Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux

Bennyonesix1
Top
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:51 pm

Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Bennyonesix1 » Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:11 pm

https://mobile.twitter.com/reeveslawstl ... 2280011779

The following four photos are attached to each tweet:

Image

Image

Image

Image
re: McCloskey firearm prosecution in St. Louis.
1) The prosecution of Mark and Patricia McCloskey in St. Louis City for unlawful use of a firearm has no legal basis and should be dismissed. This thread will discuss the factual background to the case.

2) While I am a former Assistant Missouri Attorney General, and while @Eric_Schmitt has moved to dismiss the prosecution, all of my thoughts on this matter are made in my personal capacity. I do NOT speak on behalf of the Missouri Attorney General's Office.

3) On the day of the incident, a group of protesters headed north on Kingshighway towards the residence of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson ("A" in the below map). The green line on the map shows the route the protesters presumably intended to take to remain on public streets.

4) But instead of taking the public route, a sizeable amount of protesters decided to go through Portland Pl., as shown by the red line on the map.

5) All of Portland Pl. is a private street off limits to the general public. There is no indication that any of the residents on Portland Pl.--including the McCloskeys--gave the protesters permission to walk through Portland Pl.

6) The entrance to Portland Pl. from Kingshighway ("C" on the map, and displayed in the photos) is sealed off by 3 chained gates. The McCloskey's residence ("A" on the map) is directly behind the north gate (the gate on the right side of the second attachment below).

7) All three gates are locked, including with chains and padlocks. All three gates also have large signs stating, "Private Street. Access Limited to Residents."

8) As a personal aside--I know this area very well, as it is not far from Washington University in St. Louis, where I did both my undergrad and law school. I have regularly driven past this intersection for over 20 years, and the gates have always been shut and padlocked.

9) If you don't have a key to these gates, literally the only way you can Portland Pl. from Kingshighway (short of hopping the gates/wall) is to break the locks and bust the doors open.

10) Missouri defines "trespasser" as someone who "enters the land without consent or privilege." Hogate v. Am. Golf Corp., 97 S.W.3d 44, 47 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002).

11) As it is undisputed that none of the Portland Pl. residents gave the protesters permission to enter the street, every single one of them became trespassers upon passing through the north gate, as shown by the below video.

12) While the north gate does not appear, at the time of the below video, to have sustained the amount of damage it later would (see 4th attachment), this is irrelevant for purposes of trespassing.

13) If you walk up to someone else's house, open their unlocked front door, and enter without permission, you are a trespasser. That you did not break open the door to enter is irrelevant.

14) Similarly, every protester who walked through the gate trespassed onto the McCloskeys' private property, regardless of whether and/or to what extent the gate was damaged.

15) In any event, there is no question that at the time of the video below, the gate had already sustained some damage and was broken open, as it is always shut and locked.

16) As the protesters trespassed onto the McCloskeys' private property, this brings into play Missouri's "Castle Doctrine," which is designed exactly for this type of situation where trespassers enter onto someone's private property

16) I will do another thread later on why the "Castle Doctrine" applies to the McCloskeys' actions and why it mandates the dismissal of the prosecuting attorney's unlawful use of a weapon charges against them.

17) But it is critical that everyone understand the facts of what took place first. I hope this thread helps in that regard. I will have another threat either later this evening or tomorrow on the Castle Doctrine as it applies to the McCloskeys.
END

User avatar
johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7853
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by johno » Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:42 am

I'm a fan of the Second Amendment. Also a fan of the "reasonable person" standard. I saw video of the McCloskeys pointing their guns in a way that could be considered threatening; but the video didn't show the behavior of protesters/trespassers that conveyed a threat beyond walking down the sidewalk and shouting. And I question whether the sidewalk was their private property to defend (triggering the Castle Doctrine).

I'm also a fan of "trials," where "facts" beyond social media video surface. A jury of their peers will decide whether their actions were reasonable and lawful.
Practically, I think the McCloskeys may have been too quick to point their weapons in the direction of the "protesters." But some jurors will probably be sympathetic and refuse to find them Guilty.

