Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As much as I think the prosecutor is a slimeball and as much as I think that the McCloskys were right and are being prosecuted unfairly, I still have to ask the question, when did the firing pin spring get put in backwards?
My guess is that it happened between the rioters approaching their house and when the gun was picked up.
The common area is common because of the shared ownership of the homeowners. Not because there is any ownership interest of the public.Nah. I try to stay away from violent people.You sounds like you're willing to bet someone else's life on it.
As an example, the McCloskey’s are now claiming they own part of the common land in the subdivision, squatters rights. Not joke. There’s a lawsuit in progress because this couple is absolute garbage.
Apparently, according to their own court filings, they’ve pointed a gun at someone cutting across this contested land. That’s right. They threatened someone for walking on common area.
These people are trash. No one in their neighborhood wants them there.
I dont think that they had that level of gun expertise to turn a gun into a prop.The McCloskeys intentionally assembled the gun wrong for a court case to use as an exhibit.As much as I think the prosecutor is a slimeball and as much as I think that the McCloskys were right and are being prosecuted unfairly, I still have to ask the question, when did the firing pin spring get put in backwards?
My guess is that it happened between the rioters approaching their house and when the gun was picked up.
I dont think that they had that level of gun expertise to turn a gun into a prop.The McCloskeys intentionally assembled the gun wrong for a court case to use as an exhibit.As much as I think the prosecutor is a slimeball and as much as I think that the McCloskys were right and are being prosecuted unfairly, I still have to ask the question, when did the firing pin spring get put in backwards?
My guess is that it happened between the rioters approaching their house and when the gun was picked up.
I look at their lack of basic gun safety behavior and just cannot imagine that somehow they know the innards of a gun very well at all.
View attachment 367868
...and walk past the "Access Limited to Residents" sign.That happened after the protesters had already begun entering Portland Place. When they first entered, all they did was open the gate...
View attachment 367828
What you believe is utterly immaterial.I dont think that they had that level of gun expertise to turn a gun into a prop.The McCloskeys intentionally assembled the gun wrong for a court case to use as an exhibit.As much as I think the prosecutor is a slimeball and as much as I think that the McCloskys were right and are being prosecuted unfairly, I still have to ask the question, when did the firing pin spring get put in backwards?
My guess is that it happened between the rioters approaching their house and when the gun was picked up.
I look at their lack of basic gun safety behavior and just cannot imagine that somehow they know the innards of a gun very well at all.
View attachment 367868
The McCloskeys said that the handgun was purposely made inoperable. The firearm was allegedly used as a "prop" so that it could be brought into a courtroom for a lawsuit the couple once filed against a gun manufacturer. The handgun had its firing pin rendered inoperable to make it safe to bring into the courtroom. The couple claim they never reassembled the gun to enable it to be functional.
Pretty sure that goes for all of us typing on our keyboards to post on internet message boards.
Never made any such claim....and walk past the "Access Limited to Residents" sign.That happened after the protesters had already begun entering Portland Place. When they first entered, all they did was open the gate...
View attachment 367828
View attachment 368023
Are you going to claim they're residents?
Trespassing on someone else's property doesn't allow them to pull guns on the protesters.Yup PRIVATE STREET so being on the street is ALSO Trespassing.
By the LAW in THAT State YES as a matter of Fact it does. And it was THEIR property.Trespassing on someone else's property doesn't allow them to pull guns on the protesters.Yup PRIVATE STREET so being on the street is ALSO Trespassing.
Nope, their property ends at the edge of their lawn.By the LAW in THAT State YES as a matter of Fact it does. And it was THEIR property.Trespassing on someone else's property doesn't allow them to pull guns on the protesters.Yup PRIVATE STREET so being on the street is ALSO Trespassing.
Already posted in this thread try reading it and the commom areas are jointly owned by all residents which INCLUDES the road.Nope, their property ends at the edge of their lawn.By the LAW in THAT State YES as a matter of Fact it does. And it was THEIR property.Trespassing on someone else's property doesn't allow them to pull guns on the protesters.Yup PRIVATE STREET so being on the street is ALSO Trespassing.
But let's see you post a link to this supposed law of which you speak...
No worries, I expected you couldn't post your imaginary law.Already posted in this thread try reading it and the commom areas are jointly owned by all residents which INCLUDES the road.Nope, their property ends at the edge of their lawn.By the LAW in THAT State YES as a matter of Fact it does. And it was THEIR property.Trespassing on someone else's property doesn't allow them to pull guns on the protesters.Yup PRIVATE STREET so being on the street is ALSO Trespassing.
But let's see you post a link to this supposed law of which you speak...
Already posted in this thread try reading it and the commom areas are jointly owned by all residents which INCLUDES the road.Nope, their property ends at the edge of their lawn.By the LAW in THAT State YES as a matter of Fact it does. And it was THEIR property.Trespassing on someone else's property doesn't allow them to pull guns on the protesters.Yup PRIVATE STREET so being on the street is ALSO Trespassing.
But let's see you post a link to this supposed law of which you speak...
statelaws.findlaw.com
codes.findlaw.com
There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:
.Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw
FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.
Physical force:
A person has no duty to retreat:
- May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
- May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.
- From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
- From their private property
- If the person is any other location where they have the right to be
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw
1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. 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.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:
.Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw
FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.
Physical force:
A person has no duty to retreat:
- May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
- May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.
- From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
- From their private property
- If the person is any other location where they have the right to be
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw
1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. 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.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.
Though that's not heard on any of the videos, the McCloskey's do claim they heard that. They also claim they saw protesters that were armed, though that too cannot be proven. And of course, that was after they pulled their guns out. So they can't claim they pulled out guns to defend themselves from those threats. Not to mention, their own actions reveal they never believed that.Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:
.Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw
FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.
Physical force:
A person has no duty to retreat:
- May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
- May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.
- From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
- From their private property
- If the person is any other location where they have the right to be
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw
1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. 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.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.
