UPDATE: Police RAID house of gun-toting St. Louis lawyer couple and confiscate the AR-15

[kevin9]

As I posted over in the "Huge Rioting" thread, here's the actual MI law they might be charged under: 571.030

Note it does call out exhibiting as a violation (section 1.(4)), but also provides a self-defense exemption (563.031) that applies "against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual". Under that exemption the state would have to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force." IMNSHO they'll get charged, and beat it.

 

[Uzi2]

If the threat of the mob were so dire, why did the homeowners not fire on the intruders until the threat was over?

Please go back under your rock. Nobody ever fired a shot.

 

[Bt74]

If the threat of the mob were so dire, why did the homeowners not fire on the intruders until the threat was over?

WINNER! For the stupidest comment on the thread!

 

[Bt74]

WINNER! For the stupidest comment on the thread!

Next comment: They could have shot them in the leg"!

 

[oldguy68]

Come on, easy with the Joe Biden quotes.

 

[Bt74]

Come on, easy with the Joe Biden quotes.

If it walks like a duck.....

 

[snd1t]

If the threat of the mob were so dire, why did the homeowners not fire on the intruders until the threat was over?

They didnt fire at all

As with MOST confrontations, the mere presentation of a firearm prevented escalation

 

[AHM]

(On the one hand, I was interested to read this afternoon
in the the "McCloskeys are Asshoe" news article
that they ripped down the (likely commonly-owned)
(stone?) wall to the east of their property,
and replaced it with a (taller?) one;
and are now claiming they own the wall and its land...).

On the other hand...

this couples home is the very first one inside of the gate that the "Protesters" destroyed to gain entry

The pedestrian gate was probably not locked,
because the start of the usual video shows a suited cat-herder
holding half of the undamaged gate ajar for the first rioters.

And the iron gate wasn't damaged (folded over) to gain entry -
it's pristine at the start of the video. Someone vandalized it
as part of the riot. As a matter of fact, the vandalism makes it
impossible for the gate to be completely opened -
it actually made it harder to use that portal to trespass.

 

[kalash]

JFC some of you are licking the boots clean...

The street that they live on runs east-to-west.

Here's the west entrance:







Here's the east entrance where the McCloskeys live (their house is on the right):






The entrances are is VERY CLEARLY posted as private. There are CLOSED GATES. What other evidence could you possibly need to see that the mob was TRESPASSING? Anyone who licks the mob boots must not be a land owner and not have even a basic understanding of property rights. I couldn't care less if the McCloskeys were finger-banging the triggers while pointing guns at the mob - everyone in that crowd should've been arrested for trespassing at least.

If you don't understand any of what I just said, well, who needs enemies with friends like y'all? You might as well register as democrats, since you don't appreciate property rights or the 2A.

/rant

 

[pastera]

The road is most likely the homeowners private property held in joint tenancy with the other homeowners in the development.
The mob broke into a secured private area and by their presence and actions (words and display of weapons) were an imminent threat on the private property of the homeowners.
The homeowners reacted to these threats with a poorly executed but understandable response.
They should not have interacted with the mob past stating that they, the mob, were trespassing and to leave the development immediately.
The whole idea of low ready is armchair quarterbacking from hindsight. They knew they were outnumbered and significantly under gunned. Had the crowd decided to directly attack the homeowners would have been overwhelmed in seconds, most likely before a handful of shots were fired, if any.

The husband should have had his rifle shouldered with a cheek weld but low enough to see over the sights for good observation of the mob - that direct and immediate threat, equal to the mob's, would let the boldest mob members know that the first to attack would be engaged without hesitation. The end result is no one makes the first move because of the principle of MAD.
Anyone who disputes that the intent of that mob was, at the very least, to inflict fear of harm or death in order to further a political purpose is either profoundly ignorant or just plain lying.
The plan was to terrorize, the homeowners simply reacted in equal measure.

Those saying the homeowners should face negative consequence because laws should be followed need to get over their deferrence to the state - the state failed to uphold its part of the so called social contract, as did the mob.

 

[Baby Billy]

Gates or no gates. Finger on the trigger or "low ready". Doesn't matter.

 

[Bt74]

The road is most likely the homeowners private property held in joint tenancy with the other homeowners in the development.
The mob broke into a secured private area and by their presence and actions (words and display of weapons) were an imminent threat on the private property of the homeowners.
The homeowners reacted to these threats with a poorly executed but understandable response.
They should not have interacted with the mob past stating that they, the mob, were trespassing and to leave the development immediately.
The whole idea of low ready is armchair quarterbacking from hindsight. They knew they were outnumbered and significantly under gunned. Had the crowd decided to directly attack the homeowners would have been overwhelmed in seconds, most likely before a handful of shots were fired, if any.