***
Tactically, their behavior was clueless. But that's another topic.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

Bennyonesix1
Top
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:51 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Bennyonesix1 » Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:55 am

holy shit i had to delete what i wrote i seem to remember you as being someone i liked and not a lunatic but what you say seems frankly legalistic and lunatic

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39706
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Fat Cat » Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:02 am

I think that, the way I read the applicable laws, there's very little chance that they could be convicted of the charges presented against them. It seemed so obvious, even to a casual observer, that I tend to believe that the prosecutor knows the charges won't stick and is lobbing this intentionally, so that there can be another chimpout protesting yet another example of systemic racism.
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

User avatar
johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7853
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by johno » Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:57 am

Benny, IMO it boils down to whether the "protesters" presented a reasonable threat. It would be a legalistic argument to reach for trespassing & the Castle Doctrine if the trespassers were merely marching past the McCloskeys and chanting.

BUT if they were threatening them, it's a different story.
That's what I haven't seen in the video footage.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

Bennyonesix1
Top
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:51 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Bennyonesix1 » Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:05 am

A mob of rioters breaking down a heavy padlocked gate to get into a community isn't threatening?

I honestly think your position is intellectually perverse. I'm sure it will be argued by people. And argued strenuously. But it's just preposterous.

What does a person have to experience in St Louis to be threatened sufficiently?

I am really having trouble processing this.

It's completely anarcho-tyrannic.

I'm the legalistic one? Because I argue that during a period of violent protests a mob breaking down a heavy padlocked gate to get into a neighborhood is threatening? Really? Legalisitc?

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11204
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:40 am

Bennyonesix1 wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:55 am
holy shit i had to delete what i wrote i seem to remember you as being someone i liked and not a lunatic but what you say seems frankly legalistic and lunatic
Benny it's important to remember at times like these that you're a fucking imbecile.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

Bennyonesix1
Top
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:51 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Bennyonesix1 » Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:45 am

Yeah. I don't know anything about criminal law or the judicial system.

But at least you didn't use a ShareBlue template so there's that.

Bennyonesix1
Top
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:51 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Bennyonesix1 » Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:57 am

The McCloskey's owned the sidewalk.

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/data/address ... ess-search
Effective 14 Oct 2016, see footnote

*563.031. Use of force in defense of persons. — 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat:

(1) From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;

(2) From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or

(3) If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.

4. 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.

5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

--------

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41, A.L. 2010 H.B. 1692, et al. merged with H.B. 2081, A.L. 2016 S.B. 656)

*Effective 10-14-16, see § 21.250. S.B. 656 was vetoed June 27, 2016. The veto was overridden on September 14, 2016.

Bennyonesix1
Top
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:51 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Bennyonesix1 » Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:24 pm

The case which applies. Reasonableness standard applied to defendant who shot at trespasser on private property (curtilage). McCloskeys told police they were aware the mob had broken through the gate and that the mob was threatening to kill them and take their home from them.

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=106594

User avatar
johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7853
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by johno » Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:52 pm

I'll spend only 5 more minutes on this. You can have the last word.

1 - I haven't seen any video* that shows direct threats made toward the McCloskeys or people moving toward them in a threatening manner. If you have other video, can I see a link?
I saw people marching down the street chanting and yelling something toward them from the sidewalk. Your definition of "threat" might be broader than mine, but unarmed people shouting from a distance doesn't rise to the level of a credible threat, IMO. YMMV, that's why there are jury trials.

2 - You are correct that the mob was trespassing, I assume on the HOA's property, not the McCloskeys', which makes it different from your case.


