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

ScreenShot2020-06-29at7.54.25AM
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.”

EbswubcX0BE0F70.jpg

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.

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

  1. Lawyer in other states named McCloskey now under attack from death threats and other crimes

    where’s the FBI to investigate? threats of violence made over interstate wires are FBI jurisdiction’

    “Activists nationwide have been harassing the McCloskey Law Office in Elkhart in a case of mistaken identity since a couple with the same last name was recorded pointing guns at Black Lives Matter demonstrators in St. Louis.

    The couple in St. Louis, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, run the McCloskey Law Center in St. Louis.

    Martin McCloskey runs the McCloskey Law Office in Elkhart.

    People have been leaving negative reviews on Yelp and Google and have been receiving threatening phone calls, according to attorney, Martin McCloskey.

    It all started with an email Sunday evening and ever since, hundreds of emails, reviews and calls have come in.

    “We’re coming in strapped this time and we’re coming in and we’re going to get you,” Paralegal, Lisa Weimer, described one call.

    That call, just one of many similar messages left for the McCloskey law firm.

    “You know, they were threatening, they were vulgar,” Attorney Martin McCloskey said. “Wishing people dead.”

    McCloskey is now forced to explain to each person that his firm is located in Indiana, not Missouri.

    “I’m in Indiana,” McCloskey explained.

    The threats have come in one after the other after Black Lives Matter protestors, hundreds of miles away, in St. Louis, went through a gated neighborhood on the way to the Mayor’s home over the weekend.

    A lawyer couple, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, live in that same neighborhood and came out armed, telling protestors that they were in private property and needed to leave.

    That incident has since gone viral and Elkhart attorney McCloskey, who happens to have the same last name, has gotten caught up in the reaction.

    McCloskey and his team have made it clear to all callers that they have the wrong person.

    The McCloskey office in Elkhart has no affiliation with the McCloskey Law Center in St. Louis.

    “Some of them have been apologetic and they say ‘We’re very sorry,’ and others have said, ‘Well, you have the same last name so it doesn’t matter,’” McCloskey said.

    “We were getting phone calls saying we were racist and saying, all kinds of just nasty, horrible things being threatened all day from calls all over all across the country,” Weimer said.

    Dozens of people took to the internet to leave bad reviews, while others, have realized that McCloskey is completely innocent in it all and coming to his defense. The vulgar messages, however, have been overwhelming.

    “That’s been the majority, though, the ones that are threatening and using vulgar language and saying bad things,” McCloskey said”

  2. In case anyone is interested in what the President said along with a bit of analysis by a very smart attorney.

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/06/trump-is-right.php

    Trump Is Right BY JOHN HINDERAKER
    Not on everything, presumably. But on the key issues of our time, he is right on the money. I didn’t know about this interview on Friday until I saw it linked on InstaPundit this evening, and I haven’t seen a complete transcript. But The Federalist is a good source, so here we go:

    In a wide-ranging interview in the Oval Office Friday, President Donald J. Trump said that the country is in the midst of “a political war … where the left will use anything to win, including the culture.”

    True.

    The president said that to restore order and win in 2020, his Republican allies “need to be stronger” in standing up to rioters and those who would tear down statues. “They’ve got to get much tougher,” Trump said, drawing comparisons to moments when Republicans stood together on impeachment and in battles over judicial nominees. “They have to be stronger, have to come together,” or risk losing politically and worse.

    True again. The Democrat-backed riots, looting and arson that have bedeviled many American cities (generally in their poorer, and often African-American, neighborhoods) give Republicans a golden opportunity for sweeping victories in November. It is hard to understand why some Republicans don’t seem to understand this.

    While acknowledging the “horrible” scene that played out in Minnesota with the death of George Floyd, Trump argued that the Floyd-related protest movement has since morphed into an “anti-cop, defund the police, anti-American” movement that puts American communities at risk.

    “Police never get the credit they deserve by politicians, who are being weak,” Trump said, positing that fear of criticizing the excesses of rioters and violent protesters is driven by political correctness and the danger of being called “racist.”

    I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone is afraid of being called a “racist.” The word has lost all meaning, and when it is not a generic term of abuse it is often used to refer to the exact opposite of its true significance; i.e., the current doctrine that being color-blind, paying no attention to race, is “racist.” How dumb do liberals think we are?

