What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. 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!

Video: St. Louis couple pulls guns on trespassing protesters

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
2,320
Points
325
What the McCloskeys did shouldn't be commended. I could see them being nervous.

The McCloskeys won't get in trouble because they're rich white professionals and they will say they were defending themselves. But it is a bad example to set and I don't blame the DA for being concerned about it. Let the police handle it if guns have to be involved. QUIT playing cowboys out there.


If the McCloskeys had not had those guns, the only thing the police could have done would be to fill out the paperwork after the mob had murdered the McCloskeys.
There is nothing to indicate the protesters had any bone to pick with the McCloskeys. Your imagination is on hyperdrive, per usual.
oh dear god youre an ignorant one,,,
The protesters started running their mouths when they realized the McCloskeys were trying to intimidate them with guns.
I repeat, they are lucky all they got was rough language. I wouldn't condone violence from them, but I sure don't condone the threats from the McCloskeys either.
people that break through a gate onto private property are not protesters they are a violent mob and should have been shot when they came through the gate,,,
Disagree. Shooting people should never be taken lightly, just because you might (I said MIGHT) be able to get away with it. Would probably have them coming back to burn it down with more force next time, or while you are gone. Mind, you I have NO respect of human life (except mine and PJ's) in a final defensive fight, but that is a last resort type of thing, not a message to the masses. Indiscriminate shooters should be jailed, even if they are home owners.
YOURE RIGHT IT SHOULDNT BE, BUT AS WE'VE SEEN OVER THAT LAST MONTH they always turn to violence and more people die.

in this case they should have been shot once they broke through the gate.
we can be assured that if the cpl didnt do what they did that neighborhood would still be under occupation and most likely burning.
All assumptions of yours are unverified. I look at it from years of tactical training and having been in situations in an Ameican city during period of unrest, arson and snipers using harassing fire to interfere with fire fighters. I assure you, if you bring on sufficient force, a non-determined enemy will disappear and egress the area as quickly as they appeared. Nobody tested the resolve of the officers above us, or the discipline of the troops. We never fired a shot either, but the display made everything go quiet except for the fire fighters continuing to fight the fires. That was just a few years after Kent State. Nobody trusted the discipline of troops on the streets and probably with good reason.
my assumptions/opinion can be verified by the the accounts of their actions over the last month of riots,,,
But not at the home of the lawyers in that St. Louis community and that was the subject of the thread. Valid tactics are situation dependent. Your is possibly a loosing strategy, not an application of valid tactic. Relax. Remember to breath and think.

It is a far better strategy. Two against who know how many. Not great odds. In that case you want the most force multipliers you can get. In the open without armor or cover is not a force multiplier. Cover increases your odds of survival. It is why police officers try and put something between themselves and shooters or potential shooters. When making a traffic stop they try to keep the engine of the car between them and the detained individuals.

The homeowners had no plan b. Nothing they could do if bullets started flying except die and take some with them. Not my preferred plan.

And falling back under fire is tricky. Best case scenario it requires a lot of ammo. They did not have much. Not nearly enough. Odd were if the bullets started flying at least one would fall outside the home.

It was a bad tactical decision that worked. They got lucky.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
15,155
Reaction score
8,369
Points
1,140
What the McCloskeys did shouldn't be commended. I could see them being nervous.

The McCloskeys won't get in trouble because they're rich white professionals and they will say they were defending themselves. But it is a bad example to set and I don't blame the DA for being concerned about it. Let the police handle it if guns have to be involved. QUIT playing cowboys out there.


If the McCloskeys had not had those guns, the only thing the police could have done would be to fill out the paperwork after the mob had murdered the McCloskeys.
There is nothing to indicate the protesters had any bone to pick with the McCloskeys. Your imagination is on hyperdrive, per usual.
oh dear god youre an ignorant one,,,
The protesters started running their mouths when they realized the McCloskeys were trying to intimidate them with guns.
I repeat, they are lucky all they got was rough language. I wouldn't condone violence from them, but I sure don't condone the threats from the McCloskeys either.
people that break through a gate onto private property are not protesters they are a violent mob and should have been shot when they came through the gate,,,
Disagree. Shooting people should never be taken lightly, just because you might (I said MIGHT) be able to get away with it. Would probably have them coming back to burn it down with more force next time, or while you are gone. Mind, you I have NO respect of human life (except mine and PJ's) in a final defensive fight, but that is a last resort type of thing, not a message to the masses. Indiscriminate shooters should be jailed, even if they are home owners.
YOURE RIGHT IT SHOULDNT BE, BUT AS WE'VE SEEN OVER THAT LAST MONTH they always turn to violence and more people die.

