Sen. Hawley Calls For Federal Civil Rights Probe Over McCloskey Investigation

downloadUS-DeptOfJustice-Seal_svgMissouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley has called upon Attorney General Bill Barr to launch a federal civil rights investigation of the St. Louis couple who wielded guns outside of their house during a protest in their gated community.  I have previously written about the possible charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey and expressed my skepticism over the apparent effort of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner to find a criminal charge.  However, Attorney General Barr should decline this request from Sen. Hawley.  There is no civil rights violation in this investigation.  Indeed, while I thought the charges could be defeated in trial or on appeal, I previously wrote that the vague criminal provisions could be used to bring a charge.  The issue turns on how the guns were used.  While I find the criminal provisions to be vague and the application in this case to be unwarranted, it is not a civil rights violation to advance such an interpretation of the law.

Hawley maintains that Garnder is violating the Second Amendment by “targeting” the couple: “This is an unacceptable abuse of power and threat to the Second Amendment and I urge you to consider a federal civil rights investigation into the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office to determine whether this investigation and impending prosecution violates this family’s constitutional rights.”

We previously discussed how Missouri law has countervailing laws that support the McCloskeys like the Castle Doctrine laws.  Hawley insists that these law as so clear and controlling that they make the motivations of the District Attorney equally clear:

“There is no question under Missouri law that the McCloskeys had the right to own and use their firearms to protect themselves from threatened violence, and that any criminal prosecution for these actions is legally unsound. The only possible motivation for the investigation, then, is a politically motivated attempt to punish this family for exercising their Second Amendment rights.”

Again, I have been critical of the basis for the proposed charges against the McCloskeys but these are broad countervailing statutes that are routinely subject to expansive interpretations by both prosecutors and defense attorneys.  The question is whether, if a court agreed that the couple was threatening people on the street, there could be a legitimate charge.  The answer is yes.  That does not make it a legitimate case in the absence of such evidence and the underlying statutes have vague elements that could allow for challenges.  However, that type of interpretative disagreement is not ordinarily the basis for civil rights charges.

The Justice Department clearly has the authority to investigate the violation of constitutional rights, but the specific basis for such an investigation is not clearly stated in the letter below.

The Second Amendment could be claimed as falling with the the Justice Department’s guidelines for the reporting of violations “based on … race, color, national origin, disability status, sex, religion, familial status, or loss of other constitutional rights.”  Some investigations of state prisons or offices generally involve constitutional violations though often with a gender or race discrimination element. The Justice Department recently moved to protect free speech rights on campuses.

However, it is not stated as the focus of common references to “civil rights investigations” as illustrated in the Civil Division’s statement that it “enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status and national origin.” It is also not included in Title VI’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin by recipients of Federal financial assistance or the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (Crime Control Act).

Here is how the FBI defines the scope of its mandate:

“The FBI investigates violations of federal civil rights statutes and supports the investigations of state and local authorities in certain cases. Federal civil rights violations fall into several categories: hate crimes motivated by bias against such characteristics as race, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation; color of law crimes involving law enforcement and related criminal justice professionals’ misuse of their right to discretion, such as use of excessive force or police misconduct; involuntary servitude or slavery; violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act; the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act; the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act; and violations of human trafficking statutes included as part or the Trafficking Victims Protection Rights Act. The FBI’s civil rights investigations are separate from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations, although EEOC regulations are enforced within the agency.”

Putting aside the specific office and basis for the investigation, I simply do not believe that this would make for a compelling foundation for such an investigation.  Indeed, much of the criticism of Gardner is that she is acting for a base political purpose.  That is a common complaint against elected prosecutors.  Yet, the Justice Department has been a long defender of “prosecutorial discretion” on the use of the laws.  The point is that these laws do not clearly bar such charges, even if the motivation and foundation are legitimately questioned.  We would not want the Justice Department investigating every case where a prosecutor took an excessively broad interpretation of a statute absent a pattern of targeting constitutional rights.  The Supreme Court has allowed for “reasonable” limitations on the right to bear arms.  It is still working through the scope of such reasonable limits.  It is unlikely to reject the basis for a criminal law that bars the threatening use of lawful arms in public.  That leaves an interpretative or “as applied” controversy in cases like this one.  Finally, the St. Louis case is currently at the investigative stage so any move at this time would be likely viewed as a premature.