*This is why video is so dangerous and inflammatory - people frame videos with their own headlines, narratives and agendas, leading people see what isn't really there.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

User avatar
newguy
Top
Posts: 2470
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 am

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by newguy » Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:06 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:02 am
I think that, the way I read the applicable laws, there's very little chance that they could be convicted of the charges presented against them. It seemed so obvious, even to a casual observer, that I tend to believe that the prosecutor knows the charges won't stick and is lobbing this intentionally, so that there can be another chimpout protesting yet another example of systemic racism.
LOL....this one was a win/win for everyone involved. The right got another set of martyrs to parade on the trump circus show. The left got another set of villians.

This should have been one of those no harm/no foul passes. No one was hurt. Nothing happened. No need to get this into the legal system. Let it argue and die out in the court of public opinion.

Bennyonesix1
Top
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:51 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Bennyonesix1 » Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:31 pm

johno wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:52 pm
I'll spend only 5 more minutes on this. You can have the last word.

1 - I haven't seen any video* that shows direct threats made toward the McCloskeys or people moving toward them in a threatening manner. If you have other video, can I see a link?
I saw people marching down the street chanting and yelling something toward them from the sidewalk. Your definition of "threat" might be broader than mine, but unarmed people shouting from a distance doesn't rise to the level of a credible threat, IMO. YMMV, that's why there are jury trials.

2 - You are correct that the mob was trespassing, I assume on the HOA's property, not the McCloskeys', which makes it different from your case.


*This is why video is so dangerous and inflammatory - people frame videos with their own headlines, narratives and agendas, leading people see what isn't really there.
EDIT

I'll admit that it is possible to conceive of a theoretically possible criminal case of brandishing against the wife if some assumptions as to property ownership and future decisions by appellate courts are made. But in crimes like these and on evidence like this cases are simply not brought unless they are politically motivated.

But fair enough. If a politically motivated DA wanted to bring the case to make an example out of the defendants he/she could get to the jury. There are fact questions.

A DA shouldn't do this because it would be political retaliation. And the case is a loser and there are serious evidentiary issues to overcome. But yeah, the State could POSSIBLY get to a jury.

End Edit

Hahahha. I don't care how much time you spend on anything or if you are under the passive aggressive delusion you can let me have the last word.

You started posting in the thread. I didn't make you.

There are jury trials because someone involved is crazy or a publicity hound or counsel made a catastrophic error. They're horrible. The system wisely works tirelessly to make them not happen. They're not truth finders or a good way to allocate punishment.

Brandishing is a bullshit charge just like trespassing and is almost always the result of a plea deal.

I bet you could count the number of purely brandishing trials in Missouri over the last 20yrs on one hand.

And if you think a DA is going to take a probation case to the jury where the central argument is "the mob that broke down a fence to get in and was howling death threats wasn't threatening and even if it was the sidewalk was owned by the HOA so the defendant goes to jail" you're kidding yourself.

Or maybe you think the DA will move for a Directed Verdict on the basis of that? They can't. And guaranteed appeal even if a jury finds the wife guilty because they're litigious maniacs and the issue is undecided and the courts have already expanded Castle beyond the "four walls" in MO.

All to give a felony and then probation to an old woman who brandished a non-operable pistol at a howling mob of trespassers? And after the defense submits evidence of tampering wrt the pistol?

I've been with new guy from the start: no charges on anyone. No one fired and no one attacked. Thank god.
Last edited by Bennyonesix1 on Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Bennyonesix1
Top
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:51 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Bennyonesix1 » Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:04 pm

newguy wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:06 pm
Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:02 am
I think that, the way I read the applicable laws, there's very little chance that they could be convicted of the charges presented against them. It seemed so obvious, even to a casual observer, that I tend to believe that the prosecutor knows the charges won't stick and is lobbing this intentionally, so that there can be another chimpout protesting yet another example of systemic racism.
LOL....this one was a win/win for everyone involved. The right got another set of martyrs to parade on the trump circus show. The left got another set of villians.

