[Webley One]

I see on the TV news the police seized the AR from the St. Louis homeowner who kept many demonstrators at bay on his own property. In addition the news reported that 12 GOP members of Congress sent a letter to AG Barr requesting assistance.

I wonder what the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice will do to restore Second Amendment Rights and the AR to the homeowner?

Webley

 

[damorealan696]

I am no kind of expert on anything, but if the AR had all the papers required { if any } looks like he could have a lucrative case. From what I have seen, the gun never left his property. This will be worth watching.

 

[North Bender]

I don’t know enough about this incident to form much of an opinion, but I saw the lady with pistol in hand, finger on trigger, pointing the gun at people in the street. I assume the guy was doing the same with his AR. If they aren’t directly threatening you or your property I don’t know if it’s legal to point a gun at someone. I was on a jury trial where a guy was charged with pointing a gun at another guy. We let him off because we decided he was being seriously threatened. This case may revolve around such a determination.

 

[pinkie]

I understand the charge may be "Brandishing a Weapon" , but it's seems unlikely since they were RESPONDING TO A THREAT , not causing one . Some states allow a person to show a gun, if they feel threatened. Some not, considering it an offensive threat . I would have put the gun over my shoulder , with the barrel in the air , but my hand on the grip. The wife should have just had the gun visible in a holster. With that, you say, "If you threaten me or try to harm my home , I WILL SHOOT YOU " !!!!!
From the video I saw, the one jackass was mouthing off and the other telling him to move on.

 

[Webley One]

I don’t know enough about this incident to form much of an opinion, but I saw the lady with pistol in hand, finger on trigger, pointing the gun at people in the street. I assume the guy was doing the same with his AR. If they aren’t directly threatening you or your property I don’t know if it’s legal to point a gun at someone. I was on a jury trial where a guy was charged with pointing a gun at another guy. We let him off because we decided he was being seriously threatened. This case may revolve around such a determination.

North Bender,

My point exactly: Why was the AR Seized? If the attorney gun owner violated ANY law, why was he not arrested incident to the AR seizure? One would assume a lawyer threatened on his own land would comply with the law.

I say the Civil Rights Division of the Attorney General's Office should check this out. If a crime was committed, why was the GUN the culprit? During my federal law enforcement career, I obtained many search warrants and all required an affidavit (sworn statement) stating the reason for the need for a search warrant. I would like to read the AR affidavit. I cannot understand any of this. I have asked my congressman and senator to ask the Attorney General to look into this Civil Rights matter. If a lawyer can have his gun seized, who is next?

Webley

 

[AR475891]

So this article just came out in the local paper....

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.amp.html

Honestly after reading this, it wouldn’t surprise me if they are getting rough treatment because they’ve stepped on So many toes in the area over the years. I’m not saying people should deserve to be punished for an unrelated event for past sins, but if you read the article it’s clear these people are grade A @ssholes who have done plenty to anger all their neighbors and plenty of powerful people in the city.

When you make enemies of people in power they will take any chance they get to squish you.

 

[Mosinitis]

Because affirmative action AG gots mad that anyone would prevent "free expression" (breaking down a sercurity gate and threatening genocide (I'm sure there's a word for it, but you know that socialist thing where all the people with some money are killed so the people with lots of money/power can get more))

Anywho, their actions are legal by state law, but some how she got an order from a favored judge
and decided to pick a fight with a pair of attorneys who've made getting paid to go away (settlements) their life work
Liberal ones at that, makes me think they're they kind of people you don't tangle with because, no matter the outcome, it'll be nasty.

 

[Ivan Ivanovich]

Very interesting article and backround. All politics aside, the 2 lawyers were tactically foolish.

Large mob, some seemed to be armed and the couple stood out side in bare feet without any cover. would have been much smarter to first put on your shoes then seek cover to observe what was going on. If an attempt was made by the mob to breach the castle walls then it is time to react.

Have little sympathy for the lawyer couple who seem to be a couple of as*holes but a man's home is his castle and he has a right to defend it. The implications for other citizens defending their lives and property could be bad. Will have to see how this works out.

