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

Because they're pointing guns at people in the street, all of them. They admit out of the crowd of 500 that Patricia points her gun at a substantial portion of in individual instances caught on video, only "2 bad actors" made any threats against themselves or their property. Pointing guns at any but those 2 is not going to be authorized by law. Why? Because that's not a defense of THEIR property or THEIR selves that's a defense of the HOA's property. They don't have to step out into the street to do this. Don't be obtuse.
Yes they are trespassing, on the HOA'S private property. That is for the HOA's agents to defend, and the McClosky's are not the HOA's agents in this matter BY OPERATION OF LAW regarding use of force in MO unless they have a writing charging them to be same. Which I guarantee you they don't have.
As to HOA liability for not clearing the street: Google the principle of not being responsible for the crimes and torts of others. The HOA is not exposed to legal liability here. Someone BROKE the gate down, if they attack a home that's not the HOA's fault.

Yes MO is a castle doctrine state and the law I'm referencing is the 'castle law' portion of their use of force laws. In MO if you're exercising ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNERS claim of defense of property (like say if one were trying to clear trespassers off a private street owned by the HOA when one is a property owner) you need written permission. As stated I guarantee you the covenants and by laws of the HOA does not charge the homeowners generally with keeping out the riff raff. If it had the McClosky's being attorneys would already have produced said letter which would defend them.
They can't exercise another property owner's castle law claim without a letter charging them to do so which they don't have. Which means Patricia can't point the gun at every member of the crowd, just the "2 bad actors" who threaten them.
See how that works?
Also: Its more than feeling threatened, you have to pass a reasonableness test. Its not reasonable to wildly gesticulate with a gun at 498 people you claim are not threatening you..

I have seen no such evidence. The video doesn't show that, certainly. The only evidence I've heard of is testimony by the McClosky's which if it contravenes video isn't going to be worth much to a jury.

 

Turns out that BLMs and the klan are essentially the same thing, using the same tactics. And using real metrics like total deaths and property damage, more destructive than the klan for the recent history. Let us compare attire...
Klan.


BLMs protestor..


well, at least they don't need as much bleach...

 

their trigger finger was not itchy because it would have been a longer than usual court case to prove their innocence

in the olden days if they fired on militant trespassers it would have been justified without arrest.

 

BS.. That isn't what the average gun owner is like. Shows you don't know an average gun owner.

 

Your toxic white masculinity is appalling.

 

I cant believe there are actually people arguing that peaceably defending your property from an angry mob threatening your life is bad.

 

According to the McClosky's statements the mob didn't threaten them at all, only "2 bad actors" threatened them. Which makes Patricia pointing that gun at a substantial number of these people illegal.

 

You are kidding right? No one can take you seriously.

 

You really think I care about your identity politics? I don’t care if they’re democrats or not. I simply care about the behavior and why they had it. White reactionaries. Simple as that.

I’ve seen the average gun owner post on political forum.com for years now. Trust me, the only difference seems to be they walked the walked, instead of talking the talk.

Though there was one terrorist who posted on here years ago. Can’t remember the name.

 

Gosh, so your thought here is that the HOA, because they are not represented here, and failed to ensure that the community was protected don't have a liability here? You might should be more careful in your pro bono defense here. It might come back to you. Just sayin. If the covenants describe a reasonable care for privacy and security and they failed to do that, they are, in fact liable for their negligence in doing so. I would also advise you that you don't understand the threat from the mob itself. And while perhaps the lawyers were concerned about two individuals, the mob itself is also a force of intimidation which can be responded to. The line between participating in a "peaceful" protest was already crossed once they communally committed their first crime, trespassing into the community. Reasonable fear that given the first crime that others might ensue is both reasonable and articulated in the law. Castle doctrine then would apply to any of the criminal actors in the crowd that threatened the residence by their proximity. If there is video and folks can be identified, ALL of them need to be prosecuted for trespassing and holding an illegal assembly which is justified in both city and state statute. Should any of said criminals need an attorney, one hopes they don't have your number.

 

I'm not, that is the literal statement their lawyers put out. They claim only two persons made any threats against the McClosky's or their property. The problem being you can see patricia point the gun at more than 2 people and threaten them with the use of it. Which is illegal if you're not returning a threat and not defending your own property by the threat. Here they would be defending the HOAS property by the threat, since they have already admitted only 2 persons threatened themselves or their property.
Classic case of "should've shut the **** up"

 

LOL... so if you don't care about it, why then did you insert it here? You're the one calling folks names. I just pointed out they were democrats. Because they are. And lawyers. You took it upon yourself to call them out for their race. Why?

 

Its completely disgusting to me how liberals act.

Your attitude that these people should somehow be prosecuted for defending themselves and their property is vile and reprehensible.

 

Yeah dude because you're not responsible for the torts and crimes of others. Its a basic Anglo legal principle. If someone breaks into my house and rapes my house guest, I don't have liability to the house guest. I'd have liability if they slipped and fell on my property due to a dangerous condition I had created. Here any dangerous condition would be created by the trespassers to the HOA's property.
You would need an additional fact of, say for instance, the HOA president letting the group in the gate which did not occur since they broke the gate down.

Pro bono defense? I'm not defending anyone, I'm simply analyzing a legal issue on a public forum because it amuses me. What's going to "come back to [me]" there tough guy? Just sayin.

