Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

St. Louis Couple Points Guns at Protesters Marching by Their Mansion.

A married couple in an upscale area of St. Louis came out of their home strapped and pointing guns at protesters ... while barefoot, mind you.

The surreal scene went down Sunday evening in the Central West End neighborhood, as a crowd was marching to the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson to demand her resignation for releasing names and addresses of citizens who want to defund the police.

The couple, attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey, apparently felt threatened by the protesters and stepped outside brandishing firearms -- Mark with a semi-automatic weapon and Patricia with a handgun. Seems it was a split-second decision because they didn't even put on shoes.

In the video, at least, all the peaceful protesters remained on the sidewalk ... not trespassing on the McCloskey's property.

Fortunately ... the act of intimidation from the barefoot Bonnie and Clyde only led to verbal spats with some of the reported 300 protestors.

One note of irony ... Mark and Patricia are personal injury lawyers who have exclusively represented people "seriously injured or killed as the result of the negligence of others" for the past 3 decades.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 481August 26, 2020 12:34 AM

Who does Dockers Dan think he is? Tony Montana?

by Anonymousreply 1June 29, 2020 3:25 PM

I feel so much safer due to them!

by Anonymousreply 2June 29, 2020 3:27 PM

They were protecting their food.

by Anonymousreply 3June 29, 2020 3:27 PM

Is that an automatic weapon that Napoleon is brandishing?

by Anonymousreply 4June 29, 2020 3:28 PM

Great house though.

by Anonymousreply 5June 29, 2020 3:29 PM

Bonnie and Clyde? More like Bottle-Blondie and Clod.

by Anonymousreply 6June 29, 2020 3:30 PM

[quote]Is that an automatic weapon that Napoleon is brandishing?

A semi:

[quote]Mark with a semi-automatic weapon and Patricia with a handgun. Seems it was a split-second decision because they didn't even put on shoes.

by Anonymousreply 7June 29, 2020 3:33 PM

I would love to see what the police response would be if there were a white protest marching past a back-owned home and the owners were standing outside pointing weapons at them.

by Anonymousreply 8June 29, 2020 3:39 PM

R8 correction: a back-owned home

by Anonymousreply 9June 29, 2020 3:40 PM

This is a private street and that’s their private home. They should really put up a wall or hire security instead of looking like fools.

by Anonymousreply 10June 29, 2020 3:41 PM

Someone will give these absurd fat posh fucks a TV series.

by Anonymousreply 11June 29, 2020 4:00 PM

Last night's thread here -

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12June 29, 2020 4:08 PM

That's one hell of a well regulated militia you got there, Second Amendment fans.

by Anonymousreply 13June 29, 2020 4:17 PM

They actually were well within their rights. the protestors went through their gates and were trespassing on private property.

by Anonymousreply 14June 29, 2020 4:20 PM

If you come onto my property, your ass is mine! Just sayin’

by Anonymousreply 15June 29, 2020 4:24 PM

Big bad Karen and Kevin with their machine guns. What’s new? All these white people think they’re special with their guns, yet don’t seem to understand almost anyone can buy a gun, so they’re not so special after all.

by Anonymousreply 16June 29, 2020 4:27 PM

Call the police... don’t pulls gun. Fuckin animals

by Anonymousreply 17June 29, 2020 4:28 PM

MAGAts:

(BTW, that house is hideously trashy - kind of Trump Tower meets The Queen of Versailles trashy. Did Jackie Siegel do the interior design?)

[quote] While some on social media have claimed the McCloskeys are registered Democrats, it was not immediately possible to determine whether the couple are actually registered as Democrats or if they are registered Republicans. But Federal Election Commission records show Mark McCloskey has contributed thousands of dollars to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, the Republican National Committee and Donald J. Trump for President Inc. He also made contributions to a Republican congressional candidate, Bill Phelps, in 1996, and to the Bush-Quayle campaign in 1992.

[quote] Patricia McCloskey also made a contribution to the RNC in 2018 and to a Republican Senate dinner in 1988.

by Anonymousreply 18June 29, 2020 4:30 PM

[quote] Call the police... don’t pulls gun.

But people are calling to defund the police.

by Anonymousreply 19June 29, 2020 4:31 PM

Cancel them! These two are injury lawyers, easy to cancel.

by Anonymousreply 20June 29, 2020 5:01 PM

These people look like they have never handled a weapon in their lives. If they fire on the protesters it’s murder one. King of the castle would not apply.

by Anonymousreply 21June 29, 2020 5:07 PM

R17 We’re not supposed to call the police, don’t you remember?

by Anonymousreply 22June 29, 2020 5:10 PM

Three threads on this? There's nobody attractive enough to masturbate over involved in this story.

by Anonymousreply 23June 29, 2020 5:17 PM

R18, no, it's not. Houses in that street (and others like it in St. Louis) are the genuine article, built from the late 1800s on.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 24June 29, 2020 5:20 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 25June 29, 2020 5:21 PM

r20 = a

by Anonymousreply 26June 29, 2020 6:03 PM

This is the house... nice place, don't care what ya say. Shame about the trash inside.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 27June 29, 2020 6:21 PM

Thanks for that link r27. So many other styles, some I prefer to the one in question.

by Anonymousreply 28June 29, 2020 6:27 PM

[quote]BTW, that house is hideously trashy - kind of Trump Tower meets The Queen of Versailles trashy. Did Jackie Siegel do the interior design?)

I have relatives who live in that neighborhood and can tell you that it's far from trashy. It's also gated so the protesters were definitely trespassing.

by Anonymousreply 29June 29, 2020 6:38 PM

[quote] They actually were well within their rights. the protestors went through their gates and were trespassing on private property.

Wrong. They committed a Class D felony as outlined by the state of Missouri. You're as stupid, insecure and ignorant of the law as these two clowns and they're both attorneys! Absolute trash.

by Anonymousreply 30June 29, 2020 6:43 PM

They can both be disbarred for this and should.

by Anonymousreply 31June 29, 2020 6:44 PM

All the reporting says they haven't been charged so it will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next 48 hours.

by Anonymousreply 32June 29, 2020 6:46 PM

[quote] They can both be disbarred for this

How so?

There were trespassers on their property, and it's legal in the state of Missouri to brandish arms on your own property if it's being threatened.

