Yes, The St. Louis Couple Could Be Criminally Charged But It Would Be No Slam Dunk Prosecution

YouTube Screenshot

Two lawyers in St. Louis are in the middle of a firestorm after they were shown outside of their house with guns in a confrontation with protesters en route to the nearby house of Mayor Lyda Krewson. Mark and Patricia McCloskey are shown aiming their weapons at the protestors, including Mark McCloskey’s assault-style rifle.  St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner has publicly declared that she is looking for criminal charges to bring against the two lawyers.  That has led to many in the criminal defense field (including many who reached out to me) to speculate on what charges she might bring under these facts.  While many have suggested that this would be a slam dunk prosecution or that the fact easily satisfy criminal definitions, it may be easier to get a charge than a sustainable conviction.

The McCloskeys have insisted that they were responding to what they saw as a clear threat. They insist that most of the protesters were peaceful, that they had no problem with those protesters, and that they support Black Lives Matter.  Critics insist that they were the cause of the escalation and the gun display was uncalled for and threatening.

The attorneys called the St. Louis Police Department shortly before 7:30 p.m. on Sunday and the police report confirmed that “a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street’ signs.”  (For the record, I have seen pictures of the gate and it is not exactly formidable and does appear “smashed.” However, it is clearly marked as private property and was forced open).

Gardner issued a statement late Monday morning that she was “alarmed at the events that occurred over the weekend, where peaceful protesters were met by guns and a violent assault.” She added “Make no mistake: we will not tolerate the use of force against those exercising their First Amendment rights, and will use the full power of Missouri law to hold people accountable.”


Some have criticized the public declaration of Gardner in light of these claims. Gardner has been under fire for the release of alleged looters and rioters without charges.

The question for this blog is what can Gardner use in such a case as a criminal charge and some of our Missouri lawyers might have some insights to share.

First, here is part of the videotape that would feature prominently in any trial:

Patricia McCloskey is shown most clearly in pointing a gun at protesters.  Mark McCloskey actually points a rifle as much at his wife, but also there are points where he turns his body with the barrel pointing at protesters. Both are bare-footed and can argue that they ran from their home to confront what they viewed as an immediate threat. Patricia McCloskey is shown going to the side of the house and she is likely to claim that she was trying to fend off intruders as part of any defense.  However, the prosecutors can argue that the videotapes do not show aggressive conduct or movement toward the house.

The key may be any home security footage or other videotape and witness-based evidence to support the claim of the initial threats or threatening conduct.

Here is another video however where Patricia McCloskey is clearing pointing the gun at the protesters:


Ironically, therefore, the clearer case may be against Patricia with the small handgun than her husband with the assault-style weapon.

Here is an interview with the husband.

The most obvious criminal charge could be Section 571.030(4), which allows for a Class E felony charge when a person “[e]xhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.” Such a conviction can bring up to four years in prison, one year in jail, and/or a $10,000 fine.

It is not unlawful to be outside of one’s home on your property with a lawful weapon, which may be the ultimately defense for Mark McCloskey  if he is not shown pointing the weapon intentionally at any individual.  Indeed, we have seen the same type of weapon displayed in public in rallies (like those against the lock-down orders) and protests (like some in the “autonomous” zone in Seattle).  Obviously, existing footage shows Patricia McCloskey pointing the weapon.

However, a complicating factor is that Missouri is a state with a Castle Doctrine law and these guns were lawfully possessed.  The law states, in subsection 3,  that deadly force cannot be used unless “[s]uch force is used 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.” However, no lethal force was used here. It was threatened.

That raises two questions.  Is the law triggered by entry on the property as opposed to entry without the home?  Also, does the law implicitly support the show of force to deter entry.

Some have cited the 2016 case of State v. Whipple, which interpreted subsection 3 is not giving  “the occupier, owner, or lessee authority to stand his ground and use deadly force without having a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force.”

However, the McCloskey’s are alleging that they were threatened directly, the protesters were already trespassing, and that the breaking of the gate constitutes a reasonable basis for their fear. That seems the ultimate jury question.  Whether you are carrying a gun to deter violence or “in an angry or threatening manner” could grounds for both a factual defense and even a constitutional defense based on the vagueness of the standard when applied to homeowners standing on their own property.