in this case they should have been shot once they broke through the gate.
we can be assured that if the cpl didnt do what they did that neighborhood would still be under occupation and most likely burning.
All assumptions of yours are unverified. I look at it from years of tactical training and having been in situations in an Ameican city during period of unrest, arson and snipers using harassing fire to interfere with fire fighters. I assure you, if you bring on sufficient force, a non-determined enemy will disappear and egress the area as quickly as they appeared. Nobody tested the resolve of the officers above us, or the discipline of the troops. We never fired a shot either, but the display made everything go quiet except for the fire fighters continuing to fight the fires. That was just a few years after Kent State. Nobody trusted the discipline of troops on the streets and probably with good reason.
my assumptions/opinion can be verified by the the accounts of their actions over the last month of riots,,,
But not at the home of the lawyers in that St. Louis community and that was the subject of the thread. Valid tactics are situation dependent. Your is possibly a loosing strategy, not an application of valid tactic. Relax. Remember to breath and think.
possibly,,,but no good plan survives first contact,,,

if in doubt shoot,,,
If it does not survive the first assault, it was not a good plan.
 

HaShev

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,858
Reaction score
3,860
Points
265
One Question:
Where is the protest and outcry to fire the St Louis prosecuter who dared call the trespassers peaceful and wanting to prosecute the Homeowners instead of the property invaders who threatened to murder him his wife and his dog?

Everyone should Write the ST Louis and State DA to investigate that prosecuter for the racism involved in her illogical stance, abuse of power to attempt to carry out a racist act, and derelict of duty that risks her city's citizens lives. Recommend firing her and bringing her up on charges. Otherwise this proves a double standard, but not in the way protesters would like people to believe.
The prosecutor is black. Of course she's a racist.
Exactly, she would be using her position of power to bend the law over race and not law and justice.
When the racist drove through the crowd in VA he was rightfully and lawfully arrested, if a white prosecuter would have blamed and charged the crowd victims, then common sense states they'd be deemed abusing their power & racist in doing so. Therefore it's common sense that when a black prosecuter goes after the white victims of a crime BLM committs, it's racial and politically motivated, thus abuse of power and racist.
She should be fired the same way that if the other would have been handled that way, they would have called for their head. So where is the outrage and protest to fire the prosecuter least they admit their angst is not about justice or racism, it's only about selectively using race as bait and political tactical strategy and becomes a prejudiced racist movement in itself, no better then the racists groups they claim to protest.=they become that which they hate=which means all those companies supporting the terrorist acts of the radical movement are liken to supporting a supremacist group, making customers feel uneasy about supporting those companies with their business, because it's like you are supporting that reverse racism, prejudices against Law enforcement, and against the rich, and is like supporting a terrorist anti American anti law movement.
I say we boycott the companies that support such radical movements until they acknowledge what that movement is (racketeers), reword their support for black causes without supporting that particular terrorist threat and stop financing that terrorist group with what amounts to protection money.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
15,155
Reaction score
8,369
Points
1,140
What the McCloskeys did shouldn't be commended. I could see them being nervous.

The McCloskeys won't get in trouble because they're rich white professionals and they will say they were defending themselves. But it is a bad example to set and I don't blame the DA for being concerned about it. Let the police handle it if guns have to be involved. QUIT playing cowboys out there.


If the McCloskeys had not had those guns, the only thing the police could have done would be to fill out the paperwork after the mob had murdered the McCloskeys.
There is nothing to indicate the protesters had any bone to pick with the McCloskeys. Your imagination is on hyperdrive, per usual.
oh dear god youre an ignorant one,,,
The protesters started running their mouths when they realized the McCloskeys were trying to intimidate them with guns.
I repeat, they are lucky all they got was rough language. I wouldn't condone violence from them, but I sure don't condone the threats from the McCloskeys either.
people that break through a gate onto private property are not protesters they are a violent mob and should have been shot when they came through the gate,,,
Disagree. Shooting people should never be taken lightly, just because you might (I said MIGHT) be able to get away with it. Would probably have them coming back to burn it down with more force next time, or while you are gone. Mind, you I have NO respect of human life (except mine and PJ's) in a final defensive fight, but that is a last resort type of thing, not a message to the masses. Indiscriminate shooters should be jailed, even if they are home owners.
YOURE RIGHT IT SHOULDNT BE, BUT AS WE'VE SEEN OVER THAT LAST MONTH they always turn to violence and more people die.