The husband should have had his rifle shouldered with a cheek weld but low enough to see over the sights for good observation of the mob - that direct and immediate threat, equal to the mob's, would let the boldest mob members know that the first to attack would be engaged without hesitation. The end result is no one makes the first move because of the principle of MAD.
Anyone who disputes that the intent of that mob was, at the very least, to inflict fear of harm or death in order to further a political purpose is either profoundly ignorant or just plain lying.
The plan was to terrorize, the homeowners simply reacted in equal measure.

Those saying the homeowners should face negative consequence because laws should be followed need to get over their deferrence to the state - the state failed to uphold its part of the so called social contract, as did the mob.

You Called it! I can't believe the amount of BLM suckasses here.

 

[milktree]

Anyone who disputes that the intent of that mob was, at the very least, to inflict fear of harm or death in order to further a political purpose is either profoundly ignorant or just plain lying.
The plan was to terrorize, the homeowners simply reacted in equal measure.

The reason they were on that street is because they were going to the mayors house, which is in the gated community.

They were going to the mayor’s house to protest the mayor, and demand her resignation.

This is not speculation, it’s in lots of news reports.

It’s a little disingenuous to assert that they were on that street to terrorize any and all residents of that street, even if that was one of the effects.

 

[UFO]

It’s a little disingenuous to assert that they were on that street to terrorize any and all residents of that street, even if that was one of the effects.

We are held accountable for the impact of our actions not our intent.

 

[Brewer]

The reason they were on that street is because they were going to the mayors house, which is in the gated community.

They were going to the mayor’s house to protest the mayor, and demand her resignation.

This is not speculation, it’s in lots of news reports.

It’s a little disingenuous to assert that they were on that street to terrorize any and all residents of that street, even if that was one of the effects.

Neville Chamberlain over here. You keep judging by what they say and we'll keep judging by what they do.

 

[milktree]

Neville Chamberlain over here. You keep judging by what they say and we'll keep judging by what they do.

Fair enough.

They didn’t burn anything or kill anyone, and they did go to the Mayor’s house to demand her resignation.

Please note I’m not defending anything they did

 

[Waher]

It’s a little disingenuous to assert that they were on that street to terrorize any and all residents of that street, even if that was one of the effects.

They knew where the mayor's house was and chose to approach this other house. The only reason they didn't approach any other houses is because they lost their nerve after being confronted at the first one and the mob handlers decided to risk their herd of sheep. Protesting at someone's private residence and not their office is a terror tactic.

 

[Brewer]

Fair enough.

They didn’t burn anything or kill anyone, and they did go to the Mayor’s house to demand her resignation.

Please note I’m not defending anything they did

On this occasion they didn't burn anything or kill anyone. That's the difference an effective show of force makes. Earlier the same month, St Louis saw David Dorn murdered, a FedEx truck attacked by rioters and dragging one under the vehicle while fleeing, and over a month of rioters/looters/arsonists released from jail without charges. The McCloskeys had every reason to believe their lives were at stake and that they were on their own.

 

[kalash]

The reason they were on that street is because they were going to the mayors house, which is in the gated community.

They were going to the mayor’s house to protest the mayor, and demand her resignation.

This is not speculation, it’s in lots of news reports.

It’s a little disingenuous to assert that they were on that street to terrorize any and all residents of that street, even if that was one of the effects.

You won't mind if I walk through your living room on my way to Beacon Hill, right?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

That will turn out to be totally irrelevant in this context. Politicians never stay bought when their comfy, well paid, pensioned jobs are on the line. Donations only buy so many votes and the masses outweigh that by 100:1

Yay. /s

Politicians cannot be bought,, only rented. Sort of like Nik-O-Locks.

 

[Uzi2]

We are held accountable for the impact of our actions not our intent.

Unless it's the BATFE after you.

 

[milktree]

You won't mind if I walk through your living room on my way to Beacon Hill, right?

Do you really think that’s a valid comparison?

If my living room were explicitly shared with 100 other people, one of whom was the governor’s office, I probably wouldn’t mind, no.

 

[AHM]

The reason they were on that street is because they were going to the mayors house, which is in the gated community.

They mayor does not live in McCloskeys' development.
She should be that rich.

Some streets in the area had been closed.
(By cops?)