    “Republicans need to be fighting,” Trump said, citing the ideology of the more radical agitators in the streets as “vicious” and “seditious.” As the president recognizes, the goals of those sowing the seeds of unrest are clear. “You see their leaders on TV saying ‘give us what we want, or we’ll burn down this system and replace it.’ That’s almost terrorism.”

    Again, totally true statements, except I would strike the “almost.”

    The Federalist story notes that there are around 500 federal investigations of violent rioters now in progress. Needless to say, I would like to see rioters, looters and arsonists prosecuted and jailed. But:

    For his part, the president seemed frustrated that he was being called in to deal with problems within Democratic-represented states and Democratic-run cities.

    “This should be about the mayor, and then the governor, before it even gets to the president,” Trump said, noting that while he has made the National Guard available to restore order in many cities, “they haven’t called for them.”

    Again, Trump is entirely correct. The police power belongs to the states, not the federal government. The problem is the extreme malfeasance of many state and local officials. (In a week or two, Minnesota’s biggest-circulation magazine, Thinking Minnesota, will feature a cover story on the extraordinary incompetence of the state’s governor and other politicians in responding to the riots.)

    Trump was surprisingly candid in talking about his use of social media:

    In response to a question on whether he expects to soon be banned by Twitter — where he has over 82 million followers — Trump said: “Yes, I do.”

    The president believes the ban from the popular platform will happen in the fall before the 2020 election, an opinion shared by others in the White House.

    I think they are right. As I wrote here, many major businesses are withholding their advertising dollars from social media platforms to pressure those companies to do more to help elect Joe Biden. The main target is Facebook, but Twitter is also feeling the pressure, and unlike Facebook, Twitter is run by people who don’t even pretend to have any commitment to free speech. The social media freeze-out of conservative and Republican voices will flower in the Fall. Is there an alternative?

    “Some people say I should join Parler,” Trump said. “Maybe. We do have over 194 million followers, though, across multiple sites.”

    For what it is worth, I have joined Parler.

    Trump also made some sophisticated comments about the legal structure that protects social media companies from legal liability. He moved on to talk about America’s utterly corrupt press:

    Describing the media as “worse than fake news,” Trump expressed derision for prize-winning journalism which ultimately proved false.

    “The Pulitzer Prize is a joke,” Trump said. “Giving the Pulitzer to the New York Times, the Washington Post for wrong coverage, false coverage? Years of it on Russia? They should all have to give them back.”

    Truer words were never spoken, but of course it won’t happen. The Times and the Post are proud that their false coverage damaged the President. That was their goal.

    Trump looked ahead to November’s election:

    Despite facing serious political headwinds as well as some cautionary recent polling data, Trump’s mood was confident and relaxed. Acknowledging the challenge of proving he can lead the country out of a global pandemic and an economic funk, he said that re-election looked easy “as recently as three, four months ago” before the coronavirus pandemic hit.

    Yes. As of January, I would have given President Trump a 99% chance of re-election.

    Referring to Joe Biden as “a Trojan Horse” for leftist policy, Trump said that he fully expects the left flank of the Democratic Party, represented by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to push Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer to deploy the “nuclear option,” banning the filibuster to jam radical, far-left policies through the Senate.

    “Schumer will go ‘nuclear option’ on day one if we lose,” Trump said.

    I think he is right there, too. It is vitally important that Republicans keep the Senate, and it would be great to recapture the House, too.

    Finally, the President talked about his upcoming visit to Mount Rushmore, which is now under threat from Democrats:

    Trump plans to head to Mount Rushmore in the coming week to deliver remarks and take in the first fireworks display held at the famed destination in a decade, on July 3rd.

    A survey released this week by academic Eric Kaufmann, author of Whiteshift, found that 44 percent of liberal respondents and 58 percent of very liberal respondents agreed that Mount Rushmore should be eliminated.

    “I do wonder sometimes if Democrats love our country,” Trump said in response to the figures.

    Do Democrats love our country? Very few, I think. Those who do have left that extremist party. And if you think there is no threat to Mount Rushmore, think again. Liberals are talking about blowing it up or otherwise destroying it. South Dakota’s current Governor, Kristi Noem, stands in their way:

    At noon Central time on July 8, I will be interviewing Governor Noem, mostly on her state’s successful response to the Wuhan epidemic, where she was the only governor (or possibly one of two) who refused to order a shutdown. But I hope to get in a question or two on other topics, including the threats against Mount Rushmore. If you would like to attend (for free), go here to register.

