes they forced their way in to a very well marked, gated, fenced, private area. These bastards are getting off Scott free just to avoid any backlash & more public outcry, followed by rioting. In my opinion they are very lucky they weren’t shot, I guarantee you in a more rural area things would’ve been much worse. I know for a fact they were planning a March/peaceful protest in a very rural area & decided to cancel it fearing for their safety. You keep pushing people eventually your luck is going to run out.
 
Tuffoldman

Tuffoldman

VIP Member
May 23, 2011
887
534
Weird that their firearms are being destroyed despite them not losing the right to own them.

Your car doesn't get destroyed when used in a misdemeanor offense.

I'm actually not opposed to the crime they were convicted of. They were muzzling people with their fingers on the trigger.

No different than I feel about police. Low ready until you're ready to shoot.
When this first came out my first reaction to this was did they feel they were truly In harm's Way? Or did they just see a mob of people and get scared and run in grab their guns and point it at the people? To me those are two different scenarios that would have different outcomes and without saying I understand the law completely I believe if they were just scared and they weren't truly threatened then yes they should have some type of charges. If I'm scared because you know 10 people are walking down the street I can't just run in and grab my gun and start screaming at him and point my guns. If I feel my life is in danger then yes now the question comes down to how far away was this mob from their property? Could this couple have just gone in the house and locked themselves inside and been safe? The biggest problem we have in this scenario is yet two very very white people and a very angry crowd and the media that is going to tear apart anybody that stands against BLM. So the prosecutor had to do something or I should say they feel compelled that they have to do something.


I carry all the time I will not go anywhere without my gun I drive with it in my console open where I can grab it with having to take it out of a holder or anything it's legal where I live. I carry it into every store and I'm ready to use it if I have to but just because I see a mob of people that I'm nervous about I don't pull out my gun I go the other direction. Self-preservation and the safety of my family is Paramount. I don't believe that they should destroy their guns if they were not charged with some type of felony I think that's totally wrong that they're going to destroy their guns, like noted above, for a misdemeanor. I'm sure it was some sort of plea agreement which is pretty sad you have to plead guilty to something when it isn't actually wrong they just have to put it on paper so the prosecutor makes the right people happy
 
C

ceo

VIP Member
Oct 12, 2010
736
387
Weird that their firearms are being destroyed despite them not losing the right to own them.

Your car doesn't get destroyed when used in a misdemeanor offense.

I'm actually not opposed to the crime they were convicted of. They were muzzling people with their fingers on the trigger.

No different than I feel about police. Low ready until you're ready to shoot.
Have you seen the pics of the people they came.out to face? One had what looked to be a paintball gun aimed at them.

Imagine hearing a ruckus, you get up to look out the window and see a mob having just torn down your cast iron gate, now marching angrily up to your house. You see at least one gun, and very likely clubs and other weapons. What do you do?

Missouri has pretty good laws when it comes to gun rights and self defense. It is a stand your ground and castle doctrine state.

The McCloskey's were within their rights.

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk
 
DungeonDweller

DungeonDweller

VIP Member
Mar 21, 2017
1,244
970
The McCloskey's were within their rights.
Yeah, I'm thinking this is far from over. This is so high-profile I think there is a lot of money and a lot of really good lawyers working on this.
 
69nites

69nites

VIP Member
Aug 17, 2011
2,055
635
Have you seen the pics of the people they came.out to face? One had what looked to be a paintball gun aimed at them.

Imagine hearing a ruckus, you get up to look out the window and see a mob having just torn down your cast iron gate, now marching angrily up to your house. You see at least one gun, and very likely clubs and other weapons. What do you do?

Missouri has pretty good laws when it comes to gun rights and self defense. It is a stand your ground and castle doctrine state.

The McCloskey's were within their rights.

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk
I do what people who aren't dumbasses do. Grab my gun, defend from cover, and keep it at low ready until I'm ready to raise it and fire.

The reason I would do that is because I'm actually a gun owner who has trained a significant amount. The first thing I did was look up their state laws. Lethal force is allowed to be used only in cases of an imminent threat to your person or another person. Specifically not your property. It's a crime to point a firearm at a person you aren't allowed to use it on.

The mob could have walked up their driveway and set their car on fire, they still wouldn't have been in their legal rights to use a firearm on them. If you're not going to use it, you have no business pointing it. If you own a gun, you should know when you're allowed to use it.