 

[Webley One]

So this article just came out in the local paper....

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.amp.html

Honestly after reading this, it wouldn’t surprise me if they are getting rough treatment because they’ve stepped on So many toes in the area over the years. I’m not saying people should deserve to be punished for an unrelated event for past sins, but if you read the article it’s clear these people are grade A @ssholes who have done plenty to anger all their neighbors and plenty of powerful people in the city.

When you make enemies of people in power they will take any chance they get to squish you.

AR,

So what does past litigation have to do with the Search Warrant and seizing the AR? What did the AR do? If a crime was committed, why was the lawyer not arrested when his AR was seized?

P.S. Lawyers litigate and your lengthy article is par for the course. The issue should be, are all guns culpable of seizure? If so, why?

Be well.

Webley

 

[AR475891]

AR,

So what does past litigation have to do with the Search Warrant and seizing the AR? What did the AR do? If a crime was committed, why was the lawyer not arrested when his AR was seized?

P.S. Lawyers litigate and your lengthy article is par for the course. The issue should be, are all guns culpable of seizure? If so, why?

Be well.

Webley

My point was that when you push people's buttons with authority over you, that they will often seek ways to get back at you. A simple example of this would be getting mouthy with a cop who pulled you over for a speeding ticket, but then tacks on failure to yield because of your attitude. As a summary of the article I posted, they have done several things in their neighborhood (including trying to seize shared neighborhood property through a lawsuit and even threatened a neighbor on that shared piece of ground with a firearm), the surrounding community, and several high profile law firms in the city. They have made plenty of enemies of wealthy and powerful people would love to see them squirm.

In addition to this though, Missouri has a specific law about "brandishing" firearms when threatened. By the letter of the law, you are not supposed to pull a gun unless you plan to use it. This grey area makes it easy for an eager District Attorney to go after someone if they really want to. Where they run into a problem is that video footage shows them with both the handgun and the AR on there property brandishing them at the protesters before any of them were ever actually on their personal property. My friend is a lawyer who lives in St. Louis County and he says per the law they technically did commit a state crime by drawing and presenting weapons before they were one their private property. Think of it as you getting in an argument with your next door neighbor because he dumped trash on your lawn and him coming out pointing a gun at you while you stand in the street. You've made no physical threat to him or his property so he should not pull a weapon on you per the law.

Because they are being investigated for a crime, the police can seize the AR. Same as if you used a pistol in a self-defense situation. Even if in the right, a gun goes with the cops whenever a crime surrounding it is being investigated. This is why the pistol and AR are in custody now and nothing else because nothing else was used in the event. If a red flag law was in place in MO though, all bets are off on what would happen. Until they have enough evidence that a crime was committed and the DA decides they want to press charges, he can stay at home. Right now they are probably just "gathering evidence".

 

[Webley One]

AR,

Good points, but I doubt a lawyer committed a crime under the Castle Doctrine and other existing state law. Brandishing may have different meanings on a public way versus on one's own veranda. When dozens of protesters advance toward your home and no cops are around, what would a reasonable person do?

Whether the protestors were on the citizen's property is a matter for the Civil Rights Attorneys to determine. In this day and age, I am sure video evidence will show the facts. The TV news said the DA received campaign money from Soros, the anti-gun guru. I would like to read the Search Warrant affidavit.

Be Well.

Webley

 

[OhBoy]

It was a gated community, all private property. The street, the sidewalk, everything.
Posted no trespassing on top of it.

 

[Webley One]

It was a gated community, all private property. The street, the sidewalk, everything.
Posted no trespassing on top of it.

OhBoy,

+1! Thanks.

Webley

 

[4816]

Big picture is AG seems to be a bought and paid for Soros Marxist. It's scary they(marxist mob) can come after you because they've scared the police into not responding and then when you try to defend yourself, they bust you for doing it. They've also scared the Republican Gov. and legislators into doing nothing. Rule of law here and everywhere lately is just being ignored. Saw the guy on Tucker last night and he said that whatever happens, at least he was there on TV instead of cleaning up the ashes of his house or worse, 6 ft under!