There is also the possibility of an assault charge under Section 565.056 (3-4), which defines assault in the fourth degree as any conduct which “purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury” or “recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.” This again is subject to the same arguments raised with regard to the potential brandishing charges.

As a criminal defense attorney, I often worry about a client who becomes such a focus of national media attention.  Prosecutors are elected officials who tend to respond to outcry of the public. The image of two affluent individuals standing in front of their luxury home with these weapons is nightmare for defense counsel.  However, there are some tricky issues here in the use of these laws in the balancing of the rights of self-defense under laws like the Castle Doctrine law and countervailing prohibitions on threats or assault.  Indeed, the pre-trial motions would be fascinating to watch as the defense seeks dismissal on the basis for statutory or constitutional claims.  The prosecution needs to get not just a judge to reject such a motion for dismissal, but a jury to rule unanimously in favor of the charges.  Any conviction would allow for ample grounds to appeal.

Missouri Castle Doctrine Law:

 *563.031.  Use of force in defense of persons. — 1.  A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

  (1)  The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

  (a)  He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

  (b)  He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

  (c)  The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

  (2)  Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

  (3)  The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

  2.  A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

  (1)  He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

  (2)  Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

  (3)  Such force is used 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, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

  3.  A person does not have a duty to retreat:

  (1)  From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;

  (2)  From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or

  (3)  If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.

  4.  The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

  5.  The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.  If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state 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.

493 thoughts on “Yes, The St. Louis Couple Could Be Criminally Charged But It Would Be No Slam Dunk Prosecution”

  1. I must ask….where is the debate about what legal right did the “Protesters” read Trespassers have to forceibly enter posted private property? Upon being told to leave….and they did not…..they immediately became criminals for that single act of not leaving. The persons that forced entry by destroying the closed/locked gate committed the crime of damage to property and forcible trespass.

    The Home Owners had called for help from the Police and their call for help was not answered promptly.

    They were confronted with a situation where they felt threatened by a Mob….a Mob that had forced its way onto their property.

    I don’t give a fig about the two home owners appearing with firearms, it was their home, their property, they were confronted with a Mob which had forced entry to the people’s property.

    The Castle Doctrine states the Home Owners are entitled to defend their property and themselves with no obligation to retreat.

    If they pointed a firearm at the Mob… me that is a moot point.

    They did not discharge their firearms during the defense of their property and themselves.

    The Prosecutor should be filing charges against the Trespassers and those who did the damage to the property….period.

    How many videos have we seen posted clearly showing Mobs attacking people?

    How utterly crass of the Prosecutor to even consider charging the Home Owners…..and that refusing to charge, prosecute, and inprison those who have violently rioted, looted, committed arsons….is exactly what creates the reaction of good peaceful citizens who are threatened by dangerous and violent Mobs.

    I strongly support the two homeowners…..and would have done the same or more in exactly the same situation.

    1. The protesters were trespassers. Im going to say something now that is true but not reported in mass media. I know it’s true because i am a lawyer and have seen it happen many times.

      The failed law enforcement establishment of this country including prosecutors has let feral young black men tresspass at will.

      If a white homeowners is threatened by aggressive young black tresspasssers and confronts with a weapon, there will often be charges of “intimidation” or “brandishment” levelled not at the criminal tresspassers but at the lawful homeowner.

      I have seen this happen numerous times over 2 decades. I could give case names and locations but I will not.

      This is the most recent installment. One that’s even worse given the “stand-down orders” which local police chiefs have given the cops vis a vis “protesters” aka rioters.

      White people are now a persecuted minority in American big cities. It is time for another mass exodus of white people from American big cities and set up redoubts elsewhere. And then let the cities rot and burn and cut tax money off entirely. They are not our homes if his is how we are treated.

    2. I must ask….where is the debate about what legal right did the “Protesters” read Trespassers have to forceibly enter posted private property? Upon being told to leave….and they did not…..they immediately became criminals for that single act of not leaving.

      They weren’t illegal trespassers but rather undocumented tourists.

      1. LorenzoValla – given that they were threatening the homeowners, they became the worst of undocumented tourists, The Ugly Americans.

      2. Perhaps a local real estate agent said there was an Open House within the community and were invited in. Yeah, that’s what happened. They were all potential buyers and were racially profiled.