Otherwise the southbound rioters would have turned off
Kingshighway Blvd. before they even reached the Portland gated community.

They might have hoped to plunge halfway through the community,
and then banged a right. Or maybe they expected to go all the way through,
headed north on public streets, and then doubled back.

I can't even show on Google Maps the route they might have hoped to take
because it's unclear that even neighborhood homeowners
have a pedestrian right of way to squeeze between a pair of houses
at the midpoint of the north border of the development.
The Portland development's road portal closest to the Mayor's
house is sealed by both crap wooden fencing,
and crap chain link fencing topped with three strands of barbed wire;
and the pedestrian portal is an iron gate that looks even more likely
to be locked shut.

The rioters' cat-herders were routing around the lossage
by trying to shortcut through the gated community.
Here's the route they couldn't take from the gate they broke
because of road closures.

 

[Baby Billy]

They mayor does not live in McCloskeys' development.
She should be that rich.

Some streets in the area had been closed.
(By cops?)

Otherwise the southbound rioters would have turned off
Kingshighway Blvd. before they even reached the Portland gated community.

They might have hoped to plunge halfway through the community,
and then banged a right. Or maybe they expected to go all the way through,
headed north on public streets, and then doubled back.

I can't even show on Google Maps the route they might have hoped to take
because it's unclear that even neighborhood homeowners
have a pedestrian right of way to squeeze between a pair of houses
at the midpoint of the north border of the development.
The Portland development's road portal closest to the Mayor's
house is sealed by both crap wooden fencing,
and crap chain link fencing topped with three strands of barbed wire;
and the pedestrian portal is an iron gate that looks even more likely
to be locked shut.

The rioters' cat-herders were routing around the lossage
by trying to shortcut through the gated community.
Here's the route they couldn't take from the gate they broke
because of road closures.

Oh darn. The peaceful protestors couldn't protest at the mayor's house.

 

[frenchman]

Well, according to creepy Joe, they would've been in the clear if only they would've fired two shotgun blasts out the window.

 

[milktree]

They mayor does not live in McCloskeys' development.

You're right. I couldn't find anything that says she does.

I read a lot of things that implied she does, but nothing that actually said so.

I was wrong about that.

I couldn't find anything that *does* say where she lives, other than "central west end", which isn't specific enough.

The rioters' cat-herders were routing around the lossage
by trying to shortcut through the gated community.
Here's the route they couldn't take from the gate they broke
because of road closures.

So, because the public roads were closed (by police?) they had to find another way through.

In other words, they really were going somewhere else.

 

[snd1t]

Fair enough.

They didn’t burn anything or kill anyone, and they did go to the Mayor’s house to demand her resignation.

Please note I’m not defending anything they did

No, you're just trying to minimize a mob doing thousands of dollars of damage to private property and terrorizing people

BTW....whats the address of the Mayor's home.......pretty sure its not on the same street

 

[Len-2A Training]

I've not seen anything to support the idea that the entire mob/group was advancing on them. I'm not talking about walking in the direction of the road a couple feet on the lawn. I'm talking about the group moving towards the home and homeowners.

You are playing clever word games with "private property" since it was a private road.

From the ariel picture of their property and the picture of the residents and rioters confrontation, the porch is ~100' from the property line and the rioters look like they are within maybe 20' of the porch.

As for trespassing, even a few feet on someone's property after being told to leave legally is trespassing.

B&E applies even if someone left the door/gate open/unlocked and an uninvited person barges in, so whether or not the gate to the street/property was locked is irrelevant from a legal perspective.

 

[GM-GUY]

So, to make this tidy the McCloskeys could have concealed themselves, waited for the crowd to start throwing rocks and attempting to loot the place - then opened up on them.

<<<<But wait>>>>

They would have been cuffed, dragged away, their home would have been left unguarded and burnt.

<<<<Or>>>>>

They could have done what they did.

Remember folks, it’s never as clean and easy as we would like.

 

[babygorilla]

A gun held at low ready is pretty threatening and faster to bring into action than the way she was pointing it at people.

Back to the idea of pointing it at only things you intend to kill. Someone pointing a gun at them would have justified pointing it them. Multiple people (disparity of force) approaching them on their property could have justified it. Maybe that happened at some point before the video started rolling. But at the point we see there is no justification for anything beyond low ready.

In the video the mob is ALREADY ON THEIR PROPERTY. The whole area is PRIVATE property, jointly owned by the homeowners. They bypassed a sign stating it was private to get to where they were.