 

[AR475891]

It was a gated community, all private property. The street, the sidewalk, everything.
Posted no trespassing on top of it.

It was a gated community, but castle doctrine only applies to personal private property in MO from what was explained to me. Basically, you can’t brandish a firearm as a threat on shared private property. Think like a neighborhood pool, same rules would apply and castle doctrine does not extend there. The street in this case is shared private property like the pool.

 

[davidsog]

Going after someone just because you think their an azzhat or for politics is the very definition of malicious prosecution. No jury will convict especially given the racism, violence, and hatred of the “protesters.

If the left wins this they have taken our right to defend ourselves just as sure as if they made guns illegal. If you cannot defend your own home from the mob and the police won’t respond....

The mob rules.

 

[pinkie]

It was a gated community, but castle doctrine only applies to personal private property in MO from what was explained to me. Basically, you can’t brandish a firearm as a threat on shared private property. Think like a neighborhood pool, same rules would apply and castle doctrine does not extend there. The street in this case is shared private property like the pool.

You obviously have a thing for the McCloskeys !!!! The article you posted feeds your hate. The truth is, most of us would file a complaint or lawsuit , except it costs money, in most cases more than it's worth. They have the luxury of doing it because they have a business that does it.
People pay good money to live in a "Gated Community" as opposed to some public street. There are rules, usually an HOA that you sign and agree to follow , as part of the sale / buying of the house. Every neighborhood has one !!! The jackass that flaunts the rules and dares the rest of the homeowners to do something about it. Many cities have what's known as "Nuisance Ordinances " which list many offenses such as accumulation of trash, eyesores in public view, storage of dangerous substances and on, and the best part is, the laws passed Constitutional muster !! Sounds like The McCloskeys were just trying to keep the place honest . I know I wouldn't like a bunch of bee hives on my property line,[ Why weren't they put them in the middle of their property?? You think they don't want to get stung either??].
As far as all the rest of the blather, it doesn't address the issue , but just seeks to prejudice peoples opinion, [common Democrap tactic]. Any court will also tell you, you can't bring up prior bad acts, when prosecuting , which is what you posted.
Stick to the issue at hand, a husband and wife , in fear of their lives , protecting their home from an angry mob that destroyed property to gain access and were bent on possibly doing more damage !!!!!

 

[AR475891]

You obviously have a thing for the McCloskeys !!!! The article you posted feeds your hate. The truth is, most of us would file a complaint or lawsuit , except it costs money, in most cases more than it's worth. They have the luxury of doing it because they have a business that does it.
People pay good money to live in a "Gated Community" as opposed to some public street. There are rules, usually an HOA that you sign and agree to follow , as part of the sale / buying of the house. Every neighborhood has one !!! The jackass that flaunts the rules and dares the rest of the homeowners to do something about it. Many cities have what's known as "Nuisance Ordinances " which list many offenses such as accumulation of trash, eyesores in public view, storage of dangerous substances and on, and the best part is, the laws passed Constitutional muster !! Sounds like The McCloskeys were just trying to keep the place honest . I know I wouldn't like a bunch of bee hives on my property line,[ Why weren't they put them in the middle of their property?? You think they don't want to get stung either??].
As far as all the rest of the blather, it doesn't address the issue , but just seeks to prejudice peoples opinion, [common Democrap tactic]. Any court will also tell you, you can't bring up prior bad acts, when prosecuting , which is what you posted.
Stick to the issue at hand, a husband and wife , in fear of their lives , protecting their home from an angry mob that destroyed property to gain access and were bent on possibly doing more damage !!!!!

You need to take a deep breathe and calm down a little bit. I'm just repeating what my lawyer friend told me so don't get all pissy at me. I stated some facts based on the current interpretation of MO state law and didn't even give a hint at my opinion. All those exclamation points are the true sign of a snowflake...

 

[davidsog]

Once more, the "Protesters" knowingly entered into private property. It is a simple fact that every street and every common area of that gated community is legally PRIVATE property in the state of Missouri. The "protesters" have publicly stated they knowingly trespassed on private property as part of their "civil disobedience" effort.