in this case they should have been shot once they broke through the gate.
we can be assured that if the cpl didnt do what they did that neighborhood would still be under occupation and most likely burning.
All assumptions of yours are unverified. I look at it from years of tactical training and having been in situations in an Ameican city during period of unrest, arson and snipers using harassing fire to interfere with fire fighters. I assure you, if you bring on sufficient force, a non-determined enemy will disappear and egress the area as quickly as they appeared. Nobody tested the resolve of the officers above us, or the discipline of the troops. We never fired a shot either, but the display made everything go quiet except for the fire fighters continuing to fight the fires. That was just a few years after Kent State. Nobody trusted the discipline of troops on the streets and probably with good reason.
my assumptions/opinion can be verified by the the accounts of their actions over the last month of riots,,,
But not at the home of the lawyers in that St. Louis community and that was the subject of the thread. Valid tactics are situation dependent. Your is possibly a loosing strategy, not an application of valid tactic. Relax. Remember to breath and think.

It is a far better strategy. Two against who know how many. Not great odds. In that case you want the most force multipliers you can get. In the open without armor or cover is not a force multiplier. Cover increases your odds of survival. It is why police officers try and put something between themselves and shooters or potential shooters. When making a traffic stop they try to keep the engine of the car between them and the detained individuals.

The homeowners had no plan b. Nothing they could do if bullets started flying except die and take some with them. Not my preferred plan.

And falling back under fire is tricky. Best case scenario it requires a lot of ammo. They did not have much. Not nearly enough. Odd were if the bullets started flying at least one would fall outside the home.

It was a bad tactical decision that worked. They got lucky.
Everybody got lucky and with shots fired. Tactics that workered in a given situation are deemed successful for that situation. No Lt ever got is bars boiled for winning a standoff and the enemy going away.
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
2,320
Points
325
Surprising no one the couple now faces a criminal investigation. With ten thousand laws on the books odds are they violated one in a technical way.


Maybe they can get a jury who will find them not guilty. Of course they’ll lose the house to legal fees Anyway.

So it was dumb tactically and legally. What a surprise.
 

jbander

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
4,973
Reaction score
1,201
Points
170
This is what should have happened , any one of the protesters that had a permit to carry could have simpley opened up on the two and splatter them to hell and if the gun bubba husband and wife had shot they would be in jail. They are as stupid as any red neck can be. That would have been justice as far as the law is concerned and as far as I'm concerned. No red neck should even be allowed to have a gun.


A carry permit is not valid for someone who is trespassing.
what a clown, yes it is. And they can use it to protect their lives.
 

jbander

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
4,973
Reaction score
1,201
Points
170
What the McCloskeys did shouldn't be commended. I could see them being nervous.

The McCloskeys won't get in trouble because they're rich white professionals and they will say they were defending themselves. But it is a bad example to set and I don't blame the DA for being concerned about it. Let the police handle it if guns have to be involved. QUIT playing cowboys out there.

They won’t get in trouble because the laws are different there than in Georgia for example. In Georgia it would have been aggravated assault. As the McMichaels found out to their shock.

Personally I probably would have broken out the firepower and then waited inside. At that point if I had to shoot there would be little choice but it being totally defensive. No prosecutor would stand a chance if it went to court claiming either manslaughter or murder.

There's not a single illegal thing about standing on your property with a firearm. Nothing...

Oh lord. In that case in Georgia it could well be Aggravated Assault. It is illegal to use a firearm in a threatening manner. I know. You don’t like the law. You think it is stupid. Whatever. That is the law in Georgia. It would have been smarter to stay inside. You have cover and concealment you do not have in the front Yard. Also there can be no claim that you instigated the confrontation.

Being smart and tactically sound does not appear to be a prerequisite for self defense. If it was me I would want cover from return fire. As much as I could get. I would also have put on my helmet and vest. In addition to the armor plate the vest holds additional ammunition as well as a first aid kit.