This should have been one of those no harm/no foul passes. No one was hurt. Nothing happened. No need to get this into the legal system. Let it argue and die out in the court of public opinion.
Completely agree.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39706
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Fat Cat » Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:32 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:40 am
Bennyonesix1 wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:55 am
holy shit i had to delete what i wrote i seem to remember you as being someone i liked and not a lunatic but what you say seems frankly legalistic and lunatic
Benny it's important to remember at times like these that you're a fucking imbecile.
SPELLS, your foul language is both problematic and not okay. Leave the adults to their discussion if you're not able to contribute in an enlightened and dispassionate way. The ayahuasca drum circle is down the hall.
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21074
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Turdacious » Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:26 am

Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:32 pm
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:40 am
Bennyonesix1 wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:55 am
holy shit i had to delete what i wrote i seem to remember you as being someone i liked and not a lunatic but what you say seems frankly legalistic and lunatic
Benny it's important to remember at times like these that you're a fucking imbecile.
SPELLS, your foul language is both problematic and not okay. Leave the adults to their discussion if you're not able to contribute in an enlightened and dispassionate way. The ayahuasca drum circle is down the hall.
And a completely inappropriate use of a contraction in a professional discussion
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6971
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Sangoma » Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:26 am

In South African context McCloskeys' behaviour is plain stupid, and in Johannesburg they would without a slightest doubt end up dead. Maybe taking a few neighbours with them.

Sure the mob broke the gate and trespassed the sidewalk. But I am with Johno on this one - there is no directed aggression from the crowd towards the house owners. But even leaving the argument of who is wrong or right in this, flashing weapons at agitated crowd is plain stupid: one or two armed people in the crowd with average gun skills, and one of the owners could end up shot.
Image

Bennyonesix1
Top
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:51 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Bennyonesix1 » Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:12 pm

Yeah well the US becoming ZIM or SA is my great fear. The same pol who made ZIM and SA into what they are, are in charge here.

And the idea that howling mobs of mau-mau and their wigger friends rampaging aren't threatening is peak South Afreeka mindset.

DrDonkeyLove...
Sarge
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:29 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by DrDonkeyLove... » Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:36 pm

Bennyonesix1 wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:12 pm
Yeah well the US becoming ZIM or SA is my great fear. The same pol who made ZIM and SA into what they are, are in charge here.

And the idea that howling mobs of mau-mau and their wigger friends rampaging aren't threatening is peak South Afreeka mindset.
The mob screaming, intimidating, and threatening violence to people in restaurants and neighborhoods is the literal definition of mau-mauing. The word deserves a comeback.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39706
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Fat Cat » Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:35 pm

Sangoma wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:26 am
In South African context McCloskeys' behaviour is plain stupid, and in Johannesburg they would without a slightest doubt end up dead. Maybe taking a few neighbours with them.

Sure the mob broke the gate and trespassed the sidewalk. But I am with Johno on this one - there is no directed aggression from the crowd towards the house owners. But even leaving the argument of who is wrong or right in this, flashing weapons at agitated crowd is plain stupid: one or two armed people in the crowd with average gun skills, and one of the owners could end up shot.
A mob of dysgenic mopes breaking down gates, trespassing, and hurling insults is de facto aggressive. The rest of your argument is the moral equivalent of erectile dysfunction: don't defend yourself, ever, because you might get hurt? WTF does that even mean? God created thirty round magazines for a reason.
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 12230
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by nafod » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:54 pm

Bennyonesix1 wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:12 pm
Yeah well the US becoming ZIM or SA is my great fear.
That's stupid. Both of those countries were huge black majorities.

ZIM is why SA hasn't gone ZIM
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11204
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:49 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:35 pm
Sangoma wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:26 am
In South African context McCloskeys' behaviour is plain stupid, and in Johannesburg they would without a slightest doubt end up dead. Maybe taking a few neighbours with them.

Sure the mob broke the gate and trespassed the sidewalk. But I am with Johno on this one - there is no directed aggression from the crowd towards the house owners. But even leaving the argument of who is wrong or right in this, flashing weapons at agitated crowd is plain stupid: one or two armed people in the crowd with average gun skills, and one of the owners could end up shot.
A mob of dysgenic mopes breaking down gates, trespassing, and hurling insults is de facto aggressive. The rest of your argument is the moral equivalent of erectile dysfunction: don't defend yourself, ever, because you might get hurt? WTF does that even mean? God created thirty round magazines for a reason.
You can hyperbole all you want, but video shows people calmly walking through a gate on hinges and chanting, though someone clearly destroyed it later. Neither the McIdiots or the crowd appear afraid of each other.