They look ridiculous, but they do seem within their legal rights. You can't disbar someone for looking ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 33June 29, 2020 6:47 PM

"BTW, that house is hideously trashy - kind of Trump Tower meets The Queen of Versailles trashy. Did Jackie Siegel do the interior design?"

R18 thinks Tyvek, particle board and vinyl siding are the height of luxury.

These houses are over 100 years old, and they'll still be standing long after McMansions built in the 21st century have crumbled to the ground.

by Anonymousreply 34June 29, 2020 6:48 PM

The area where I work had a business owner stand on his roof with an AK-47 and this was deemed okay by the police because he was protecting his property. But this was right when the looting broke out and things were out of control.

by Anonymousreply 35June 29, 2020 6:49 PM

R33 You are ignorant of the facts.

These two committed a felony. It is illegal to brandish weapons in a threatening manner, PERIOD.

Trespassing in a gated community is at best an infraction of the law. The pavement and sidewalk outside a property is not owned by any individual in the gated community. Contrary to popular belief that "stand your ground" laws are carte blanche, they aren't. You cannot shoot someone in cold blood for stepping fooy on your lawn or the pavement outside your house. There needs to be a clear attempt to enter the premises. You are woefully misinformed about the severity of these actions and who exactly the criminals here are.

by Anonymousreply 36June 29, 2020 6:50 PM

[quote] These two committed a felony. It is illegal to brandish weapons in a threatening manner, PERIOD.

No, it is absolutely not illegal when it is to protect your own property in the state of Missouri.

You clearly know nothing about Missouri law. You're just pulling things out of your ass.

by Anonymousreply 37June 29, 2020 6:52 PM

My first thought is what a déclassé couple. Really?

I then remembered a conversation I had a few days ago with a cousin. I love her dearly. She's not a Trump supporter, but she's a Fox News devotee. Complaining about the destruction of property and looting, she predicted that Washington DC would be renamed, and the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials would come down next. I saw no point in responding except to ask her if she would wish to be a black person in America. Her response was "Well..." I was dumbfounded..

Mr. and Mrs. Second Amendment from St. Louis (who apparently demand the right to bare their feet too) represent a very sad division in this country. Most white people i America see people of color mainly as "The Other." Their perspective of people of color is so skewered. When black people stand up for themselves and demand change, a lot of white people like Mr. and Mrs. Second Amendment and, I fear, my cousin, are throatened. They only want Black success stories like they saw in "The Blind Side," where the whites save one or two black persons without ever questioning why they think black people are incapable of redressing problems.

by Anonymousreply 38June 29, 2020 6:52 PM

Thank you R36. The protesters were walking on the street and sidewalk past the house, outside the McCloskeys' property line.

by Anonymousreply 39June 29, 2020 6:52 PM

[quote] No, it is absolutely not illegal when it is to protect your own property in the state of Missouri. You clearly know nothing about Missouri law. You're just pulling things out of your ass.

Section 571.030 of Missouri's Revised Statutes characterizes unlawful use of a firearm as including "displaying a deadly weapon in a threatening manner."

Stop while you're behind.

by Anonymousreply 40June 29, 2020 6:54 PM

These people are being ripped to shreds all over the Internet but only on Datalounge are they hated for being fat.

by Anonymousreply 41June 29, 2020 6:56 PM

[quote]Wrong. They committed a Class D felony as outlined by the state of Missouri. You're as stupid, insecure and ignorant of the law as these two clowns and they're both attorneys! Absolute trash.

It's not often that I actually laugh out loud, but you, R30, made me do it. I'm a lawyer, albeit not in Missouri; however even I know that Missouri has a "Stand your Ground" law. And it, R40, would supersede the statute you quoted.

by Anonymousreply 42June 29, 2020 6:58 PM

Or poorly dressed, R41.

by Anonymousreply 43June 29, 2020 6:58 PM

From a website on Missouri self-defense laws:

[quote] Missouri Castle Doctrine

[quote] Missouri recognizes the "castle doctrine" and allows residents to use deadly force against intruders based on the notion that your home is "your castle." This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to protect yourself or others against an attack.

[quote] Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual. This means that if someone illegally enters your front porch or backyard, you can use deadly force against them without retreating first.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 44June 29, 2020 7:00 PM

R42 You're a shit lawyer, then. I'm laughing at the idiots who would pay you to represent them. In Missouri the "stand your ground" law explicitly states you cannot shoot your neighbor, the postman, or anyone else that does not attempt to enter your abode directly in a hostile manner. Period. End of story. You cannot shoot someone for stepping foot on your lawn or the pavement outside it as these protestors did. These two were not under duress and therefore the statute that criminalizes the brandishing of deadly weapons remains in tact. They are criminals.

by Anonymousreply 45June 29, 2020 7:02 PM

[quote] Protestors were not on this couple’s “private property” or on their lawn, they were marching in the street past their house. These two came out unprovoked, spewing threats, with guns drawn and trained on the protesters.

This street is private. It is owned by that community and is not a public street. Therefore, the public does not have the right to use it for any reason, including protesting. I am white and one thing my parents warned me about, from as far back as I can remember, is if you go on private property without permission you can and most likely will be shot and the homeowner would be in the right. It is just not something you should ever do. You can protest on public streets and sidewalks, but not on private property. I think too many young people have not been raised right.

by Anonymousreply 46June 29, 2020 7:05 PM

[quote] You cannot shoot someone for stepping foot on your lawn or the pavement outside it as these protestors did.

Yes, you absolutely can. The Missouri Castle Doctrine quoted at r44 allows it. It went into effect in January, 2017, and supersedes previous laws regarding self-defense in Missouri.

By the way, your constant shrieking of "PERIOD." after you state (incorrect) opinions makes you sound every bit as unhinged as this couple.

by Anonymousreply 47June 29, 2020 7:07 PM

R47 You're a complete fucking moron with a pencil dick unable to comprehend basic english or do the slightest bit of research. The "stand your ground law" in Missouri is CLEAR on its limitations. Your life needs to be in IMMINENT DANGER for you to claim self defense.

Morons like you that believe it is totally lawful to shoot someone in cold blood outside your home is why kids like Trayvon Martin are dead.