————

Here is the Hawley letter to Barr:

Dear Attorney General Barr:

As you are well aware, the country is facing a moment of significant public unrest and discord. As many Americans are peacefully exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and protest throughout the country, still others are exploiting this moment as an opportunity to sow violence and destruction. Too often, peaceful demonstrations have devolved into tense standoffs or violent riots, with threats and attacks on businesses, innocent bystanders, and law enforcement officers.

One such incident occurred in St. Louis, Missouri, where a family reportedly faced a mass of demonstrators trespassing on their property and threatening them. When help from the police or from nearby security failed to arrive, this family, the McCloskeys, did what any reasonable person would do: they retrieved their lawfully owned firearms and defended their property and their lives. The confrontation was resolved with no one being hurt.

Unfortunately, this family is facing new threats, not from demonstrators but from the local government. St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner is now threatening to prosecute not the trespassers, but the McCloskeys, and she is using the powers of her office to target them. Her office has seized their firearms, and police have applied for warrants in the case, with an indictment believed to be imminent.1

This is an unacceptable abuse of power and threat to the Second Amendment, and I urge you to consider a federal civil rights investigation into the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office to determine whether this investigation and impending prosecution violates this family’s constitutional rights. There is no question under Missouri law that the McCloskeys had the right to own and use their firearms to protect themselves from threatened violence, and that any criminal prosecution for these actions is legally unsound. The only possible motivation for the investigation, then, is a politically motivated attempt to punish this family for exercising their Second Amendment rights. Indeed, this is part of a troubling pattern of politically motivated prosecutorial decisions by the St. Louis Circuit Attorney, who has not seen fit to prosecute many violent offenders, 2 and who has expressed hostility to gun rights in the past. 3 Recently, reports indicate that she declined to pursue charges against dozens of individuals arrested during a weekend of riots in the city.4

The Second Amendment is not a second-class right. No family should face the threat of harassment or malicious prosecution for exercising that right. The Department of Justice must ensure that all Americans’ rights are protected from this kind of abuse of power. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Josh Hawley U.S. Senator

51 thoughts on “Sen. Hawley Calls For Federal Civil Rights Probe Over McCloskey Investigation”

  1. White flight, black flight.. Saturday night..
    Thousands of humans are leaving the site.
    There were spaces between Donald and whatever he said..
    Strangers have forced him to examine his head.
    Say bye to Saint Louie as you go east or west…
    You need a safe haven to rebuild your nest.

    Dreamers..just go naturally…
    Like a first guest..
    Like a lady.
    Sunshine falls on all folks..
    Be they high risk or lazy.

  2. We need to discuss whether a county prosecutor has immunity in a federal civil rights suit for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys fees.

  3. Black Flight, White Flight, all around the the town. Meet me in Saint Louie Louie, is no longer sound.
    We are packing two days.
    You can have it your way.
    We are leaving Louie…
    Each and every day!

  4. An alternative protection device for private property owners when invaded:. Land mines under the street and sidewalks detinated by remote controls.

  5. COURTS…MUST…DECLARE ALL ACTS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST TENOR OF THE CONSTITUTION VOID.

    Mark and Patricia McCloskey were “keeping and bearing arms.”

    The abhorrent, criminal Black Lies Matter rioters, thugs and hooligans were trespassing, threatening and endangering the public.

    The 2nd Amendment is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute; providing government no authority to modify or adjudicate otherwise in any form or to any degree.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    2nd Amendment

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  6. OT:
    “After repudiating China’s claim to the South China Sea, ending an Obama-era policy of indifference that critics slammed as tantamount to appeasement, and moving to strip Hong Kong of its special status (while punishing CCP officials responsible for enforcing the new HK national security law), the Trump Administration unleashed its latest rhetorical assault on the Communist Party and its monstrous human rights abuses.

    As the Trump Administration weighs a travel ban on CCP officials, AG Bill Barr delivered a speech warning about the complicity of Silicon Valley and Hollywood in helping to perpetuate the CCP’s growing influence over American culture.

    Criticizing China for resisting political liberalization that Americans once believed would eventually follow along with the economic liberalization agenda, Beijing is now embarking on a mission to elevate itself as a locus of geopolitical power to rival the US.

