A St. Louis prosecutor is investigating whether the white couple pointing guns at Black Lives Matter

St. Louis Missouri.
A bit like Louisiana but without the unique cuisine.

 

Well that's a blast from the past! Would you really risk such a collector's item?

 

From their incompetent stance I don't buy it.

 

And the McCloskys issued a statement that explicitly stated they feared only "2 bad actors" (its in quotes because I'm quoting their statement verbatim) so they're not going to be able to claim "we feared the mob" to justify Patricia putting that pistol in several people's faces.

Its not THEIR property they are defending in this case it is the HOA's property. No one actually steps on THEIR actual property.

 

And also why you need 30 round clips.

 

"They came first for the Nationalists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Nationalist. Then they came for the Christians, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Christian. Then they came for the Conservatives, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Conservative. Then they came for the Whites, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Racist. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

This just came to me this morning. My take on an old poem. Prophetic. Feel free to share...

 

In a use of force analysis it does indeed matter if Patricia was actually threatened by the persons who she actually intentionally pointed the gun at. Even under castle law you have to pass a reasonableness test and as stated previously they can't maintain the HOA's castle law defense of property claim and the videos don't actually show anyone threatening their property.

Patricia needs independent facts on each person she points the gun at threatening herself, her property, or her husband.

She does not appear to have those, and her statement seemingly confirms that when she says only "2 bad actors" caused her fear.
Destroying the gate: The HOA's claim, not hers under MO law unless she's got a letter in writing from the HOA telling her to defend the common areas with main force. What's more, it is uncertain just when the gate was destroyed as there is video that was streamed live of people simply opening the gate and walking through and the gate being wholly intact at that time. ( see Sargon of Akkad's "The Boomers are Rising Up" segment at 2:05-2:15. ) Later it is indeed destroyed, but its not entirely certain at this point that it was down by the time Patricia McClosky was putting a gun in a bunch of people's faces who she claims didn't cause her any fright and were and I quote her statement directly "peaceful protesters" with only "2 bad actors" being the issue.


No one profited from this except the media. The 500 or so people who gathered didn't turn a profit off of trespassing, that's incredibly hyperbolic.

Patricia's conduct, when matched with her statement made with assistance of counsel after the fact describing her then existing mental state and intent, is not law abiding by her own admission. That would be why she has potential civil and criminal liability, because she didn't actually have the right to simply put a pistol in anyone's face she cared to which you can watch her do on the tapes. To put the pistol in someone's face requires they actually threaten her or her husband or their property. None of the tapes depict that, and seem to depict Patricia stumbling about her lawn potentially intoxicated, limp wristedly waving a loaded firearm around and threatening deadly force on persons not on her actual property and not making any threats the video picks up.
Seeing is believing, if this goes to trial her "but they threatened me" won't go anywhere without either independent witness corroboration or the video picking it up. Pair that with her "only 2 bad actors" marring a "peaceful" protest statement and she's ****ing hung herself if someone cares to make a case of it.

 

That's the McClosky's statement made after consultation with counsel. If you take issue with it, take it up with them not with me.
Death threats: You got a minute mark on a tape I can hear or see these death threats in? Because that would change the calculus. Anyone that made a direct threat Patricia can probably justify pointing the gun at... if you forget about her statement through counsel about how only "2 bad actors" frightened her.

 

Modern version with a red/green dot sight.

 

In a mob, the mob becomes a threat. This is a classic example of disparity of force self defense doctrine.

 

Which would be fine, but again: The McClosky's released a statement describing who made them feel threatened and their state of mind through the incident, stating they only feared "2 bad actors" not the whole crowd. This is why you don't release such statements, its extremely foolhardy.

 

Oh I see, didn't know they made those.

 

Another failed Democrat run city that is always in the top 5 of most dangerous cities in the US. (Usually #1)And Kimberly’s campaign was funded by George Soros so she’s not too eager to prosecute the protesters...enough said...I feel sad for the people who live there.

 

Notice it's Thursday and no charges for the couple yet. The DA's statement was just ignorant anti, gun pro riot bluster. **** her.

 

they were not bad cops, they were trying to deescalate rather then escalate

they did fine, no charges should be brought, and if they are a jury should find them not guilty

 

once the protestors broke down the gate to the property, they were criminals and thus, could be considered as a threat

 

How on earth does aiming guns at people do anything BUT escalate??

 

it worked, no one attacked or burned down their houses, only the gate was harmed

people can protest outside a gated community, they can not break down the gate and protest inside, at that pont the situation is escalated, the guns in this case did deescalate the situation and thankfully no one was harmed or addl property damaged

remember, inside a gated community there are no public sidewalks or streets - these people were trespassing

 

this is the gate from the outside normally

 

They do tell you that.
And you have a right to defend your life and property. You don't have a right to threaten the life of unarmed people when they walk by. Those people have a right to defend their life too. You got to ask yourself, if you walk around in a ghetto and some black people point a gun at you for walking by.... would you shoot first if you could, and claim self defense? That this was a gated community doesn't change a thing. Them protesters were heading to the mayor and had nothing to do with that house. All this is again is white peoples life matters more than black people.

 

So I get to place a gun at your temple for the heck of it, and it's only illegal if I shoot?
Sorry. I can't follow that logic of yours.

 

Why is it that nobody stepped on their property then? I wonder what the reason is...

 

Gun safety courses are in order for them. Otherwise, I agree.

 

You need to take the case in context. Those two are buffoons they obviously do not have a clue how to handle weapons.

Question: Did Mr. and Mrs. Buffoon approach the demonstrators and put the weapons get within inches of them. Answer: No

I just vaporized your argument.

 

lol~!