[quote]People have a right to threaten force if they are threatened," Amman said. However, if a group of protesters is walking by a home and not doing anything to the homeowners specifically, then they don’t have the right to threaten lethal force without an imminent threat.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 48June 29, 2020 7:11 PM

[quote] You're a complete fucking moron with a pencil dick

Oh dear, it sounds like someone is refusing to take his meds orally and needs to have them asministered the other way.

Orderlies!

by Anonymousreply 49June 29, 2020 7:15 PM

No, R42, I'm actually not a "shit" lawyer, but you're clearly not a lawyer of any kind.

You folks have to realize that they DIDN'T shoot anyone. Given that the protesters were on private property, the owners had a right under the Stand your Ground Law to do what they did. I'm not saying that it was nice or even necessary, but I AM saying that they didn't break any laws by doing so.

Now, had they shot one of those protesters I doubt the owners would have prevailed in court. Not based upon the footage we've seen, because none of the footage shows the owners being in imminent danger.

by Anonymousreply 50June 29, 2020 7:16 PM

[quote]You're a complete fucking moron with a pencil dick unable to comprehend basic english or do the slightest bit of research.

I don't know if you're right or wrong but I do know your hysteria doesn't strengthen your argument.

by Anonymousreply 51June 29, 2020 7:16 PM

By the way, R48, English is capitalized.

by Anonymousreply 52June 29, 2020 7:17 PM

R50 You're a liar. You're obviously not a lawyer. What these two did was illegal. The stand your ground laws in Missouri do not allow hicks to stand outside their homes and brandish weapons at passersby in a hostile manner. You've been misinformed.

by Anonymousreply 53June 29, 2020 7:18 PM

R48 The couple says that protestors were not being peaceful.

[quote] "A mob of at least 100 smashed through the historic wrought iron gates of Portland Place, destroying them, rushed towards my home where my family was having dinner outside and put us in fear of our lives," McCloskey said. "This is all private property. There are no public sidewalks or public streets. We were told that we would be killed, our home burned and our dog killed. We were all alone facing an angry mob."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 54June 29, 2020 7:19 PM

[quote]Now, had they shot one of those protesters I doubt the owners would have prevailed in court. Not based upon the footage we've seen, because none of the footage shows the owners being in imminent danger.

This is how we know you're not a real lawyer. The act of brandishing a deadly weapon when not under imminent threat IS a felony in the state of Missouri and something they could be charged for. It is not "cancelled out" by the stand your ground law, which only reinforces that it is in fact only justifiable to use deadly force when your life is under imminent threat. Stop talking talking out of your ass.

by Anonymousreply 55June 29, 2020 7:20 PM

I ain't mad at 'em.

by Anonymousreply 56June 29, 2020 7:21 PM

I know a pink hankie means means dildo fucker, but is she wearing prison stripes for any particular reason?

by Anonymousreply 57June 29, 2020 7:22 PM

Good lord, R53, you made me laugh out loud again. Yes, I am absolutely a lawyer. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. In all seriousness, you need to take a break from the news. I understand you're angry about these events as you should be, but you need a more constructive outlet for your anger.

by Anonymousreply 58June 29, 2020 7:22 PM

I think the wife showing her cankles would be sufficient to scare off the protesters.

by Anonymousreply 59June 29, 2020 7:23 PM

At least one video shows the protesters passing peacefully through a pedestrian side gate. One protester holding the gate open for the others. I saw no smashing or destruction. The crowd was heading to the mayor's house to deliver a petition. How else were they supposed to get there?

by Anonymousreply 60June 29, 2020 7:24 PM

R54 [quote] The couple says that protestors were not being peaceful.

Unfortunately for her there's indisputable video evidence and witnesses to confirm their lives were not in danger. What they did was illegal. Her white paranoia from listening to Fox News all day is not a good enough justification to flout the law. As has been proven here multiple times, threatening deadly force when not under imminent threat (as the videos show they were not) is not covered by any stand your ground law.

by Anonymousreply 61June 29, 2020 7:27 PM

R60, maybe by going to City Hall during working hours?

by Anonymousreply 62June 29, 2020 7:28 PM

R60 Oh yes, one video proves it all!! It's not like violent protestors would ever delete any incriminating evidence that might get them in trouble!

by Anonymousreply 63June 29, 2020 7:30 PM

Indisputable evidence from a few videos? Of course they wouldn't film themselves doing stupid shit, idiot R61

by Anonymousreply 64June 29, 2020 7:32 PM

The fact that some people here have suggested these two white supremacist pearl clutchers should be rewarded for showing "restraint" for not mowing down a crowd of mostly black people for walking down a street shows how urgently we need to start dismantling the systems of oppression in this country. They're criminals. They broke the law. Lock them up.

by Anonymousreply 65June 29, 2020 7:32 PM

R63 R64 Late to the Klan meeting with pals Ken and Karen.

by Anonymousreply 66June 29, 2020 7:33 PM

"The crowd was heading to the mayor's house to deliver a petition. How else were they supposed to get there?"

They could have used the PUBLIC street where the mayor actually lives. Unfortunately, they decided to take a shortcut through a private street they had no business being on. This doesn't excuse the poor behavior of the crazed homeowners, but the protesters were trespassing.

by Anonymousreply 67June 29, 2020 7:33 PM

[quote] This doesn't excuse the poor behavior of the crazed homeowners

You misspelled Class D felony.

by Anonymousreply 68June 29, 2020 7:34 PM

There's something about a fat, pasty-faced white guy in a pink shirt that doesn't go with the big gun.

by Anonymousreply 69June 29, 2020 7:34 PM

R55 So being threatened with physical violence and destruction of property isn't proof of imminent threat? The stupidity of it all. It seems that R55 thinks that you need to have blood on your face for something to be considered an imminent threat.

by Anonymousreply 70June 29, 2020 7:35 PM

R61 From the St. Louis Dispatch:

[quote] “The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims,” police said. “When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.”

[quote] Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that although it's "very dangerous" to engage protesters with guns, the homeowners broke no laws by brandishing or pointing weapons at them because Portland Place is a private street. He said they are legally protected by Missouri's Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property. "The protesters thought they had a right to protest," Walker said. "But as a technical matter, they were not allowed to be there ... It’s essentially a private estate. If anyone was violating the law, it was the protesters. In fact if (the McCloskeys) have photos of the protesters, they could go after them for trespassing."