    Barr complained that Hollywood has become too willing to kowtow to Beijing, censoring not just versions of movies that are shown in China, but also those that are released in the US.”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/twitter-blocks-nyt-journo-tweeting-story-china-human-rights-abuses-ag-barr-decries

    It ain’t just Hollywood…

  7. Isn’t this an issue of systematic racism and oppression, where the system is targeting these homeowners based on their race and wealth?

  8. White people and indeed law abiding people of all races, should abandon the major metros of America. Let them wither and rot.

    Rebuild civilization where order is valued by the majority, not disorder, and cordon off these hellholes.

    The Big Sort is underway.

    One key to managing the future development of communities is civic engagement– old fashioned service clubs.
    Young people should be introduced to these. It’s boring and a form of work, but necessary work./
    No society can build without shared work.

    1. There is already a noticeable amount of flight from these cesspools to more tolerant locations.

    2. Can we get rid of generational welfare, affirmative action privilege, quotas, forced busing, social services, rent control, minimum wage, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, SSI, Obongocare, Labor, Commerce, Education, Agriculture, Energy, unfair Fair Housing, discriminatory Non-Discrimination, etc., in the “future” communities?

  9. Soooo, since Kim Gardner is black and the McCloskeys are white, why can’t it be that Gardner is going after them due to their race? Or is it only possible to prosecute wrongly based on race if the prosecutor is white and those charged are brown or black?

    1. of course she’s going after them because they are white!

      thats exactly WHY she got elected in the first place. let’s be honest: the black voters WANT the persecutor to go after white folks

      I say: OK! enjoy STL after we are all gone. and that will mean Clayton too.
      but whitey’s taking his businesses, skills, our movable goods & personal property, and tax dollars too.

      Then, it’s all yours! See how it goes once you have the black utopia in your grasp. Oh, I remember how it went in Chicago, not so great!
      and look at Detroit. Wow. Somehow, however, it’s always whitey’s fault, even when whitey’s not in charge anymore! right?
      This was Robert Mugabe’s playbook. Always whitey’s fault, even when it was obviously just his, for decades of poverty and ruin.

      Now, I know there’s a lot of competent black folks out there, hey, such as Barack Obama. And really, Obama was not half as bad as my Republican friends say–
      but seems to me, the Obamas are pretty few and far between!

      Now if white people were smart, which supposedly we are– I question that–seem stupid as ever to me these days– but if we were smart, we would be making this happen to many if not most of the major metros with large angry black populations. Hey, give self government a swing!

      and maybe the BLM riots were all it took to finally get it off the ground., Maybe it will take a white to see if I am the only cracker with such naughty ideas.
      Yeah, I guess we may have to wait, but eventually, we will see.

  10. There’s a prosecutor letting the mob burn in St. Louis. Put a crown on her head.

  11. (music to tune of Rednecks)

    There’s a klansman in my yard!
    His wife’s name is Betty Lou Thelma Liz.
    He’s not responsible for what he’s doing.
    His prosecutor made him what he is.
    So it’s up against the walls klansman mother’s.
    Mother’s who have raised to their clowns so well.
    He’s 34 and burning down my house.
    Kicking hippie’s arses and raising hell.

  12. Gardner (circuit arrorney), has a special prosecutor reviewing her prior prosecution of Governor Eric Greitens, during which she had secret meeting with the major witness, the private investigator she hired had six charges of perjury, and there was an exchange of a large amount of cash, over 100 thousand dollars, and apparently a person is facing charges for that as well, and some of the Monet apparently went to the major witness.
    It seems that was a politically motivated prosecution, successful, in that Greitens was forced to resign, but the trial had irregularities raising the question of political corruption in the circuit attorney office, however Gardner may be re-elected.
    The prosecution of the McCloskeys is likely to take attention off the irregular and
    dropped charges against Greitens.
    While irregular, actual charges against a circuit attorney will never happen.
    I agree fully with Senator Hawley’s letter, but nothing will come of it. In some aspects, the St Louis Circuit Attorney’s office and the DOJ in Washington DC are practically identical.
    Any actual charges or indictments of attorney’s or personnel in those offices, despite widespread public disclosures of irregularities if not outright misuse of the positions concerned in both the Circuit Attorney’s office and the DOJ
    and FBI in Washington DC for political purposes, it’s seen as business as usual, standard operating procedure, and the cases are deeply buried both in the special prosecutor’s office in St. Louis and in the DOJ investigations in Washington byJohn Durham’s investigation and the special investigator in Session’s DOJ as well when he assigned to the US attorney from Utah, John Huber, to investigate Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s email violation of the espionage act with her private email server. I think Trump referred to Huber’s investigation as a “garbage disposal unit”.
    The attorney’s in both the circuit attorney’s office and the DOJ can’t effectively police themselves when cases involve political figures.
    Unfortunately, the McCloskeys have been caught up in local and national politics, just by defending themselves, which they likely have a right to do both by state laws in Missouri and by Constitutional rights delineated in the Bill of Rights, but sometimes doing or upholding the simplist things turns out to be the hardest.
    I have no idea how it will turn out because likely this will end up in state and federal courts due to it being involved with local, state and national exposure and politics at all those levels.