Take a defensive firearms course they they'll give you the layman's interpretation of what the threshold for shooting an unarmed person is in your jurisdiction, but it generally revolves around an imminent threat in a confrontation that the shooter didn't escalate and can't reasonably avoid.

The language around castle doctrine tends to focus on "dwelling," because you can reasonably shoot somebody for breaking into your house, but generally cannot leave your apartment to shoot somebody trespassing in the lobby.

I lived nearby the area in question. There will be jurors on any trial who will never convict these clowns. Nobody's pressing charges but it'll lead to more assholes doing this kind of thing, which already happened in FL.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

Bennyonesix1
Top
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:51 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Bennyonesix1 » Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:52 pm

nafod wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:54 pm
Bennyonesix1 wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:12 pm
Yeah well the US becoming ZIM or SA is my great fear.
That's stupid. Both of those countries were huge black majorities.

ZIM is why SA hasn't gone ZIM
Yeah dude euro whites in US are an ever shrinking minority and viewed as illegitimately prosperous = ZIM and SA.

Keep ethnic cleansing the bad whites though. Shaneequa and Sandeepa and Cuatehmoc appreciate all your work.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39706
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Fat Cat » Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:17 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:49 pm
Fat Cat wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:35 pm
Sangoma wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:26 am
In South African context McCloskeys' behaviour is plain stupid, and in Johannesburg they would without a slightest doubt end up dead. Maybe taking a few neighbours with them.

Sure the mob broke the gate and trespassed the sidewalk. But I am with Johno on this one - there is no directed aggression from the crowd towards the house owners. But even leaving the argument of who is wrong or right in this, flashing weapons at agitated crowd is plain stupid: one or two armed people in the crowd with average gun skills, and one of the owners could end up shot.
A mob of dysgenic mopes breaking down gates, trespassing, and hurling insults is de facto aggressive. The rest of your argument is the moral equivalent of erectile dysfunction: don't defend yourself, ever, because you might get hurt? WTF does that even mean? God created thirty round magazines for a reason.
You can hyperbole all you want, but video shows people calmly walking through a gate on hinges and chanting, though someone clearly destroyed it later. Neither the McIdiots or the crowd appear afraid of each other.

Take a defensive firearms course they they'll give you the layman's interpretation of what the threshold for shooting an unarmed person is in your jurisdiction, but it generally revolves around an imminent threat in a confrontation that the shooter didn't escalate and can't reasonably avoid.

The language around castle doctrine tends to focus on "dwelling," because you can reasonably shoot somebody for breaking into your house, but generally cannot leave your apartment to shoot somebody trespassing in the lobby.

I lived nearby the area in question. There will be jurors on any trial who will never convict these clowns. Nobody's pressing charges but it'll lead to more assholes doing this kind of thing, which already happened in FL.
In a perfect world you would have to sit in the corner for 15 minutes with a dunce cap on after making a post like that.

Are you, tough guy that you are, telling me that you wouldn't feel some sense of alarm and fear if a mob of angry zealots burst in on you and your family eating dinner?
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11204
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:32 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:17 pm
Are you, tough guy that you are, telling me that you wouldn't feel some sense of alarm and fear if a mob of angry zealots burst in on you and your family eating dinner?
Of course. The crowd, while just marching and chanting, are on private property and would definitely be alarming. Call the cops and get the rifle just in case.

I would not go outside with it and start yelling, because that would be dangerous and stupid. I think anybody who wants to gun up should get trained, and no trainer would say, "So then you take the AR outside, point it at your wife, and start yelling at people. Make sure you're being recorded by 20 cell phone cameras being real stupid-like."
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

Post Reply