[quote] St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner appeared to take a different view, releasing a statement Monday that said she's "alarmed at the events that occurred over the weekend where peaceful protestors (sic) were met by guns and a violent assault." ..."We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation or threat of deadly force will not be tolerated," Gardner said. "Make no mistake: we will not tolerate the use of force against those exercising their First Amendment rights, and will use the full power of Missouri law to hold people accountable."

[quote] An attorney for the couple, Albert S. Watkins, said the McCloskeys are supportive of the message of the peaceful protesters, but felt threatened by two "bad actors" who threw insults at them. The couple sought to protect their property and their family inside the home, he said. “Their entire practice tenure as counsel (has) been addressing the needs of the downtrodden, for whom the fight for civil rights is necessary,” Watkins said. “My clients, as melanin-deficient human beings, are completely respectful of the message Black Lives Matter needs to get out, especially to whites … (but) two individuals exhibited such force and violence destroying a century-plus old wrought iron gate, ripping and twisting the wrought iron that was connected to a rock foundation, and then proceeded to charge at and toward and speak threateningly to Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 71June 29, 2020 7:35 PM

R65 Mostly black people, some of whom were threatening them with physical violence. Do you really think that some angry black people in a protest of 500 people with hearts racing are going to speak calmly and politely? 2 things can be true at the same time: that there are peaceful protestors and violent protestors in that crowd that day.

by Anonymousreply 72June 29, 2020 7:39 PM

[quote] So being threatened with physical violence and destruction of property isn't proof of imminent threat? L isten, pea-brain.

The onus is on them to provide evidence of that to dispute the plethora of evidence that demonstrates they were clearly in the wrong and not under immediate threat. They were not lured or commanded outside of their home by protestors--- THEY chose to confront and intimidate them with deadly weapons. THEY are the instigating party in the eyes of the law. That they exited their property unprovoked to greet protestors with deadly weapons shows they were not under duress.

by Anonymousreply 73June 29, 2020 7:39 PM

"St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner appeared to take a different view..."

This crazy bitch would have set Charles Manson free.

by Anonymousreply 74June 29, 2020 7:39 PM

[quote] Mostly black people, some of whom were threatening them with physical violence. Do you really think that some angry black people in a protest of 500 people with hearts racing are going to speak calmly and politely? 2

Fuck off and just die already you overtly racist cunt.

by Anonymousreply 75June 29, 2020 7:40 PM

NO evidence of violence or threats from protestors. Credible firsthand witnesses and video evidence of criminal brandishing of weapons by Nazi couple. Which side with dataloungers side with?

by Anonymousreply 76June 29, 2020 7:41 PM

Just another example of "what the hell is wrong with people"!

by Anonymousreply 77June 29, 2020 7:43 PM

R75 Go play with your colored blocks, child. The adults are talking.

by Anonymousreply 78June 29, 2020 7:44 PM

I don't blame the couple for being scared or having weapons at the ready. But they should have just stayed on their patio with the guns not visible and kept silent. The guns should not have come out unless and until there was a clear and present danger to their lives, which there never was. People walking up the sidewalk hollering like fools is not enough of a threat to warrant getting guns and pointing at unarmed people.

by Anonymousreply 79June 29, 2020 7:45 PM

[quote]"My clients, as melanin-deficient human beings, are completely respectful of the message Black Lives Matter needs to get out, especially to whites"

A professional using racist words like "melanin-deficient" to describe his clients? How is this even allowed?

by Anonymousreply 80June 29, 2020 7:47 PM

Their claim, R79, is that protesters were yelling threats. And R76, that video is one sided. Most of it only shows the couple.

by Anonymousreply 81June 29, 2020 7:49 PM

It is not a "private" street. There are some gates from the period when the houses were built. They are not always closed. Even if they are closed, you only have to walk about a block to numerous places where you can enter the neighborhood. There are some truly wonderful homes and others that are nice but not grand. There are even a few which have fallen into disrepair. The neighborhood is very close (maybe one block) from a large hotel and numerous coffee shop type place. The street that runs right in front is one of the busiest in St. Louis. It may well be an enclave, but it is not "private." As long as they stayed off people's lawns or driveways, they were not trespassing.

by Anonymousreply 82June 29, 2020 7:55 PM

A mob of masked people, chanting and shouting, coming through your private gated community is inherently threatening, regardless of the race of the people or their purpose. I will never side against a person protecting their private property.

by Anonymousreply 83June 29, 2020 7:55 PM

It's striking when someone just completely loses it on DL. You see how fragile some people are, and what a loose grip they have.

by Anonymousreply 84June 29, 2020 7:56 PM

[quote] I don't blame the couple for being scared or having weapons at the ready.

Of course you don't. Whites have an unquestionable inherent right to break the law and act with as much hostility and malice as they please as long as they claim to be "scared" while holding a gun that can kill 20+ people in seconds. It's the same racist defense offered when a white police officer performs an extrajudicial killing of an unarmed black man. "He was scared. His life was threatened."

Of course the people peacefully marching have no right to be "scared" when having an AR-15 pointed at them.

Scared people don't confront a group of people with a deadly arsenal.

The law is designed to protect people who are credibly under imminent threat and are forced to act in self defense,, not allow hostile racists to intimidate citizens and residents of the community without cause.

by Anonymousreply 85June 29, 2020 7:59 PM

R83 Stop falling asleep watching Fox News grandpa, I'm begging you. It's giving you terrible nightmares and attitudes.

by Anonymousreply 86June 29, 2020 8:00 PM

R82 Here is an earlier picture of the gate. There is a sign that clearly states "Private Street. Access Limited to Residents" The street is not maintained by the City of St. Louis, but by the residents of that street. Therefore, it is private. I don't care how public the surrounding area is, that street is not public.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 87June 29, 2020 8:01 PM

R87 so they could’ve actually shot them and not been negligent? I mean, they mob was already on private property.

by Anonymousreply 88June 29, 2020 8:04 PM

R47 stays calm while R48 devolves into a freakout. I thought that SJWs believe that words are LITERAL VIOLENCE, and feel that they have a right to dox people and ruin their lives because of mean words.

by Anonymousreply 89June 29, 2020 8:05 PM

R86 It is nothing about FOXNEWS, and I am far from a grandpa, unless you practice teenage pregnancy. I would feel the same way if a group of protestors were marching down a largely Black or Hispanic street, shouting and chanting. And, I would agree that any Black or Hispanic homeowners on that street would be well within their rights to do the same thing these two people did.