  13. The laws are, for the most part, adjusted to the times. The second amendment pulled into this affair is, at best, a perverse interpretation of clearly written protection for societies to defend themselves, through ‘well regulated militias’ without deferring to a central power. What the couple did ranges from self defense to unnecessarily brandishing a weapon in a situation that was volatile, but without immediate threat. The husband stood his ground with his rifle across his chest but did not point it at anyone. That stands at the center of the right to defend one’s self and property. The wife brandished her weapon and pointed it at people. She was clearly emotionally charged. The protesters had forced the gate to the gated street but had not moved onto the couple’s property. The actions of the wife find that grey area that can be argued in either direction. Given the circumstances, and if one’s refers to the essence of the second amendment and society’s right to determine the rights and responsibilities of its members a statement should be made regarding the cavalier use of guns. The idiots, armed to the teeth, in battledress and masked, that occupied a State Capital building and routinely wander around sometimes checking people’s ids, are an example of a disrespect and perversion of even the most biased version of the second amendment. It’s a question of direction and degrees. The idiots in Michigan are going in the wrong direction to a degree that needs to be addressed. The wife here was also over the line. Society, must make a determination as to how far an individual’s interpretation of a right can go. If she had accidentally shot someone, then what? Accountability or no accountability can be argued equally within the law. The law is of the moment out of necessity.

    1. Canadians are not in charge of our laws. Like you Isaac. Stay in Canada if you don’t like it.

      Your opinion is welcome but foreigners will not determine what the law is in America.

      1. Kurtz-

        I’m a naturalized American with dual nationality. I made a conscious choice to obtain American citizenship. I’m not just what didn’t dribble down a pant leg.

        1. Ah well, my fellow American, I celebrate your naturalization! Why so shy to admit it until now.

          I have nothing against Canada, other than Canadians who always love to lecture Americans about how we need to be like Canada.

          And, since you are still a Canadian, I guess that may yet still apply to you.

          I bet you wear the white skin, too eh? better quit griping about guns and get one while you still can.

          If you have your way, that may go away, and when you need one, it will be too late.

    2. I got this far:
      “What the couple did ranges from self defense to unnecessarily brandishing a weapon in a situation that was volatile, but without immediate threat.”

      And then I stopped reading because I always stop reading when absurdity strikes.

      People who break into your property and trespass and refuse to leave, including some who make direct threats to your person and your property, represent an immediate threat.

    3. The sidewalk and street on Portland Place are private properies owned by the McCloskeys and their neighbors. The mob broke the law when they broke the gate and walked in.

      1. the people who don’t care about these laws are the same ones screeching about how no one is above the law when it comes to Trump or one of his supporters.

        boundless hypocrisy

        1. You’re Damned Right!!!

          The Trespassing Rioters, threatening Murder & Arson at that point anyone would be within their Rights to start dropping that Mob.

          Hell, anyone can see videos where it takes a criminal just a very few seconds to shoot cops/citizen.

          We just can’t afford to take the chance we get harmed first.

      1. The reasoning is that in that grey area when you go in one direction, people die. When you go in the other direction, you come into contact with cooler heads. I prefer the cooler heads rather than the shoot first ask questions later.

