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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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]

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.

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

Mark and Patricia McCloskey made national headlines in June 2020 when they confronted a group of mostly Black protesters who entered their gated community en route to demonstrate in front of the nearby home of a former St. Louis mayor.

www.kcur.org

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

 

[Turtlesoup]

Had they stayed in their home, they would have been both safe and NOT convicted criminals.

The attorneys committed no crimes...........they were railroaded by the communists.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Scaredy ass assholes. lolol.

Ah sht. I'm choking.

lolol. That was funny. Caught me off guard.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The attorneys committed no crimes...........they were railroaded by the communists.

Hmm, no, they pled guilty under oath. The waving of the guns is what did them in.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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]

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.

 

[Dana7360]

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]

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]

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

 

[AMart]

Hmm, no, they pled guilty under oath. The waving of the guns is what did them in.

To a misdemeanor.

 

[BertramN]

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.



.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Self defense is not and never should be a crime

Neato. Unfortunately that argument failed, when they waved their guns recklessly.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To a misdemeanor.

Correct. Harassment and assault. These are crimes.

 

[Mac-7]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.