by Anonymousreply 90June 29, 2020 8:06 PM

I would really love to see R88's reaction when 500 people are screaming and threatening him at the edge of his front lawn

by Anonymousreply 91June 29, 2020 8:07 PM

Wow, those houses are amazing. The closest in Atlanta would be Lullwater Drive but that’s open to the public and not all the houses on it are that nice.

by Anonymousreply 92June 29, 2020 8:08 PM

Patricia, we talked about horizontal stripes. Sigh.

by Anonymousreply 93June 29, 2020 8:09 PM

So it turns out you can't just shoot or threaten to shoot people like it's the Wild West under Missouri's Stand Your Ground law and often people who are ignorant of this fact end up in jail like these two should be.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 94June 29, 2020 8:09 PM

[quote]Whites have an unquestionable inherent right to break the law and act with as much hostility and malice as they please as long as they claim to be "scared" while holding a gun that can kill 20+ people in seconds.

Anyone of any color can own a semi. Any other gun will not protect you from large groups like this. It's not racist to defend your private property from looters who are using a group of peaceful protestors as a shield for their criminality.

by Anonymousreply 95June 29, 2020 8:12 PM

[quote] I would really love to see [R88]'s reaction when 500 people are screaming and threatening him at the edge of his front lawn

No evidence of these threats from protestors, indisputable video evidence of hostile deadly threats from the two white supremacist homeowners. Stop making up lies.

by Anonymousreply 96June 29, 2020 8:12 PM

R95 Calling peaceful protestors lodging a grievance with their elitist mayor, most of whom are black "looters" without a shred of evidence of this is a clear sign you're not capable of holding a nuanced discussion about this topic because you're a racist. Goodbye.

by Anonymousreply 97June 29, 2020 8:14 PM

R96 Indisputable evidence from protestors, some of whom are being accused of threatening the couple with violence. I'm sure that if there evidence of some people threatening to kill them that they will provide it so as to ensure a fair and speedy trial!!

by Anonymousreply 98June 29, 2020 8:15 PM

R87, I never denied the area was once private. That was very common in earlier times in St. Louis. The residents of such places have kept things such as the gates and signs as part of the history. The inhabitants also don't encourage the use of their streets. In fact, the streets all dead end which is sometimes called "private" in St Louis as there is really no use for the streets as a means to go much of anywhere else. That does not mean that your are subject to trespassing is you do use the street. To clarify further, I was not suggesting that business around the area made the place public. It does not, of course and I never said it did. I made reference to the hotel, bars, and restaurants to aid my description of the place as an enclave.

by Anonymousreply 99June 29, 2020 8:16 PM

With every push to improve the situation of blacks in this country that have suffered at the hands of a white majority comes chants of "looters!" "criminals!" and "defense of white values/property" from that white majority. It's nothing new. The same usual suspects huffing and puffing themselves into an early grave.

They said the same things in the 1960's as they're saying now. The biggest spike in Neo-confederate monument building which are now being falsely touted as historical objects by white supremacists occurred during these years when the push for civil rights was looming. Things never change.

by Anonymousreply 100June 29, 2020 8:18 PM

[quote]

R97, YOU are the racist if you think that the only race looting is black! Bitch, where? WHERE did I say that the looters were all black people?! A lot of the looters are white. Nuanced conversations seem to be a above your pay grade, Russian shill.

by Anonymousreply 101June 29, 2020 8:20 PM

[quote] Indisputable evidence from protestors, some of whom are being accused of threatening the couple with violence

Accused BY THE COUPLE THEMSELVES ... who were in fact captured on video threatening THEIR lives with deadly weapons. You're an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 102June 29, 2020 8:20 PM

I’ve never understood why Americans don’t build walls and gates especially with massive properties like this one. Don’t you want privacy and protection? That private road could easily afford guards as well.

by Anonymousreply 103June 29, 2020 8:21 PM

[quote]An attorney for the couple, Albert S. Watkins, said ... “My clients, as melanin-deficient human beings..."

Well, at least they hired a fellow douche bag to represent them.

by Anonymousreply 104June 29, 2020 8:21 PM

R101 The protesting demographic skewed largely black and you chose to FALSELY inject the term "looters" without a shred of evidence. You knew what you were doing. Bye, Hans.

by Anonymousreply 105June 29, 2020 8:23 PM

R100 You’re absolutely correct. Some things never change.

Watch for all of these impassioned racial justice protesters to disappear immediately after the November election - just like they did in 2016.

by Anonymousreply 106June 29, 2020 8:23 PM

R103 Because Americans have be coddled. This is all going to change everything.

by Anonymousreply 107June 29, 2020 8:23 PM

R99 Whether it is private or not comes down to who maintains it. Every thing I have read about this incident is that the city, nor city taxpayers maintain the road or sidewalk. It is owned and maintained by the residents of that street/enclave, therefore it is private property.

R100 the 1960s did not see a big spike in Confederate monuments. Most were erected between 1890-1950. The only really major monument completed in the 1960s was Stone Mountain, but it had been in production for decades. The 1960s was when the Confederate Flag was brought back in a big way. Though they usually tried to falsely argue it was about the centennial of the Civil War.

by Anonymousreply 108June 29, 2020 8:25 PM

R106 = Eric Trump

by Anonymousreply 109June 29, 2020 8:26 PM

R102 It's so obvious that you have automatically condemned the couple as the bad guys, and the protestors are automatically angels. You are incapable of context and nuance, you are unable to even fathom that most of the protestors were peaceful, and SOME OTHER protestors were threatening.

by Anonymousreply 110June 29, 2020 8:27 PM

R106 Since racism will never be eradicated, as evidenced by the naive douchebags in this thread that think they can just start shooting or threatening to shoot at passersby if they live in a private community and are white-- (wrong, just indicative of preconceived notions of white supremacy)-- I'm sure there will be an equally if not more forceful oppositional reaction to racism. They're not going away and decent people should be glad of it.

by Anonymousreply 111June 29, 2020 8:29 PM

I would’ve run inside and called the police then taken videos or pics to sue the fuck out of the trespassers.

by Anonymousreply 112June 29, 2020 8:29 PM

R110 No one automatically condemned them, we watched the videos with our own eyes. Depending on your bias and worldview you probably saw a completely different picture from what happened in reality. I feel sorry for you because of that. These gun totin' hicks are not the good guys. Sorry.

by Anonymousreply 113June 29, 2020 8:31 PM

R112 Not how lawsuits work.

by Anonymousreply 114June 29, 2020 8:32 PM

R99, you are simply wrong about private streets in St. Louis.

by Anonymousreply 115June 29, 2020 8:36 PM

[quote]Good lord, [R53], you made me laugh out loud again. Yes, I am absolutely a lawyer. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. In all seriousness, you need to take a break from the news. [bold]I understand you're angry about these events as you should be, but you need a more constructive outlet for your anger[/bold].