        Story: I knew a guy once who was a tough, short, ex Ranger, working as a truck driver and bouncer. He had a concealed carry license. He also had a huge chip on his shoulder, being short. One night he bounced some guys from a nightclub, part of his job. After work he went to a drive through food place and the guys he bounced were there. Words were exchanged and he got into it and took a bit of a beating, nothing serious. The two guys, after giving him his whooping, went to leave. Our hero grabbed his 45 from under the seat and went after them, shooting, running, and totally out of control. He was charged with reckless something or other and given a year suspended sentence. Three years later he petitioned to get his concealed weapon license and won. He told me all this as if it never happened. Who is he gonna go after next. The mutt should never be allowed near a weapon again, regardless of the anger management courses. If guns are so g*# da*@ sacred, why is it that idiots and the deranged can get their hands on them. There are no absolutes here, just grey areas.

        There were angry mobs all over the country, the world. Lot’s of private property breached, and no shooting. Take this in the Cowboy direction and it becomes a hole that gets dug to nowhere. As the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. America has never been this armed and out of control. Go back fifty years and the average ‘Joe’ could never prance around with assault weapons like some nutcase. We are going in the wrong direction.

        1. Issac:

          Horror story. But very rare.

          Look at the violence in Portland by Antifa. Few guns, but lots of weapons. And numbers.

          Remember Colt’s adage.

          Re weaponized demonstrations in Virginia and Michigan. No injuries. No property damage. Crowd cleaned up after themselves.

          Cf. to Portland.

          Give credit where credit is due.

          1. Like I said it’s all about the grey area. The guy who shot to death the student who knocked on his front door asking for directions is right along side McClosky in the grey area. McClosky waved a gun and pointed it in response to the ‘Mob’. The ‘Mob’ did push open the gate and entered private property and she didn’t let loose. The guy that killed the student ‘felt’ that he was threatened. The grey area here sets the precedents for lunatics with guns to determine whether or not they can get away with venting their spleen or expressing their insignificance through the use of fire arms. McClosky was visibly upset and rightly so. That she brandished the weapon may have forced the ‘Mob’ down but pointing it at people and holding it to one’s chest are two different things. Mrs. McClosky was half way to shooting. Her husband was simply standing his ground. Mrs. McClosky had one foot over the line. The guy that killed the student was an outright killer, murderer, someone who should never be allowed near weapons.

            This isn’t about self defense, the right to bear arms, but about society making a statement regarding the cavalier use of those guns so many Americans cherish. There should be a statement made by society that Mrs. McClosky went too far. If not, the next time someone might get killed. As our son grew up in our relatively safe neighborhood, he and his pals used to take short cuts by jumping over fences and cutting through yards. There is something sadly perverse when you have to teach your son that he can’t do that as there are crazies, armed with guns and perverse concepts of rights, who will easily shoot someone who looks like a short man. If America is heading to a point where ‘you better be armed’, it is because it is so perversely easy to be armed. In Canada and other countries many people have guns, however gun ownership does not come with perverse concepts on when and if they can be used. Ironically in America where guns are attached so perversely to rights and freedoms, they are the most abused.

            It’s all about direction and degrees. Regarding guns, America has been going in the wrong direction for some time. Reprimand Mrs. McClosky with a fine or some other slap on the wrist and send the mutt that killed the student to jail for a minimum of 20 years. It’s all about making a statement regarding the right direction. You can still take your guns to bed.

        2. I had a friend who was a crack shot. I know so, we poured thousands of rounds downrange together in the Illinois countryside, decades ago.

          He was a real gun nut and had a pistola and CC license.

          He left it in his car when he went into work every day, in Gary Indiana, so required by work rules. I have no problem with such rules, btw.

          But guess where he got murdered? Yeah, work. With his gun in the car. What a dismal funeral that was; this was basically the end of that particular clique.

          There’s nothing special about guns, they are not a totem. The worst thing I can say about guns is there are a lot of stupid people who have them and even if you got one, it may be hard to put it to use when the moment is right. The second amendment system is not an ideal, it is a realistic insight that makes a tradeoff between the risks of broad public firearms ownership, and all the other obvious problems that attend when that doesn’t exist. I wont belabor those points, it all bores me to discuss.

          That’s why as I got older, I wanted to focus more on improving the social conditions that lead to law and order, and not the cowboy minded notion of just playing desperado.

          What do we need now? More guns? I think not. But we do need a phalanx of citizens like the ancient Greeks who could come together shoulder to shoulder and make war. on our foes. Not a bunch of desperados. A wolfpack, not a herd of cats.