  2. I don’t understand just why people are threatened with prosecution for protecting their property. WTF happened to the centuries long acknowledged principle that a person had the right to protect their self and their property. Can someone justify that this ‘new’ standard, of not being able to protect yourself and property, is right? Cause if it’s right, then more and more guns will be sold. And this new standard will be right until the mob comes for the dems – like this mob was. Remember, the mob broke in to get to the mayor’s house. That should have scared the crap out of the mayor.

  3. And can we just point out the ‘let them eat cake’ quality of the woman with her hand on her hip like that?

    This couple are going to be more famous than the Randster when his neighbor tackled his obtuse butt off of that riding mower.

    1. “Get off my lawn! 2020”

      Powerful stuff.


      “President Trump received a written briefing and a briefing from then-National Security Advisor John Bolton in early 2019, and another written briefing this February, about intelligence that suggests Russia offered bounties to Taliban fighters for killing U.S. soldiers, according to reports from the New York Times and the Associated Press….

      1. The Russians have been at war with sunni fundamentalists since the afghan war in 1979 followed by wars in the caucuses and terror attacks in Moscow. I believe Putin has referred to these sunni fundamentalists as “liver eaters.” It’s possible that the Russians did offer bounties, but this is probably yet another bogus story pushed by the neocon/neoliberal establishment.

        1. ivan why would putin pay them to do what they already do for free?

          this is the most stupid lie i have heard in a long time. does the CIA get paid to come up with whoppers like this>?

          1. I think it’s just another made up story about Russia. The US taxpayer pays the CIA to come up with these lies. The Taliban doesn’t need to be paid to kill American soldiers because they were already doing just that for the past twenty years.

      2. The intelligence on this program has been confirmed independently by the NYTs, WSJ, WaPo, AP, and Bloomberg, all news sources who care about their reputations for accuracy – obviously a virtue not recognized by Trumpsters like Cindy – on which they depend for survival. The only questions are the details and why Trump took no action on the intelligence reports except for trying to get Russia into the G7 and removing troops from Germany – long a Russian goal.

        1. What a bunch of bull. Let us hear the names and see the documents. The NYTImes and WAPo have been using anonymous sources to provide phony news on a continuous basis. Threats to the US on a daily basis can be in the thousands. The Stupid would suggest that everyone of those threats and the hoaxes by the MSM be considered legitimate.

          That is an impossibility but the morons keep suggesting that is how things should be done.

          1. If we waited for public statements from intelligence and administration officials we would know nothing except what the WH press spokeman told us – a state Allan strives for and is annoyed when others aren’t. All reputable news sources have to have reliable inside sources or we would abide in ignorance, i.e., Allan’s state. Of those news sources should be judged on the accuracy of their reports, and that includes the hard right editorially WSJ.

            1. There are times when negotiations are preferable behind closed doors as certain things are so incendiary that they could even cause a war. If this doubtful type of incident took place then whoever leaked it should be jailed. If it was a hoax then the MSM is responsible for heightening international tensions and actually causing Americans to be killed.

              Stupid people would have told the Kennedy’s to act against the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crisis when they first thought something might have been happening. Those same stupid people might have escalated that crisis by releasing information before proof was obtained. The Kennedy’s didn’t handle that time period very well and almost got us into a nuclear war. Now we have a stupid person, YOU, who is too stupid to know that wars can start over relatively trivial issues that might never had occurred.

              1. According to reliable sources, there have been no behind the doors negotiating over the Russian bounty and the WH claims Trump didn’t know about it. Of the various options presented to Trump, none have been pursued.

                1. Name the reliable sources and show the proof. You can’t. That means the sources are not reliable and you are willing to start a war just to win an election. This type of issue should be handled behind closed doors in an apolitical fashion. In the past after something of this nature was considered factual (doubtful) the President might discuss it with the appropriate members of Congress including both sides of the aisle.

                  Right now my best guess is that this is another hoax created by those on the left.

                  1. The issue is not being handled behind closed or open doors, a fact the WH has confirmed. They claim Trump didn’t know about it. The WH does not deny the intelligence.