^^^This. R53 is losing it!

by Anonymousreply 116June 29, 2020 8:37 PM

R105

[quote]The protesting demographic skewed **LARGELY** black

large·ly /ˈlärjlē/ Learn to pronounce adverb to a great extent; on the whole; mostly.

Ah yes, the word "largely" means "mostly", ie, NOT EVERYONE, but MOST. That means that, like I said, there were SOME PROTESTORS who were probably threatening them.

[quote]and you chose to FALSELY inject the term "looters" without a shred of evidence. You knew what you were doing

There is lots of evidence of people using BLM to loot stores. They have been causing trouble for BLM and for you to be so willfully ignorant just proves that you're bad actor who enjoys this. Bye bye, Vlad.

by Anonymousreply 117June 29, 2020 8:37 PM

"Since racism will never be eradicated, as evidenced by the naive douchebags in this thread that think they can just start shooting or threatening to shoot at passersby..."

All you have to do is walk less than a quarter mile north of where this incident took place and you'll find people who think they can just start shooting or threatening to shoot at passersby. And yet no one says a word.

I stayed at the Chase Park Plaza Hotel on Kingshighway in February of 2019, probably about 1000 feet from Portland Place. I couldn't sleep at night because of the constant wailing of police sirens, at least two every hour the entire night.

by Anonymousreply 118June 29, 2020 8:37 PM

"self-governing enclaves"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 119June 29, 2020 8:38 PM

Melissa

by Anonymousreply 120June 29, 2020 8:38 PM

[quote]These gun totin' hicks are not the good guys. Sorry.

While they may not be the "good guys," they are certainly within their legal rights to act as they did, however repugnant it might be.

by Anonymousreply 121June 29, 2020 8:39 PM

R113 I feel sorry for you as well if, in your worldview, you believe that it's acceptable to allow people the opportunity to harm or maim you because of their identity. Very sad indeed.

by Anonymousreply 122June 29, 2020 8:41 PM

[quote] "But as a technical matter, they were not allowed to be there ... It’s essentially a private estate. If anyone was violating the law, it was the protesters. In fact if (the McCloskeys) have photos of the protesters, they could go after them for trespassing."

Then I hope they do.

Enough of this shit.

by Anonymousreply 123June 29, 2020 8:42 PM

[quote] The closest in Atlanta would be Lullwater Drive

Or rather the Tuxedo Park area around the Governor's mansion. People who live on Lullwater work for the people who live in Tuxedo Park.

by Anonymousreply 124June 29, 2020 8:42 PM

You know whose house is getting egged and TP’d next Halloween.

Oh shit, Halloween is canceled!

by Anonymousreply 125June 29, 2020 8:42 PM

R85 you clearly have a reading comprehension problem.

by Anonymousreply 126June 29, 2020 8:43 PM

[quote]The act of brandishing a deadly weapon when not under imminent threat IS a felony in the state of Missouri and something they could be charged for.

'Castile' or Stand Your Ground laws only require a preponderance of the evidence and the judge is the trier of fact. These two lawyers could EASILY convince a judge that they felt as if they were in enough imminent danger to brandish weapons. Like someone said above, they DID NOT shoot anyone. They merely exhibited their weapons.

by Anonymousreply 127June 29, 2020 8:46 PM

[quote]threatening to shoot at passersby if they live in a private community and are white-- (wrong, just indicative of preconceived notions of white supremacy)--

Why do some people think that only white people legally own guns? Oh, right, that's just the anti-white racism that's so socially acceptable these days. Silly me!

by Anonymousreply 128June 29, 2020 8:47 PM

I love how this gets reported but all the looting and stuff is reported as "mostly peaceful"

by Anonymousreply 129June 29, 2020 8:51 PM

A street is not "private property;" I don't care what the sign said. These people with guns are nut cases. The protestors are peaceful. Stop siding with the nutcases, you're on the wrong side of history.

by Anonymousreply 130June 29, 2020 8:56 PM

Nuts. Those two were more of a danger to each other.

by Anonymousreply 131June 29, 2020 8:56 PM

R121 they're not within their legal rights and they're also horrible people. Stop defending them.

by Anonymousreply 132June 29, 2020 8:56 PM

They kept pointing their weapons at each other, the morons.

by Anonymousreply 133June 29, 2020 8:58 PM

R130 "I also do not believe in reality."

by Anonymousreply 134June 29, 2020 8:58 PM

R130 If the street is not maintained by the government and is instead owned and maintained by the residents that live on it, IT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY! Why is that so hard for some people to understand.

by Anonymousreply 135June 29, 2020 8:59 PM

R121, if a black couple was holding weapons against a group of white protestors who want to air their grievances, would they also be within their rights?

by Anonymousreply 136June 29, 2020 9:00 PM

R135 because it doesn't fit their narrative

by Anonymousreply 137June 29, 2020 9:00 PM

[quote[A street is not "private property;" I don't care what the sign said. These people with guns are nut cases. The protestors are peaceful. Stop siding with the nutcases, you're on the wrong side of history.

So, they should have to wait until someone attempts to assault them or hurls a firebomb at their home? I used to live in St. Louis, but moved to an outlying rural county, which was the best decision I ever made.

by Anonymousreply 138June 29, 2020 9:00 PM

As the sidewalk and street don't belong to Pat and Mark they have no business pointing weapons at people walking along the sidewalk and street: that could be assault, although the passers by didn't look too concerned.

by Anonymousreply 139June 29, 2020 9:01 PM

r129 Areas where looting occurred was reported correctly on. The looting has died down, in my area it only was bad for 2 days, then the peaceful protests came.

by Anonymousreply 140June 29, 2020 9:01 PM

[quote]A street is not "private property;" I don't care what the sign said. These people with guns are nut cases. The protestors are peaceful. Stop siding with the nutcases, you're on the wrong side of history.