There is no right to a "civil disobedience" effort. That is called being a criminal and breaking the law.

Gardner, a Democrat, was elected circuit attorney of St. Louis in 2016, running on a campaign that promised to reform and rebuild trust in the criminal justice system and reduce violent crime.

She was criticized ahead of the election for releasing a political ad paid for by the Safety and Justice Super PAC that was at least partially funded by liberal billionaire George Soros, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.

“In a stunning development, our office has learned that every single one of the St. Louis looters and rioters arrested were released back onto the streets by local prosecutor Kim Gardner,” Schmitt tweeted June 3.

Gardner responded that only eight of the 36 cases were referred to her office and that police did not provide “admissible evidence."

This DA seems to have no regard for the law unless it advances her political agenda.

Gardner was sued last week for at least the third time over the state’s Sunshine Law, an open records law that requires the government to respond within three days to requests for public records, the Post-Dispatch reported.

​

The latest lawsuit claims Gardner’s office failed to fulfill an April 23 open records request for data on case statistics, dismissal data and staffing totals, the paper said. Her office responded in a letter May 12, according to the paper, saying more time was needed to fulfill the request due to the coronavirus.
The Post-Dispatch also sued Gardner’s office in 2019 over her office’s refusal to release copies of contracts with vendors. A judge ruled in the paper’s favor in April, but the paper said Gardner’s office has not yet fully complied.

Gardner also filed her own lawsuit against city officials in January under a federal law passed to curb the violence of the Ku Klux Klan following the Civil War.
In the suit, Gardner accused city officials, the local police union and a special prosecutor of a “racially motivated conspiracy to deny the civil rights of racial minorities” by obstructing her work to get tough on police misconduct and create change in the criminal justice system, The New York Times reported at the time.

The rate of convictions under Gardner has fallen dramatically in the past two years, according to a KMOV-TV report from February.
The station obtained data from Gardner’s office that showed prosecutors got guilty verdicts in 51 percent of cases in 2018, and in 54 percent of cases in 2019. The station reported convictions had dropped by about 20 percent.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/who-is-kimberly-gardner-st-louis-prosecutor

A day after the previous governor suggested he was a coward for not sending officers to defend the St. Louis couple seen in viral video footage holding guns on protesters near their home, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said Tuesday the couple "had every right" to take the action to defend their home.

The couple have said the protesters broke through a gate to a private road beside their house and were not on public property.

The governor also criticized St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner, saying she ws “attempting to take their constitutional rights away.”

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/missouri-parson-black-lives-matter/2020/07/14/id/977219/

 

[davidsog]

It was a gated community, but castle doctrine only applies to personal private property in MO from what was explained to me. Basically, you can’t brandish a firearm as a threat on shared private property. Think like a neighborhood pool, same rules would apply and castle doctrine does not extend there. The street in this case is shared private property like the pool.

That is factually wrong. There is nothing in Castle Doctrine that prevents a threatened homeowner from being ready to defend themselves.

Trespassing in Missouri: What You Need to Know

There are many factors that can weigh into a trespassing case. One of these is whether or not the person’s property had clear markers to keep trespassers out. In Missouri this could include any of the following markers or signage:

• A fence in installed
• Telling the person or persons who are attempting to trespass that they can’t enter the property.
• A sign that says “No Trespassing”

https://www.missourilegal.com/blog/2018/12/26/trespassing-in-missouri-what-you-need-to-know/

Missouri Castle doctrine does not extend the right to deadly force unless life is threatened. The couple did not use any deadly force and there is nothing about brandishing being illegal in Castle Doctrine of the State of Missouri. That couple had every right to be in a self defense posture given the proven violent nature of the criminal mob. The mob proved its willingness to disregard the law and violent intentions by tearing down the gate.

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-self-defense-laws.html

Now, if those protesters had been on a public street conducting a lawful protest and not a self proclaimed "civil disobedience" effort with criminal trespass and that couple came out to threaten them it would be a different story.