They have nothing. Nothing but bluster and intimidation. If the bullets started flying they would likely get hit too. They counted on the intimidation working. There was no plan B if the intimidation failed.

It was dumb. And if the bullets had started flying they may well face criminal charges if they survive. So tactically it is smarter to stay inside with cover and concealment. Logistically it is smarter to stay near your ammo supply and assistance for injury or wounds. Legally it is smarter not to step out and start the confrontation.

Sorry. But that is just the way it is.



If the McCloskeys have tremendous insurance, escaping out the back and letting the rioters burn the joint might have been a better solution. They could use the insurance money to rebuild in the suburbs, where they don't have this kind of civil unrest.

I’m for defending your home. But I am also for doing it smart. Going out is good for the ego, but dumb in every way imaginable.
This is the ultimate hoot the t shirt at the bottom of this hate Nazi's page showing how bad Biden is as far as his respect of women and their candidate is Scum bag. Now that's a hoot . It's comparing a BB to a cannon ball. This is a great poster to get Biden elected , even if all the lies that the right says about Biden as far as this is concerns ,pales to the monster in their house.
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
2,320
Points
325
What the McCloskeys did shouldn't be commended. I could see them being nervous.

The McCloskeys won't get in trouble because they're rich white professionals and they will say they were defending themselves. But it is a bad example to set and I don't blame the DA for being concerned about it. Let the police handle it if guns have to be involved. QUIT playing cowboys out there.

They won’t get in trouble because the laws are different there than in Georgia for example. In Georgia it would have been aggravated assault. As the McMichaels found out to their shock.

Personally I probably would have broken out the firepower and then waited inside. At that point if I had to shoot there would be little choice but it being totally defensive. No prosecutor would stand a chance if it went to court claiming either manslaughter or murder.

There's not a single illegal thing about standing on your property with a firearm. Nothing...

Oh lord. In that case in Georgia it could well be Aggravated Assault. It is illegal to use a firearm in a threatening manner. I know. You don’t like the law. You think it is stupid. Whatever. That is the law in Georgia. It would have been smarter to stay inside. You have cover and concealment you do not have in the front Yard. Also there can be no claim that you instigated the confrontation.

Being smart and tactically sound does not appear to be a prerequisite for self defense. If it was me I would want cover from return fire. As much as I could get. I would also have put on my helmet and vest. In addition to the armor plate the vest holds additional ammunition as well as a first aid kit.

They have nothing. Nothing but bluster and intimidation. If the bullets started flying they would likely get hit too. They counted on the intimidation working. There was no plan B if the intimidation failed.

It was dumb. And if the bullets had started flying they may well face criminal charges if they survive. So tactically it is smarter to stay inside with cover and concealment. Logistically it is smarter to stay near your ammo supply and assistance for injury or wounds. Legally it is smarter not to step out and start the confrontation.

Sorry. But that is just the way it is.



If the McCloskeys have tremendous insurance, escaping out the back and letting the rioters burn the joint might have been a better solution. They could use the insurance money to rebuild in the suburbs, where they don't have this kind of civil unrest.

I’m for defending your home. But I am also for doing it smart. Going out is good for the ego, but dumb in every way imaginable.
This is the ultimate hoot the t shirt at the bottom of this hate Nazi's page showing how bad Biden is as far as his respect of women and their candidate is Scum bag. Now that's a hoot . It's comparing a BB to a cannon ball. This is a great poster to get Biden elected , even if all the lies that the right says about Biden as far as this is concerns ,pales to the monster in their house.

Who said I was for Biden?
 

Aletheia4u

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
7,056
Reaction score
1,194
Points
195
The main reason that the Left is starting all of this chaos. It is behind the Land Grab that is going on in other countries. After they has pushed these people from off their lands. And then they sends them to other land that isn't fertile. But making room by taking over people's homes, turning them into apartment complexes. That there will not be anymore private land ownership, accept for the Elites and Obama's clan.
They are after Maduro. He will not allow the Elites to takeover his country to plant their GMO crap. That he has given their farmers the right to control their own farmlands.
Pres.Trump needs to send troops to these countries that are oppressing their citizens. And make sure that they give back their citizens properties so that they will not have to look for another place to stay.





 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top