They took reasonable care dude, what do you think that gate and wall was about? Entry wasn't allowed, it was forced. That's both a crime and tort which brings us full circle to the legal principle of not being responsible for the crimes and torts of others.

I don't have to understand the threat from the mob, I have a statement by the potential defendant's counsel put out on the defendant's behalf that explains the only threat they perceived BY THEIR OWN FREE ADMISSION was from "2 bad actors" not the remaining 498 people there.

Which is why its not a crime for them to stand there, or to tell the people to **** off or anything like that. What is illegal is pointing the gun at a particular person and threatening them with deadly force when they haven't threatened you or your property. Which we know is what occurred because the McClosky's have freely admitted, WITH COUNSEL, that that is what they perceived threat-wise, just "2 bad actors".
And if she'd restricted herself to the "2 bad actors" she says made threats, she'd be just fine. But she didn't restrict herself and instead pointed the gun at persons she admits constituted no threat to her. If she'd kept the gun at low ready, and gesticulated with her other hand instead of the gun hand, she'd be fine. She's not fine though because she didn't do that.

You can hit all 500 for trespassing, sure. Probably disorderly conduct too for any you can prove were there when the gate went down and probably felony property destruction for the guys that actually broke the gate because it looks seriously expensive and they probably damaged the stonework too. That doesn't mean Patricia gets to point a gun at any of the 498 out 500 people who she claims didn't threaten her though. So get the paddy wagon, round them all up and take Patricia too.

 

I'm not a liberal.

Should? Did I say should anywhere in the context of how the law should be? Did I make a normative judgment anywhere or did I analyze potential civil and criminal liability under the statutes and facts as they stand in public knowledge today? Perhaps you could point it out for the class? We're all just dying to see you do so. Truly.

 

Right... And Im the queen of England.

 

It's funny how Leftists always have to qualify the peacefulness of their protests. Exhibit A: "mostly peaceful".

It's like a woman being "kinda pregnant".

For some reason, they just can't get peaceful right, and it's pathetic watching the moral and intellectual pygmies in their city halls and media outlets make excuses for it. I can't help but wonder how many more decades of practice they're going to need until they figure it out, or is it that they're just not interested?

 

Least he ain't wearing panties.

All wadded up.

 

I'm for repeal of all gun laws as unconstitutional. Let's start there, Your Majesty.


Also, hate to be a bother your magnificence, but you ever going to respond to this part of the quote you cut? "Should? Did I say should anywhere in the context of how the law should be? Did I make a normative judgment anywhere or did I analyze potential civil and criminal liability under the statutes and facts as they stand in public knowledge today? Perhaps you could point it out for the class? We're all just dying to see you do so. Truly."

Were you aware that cutting quotes makes you appear to be disingenuous Queen?

 

Woops seems like you said it was illegal and she should go to jail - for protecting herself and her property none the less. So, yes in fact you did make a normative judgement. And you analyzed potential liability by stating she should go to jail. Im actually glad you posted your desire for the homeowners to be jailed for defending themselves against a mob making threats of death and arson. It lets us all know what kind of people are out there and what kind of backwards thinking we may encounter in case we are ever put in such a situation.

 

LOL... I don't care if you throw both of those ambulance chasers into jail. Really. But, and this is the important part. If my HOA failed to provide it's obligated service, by not applying due care, and folks breeched the gates, the idea that somehow we just have to accept that no one, as you suggested, can take up for the defense of the community is rubbish, because they can, and should. The idea that you just have to bend over and take it because you believe the HOA has the responsibility, you have to either a) make them liable for not doing the necessary, or b) allow for the eventuality that homeowners themselves would find it necessary to protect the tranquility of the community they belong to. This isn't a public square conversation. There is nothing public about access to or otherwise camping out on private property even if held by a community association. How many cases of rape or assault that have been litigated against property owners because they didn't provide adequate security do you think I need to provide here so that you understand just how wrong you are about the HOA liability? If damages were incurred, someone was raped, or killed in this case, the HOA can be sued because they didn't provide reasonable care against the perpetrators, just like employees of hospitals and universities who commit crimes can make the hospitals and universities liable for negligence. This is BASIC civil torts. I'd expect even first year students to understand this.

As for what "constitutes" a threat, the mob represented by the two identified are also included in the language in the law. The law recognizes that there is also a propensity concern that places any of the law breaking participants in the same group of threat.

This is what happens though, when good folks ignore the criminal behaviors of mobs. It emboldens them to think that they are indisputable and that their collective actions are un prosecutable. We see it everywhere in the BLMs protests these days. And for folks to have to take up their own arms to protect themselves from the potential bad acts of others these days indicts those who manage police services with every incident. Where were the police? Why didn't they respond? Maybe they knew the mayor lived there and didn't give a shyte given how she's worked recently to undermine them. Perhaps that makes the mayor equally liable as well. Now there's a novel concept. I doubt her "immunity" protects her in situations like this.

 

I would point out that "kinda pregnant" for liberals is actually a thing. Given the propensity for them to demand post birth canal departure abortion,.... Just sayin. The progressive mind is a casual thing. The only real maxim they really adhere to is Shut up. I told you to... And that's about the extent to it.

 

Golly, to include "brandishing a weapon" restrictions? Now that would be interesting..... How about use of guns to commit crime? You good with that removal too? It's an interesting thing you suggest.

 

I'll assume this is in jest. The female in this household will not hesitate to defend this house, either.

 

Brandishing is ok.