    But I digress. The point here is that President’s Trump’s observations on the current scene could hardly be more accurate.

    1. Allan,
      Thanks for posting that. It reminds me of a time long ago, back in the Reagan era, when the President would give a speech or an interview and we could trust the news agencies to accurately report what he meant. This way the President was able to maintain the appearance of being presidential. The news outlets would fill in all the warts that were beneath the dignity of the office. Today, the President’s speeches and interviews include warts and all. They have to, because the news agencies have an agenda to destroy his presidency.

      1. Olly on the other hand the most difficult thing for Biden in an interview is to make sure he calls on the right journalist so he can then turn to the page of his notebook that has a prewritten answer to a prescreened question.

        1. actually, particularly for a person with dementia, to keep straight the faces and names of journalists, finding the proper notebook page and remembering the prescreened question sounds like more work than simply answering the question.

        2. I saw that and his handlers are going to need to be extra cautious on what they write down in his notebook. He’s likely going to read it verbatim.

  3. I was dismayed at the carelessness with which these people handled their guns. While we all have the right to protect our homes and families, in many states pointing a firearm at someone can be construed as assault. Both seemed incompetent in their handling of their guns and it came as no surprise to me to hear their attorney say they fully support BLM.
    I guess they did until the mob came to eat them.

  4. Problem is, prosecutors and police make up false shit all the time, been there done that. Love to see how this moron of a prosecutor will charge, and try the case. Can’t wait till they go down in Flames!

  5. I have difficulty believing that the prosecutor could convince a grand jury that he should proceed.

    1. David– the only time I ever appeared before a grand jury (I do civil law) I was an Asst. Attorney General filling in for an Asst. DA on a fraud case we were working together. No witnesses testified; the defendant was not allowed to appear or be heard, and the only information the grand jury got was what I told them. I was not put under oath. The man was indicted. I assume the Circuit Attorney will have a staff member handle the case since in her press conference she looked and sounded way out of her depth.

      1. She is way out of her depth if it is a matter of law. As a radical set on destroying the system she is doing just fine.

  6. The ODD thing in this scenario is that communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) and the MSM propaganda machine believe Americans should NOT avail themselves of their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, to claim and exercise dominion over private property and to defend themselves and their property.

  7. OT (sort of): Those in charge of public education– not teachers generally but those in charge– for decades have been on the cutting edge of adopting novel but stupid ideas. If you thought “open classrooms” was a bad idea, try this one. In response to the George Floyd killing, many school systems have decided to cut ties with law enforcement. That’s right. Not only do progressives want to get police out of our communities they now want to get them out of schools. Denver’s and Portland’s school districts already have decided to discontinue their contracts with law enforcement. The believe a better alternative to police is to hire unarmed staffers and have them “undergo a new training program focused on de-escalating conflicts, trauma-informed practices, and reducing racial bias[.]” As one proponent suggested, the staffers can be called “peace-keeping ambassadors.” For more reading– https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/6/9/21285709/some-school-districts-are-cutting-ties-with-police-whats-next

    The only thing I can’t figure out is how all of these progressive educators found the time to get frontal lobotomies.

    1. Honestlawyermostly,
      I am mostly against the increased police state atmosphere that is creeping into schools. It is detrimental to a free society that needs people to learn how to self-govern.

      That said, I agree that there can be a place for officers who are, in addition to being well trained tactically, they should also be trained in de-escalaton techniques and how to interact with mental illness, and, are comfortable working with young people.

      These officers, if they gain students’ trust, also can become a resource for students who are not comfortable confiding in administrators or counselors.

      Katherine Newman and Peter Langman have both done interesting research that includes the role that resource officers can play in schools.

      1. Rose– I agree with your sentiment. When I was in high school there were no police and, thank God, few administrators. On the other hand, in schools where the policy has been to keep students who are actual delinquents in the classroom, the need for police is evident. The thugs among the students will [and do] terrify other students and many teachers. The criminal retention in class policy came from Obama and it has been disastrous. In inner cities the schools run a bit like CHAZ in Seattle.

        The solution is fairly obvious. Set up a rigidly disciplined school in a jail system and commit students to it who commit crimes in public schools. Maintain discipline in public schools. Stop the relaxation of standards and particularly race-based relaxation of standards. The complaint is sometimes that black students aren’t prepared for much class work. Welll, prepare them! That is what school is supposed to do. Prepare the students. And, ban teacher unions. They have been like toxic slime poured onto public schools.

