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

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

I’m not trying to minimize anything.

Just to be clear: are now saying that there is no difference between an act and its effect?

‘Cuz if so, that means when some moonbat freaks out because he sees a gun in a holster and feels threatened, that’s the same as the gun owner threatening the moonbat. (A premise I find absurd.)


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

Not on that street. They went through there because the other streets were blocked (by the police? I read it here)
 
This is also a textbook example of how NOT to defend your property. Have your new gun owner friends watch this.
1) wife sweeps crowd
2) wife keeps finger on trigger.
3) husband has gun horizontal sweeping neighbors houses
4) husband sweeps wife
5) couple argues with mob - shut up and keep to yourself.
6) remain calm - be better than the people you are confronting.

Sounds like the perfect recipe to be the first one to die.
First , please stop spreading the falsehood that these people were just strolling down the sidewalk.
Look at the overhead of the property and compare it to the video.
They were well off the sidewalk and right up to the stairs of the house that the couple was standing on.
Supposedly some of them visibly armed and making threats of bodily harm.

Here's my reaction in the same scenario .
Safety off , finger on the trigger and if I see one muzzle swinging in my direction someone is getting a third nostril .
This isn't a day at the range and the old liberal theory of you have to wait till you've already been shot to fire back can kiss the sweatiest part of my fat ass.
In a situation like that , you hesitate, you die.

It's pretty obvious that people who know better would have handled it differently , but the world is not full of tier one operators .
I'm betting some training is in their future now that it's hit home just what's out there and how fast your world can go south.
 
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.

Just so I know the rules, are all the members of a gated community required to give permission before a non-member enters the shared parts of the property? UPS? FedEx? Pool maintenance? Police? Guests? Plumbers? Taxis?

I think the answer is “no”.

Any member can invite anyone they want, right? If you and I were both part owners of a gated community, I could not tell your guests they were trespassing and force them to leave.

If you agree with that, no single member has the right, on his own, to declare someone who is on the shared part of the property a trespasser without checking with other members, or at least asking who the strangers are visiting.

It’s possible, although highly unlikely, that someone who lives on the street is sympathetic to the BLM cause and invited them to cut through. But the McCloskeys couldn’t have known if that was or wasn’t the case.

That’s why it’s absurd to claim the “private property” of the shared public areas is legally or morally identical to someone’s living room.
 
Just so I know the rules, are all the members of a gated community required to give permission before a non-member enters the shared parts of the property? UPS? FedEx? Pool maintenance? Police? Guests? Plumbers? Taxis?
Really? You're comparing an agitated mob - already known to be violent - to CONTRACTORS?
 
Really? You're comparing an agitated mob - already known to be violent - to CONTRACTORS?

I did nothing of the sort.

I used contractors as an example to prove a point about different levels of “private”

I’m pointing out that the shared areas of a condo association (which is what gated communities are) do not have the same legal status as the private areas like the house.
 
Just so I know the rules, are all the members of a gated community required to give permission before a non-member enters the shared parts of the property? UPS? FedEx? Pool maintenance? Police? Guests? Plumbers? Taxis?

I think the answer is “no”.

Any member can invite anyone they want, right? If you and I were both part owners of a gated community, I could not tell your guests they were trespassing and force them to leave.

If you agree with that, no single member has the right, on his own, to declare someone who is on the shared part of the property a trespasser without checking with other members, or at least asking who the strangers are visiting.

It’s possible, although highly unlikely, that someone who lives on the street is sympathetic to the BLM cause and invited them to cut through. But the McCloskeys couldn’t have known if that was or wasn’t the case.

That’s why it’s absurd to claim the “private property” of the shared public areas is legally or morally identical to someone’s living room.
You really don't get the concept of a private gated community, do you? [thinking]

Try trespassing in one this week and see how that works out for you. [thumbsup]
 
I’m not trying to minimize anything.

Just to be clear: are now saying that there is no difference between an act and its effect?

‘Cuz if so, that means when some moonbat freaks out because he sees a gun in a holster and feels threatened, that’s the same as the gun owner threatening the moonbat. (A premise I find absurd.)




Not on that street. They went through there because the other streets were blocked (by the police? I read it here)

unfortunately, milktree, your absurd premise is not so absurd in places like massachusetts.
 
502 Lake AVE, Saint Louis, MO 63108

She lives several blocks away and her house is NOT on a private street.

View attachment 372378


Road closures DO NOT give these scumbags the right to trespass on private property.
There have been a number of people here over the years that either don't grasp the concept of private property or take issue with it.
 
unfortunately, milktree, your absurd premise is not so absurd in places like massachusetts.

