What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

St. Louis Couple Who Waved Guns At BLM Protesters Face Suspension Of Their Law Licenses

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
56,489
Reaction score
11,150
Points
2,070
A Missouri man who aimed an AR-15 rifle at protesters marching past his home on Sunday said he and his wife were threatened by protesters who allegedly forced their way onto his property and threatened to kill him and his family, according to a report from the KSDK-TV
Yeah, people can say just about anything, when they aren't under oath. Under oath, he pled guilty to assault.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
10,811
Reaction score
11,756
Points
2,138
The governor may have pardoned them but the legal community of Missouri have not.

Missouri's chief disciplinary counsel has asked the state Supreme Court to suspend the law licenses of the couple.

It will be interesting to see what the court does.

The Protestors broke into their housing community to riot---they had every right to get their guns to protect their property.
 

Natural Citizen

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
15,852
Reaction score
9,867
Points
1,295
Scaredy ass assholes. lolol.

Ah sht. I'm choking.

lolol. That was funny. Caught me off guard.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
10,811
Reaction score
11,756
Points
2,138
Hmm, no, they pled guilty under oath. The waving of the guns is what did them in.
They are attorneys who realized that the laws don't matter any more, they said whatever they had to in order to end the railroading from the crazy prosecution in the banana court.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
56,489
Reaction score
11,150
Points
2,070
They are attorneys who realized that the laws don't matter any more, they said whatever they had to in order to end the railroading from the crazy prosecution in the banana court.
Or they could have fought the charges. Like you said, they are attorneys. But they waved their guns at those people. Oops. Harassment and assault. Pled guilty under oath.
 
OP
Dana7360

Dana7360

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
14,590
Reaction score
12,512
Points
2,405
Was it their gate or the gate into the gated community where they live? You still don't get to menace people with a firearm for trespass as you all kept pointing out, erroneously I might add, in any thread dealing with the poor decisions made by Ashli Babbett on January 6th at the U.S. Capital.

More to the point, if they were indeed threatened, why didn't they shoot anyone?


If they didn't do anything wrong why did they plead guilty?

These people can make any excuse they want.

It doesn't matter.

What matters is what those on the state Supreme Court rule.

The facts just aren't on the side of the fools on this site.

All intelligent people will wait to see how the state Supreme Court rules.
 

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
6,057
Reaction score
3,140
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
You can't be this stupid. The gun in the deterrent.
You may display your firearm when you feel like your life is in danger, or that you are acting in defense of another person. Some defenses to brandishing a firearm charge could include: If you had acted in self-defense.Jun 16, 2021

A person in California is allowed to brandish a weapon or firearm as a means of defending himself or another person. For example, a man is walking down a deserted street late at night when he is approached by a group of young men who demand his wallet. The man pulls out a gun and the young men run away
You're right - I'm not that stupid, and neither should you be. I don't know what text you're citing above but if you're going to quote self-defense text then going to the California law which addresses this is generally better practice, otherwise the above appears to be just someone's opinion if they don't cite the applicable California statute.

The fact that you are armed may be a deterrent if it is known as is allowed in open carry states, (California doesn't allow open carry last I checked), but it is not legal to draw your weapon and point it at anyone, wave it around, or use it to threaten or intimidate anyone who is not an imminent threat to your life or physical well being.

Someone demanding your wallet is attempting to scare, coerce or strong arm you into giving them your money which is a crime but NOT a crime for which shooting them is lawful because under self-defense law, you can only use your firearm to protect life, not your wallet/money. Carjacking is different since that is a forceable felony and puts you at risk of possible death or grievous bodily harm.

On the other hand, a "group" of young men may provide you with grounds to feel threatened because of the disparity of numbers, which was definitely in play in the Capital on January 6th, however again, unless they "do" something that causes you to "reasonably perceive a threat to your life or physical well being" you still can't draw on them just because you're afraid of what they "might" do.

If the McCloskeys had kept their weapons in the "low ready" position, then we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation since the weapon is now out of it's holster (the intimidation factor you want), held in front of you with the muzzle pointed downwards instead of pointed at anyone thus preventing the assault with a deadly weapon violation.
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
31,558
Reaction score
21,844
Points
2,865
The nutty couple should certainly hope their defense in court is more skillful than your defense.
I hope so too

Self defense is not and never should be a crime

But they are trapped in lib la la land where reason and logic do not apply
 

BertramN

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
2,942
Reaction score
2,360
Points
1,970
And you're so excited you just can't hide it, huh? Don't bother trying to cover that Chinese flag tattoo with long sleeves; we can smell it on you from miles away. This couple ought to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
A typical trump Nazi response, which rational Americans have come to expect.

As usual, it is the trump Nazis' endless "reinterpretations" of constitutional law that protects their lunatic extremism from legal consequences all other citizens must face.



.
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
31,558
Reaction score
21,844
Points
2,865
Neato. Unfortunately that argument failed, when they waved their guns recklessly.
It failed when the lib legal system decided they were embarrassing the mayor and city council who control the police
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
56,489
Reaction score
11,150
Points
2,070
It failed when the lib legal system decided they were embarrassing the mayor and city council who control the police
Ah yes, whenever reality doesn't align with your fantasies and fetishes, must be a big conspiracy. How childish.
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
31,558
Reaction score
21,844
Points
2,865
Ah yes, whenever reality doesn't align with your fantasies and fetishes, must be a big conspiracy. How childish.
I see the facts

Its possible you do too but refuse to admit it
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
84,860
Reaction score
19,540
Points
2,210
Protecting their home and themselves against goons threatening them. What's the problem here?
Protecting their home from what? No one was threatening them until they pulled guns on a crowd.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
56,489
Reaction score
11,150
Points
2,070
see the facts
Two people convicted of crimes. Even the Guv who pardoned them made sure.to remind everyone they were not absolved of guilt. There are your facts. Sorry they dont align with your fantasies and fetishes. You should be used to that by now.
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
7,439
Reaction score
2,224
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
do people have a right to be safe in their own homes?
It's an interesting question and whole issue. The couple was not IN their home --- they went outside and showed the black mob that they were armed. It is obvious they were trying to dissuade the shrieking, cursing crowd of invaders from coming to their home and burning it or attacking them.

Were they supposed to wait until four or five rioters broke the windows and climbed in, then shoot them, if they still could? What about if people threw gas on the buildings from the outside and lit it --- would it still be illegal for them to show guns? How about shooting people coming up with gas cans --- would they go to jail for that?

I think this problem is a lot like the one when blacks decide to demonstrate and riot on the big freeways, because otherwise they can't get whites' attention. A driver completely unsuspecting finds his way blocked by this crowd ---- well, then what? Seems to me a person would be absolutely crazy to stop!!! And be dragged out by the mob and beaten to death? Well, I wouldn't stop. I might try to turn around, if that were possible and safe. If not possible, I'd go on at speed, blaring my horn all the way.

If government is to have any purpose at all, it has to stop this kind of mob rule. We so need a different kind of government.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top