                    1. NYTimes headline: “on Possible Russian Bounties” Do you know what the word possible means? How does one take action against a nulcear power when it is only *POSSIBLE* that such action occurred and there is a high likelihood such an action never occurred. The problem is that the MSM and Democrats would be willing to increase the chance of war if they believe it will help them get elected. Just review what has happened in the past and review in particular Adam Schiff pretending a fictional transcript regarding Ukraine was real. Democrats have blown up the ideas set in the Constitution provided by the founders of the nation.

                      “the WH has confirmed. They claim Trump didn’t know about it.” That is meaningless in an incendiary situation that is possible or not possible.

                      ” The WH does not deny the intelligence.” The White House probably got a threat that you while cross dressing will set a bomb to destroy the WH. Do they need to deny that intelligence as well?

                      “The issue is not being handled behind closed or open doors, a fact the WH has confirmed”

                      That is a typical distorted statement from you. You are creating the story.

                      You need some serious education. You demonstrate no logical ability.

                  2. Typical minimal response on intelligence like this would be approaching Russia about the accusations. That didn’t happen. What did happen is Trump continued to be a Russian asset by lobbying for their entry into the G7 and removing troops from Germany.

                    1. Typical minimal response on intelligence like this would be approaching Russia about the accusations. That didn’t happen.

                      How do you know Russia wasn’t approached about this allegation?

                    2. ” intelligence like this would be approaching Russia about the accusations. That didn’t happen.”

                      You don’t know what happened and you don’t know what should be or what is usually done. You sound like a six year old trying to build a rocket ship to the moon.

                      ” What did happen is Trump continued to be a Russian asset by lobbying for their entry into the G7 and removing troops from Germany.”

                      Why should a rich country like Germany who agrees to a pipeline from Russia to keep Russia strong need our help to protect themselves from the Russians? Permitting Russia to enter the G7 may or may not be a good idea. You don’t know.

                      Our enemy today is China in case you haven’t noticed. A bunch of us pointed that out to you a long time ago. It’s best to fight only one enemy at a time and Russias position is strong only when the US has a President like Obama. While you make Russia out to be a big enemy Democrats in charge have been playing footsie with them and have even used the Russians to interfere in an American election.

                      I don’t know why I even explain these basic things to you. I don’t think you are able to put things together.

                    1. “Bolton confirmed it publicly.”

                      Gosh, you are as dumb as Anon (btb).

              1. “dishonest liar”

                Kurtz, you are on spot. Anon should have a capital L in the center of his icon to designate him what he is.

                Geraldo should be quoted “In 3 years of @realDonaldTrump all NYT/Russia reporting has been based on “conflicting” intelligence

                -Also known as wishful thinking”

                That is the MSM Anon feeds off of, wishful thinking. HE and they don’t care who gets killed in the process.

        2. wrong the Pentagon just admitted they have no proof.

          the only thing the newspapers confirmed is that bolton is telling this lie and somebody told it to him

          it makes zero sense. taliban seeks to kill Americans for free. why would anybody pay them for what they are already eager to do and do when they can?

          I suspect you don’t really believe this fake pathetic rumor, you just repeat it because you think it makes Trump look bad. he actually looks good because he’s not a credulous fool who is lead by the nose by some schemers at CIA and war pigs like Bolton

          1. Kurtz, multiple news sources, including the WSJ, have confirmed the intelligence was deemed significant enough to present to the WH. The DoD said they have not corroborated it but did not deny it’s existence or whether it was presented to the WH. The DoD does not oversee the other intelligence agencies and their statement is not therefore conclusive. Other than not liking Bolton, you have no basis for declaring him a liar on this incident.

          2. it makes zero sense. taliban seeks to kill Americans for free. why would anybody pay them for what they are already eager to do and do when they can?

            It’s very likely Democrats are projecting. They have a history of paying people to do nefarious things. They are the QPQ party after all.

      3. nice distraction book except that is false too. pentagon reports they have no information to confirm this rumour. that’s why they are called “alleged” russian bounties because they are a fiction. fabricated by some fake informant looking for money from CIA probably and credulous CIA “analysts” passed it up the food chain and it amplified like a game of telephone and lo the media has ahold of it now not surprisingly from Bolton who is himself a poltiical hack

        the CIA is a rogue agency

        “intelligence that suggests Russia offered” ie no proof, probably a total fiction

        and what would Russia get for their money anyhnow? Taliban wants to kill Americans for free. they don’t need bounties. and putin would not pay them for what they are already trying to do for free. duh

        how stupid do you guys need to be to believe this kind of trash>?