So, they should have to wait until someone attempts to assault them or hurls a firebomb at their home? I used to live in St. Louis, but moved to an outlying rural county, which was the best decision I ever made.

by Anonymousreply 141June 29, 2020 9:01 PM

R136 Yes. Just like the Black Guards in NC and the original Black Panther's were well within their rights.

by Anonymousreply 142June 29, 2020 9:02 PM

^^Sorry, Panthers.

by Anonymousreply 143June 29, 2020 9:03 PM

I still don't know why those two morons just didn't stay inside if they were so frightened.

I also think in the bigger picture there is a balance to be struck by how you go about these things - that everyone needs to consider. Now let the rage descend upon me for an attempt to move from passion to reason.

That said, this isn't big picture. A bunch of people marched down a street where they perhaps legally shouldn't have been and two morons made fools of themselves with a dangerous display that confirms every American cliche there is and every national character failing that exists.

by Anonymousreply 144June 29, 2020 9:03 PM

Do we know who this private sidewalk and street belong to? The HOA I assume, rather than the two drunken gunslingers.

by Anonymousreply 145June 29, 2020 9:04 PM

Too bad the couple didn’t just shoot themselves for being so god damn ugly.

by Anonymousreply 146June 29, 2020 9:04 PM

R146 I assume the guns weren't loaded or these two would have shot someone accidentally given all the gun waving around they were doing. The gun does not have to be loaded for assault: is that correct in those parts?

by Anonymousreply 147June 29, 2020 9:08 PM

[quote]Stop siding with the nutcases, you're on the wrong side of history.

So you would have us dispose of the law? I'm in favor of peaceful protests and I agree that we need reform. However, once you start looking the other way where the law is concerned, what happens next? What you're suggesting is tantamount to a cop who just KNOWS that someone is guilty planting evidence to prove it.

by Anonymousreply 148June 29, 2020 9:08 PM

R143 So only black people have a right to defend themselves with guns?

by Anonymousreply 149June 29, 2020 9:09 PM

R141, I know the area well and used to work on that street (in a better house than these nuts have).

However, it is true that the street is private. St. Louis has numerous streets that are not city property, and the enclaves are paid-for and maintained by the residents. It's an old St. Louis tradition that actually doesn't have anything to do with race - it has to do with old upper-class haughtiness. The areas now are occupied by a lot of new-money types and this execrable couple is an example. Most of the homes were built to house a dozen or more servants (my grandmother was a lady's maid in this neighborhood in the 1920s) and now they're ego palaces and money pits.

The Bush's cousin lived around the corner from the couple's house. But he be dead now.

by Anonymousreply 150June 29, 2020 9:09 PM

This happened lunchtime Sunday, right? I reckon by the looks of them that they had each had at least two or three martinis by then.

by Anonymousreply 151June 29, 2020 9:09 PM

Bang bang bang, kamikaze!

by Anonymousreply 152June 29, 2020 9:11 PM

Ignore-dar reveals all these below are from all the exact same poster on this thread:

[quote] You're as stupid, insecure and ignorant of the law as these two clowns and they're both attorneys! Absolute trash.

[quote] You are ignorant of the facts.

[quote] R42 You're a shit lawyer, then. I'm laughing at the idiots who would pay you to represent them.

[quote] R47 You're a complete fucking moron with a pencil dick unable to comprehend basic english or do the slightest bit of research.

[quote] Morons like you that believe it is totally lawful to shoot someone in cold blood outside your home is why kids like Trayvon Martin are dead.

[quote] R50 You're a liar. You're obviously not a lawyer.

[quote] This is how we know you're not a real lawyer.

[quote] Stop talking talking out of your ass.

[quote] Fuck off and just die already you overtly racist cunt.

[quote]R83 Stop falling asleep watching Fox News grandpa, I'm begging you.

[quote] Stop making up lies.

[quote] as evidenced by the naive douchebags in this thread

And the kicker (LOL!):

[quote] this is a clear sign you're not capable of holding a nuanced discussion about this topic because you're a racist. Goodbye.

by Anonymousreply 153June 29, 2020 9:11 PM

Preliminary figures from the 2020 census show that once again, the City of St. Louis has lost population, continuing the trend started in the 1950's. From a high of 850K in 1950, the population is now under 300K.

Who is fleeing the city? Mostly blacks. As recently as 1990, 51% of the population of St. Louis was black. Now it's somewhere between 43-46% black. And why are they leaving in droves? Because they're sick of the crime and drugs and police informants get shot "justice" that permeates these neighborhoods.

And since WWII, hundreds of billions of federal, state and local tax dollars have been poured into St. Louis to prevent blight and decay and to build low income housing and EVERY SINGLE EFFORT HAS FAILED, regardless of whether its high rise or low rise housing, There is a housing development just north of downtown St. Louis called Preservation Square, which was built in 1981. It is now going through its second rehab effort. There is another development just north of the old football dome called Cambridge Heights (which itself replaced one of the best, most expensive high rise public housing projects ever built, Cochran Gardens), which is less than 10 years old, where residents are afraid to go out at night because of the risk of drive by shootings from cars speeding along 8th and 9th Streets.

Will BLM ever address these issues? And I have to wonder how many of these BLM protesters actually live here and are just here to burnish their resumes before they move on Harvard or Yale Law.

by Anonymousreply 154June 29, 2020 9:12 PM

R25 is full of shit. What they’ve posted is not accurate.

by Anonymousreply 155June 29, 2020 9:13 PM

Whoever said it upthread was correct: this is what a steady diet of Fox News will do to you.

by Anonymousreply 156June 29, 2020 9:16 PM

Good for them.

Those punks need to realize that their actions have consequences.