      2. Prairie Rose– Thank you for insight. This new approach might work well in some schools that have a history of staff and student discipline but I think it would be dangerous to remove police from the schools that are located in areas of serious criminal activity, keeping in mind that every large city and even some small towns have high crime areas. Even some small town schools have installed metal detectors for students to walk through because so many students were carrying weapons to school. Should an unarmed staffer try to disarm a student?

        1. honestlawyer – here is the problem that you have with gangs. Bobby is in a gang so mom moves to the suburb to get Bobby away from the gang, however, Bobby takes the gang with him and continues recruiting in the new school. In the old schools, old neighborhoods, OGs go back to school just so they can recruit. Not to learn anything.

          Hence, the gangs are always growing. However, with fewer police we won’t have 6 yo handcuffed.

  8. For those that believe the McCloskeys should not have acted to stop the violent rioters take a look at another group of peaceful rioters in Utah where one of the people shot the driver through the window and shot at the car again but missed. Of course we have those that say it was mostly a peaceful protest.

    1. The absolutely breathtaking misstatement of the facts of this case by the POS AG is what Leftists always do. Ignorant people believe them. All this couple did was intimidate a dangerous mob so that they would be left in peace. The fact that they supported this mod financially and politically makes me wish they’d been demolished. What are these good Democrats doing with an evil assault riflel

      1. People support Democrats in big cities because they are all defacto one party city-states.

        but white people like the McCloskeys can now see where it got them. a lot of money but when they called the cops nobody came

        white folks must abandon the cities and fence them off and let them rot. Starve them of tax subsidies and let them sink into perdition. the big sort has to happen fast.

        McCloskeys will move. They have little choice. They will stick it out for a little while but come 2 years, gone for sure.

        Prolly move to Lake of the Ozarks . No way they move to Jeff City, that’s 20% black. yes, we are all going to start thinking very carefull about that as a new wave of “White flight” has begun.

        But it needs to be a smarter flight this time, to “autonomous zones” — if not openly then at least clandestinely — where we can be safe

        1. Im going to say this bluntly. You can live around a large number of Mexican Americans like in certain places in Texas, no problem. You can live in a place with tons of Asians as a white minority too. No problem.

          But if you are white minority in a black city, you are screwed. Sooner or later you will regret it. Should be pretty obvious 6 weeks into this mess. Figure it out whitey or you’re bound for extinction like a dinosaur.

          1. Kurtz– I have had the experience, lived in an area with a lot of Mexican-Americans and felt comfortable and made many friends. Lived around a large Asian population and the same thing. I realized that half or more of our friends are Asian, surprised me. Also lived in a dangerous black community. Except for a house full of bikers we were the only whites. I would never do that again.

            1. One other thing, and it may only be me, but with Mexican-Americans and Asians I forget that they are technically a different race. With blacks you don’t forget and if you do they have a way of reminding you.

              1. I feel the same way,

                Now you probably don’t go as far as this, but I am saying a little more. I used to think I was a white racist and then I realize I just was sick of blacks hating on me and all the crime stuff and never-ending guilt trips. I don’t want to lump them all together but if they’re gonna lump us all together I can see in the mirror the side i have to take

                now it would be nice to just say cant we all get along but the Democrat leadership which is conspicuously white by the way, doesn’t want that. they and the billionaire faction, who are also conspicuously white, seem to be intent on whipping up black anger and regular middle and lower class white folks until it reaches a fever pitch,. so here is another reason I don’t think I qualify as a racist at this time: the people I am hating the most today are not baggy pants thugs listening to hip hop music, they are self proclaimed “masters of the universe” like Jack dorsey boss of twitter who thinks he can tell us all what we can say or not. I hate that guy the most.

                So he can go live with all the black people who hate us, or they with him, whatever, just leave me out of it. I am done, I am sick of it, I want a divorce. I got a vote and I want to vote on a national racial partition plan. I don’t really care what races are in the not-black zone but I want it. No blacks and no guilt trips from white billionaires or antifa freaks either. They love each other so much let them live together and leave us in peace.