      4. Because of course he was briefed. Lol. Probably tried to tell Jared to deal with it.

        Thanks, Book.

    2. I’m confused. Are we for or against stereotypes?

      The rules change so fast I can’t keep up.

  4. I was both shocked and impressed by pictures of the interior. A 1912 building restored by the owners. Very impressed by the work, slightly shocked that mere mortals live in the place. Good money in law.

    1. RZ – it is a place worth defending. 😉 And you know that Karen poured her heart into it. 🙂

  5. This is what we will be voting about in November. The choice is between those that support the freedoms of individual citizens or those that support violent groups hoping that the violence can provide them more power over the individual.

    1. I’m guessing Book, Hellvis, and the others (assuming they’re not all just one person) will choose the violent groups. They really seem to like them a lot.

    2. No one in the coming election support violent protests or looting, but one of the candidates has typically put his self interest ahead of the nation and as a result has thoroughly f…d up our virus response – now exploding again – and continued to help a foreign country which interfered to his advantage in the 2016 election and recently has been judged by our intelligence agencies to have put bounties on American troops overseas.

      1. “No one in the coming election support violent protests or looting,”

        You absolutely support violent protests and looting. Just look at all your responses. Everything is geared to protect the violent and hinder the lawful from protecting themselves.

  6. St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner is one of the beneficiaries of George Soros’ PACs. His long-term goal is to create mayhem and mischief. Her actions (or lack of action) to prosecute cases has resulted in many Democrat attorneys in the office to resign in protest.

  7. How many times during the Trump impeachment process did we see Democrats proclaim (use your most dramatic inner voice here, and add an emotional quiver if you can): “No one is above the law.”

    Now, how many times have we seen those same Democrats call for rioters and looters to be prosecuted because “no one is above the law.”

    Can’t make this stuff up.

    1. Lorenzo…excellent point. OT Trump’s poll numbers must be going back up because Stenny Hoyer and Adam Schiff are on the Hill, wringing their hands over………….. “Russia”!
      They look so cute in their little outlaw masks….but would look cuter still with Roy Rogers hats and holsters..

  8. Apparently the couple are registered Democrats (news reports, but we now know that reporters lie).

    Wonder what this incident does to their belief system.

    I certainly have to wonder where the cops were (these people certainly seem to pay significant property taxes); about the political motivation of the prosecutor; about the fairness of the judicial system (if the protesters are not similarly charged); and the accuracy of media reporting.

    All in all, nobody comes out of this looking good.

    1. monumentcolorado – the husband has come out for BLM and has donated to ActBlue on 4 occasions. Not sure that won’t change after this.

    2. @monumentcolorado

      “Apparently the couple are registered Democrats”

      Their mistake was brandishing firearms to protect their property. A simple flashing of the “goodwhite” card should have been enough to send the “peaceful” protesters down the street. Just like it protected the Wisconsin couple, Robin Carre and Dr. Beth Potter back in April, remember them?

      White liberals/leftists are HOPELESS and will allow themselves to be attacked and property destroyed all while feeling guilty towards BLM. I have ZERO sympathy for them.


  9. “white power beautiful Confederate statues our heritage vicious dogs dominate thugs looting shooting very fine people Obama Kenya shithole countries Pocahontas Central Park 5 Mexican judge I want guy in yarmulke counting my money not lazy black guy go back to your country Kung Flu”

    Who lives in a hideous looking house like that?

  10. They were told about 40 times they were on “private property” and they were trespassing. And as much as the wife was pointing the gun over the heads of the trespassers, she also pointed it at her husband.

  11. Like I have long said, what goes on in the hood, don’t have to stay in the hood anymore. Blacks have cars and social media apps, so they can easily bring their crap, rioting and looting to the rich white folks areas. Which I hope they do. I hope they head en masse to the Hamptons, Cape Cod, Marin County, Beverly Hills, Fairfax Va., etc. and even unto the neighborhoods populated by suburban moms. Let them get a good dose of Reality.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  12. Poor training allowed the homeowners to make mistakes like pointing guns at the crowd. He doesn’t appear to have his finger in the trigger guard but I can’t tell if she did. If she did, another mistake. Might or might not have been legal mistakes, but these are clear gun safety mistakes and of course it’s leading to a big PR mistake.