Now, if this was Texas, you could shoot them all from an upstairs window to protect person or property. And realistically, if the goal was to protect themselves and not stroke themselves off, they should have been holding aim from cover.

They did the least intelligent thing they could do both tactically, and legally.
 
69nites

69nites

VIP Member
Aug 17, 2011
2,055
635
Yeah, I'm thinking this is far from over. This is so high-profile I think there is a lot of money and a lot of really good lawyers working on this.
The 2 lawyers plead guilty. It's already over. They chose not to fight the minor misdemeanor charge.
 
C

ceo

VIP Member
Oct 12, 2010
736
387
The 2 lawyers plead guilty. It's already over. They chose not to fight the minor misdemeanor charge.
They got it down to a misdemeanor, then plead guilty.

Also, Mrs. McCloskey was pointing her gun at the guy in the BLM crowd who had his gun already pointed at her. You can still find pics of this.

I'm not saying they did things the smartest way, but they were clearly scared from what they saw, coupled with recent events (riots, looting, burning, murders).

He came out first while she called 911. He was her first line of defense while she called for backup from inside the home. She finished the call then went to help her husband. Maybe it wasn't perfect, but in the heat of things, being scared and lawyers, not combat trained military personnel...I'd say it wasn't awful. There was sense to how they acted.

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk
 
The other Snake

The other Snake

VIP Member
Aug 19, 2016
552
582
Judged by 12 or carried by 6, "We the people" always lose.
 
Bigtex

Bigtex

VIP Member
Aug 14, 2012
914
1,333
Not from Missouri so I am not so familiar with their laws but do know that have a stand your ground law in effect. Missouri has a law that allows citizens to defend themselves in public areas. There is not a duty to retreat. If you have a legal right to be in a location, then you also have a right to protect yourself if you’re in imminent threat of deadly harm.

That law also extends to the protection of others under the same philosophy. If they’re under imminent threat of deadly harm, then you can protect someone else. However, you cannot be in the course of committing a different crime (for example, you can’t be trespassing),in order to invoke the Stand Your Ground law.

Missouri allows you to defend yourself with the use of deadly force if you’re under imminent threat of deadly force, without a duty to retreat in public. These BLM thugs had broken down an iron gate to their property and ignored a "No Trespassing" sign on their private street. The couple said they felt their lives were in danger. That by law should have given them the right to protect themselves with deadly force if necessary.

No doubt the prosecuter is terrible and their lawyer must have been worse. I am not seeing how in the world they could have been charged with any crime. Here in Texas, The Texas Penal Code provides that posting “no trespassing” signs that would reasonably come to the attention to the intruders has the effect of providing notice that entry is forbidden. Once notice is provided, entering or remaining on the property without the consent of the owner becomes a violation of Section 30.05 of the Texas Penal Code. A violator of Section 30.05 is charged with criminal trespass, a misdemeanor.

Under our Castle Law....

Texas Penal Code § 9.41 explains that the use of force against another person is justified when:
  1. You are in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property;
  2. You reasonably believe that the force is immediately necessary; and
  3. You are trying to prevent another person's trespass or unlawful interference with that property.
Yes folks here in Texas you can get shot for trespassing. Many ranches put up signes that warn you that you will be shot.

In other words, you can use force to defend your land or property to stop someone else from trespassing or committing a crime.

The use of force is justified in Texas if another person trespasses or otherwise unlawfully interferes with your property.

Trespassing: Trespassing occurs when a person enters and remains on land without your permission. This can occur if there are “no trespassing” signs posted on your property or if you tell a person to leave the premises.

Unlawful Interference: Unlawful interference can mean (1) attempted theft, (2) theft, or (3) other criminal mischief.

We have been told by the police to put a NO TRESPASSING sign in a visable place. So we have on in our front yard plainly visable. In this case anyone who enters our property without our permission gives us permission to stop them using deadly force if necessary.

You guys that carry should be very knowledgable of you state laws. Which is the advantage of getting a permit IMHO. Like I said, I do not know Missouri's stand your ground laws but it seems logical when there are NO TRESSPASSING sign visable and they idiots break down the iron security gate to your property you have the right to protect your property. These people need to appeal this decision and get it out of St. Louis.
 
Top