Yep, you’re right.

We should not do the same thing.

We should not legitimize such absurdities by perpetuating their use.
 
You really don't get the concept of a private gated community, do you? [thinking]

Try trespassing in one this week and see how that works out for you. [thumbsup]


I did last week. My wife and I went for a walk in one. We do it regularly (but not often).

Nobody cares. But we’re white, so maybe that’s why.
 
Just so I know the rules, are all the members of a gated community required to give permission before a non-member enters the shared parts of the property? UPS? FedEx? Pool maintenance? Police? Guests? Plumbers? Taxis?

I think the answer is “no”.

Any member can invite anyone they want, right? If you and I were both part owners of a gated community, I could not tell your guests they were trespassing and force them to leave.

If you agree with that, no single member has the right, on his own, to declare someone who is on the shared part of the property a trespasser without checking with other members, or at least asking who the strangers are visiting.

It’s possible, although highly unlikely, that someone who lives on the street is sympathetic to the BLM cause and invited them to cut through. But the McCloskeys couldn’t have known if that was or wasn’t the case.

That’s why it’s absurd to claim the “private property” of the shared public areas is legally or morally identical to someone’s living room.

The term used most places is "Residents and invited Guests"

Just like you can't go swimming in the hotel's pool or hang out in their game room, or overnight park in their parking lot.
It's for residents ( people paying for a room) and their invited guests.

An angry mob doesn't qualify as either of them. They were not invited by anyone within the private property.....it was a spontanious trespass and no matter what their cause was/is they had no right to be their.

Contractors, etc. are considered invited guests by whomever they're working for within.....they have legitimate business and right to be on the grounds.
 
Clearly they were doing the proper & legal "thing". They defended their home. Is news blowing this out of proportion? As in, is this typical protocol for their guns to be confiscated? Anyone in this forum actually able to answer this? No charges were made. I don't see how either is side is winning. The gun served more of it's purpose than 99.99% of the people in this forum's gun ever will.
 
I did last week. My wife and I went for a walk in one. We do it regularly (but not often).

Nobody cares. But we’re white, so maybe that’s why.
Then no wonder you don't get it. [laugh] Next time let me pick the private gated community for you to trespass in. [thumbsup] Hint: It is not in Massachusetts. Then maybe you'll understand the concept a little better. [mg]
 
The term used most places is "Residents and invited Guests"

Just like you can't go swimming in the hotel's pool or hang out in their game room, or overnight park in their parking lot.
It's for residents ( people paying for a room) and their invited guests.

An angry mob doesn't qualify as either of them. They were not invited by anyone within the private property.....it was a spontanious trespass and no matter what their cause was/is they had no right to be their.

Right.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the shared areas are NOT the same as the non-shared areas. Pretending they’re the same for political expediency is intellectually dishonest.

e.g. : someone using the pool is trespassing, someone breaking into a guest room is burglary; legally they’re quite different.
 
Just so I know the rules, are all the members of a gated community required to give permission before a non-member enters the shared parts of the property? UPS? FedEx? Pool maintenance? Police? Guests? Plumbers? Taxis?

I think the answer is “no”.

Any member can invite anyone they want, right? If you and I were both part owners of a gated community, I could not tell your guests they were trespassing and force them to leave.

If you agree with that, no single member has the right, on his own, to declare someone who is on the shared part of the property a trespasser without checking with other members, or at least asking who the strangers are visiting.

It’s possible, although highly unlikely, that someone who lives on the street is sympathetic to the BLM cause and invited them to cut through. But the McCloskeys couldn’t have known if that was or wasn’t the case.

That’s why it’s absurd to claim the “private property” of the shared public areas is legally or morally identical to someone’s living room.
So at a glance you can't guess the difference in motive between a FedEx delivery driver passing your home and a rowdy several dozen who break through a gate and actively threaten you while carrying signs? And when they stop uninvited on your property, and then refuse when told to leave... that doesn't constitute trespassing?

That's the most tortured false equivalence I've ever read on NES.
 
Then no wonder you don't get it. [laugh] Next time let me pick the private gated community for you to trespass in. [thumbsup] Hint: It is not in Mssachusetts. Then maybe you'll understand the concept a little better. [mg]

Ok, I’m game.
 
I did last week. My wife and I went for a walk in one. We do it regularly (but not often).