    It would have been much better had they just displayed their weapons without pointing them.

    All that being said, I have a hard time believing that a jury wouldn’t find enough reasonable doubt to find them not guilty of whatever charges they might face. If they called 911 beforehand, even better.

    As an aside, I live in Texas and if you don’t have a permit to carry a gun in public, you can display a gun on your property but cannot point them at anyone. IOW, you can mow your lawn with a holstered gun with neighbors out and about but you can’t stand on that same lawn waving the gun around. If you do have a permit, you can take a gun into any state building, including the capitol building where they even have a separate lane for people entering with permits and you skip the metal detector. It’s not uncommon to see people in the capitol building with holstered guns on their hip, including in committee meetings. Up until 5 or so years ago, they didn’t even check for permits at the door. If you work in a state building, the agency cannot prevent you from bringing a gun to work but you might need to let them know beforehand that you carry a gun.

    1. she handled the handgun poorly but it’s easy to say someone else didn’t do it right.

      wrong would have been acting weak. they acted strong., that was right.


      1. @mr kurtz

        Their mistake was brandishing firearms to protect their property. A simple flashing of their “goodwhite” cards should have been enough to send the “peaceful” protesters down the street. Just like it protected the Wisconsin couple, Robin Carre and Dr. Beth Potter back in April, remember them?

        White liberals/leftists are HOPELESS and will allow themselves to be attacked and property destroyed all while feeling guilty for something did not do or had any part in I have ZERO sympathy for them.


      2. I can see my wife doing something similar since she has no firearms training or experience other than maybe shooting a 22 as a kid. It would have to get pretty scary for her to resort to trying to use a gun for self defense, so I can see how this woman could have felt the same way.

  13. I am a gun owner, and given what I know about the case so far, I would not have come out holding firearms. But of course, I am assuming that under the pressure of seeing a crowd and harboring some fear of injury, I would have been able to reason calmly with myself.

    Any charges beyond one that would impose a tiny fine, will be politically motivated.

  14. This couple also called the police for help repeatedly and no help came. So..their 2nd amendment rights kicked in..Also, there is a bigoty against people of wealth that is exhibited against this couple. Years ago I moved to a lower to middle class area and ten years or so later it became popular and extremely expensive. The longer i lived there i got continually. Oh you are just one of those rich people when asked where i lived. I always had to say i could not afford it today if i bought today. This is what is happening to this couple. They own a beautiful mansion but some how they do not have the right to defend it because they are wealthy

  15. Speaking of “triggered”, based on what has been going on during the last few weeks, do you think that the home owners were triggered and had a reasonable belief that something was about to hit the fan? And anyone who thinks the woman was pointing the gun in a threatening manner has had no training at all. The way she was holding that pistol she couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn.

  16. Kim Gardner is exactly the kind of person democrats elect to high office in large cities: bigoted against white people, agenda driven and incompetent. In one year, prosecutions in the circuit attorney’s office went from 7,045 felony cases to 1,641; the turnover in her office was 100%; she had numerous campaign finance violations and she has been accused credibly of engaging in criminal conduct in a high profile prosecution that ultimately was dismissed. She uses the First Amendment to justify a rowdy mob who broke down a gate and trespassed onto private property and yelled at two white homeowners that they will burn and kill them and their dogs. How is this different from yelling fire in a crowded theater? I guess there is a difference, there was a fire brewing on that couple’s front lawn.

    1. I sense she got elected because she’s black, not because of her competence. Maybe Biden will choose her for VP.

      1. Of course that is why she got elected. Which is why big black run cities usually suck. St. Louis will soon be joining Baltimore and Detroit and Atlanta, and any civilized peoples will be moving to the surrounding bedroom communities. Until they are overrun too.