          Yeah, getting guns is not a problem now, and probably never will be here. Like that one Bernie bro said in the undercover video, there’s plenty of guns out there. When it jumps off, everybody will go for the armories.
          Kind of like how those anarchists went for the police station in Seattle. They wanted guns. Figure the cops probably took them all when they skedaddled, of course.

          1. anarchists went for the police station in Seattle. They wanted guns. Figure the cops probably took them all when they skedaddled, of course.

            *****

            Don’t bet on it. Seattle after all.

          2. Mr K,

            I appreciate your opinion on this 2nd amd issue but for you being a lawyer I feel sorry for you & others that outright flunk these many simple tests “Our Rights”.

            Maybe you can see the way I think about “Our Rights”, coming from my decades of deal with Real Estate & other titles.

            One Should Not be giving up Easements across one’s land any time someone comes up & say they mean well.

            You even say your buddy willingly gave an easement, his Right as a citizen, his 2nd Amd, because his employer demanded that of him.

            That’s what got your buddy murdered!

            Just think of all the Rights we citizens have already surrendered up to Govt & with help of corporations since WW2.

            It should be clear to everyone now we citizen retain our Rights or the day we give a easement across them is the day we become nothing more the Slaves like the people of China, North Korea & most everywhere else.

            If people feel better not being in the US with it’s citizens having Rights they should move to another country. It’s that simple!

    4. I take it you think the constitution is a living breathing instrument. That can be bent and shaped as we se fit to the values of the current cultural time that we live in.

  14. The Dem prosecutor wants the mob to burn down houses on Portland Place.

    Went in dumb. Come out Dem too.
    Hustling round Atlanta in her alligator shoes.
    She’s keeping humans down.

  15. If the prosecutor does not bring charges for the protesters after they clearly violated the law, but confiscates weapons and charges the citizens defending their own property/lives, that is clearly discrimination. If a black couple had acted in the same way against a mob of white protesters that broke down a gate and entered this private community, every protester would have been arrested and the couple would be regarded as heroes.

  16. Just so amazing that SO many lawyers think there is no problem to forcing a innocent person to spend vast amounts of money to defend oneself from bogus charges. We need a system where prosecutors should be forced to repay someone for their expenditures if charges are found to be malicious or brought for political purposes.

  17. Americans need this prosecutor removed from office today. She has put all citizens of St. Louis at risk of death. All Klans Matter. AKM

  18. I am going to support Sen. Hawley on this. Taking the weapons of people who have been previously threatened by a riotous mob certainly violates the Constitution, both national and state. I know the state AG is supporting the couple.

    What I find amazing is that the right is coming to the defense of this couple. Not the left, who they donated to. The right has temporarily taken them under their wing to make sure they are unharmed.

    1. I kinda of get why Prof Turley has to thoroughly go a long, long winded explanation of the law, but it should be point blank clear to everyone most in Americans….

      ie: Landowner: Could you not see those No Trespassing signs you seemed to have ignored before you tore my locked gate down?

      I couldn’t more strongly suggest you turn the other way & get you azzes Off My Lawn!

      So I guess JT could just simplify things & call it the ” Get the Phk off My Lawn Law”

      BTW: I haven’t checked in a few decades here in OK, but it was, maybe still is law that a person has to have Written Permission to legally be on someone else’s property. That law was written back 20+ yrs ago so legally it would be clear to everyone.

      Posting the No Trespassing signs is just a polite way explaining things to ignorant people that might be unrespectful of other people’s Civil Rights/Property Rights.

  19. The Attorney General of Missouri, Eric Schmitt said in an interview with the Washington Examiner that this prosecutor makes many politically motivated decisions not based on law. He said the protestors were on private property and that
    “Under Missouri law, under the Castle Doctrine, an individual has really expansive authority to protect their own lives, their home, and their property.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/missouri-attorney-general-slams-st-louis-prosecutor-in-mccloskey-case-for-politically-motivated-decisions

  20. What Ms. Gardner is doing may be legal, but it isn’t right.

    The McCloskeys may have the resources to fight this, but most Americans would be steamrollered by these charges.

    And the search/confiscation was pure theater.

    Prosecutors are among the most unaccountable government officials.

Comments are closed.