Nobody cares. But we’re white, so maybe that’s why.
The fact that you haven't been asked to leave, and arrested if you don't, doesn't mean you are not acting illegally by trespassing on private property. It just means you haven't been caught.
 
So at a glance you can't guess the difference in motive between a FedEx delivery driver passing your home and a rowdy several dozen who break through a gate and actively threaten you while carrying signs? And when they stop uninvited on your property, and then refuse when told to leave... that doesn't constitute trespassing?

That's the most tortured false equivalence I've ever read on NES.
New here?
 
The fact that you haven't been asked to leave, and arrested if you don't, doesn't mean you are not acting illegally by trespassing on private property. It just means you haven't been caught.

OK.

Nonetheless, I’m pretty sure shooting me would have been illegal.
 
Right.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the shared areas are NOT the same as the non-shared areas. Pretending they’re the same for political expediency is intellectually dishonest.

e.g. : someone using the pool is trespassing, someone breaking into a guest room is burglary; legally they’re quite different.

The shared areas fall under the same legal qualification as any one of their back yards or front porches, it's co owned PRIVATE PROPERTY.......ALL THE RULES APPLY thats why it's posted AT THE GATE.

If you were not specifically invited by a resident or have legitimate business there IN ANY PART OF THE PLACE you are trespassing.
 
You guys are all letting your opinions get ahead of yourselves. I know this is just a forum thread but still.

These people defended their home. They probably could've shot any one of these protesters. Who knows how violent it got or could've gotten. Fact is = it didn't get violent because they defended their homes with their legal weapons. As a person who is proud of the 2nd amendment, I'm proud of this outcome. Surprising that their gun was confiscated but this could absolutely be a legal protocol police take to ensure that these weapons used (even though they didn't shoot) are in fact legal to own/posses. If someone ever pulled a gun on me in public, for whatever reason, I'd be glad that the police ensure it's legal to own/possess for that person/anyone.

No charges were made. Therefore no rights violated. I'm sure they own other guns, and although it can be viewed as wrong their guns were taken away I'm sure the police wouldn't allow their lives to be endangered. I admit that portion of my reply MAY be uneducated/naive.
 
OK.

Nonetheless, I’m pretty sure shooting me would have been illegal.
"Reasonable man" says otherwise. It's an armed mob, having already demonstrated a propensity to lawlessness - including violence - and having just broken the law in entering and trespassing, a reasonable man would fear for his life and thus be in a lawful position to defend himself.
 
You guys are all letting your opinions get ahead of yourselves. I know this is just a forum thread but still.

These people defended their home. They probably could've shot any one of these protesters. Who knows how violent it got or could've gotten. Fact is = it didn't get violent because they defended their homes with their legal weapons. As a person who is proud of the 2nd amendment, I'm proud of this outcome. Surprising that their gun was confiscated but this could absolutely be a legal protocol police take to ensure that these weapons used (even though they didn't shoot) are in fact legal to own/posses. If someone ever pulled a gun on me in public, for whatever reason, I'd be glad that the police ensure it's legal to own/possess for that person/anyone.

No charges were made. Therefore no rights violated. I'm sure they own other guns, and although it can be viewed as wrong their guns were taken away I'm sure the police wouldn't allow their lives to be endangered. I admit that portion of my reply MAY be uneducated/naive.

The cops didn't respond.
 
No charges were made. Therefore no rights violated.
Firearms were seized without due process and all the nation knows they're unarmed. But no rights violated? You can't be serious.
I'm sure they own other guns, and although it can be viewed as wrong their guns were taken away I'm sure the police wouldn't allow their lives to be endangered. I admit that portion of my reply MAY be uneducated/naive.
You haven't seen any police stand down or refuse to respond a few hundred times around the nation in just the past month?

EDIT: I see you're new here. Welcome. Start by learning the parameters of Constitutional rights so you can recognize them being violated. That goes for being victim or perpetrator.
 
Last edited:
Cute deflection. Answer the question.

Ok, how’s this:

They were almost certainly trespassing, I’d bet my house on it.

But nobody else on the street was freaked out about it. If they really had been an angry mob set on death and destruction, they wouldn’t have been stopped by the McCloskeys, they would have just gone to the next house. Hell, if they cared at all about the McCloskys, they wouldn’t have been stopped by them, either.

Add to that the McClosky’s history of suing everyone (for their own gain, not just for their clients) and the fights about what they own they’ve had with the HOA, and their neighbors don’t have anything nice to say about them, I’m guessing they don’t have a great sense of what trespassing is, either.
 
Back
Top Bottom