        You know the sad thing is, somewhere up in Heaven, Lester Maddox and Bull Connor are laughing their a$$e$ off, while Martin Luther King is paying off his bet to them.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      2. I predict that now that so many corporations and every other institution and governmental entity are determined to beat the bushes to try to find any black to fill quota positions, that we will all see a further deterioration in behavior, ideas, strategies, etc. To choose to put people in positions based on a supercharged “Affirmative Action” program without regard for qualifications, is only going to hurt those who push or follow this agenda, including the overall society. It doesn’t help those blacks who would have qualified anyway, because even with fragility training and mind-control/brainwashing, there’s a part of the brain that will soon wonder why this person was even put in the position. Very backward for supposedly healing racism–it will foment it for even those who’ve been supportive in the pre-mob era.

  17. So I am confused. Where is the DA in prosecuting those protestors who exhibited intent to harm or assault with the breakdown of a private gate. Why aren’t we getting ” an assault charge under Section 565.056 (3-4), which defines assault in the fourth degree as any conduct which “purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury” or “recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.” Why are you supporting the felons, destroyers, and violent actors but trying to punish those who attempt to deter the criminals from their destruction.

    1. In a private gated neighborhood, where an HOA/CC&Rs bond owners together as a group, does a person’s property begin at the curb or at the gate?

      1. Born2Sail– In Texas, every homeowner in a subdivision has the right to enforce the CC&Rs by suing the violator. The assumption is that the common areas are just that– areas commonly owned. I suspect that the couple would have the legal right to take civil action against the mob, but, of course, like any group of cowards who only travel in packs, they ran when they realized two people might just hold them to account.

      2. It looked to me that the mob was on the couples’ lawn — not on the street or in HOA common area. Very close to the couples’ home. Does the entire mob have to physically enter the couples’ home before they could defend themselves? Wouldn’t that have meant likely physical harm to that couple? These are questions that I’d like answered.

        1. It appears that the actions of the owners drew attention from the protesters and was counterproductive, In any case, there are no reports of property damage to other properties along the route to the Mayor’s home, or at the Mayor’s home except at the neighborhood gate. The McCloskeys actions were probably unwittingly incendiary.

          1. Oh, the old “her skirt was too short” defense. Good one, Book.
            So if the McCloskeys hadn’t brandished their firearms, the peaceful protestors would have just had a gentle Bible study session on the lawn?

            1. Foxtrot, when I read bythebook’s reply, I had similar thoughts. Always blame the victim, until the victim is me.

              1. THEY BROKE THEIR FENCE DOWN AND TRESPASSED … entered the curtilage by force. that’s more than a simple trespass.

                if it was night-time with this breach of their curtilage plus fear of their lives, then they probably could have started shooting at them and it would have been legal self defense under common law

                I wouldnt know about Missouri law but go ahead and try this in Lake of the Ozarks and see how it ends up

                be a rooftop Korean– don’t be weak

              2. bythebook, you take the circumstances out of context. You’ve got non-responsive police force. Mobs rioting and destroying property and killing people… So easy to try to limit the circumstances to fit your argument…

  18. Sorosphere District Attorneys see the courts as a tool to be used against social enemies. So, these people break down a gate and trespass and nothing happens. People defending their homes get prosecuted.

    What’s happened is that liberals can no longer be trusted with public office of any kind. This will not end well for any of us. The best we can do to secure a society where injustice is least manifest is to put an end to this BAMN.

    1. absurd x– Gardner is a classic example of what you describe as Sorosphere DAs. In 2019, prosecutions dropped from 7,000 to 1,000; there was a 100% turnover in her staff; she declined to enforce laws she did not agree with regardless of her oath of office, and I believe she was credibly accused of criminal conduct in her attempted prosecution of the Republican governor. Oh, and she also has a history of campaign finance law violations. The Professor’s own post repeats accusations that she released looters and rioters without charging them. All of this leads me to believe she is an incompetent, agenda driven bigot who is blind to the transgressions of a threatening BLM mob and determined to do all she can to hurt the white victims.

  19. It was alleged that the protestors were on a private drive, not public street? If true any relevance to the case?

    1. They absolutely were, and the videos the doxxers put out specifically panned away from the ‘private drive’ and ‘no trespassing’ signs.

      When you disable law enforcement, you get gated communities. Ideally, all of our public spaces would be so safe there would be no motive to manufacture gated communities. Liberals are trying to destroy local police because police are run by practical men who are in the way of their status games. Keep the police. Destroy liberals.

Leave a Reply