                I would pay a tax to underwrite a reparations deal like that for the rest of my life but it’s got to be conditional on a safe secure no black zone to go with it. BLM and Democrats, You want reparations, you never want to let go of the legacy of slavery, ok. They think there is no America, fine, let it be divided, but there will be a place for me and other insignificant white people like me in what comes after, to live free from the crime and the endless guilt trips. Whether Obama or Jack Dorsey or Geo Soros likes it or not. I would pay for this but it’s gonna be a negotiation and the terms will be final once agreed.

                and we keep the nukes because without them we are toast. It’s the Sampson option or no dice.

                1. The Democrat party leadership and Silicon Valley are so into this white guilt thing, they are in for a penny and in for a pound. They will never change., And they will have the power to run America at will once Donald is gone. Republicans are weak and ineffective and before Donald a fake opposition and they look like have been pretty fake the past 3 years sabotaging him too.

                  But why do we the majority of the white population, on up to an income level even of the McCloskeys, who are obviously above me, and yet they are not safe and even they have to go out and pull guard duty with guns– how can this be OK with white people? How can we be so deluded as a group to accept this false guilt for what happened centuries ago>? Which is being foisted on us, not so much by the BLM rioters, but really, understand those who are funding them and whipping them up against us on social media with all the censorship and propaganda? How can this be ok that white people are essentially letting a white billionaire class screw us down so hard that we accept a total collapse of law and order?

                  We can’t accept this and we have to survive the rioters but eventually we have to reckon with white billionaires like Geo Soros and Jack Dorsey who want to cram us down into the dirt. These guys all have security teams and could care less about law and order. We are not able to afford security and even white millionaires like the McCloskeys don’t have enough to be safe. This is an outrageous situation.

                  We have to start by rectifying the white billionaires who set this all up to fail. We have to smite them. Start with any Republican who goes along with the BLM nonsense. I see some Republicans knuckling under. We get a list and spread it. If we can’t start small by chastening the errant Republican weaklings then we sure won’t be able to do anything bigger than that.

                  1. Smite white Republican turncoats who abandon the middle.
                  2. Smite Silicon Valley
                  3. Smite any big business who donates to BLM

                  here is a list of those. it’s a big ugly list. these are your true oppressors

                  https://www.cnet.com/how-to/companies-donating-black-lives-matter/

                  smite them. use your imagination. i could care less what naughty ideas people get if they read this; it’s clear that this is way past “law and order” anyways

                  1. See I am trying to break this down into two problems for normal white folks.

                    a– the immediate problem. black crime and chaos and BLM and the relentless guilt trips
                    this is the tip of the spear but not the hand that holds it. they are not the generals nor the shot callers.

                    b. the shot callers. Geo Soros, his top tier of hired stooges Pelosi and the like , the Silicon Valley billionaires, the C-suite executives giving the shareholder money away to fund more BLM harassment and propaganda. These are shot callers. We have to smite them.

                    Once they are more fully in charge, once the Donald has gone away, and their control is secure, they will dispense with BLM if they feel like it. Just as BLM went quiet under Obama. But they will ALWAYS find a way to keep on squeezing the white middle and lower classes, for more tax money, for a thousand other future obligations that have yet to be discovered. Their next thing may be flooding the US with another wave from Central America or who knows where. They may pull a crazy stunt of their own like defaulting on US debt and replacing the dollar with an IMF SDR. Look that up if you never heard of it. Maybe there will be more COVIDs to come and more lockdowns from here to the horizon.

                    We have to smite the C-suite shot callers, the plutocracy, or we will all end up like so many slaves ourselves.

                    Smite them. And any middle level management that goes along with them, will get it too.

                    Remember this. In a year Turley’s little island of free speech may be gone too. Probably somebody won’t like what Im saying here and will be complaining about this. Some rotten little stooge of a C Suite Billionaire plutocrat of contemporary America. They are our oppressors and they are the shot callers and no matter how much trouble we get from the street thugs remember this: somebody told them to march on us in the first place.

                    1. If America pays reparations to blacks: Re. the black descendants of the Africans who rounded up and sold their friends, family, and neighbors into slavery. Do those blacks also get reparations? The same amount, or only a portion?

                    2. Maybe read “Into the Cannibals Pot” buy Ilyane Mercer. From experiences in South Africa she has a pessimistic view of blacks interactions with other races.

                2. Mr. Kurtz,
                  They do not lump us all together. The media and the noisiest voices are trying to make people think that’s the case.

                  1. They don’t all? I agree. I see a few black folks here and there denouncing BLM and rioting but they’re a minority of a minority

                    it may not be the fault of the good ones but these kinds of things have a logic that operates on the level of groups not individuals

                    this is a key to survival thinking. you have to know when groups matter more than anything. sometimes you gotta save your skin & kin first..

                    the only thing I am going to say to moderate my sense of group self defense against BLM and white guilt extortionists is this:

                    it was a white billlionaire plutocracy of Silicon Valley capos and such like as Geo Soros who set them in motion.
                    so they are the real problem in the end not all these other distractions.

                    in the meantime we can’t be reduced into total submission and facing up against black bullies is a timely necessity
                    if the cops wont do it then we have to be like the McCloskeys

                    then we live to fight another day against the billionaires who subjugate us all

                    1. Increasingly blacks are demanding segregation–special dorms, special graduations, special student unions, special everything set aside for blacks. And increasingly I am hearing educated whites say “Fine! Be gone! We are sick of you too.”

                      This level of racial animosity is not necessary, but I agree with you; it is coming from on high. I suppose that’s why I enjoy it when the mayors of Olympia and Seattle have radicals storming their homes and why I like the squeals of pricey leftists when mobs hit Rodeo Drive or the homes in the hills above it. Strange that the law and order types are gloating at threats and destruction coming to the porches of those who stirred this vile crap up for the rest of us. On the other hand, I truly feel sorry for the retired black man who invested all he had in a business only to have it looted and burned by these criminals. He sounds like a good guy. The black community is like a kettle of boiling crabs. When one industrious and honest one tries to crawl out he is destroyed and dragged back in. Tragic.

                    2. Facing up against bullies, no matter their skin color is plenty. If you focus on bullies of a particular skin color, you’ll miss a sizable cohort.

    2. rip and copy that video before YOUTUBE censors ban it.

      they can’t handle the truth! this is nationwide sedition and a criminal conspiracy of planned destabilization getting worse every day

    3. Some poor guy (in Provo Utah of all places) trying to go about his business gets shot by a rioter. This will be largely ignored. Unlike the couple in St Louis, most people won’t even hear about it. When it is reported, it will be spun as yet another example of dangerous, privileged racists threatening the rioters.

      The spin has already started. The Salt Lake Tribune helpfully explained that the driver of the large, white SUV sped through the crowd of protesters. It pushed its way through the crowd, knocking several of them aside. They go on to tell us that the police statement doesn’t mention that the SUV drove into several protesters, but it does say that the ‘driver hit the gas trying to leave the situation.’

      Soon we will be seeing legal analyses explaining that the poor driver should be charged with assault and the rioter was acting in self defense.

      Our country is in deep, deep trouble.

      1. Epstein,

        You saw it all before. At Charlottesville.

        The crowd attacked the crazy white racist kid’s car first. they surrounded it and hit his car with iron rods and scared the devil out of him,

        He rammed people in self defense. at best it was manslaughter. he was charged and convicted of worse.

        The psychological message was clear to ANTIFA freaks and black rioters: NOW IT’S LEGAL TO SURROUND WHITE PEOPLE IN CARS

        here is the only thing you can do.

        a. dont get surrounded.
        b. if you do, just drive ahead slowly, stop and go, let them fall off the car, and dont run over them

        the video of the cop SUV in detroit which was recently attacked shows the method of how to get rioters off your car without running over them,
        key thing is dont hit the gas and freak out and kill somebody like the stupid crazy white racist kid at Charlottesville.

        1. Mr Kurtz – at least a couple of this protesters attacking the cop car in Detroit are suffering from road rash today. 😉

    4. @Allan-

      Some poor guy (in Provo Utah of all places) trying to go about his business gets shot by a BLM rioter. It doesn’t fit the narrative so it will be largely ignored. Unlike the couple in St Louis, most people won’t even hear about it. When it is reported, it will be spun as yet another example of dangerous, privileged racists threatening the rioters.

      The spin has already started. The Salt Lake Tribune helpfully explained that the driver of the large, white SUV sped through the crowd of protesters. It pushed its way through the crowd, knocking several of them aside. They go on to tell us that the police statement doesn’t mention that the SUV drove into several protesters, but it does say that the ‘driver hit the gas trying to leave the situation.’

      Soon we will be seeing legal analyses explaining that the poor driver should be charged with assault and the rioter was acting in self defense.

      Our country is in deep, deep trouble.

Leave a Reply