People are going to start killing these rampaging idiots.

by Anonymousreply 157June 29, 2020 9:19 PM

This could have been third degree assault: "Placing someone in fear of immediate physical injury," for which Pat 'n' Mac could get 15 days in the county jail and $500 in fines. Sweet.

by Anonymousreply 158June 29, 2020 9:20 PM

Link ^

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 159June 29, 2020 9:21 PM

R157 It's almost like they're threatening people into acts of violence that will then be used as an example of martyrdom, thus "proving" that everyone and everything is racist. Almost.

by Anonymousreply 160June 29, 2020 9:23 PM

Trash with money is still trash.

by Anonymousreply 161June 29, 2020 9:25 PM

why is everyone talking like there haven't been violent riots across the US, leading to massive property damage and injured innocents, that there haven't been calls for police to be disbanded (possibly successful to one extent or another in parts of the US), that police haven't stopped policing these "protesters" etc?

It is very possible that the only reason you can think of these masked 'marching protesters' as peaceful is because this couple were armed (albeit, awkwardly), and that is only if you ignore the fact these goons broke down an iron gate to even be there in the first place

by Anonymousreply 162June 29, 2020 9:28 PM

The affluent areas of the US are going to look like South Africa soon. 12 ft walls and armed guards. I should open a business.

by Anonymousreply 163June 29, 2020 9:32 PM

[Quote]The pavement and sidewalk outside a property is not owned by any individual in the gated community

Incorrect. Within gated communities homeowners are responsible for streets, sidewalks,all maintence, etc. Think off it as a privately owned development All homeowners share ownership of and responsibility for roads.

by Anonymousreply 164June 29, 2020 9:32 PM

Only dumbos accuse other people of being "on the wrong side of history," which is nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 165June 29, 2020 9:41 PM

"A street is not "private property;" I don't care what the sign said."

"The pavement and sidewalk outside a property is not owned by any individual in the gated community."

People on this site love to make fun of the stupidity of Deplorables, but I have to say, a lot of people on this site could give the Deplorables a run for their money.

by Anonymousreply 166June 29, 2020 9:51 PM

tweet:

Police investigating the St Louis incident are considering it a case of "fourth-degree assault by intimidation" — by the protesters.

("the homeowners broke no laws by brandishing or pointing weapons at them because Portland Place is a private street. He said they are legally protected by Missouri's Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.")

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 167June 29, 2020 9:57 PM

The protesters were not trespassing on Pat and Mark's property and they should not have been waving guns around like they did. D'you suppose that's why they're now melanin-deficient lawyered up?

by Anonymousreply 168June 29, 2020 9:58 PM

the gate in question, not just a broken lock:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 169June 29, 2020 9:59 PM

R68 The lawyer called his clients "melanin deficient". The lawyer himself is not deficiently melanin, not at all. He has lots and lots of melanin to go around. Maybe he'll share his melanin with the deficients.

by Anonymousreply 170June 29, 2020 10:01 PM

R1 LMBO! You cock-a-roaches! I'll bury those mother-fuckers!

by Anonymousreply 171June 29, 2020 10:01 PM

R169 Geez. The protestors just "walked in" did they? I'm sure that it was much easier to walk in after the gate was destroyed.

by Anonymousreply 172June 29, 2020 10:02 PM

The damage to the Victorian wrought iron gate is sheer vandalism. It looks like the gate must have been locked. It's time for that community to get proper security. Are any charges being brought against the vandals and/or against Pat and Mark? Also is trespassing on private property eg the privte road and sidewalk a crime?

by Anonymousreply 173June 29, 2020 10:08 PM

[Quote]The protesters were not trespassing on Pat and Mark's property

Yes, they were. As stated above all homeowners share ownership of the community - including the busted gates and streets. It is a private community, not a public street.

by Anonymousreply 174June 29, 2020 10:11 PM

I don't blame them.

by Anonymousreply 175June 29, 2020 10:11 PM

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 176June 29, 2020 10:14 PM

R173, there is video of the protestors entering the street through the open, undamaged gate. No one knows at the moment when it got damaged.

by Anonymousreply 177June 29, 2020 10:15 PM

R173 We are dealing with people who don't appreciate art or history.

by Anonymousreply 178June 29, 2020 10:15 PM

R177 I would like to see that video. Got a link?

by Anonymousreply 179June 29, 2020 10:16 PM

Wow! They’re really keeping their neighborhood KKKlassy!

by Anonymousreply 180June 29, 2020 10:17 PM

Notice that wingnuts are calling peaceful protests "riots"?

by Anonymousreply 181June 29, 2020 10:17 PM

Why enter this community in the first place?

by Anonymousreply 182June 29, 2020 10:19 PM

R181 Two things are true: there have been peaceful protests and there have been riots.

by Anonymousreply 183June 29, 2020 10:22 PM

Except if it isn't peaceful if they're damaging property or trespassing or what have you. Are all things equal? No. But the fact is there is a balance to be struck. It is naive to assume support will always stay as high as it has unless the protests and demonstrations advance the cause rather than harm it. It's just reality. Any strategy that makes you feel really good is probably the worst strategy to follow. It's just reality. I'm not claiming the cause or the history is equal to the reality but there's a choice to be made between what feels good and what gets good done.

by Anonymousreply 184June 29, 2020 10:23 PM

Here, R177.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 185June 29, 2020 10:28 PM

I meant R179.

by Anonymousreply 186June 29, 2020 10:30 PM

"Why enter this community in the first place?"

Because they're too lazy/stupid to walk down one block south to the public street where the target of their protests actually lived. Or, more likely, they thought they'd show the crackers on Portland Place their righteous wrath, but that backfired majorly when guns were drawn and they almost got their asses shot off.

Kind of like the protesters here in Philly, who drove all the way up to Neshaminy Mall, 20 miles from Center City Philly, to "peacefully protest" at Sears and Macy's. Much to their surprise and dismay, those stores were closed a couple of years ago.

by Anonymousreply 187June 29, 2020 10:30 PM

from AP: "Their attorney, Albert Watkins, told The Associated Press on Monday that the couple are long-time civil rights advocates and support the message of the Black Lives Matter movement. He said they grabbed their guns when two or three protesters – who were white – violently threatened the couple and their property and that of their neighbours."

Should be easy to prove or disprove quickly enough... at least the claims about civil rights and BLM. On the other hand could be a desperate lie, but how stupid to tell it when it can be proven or disproven and so many people eager to. Interesting wrinkle though. Sure doesn't help the story go away.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 188June 29, 2020 10:33 PM

Many different things can be true. It was a peaceful protest passing through. It was stupid and provocative for them to cut through a private neighborhood, as R187 says. Though the homeowners may be within their rights to display arms and warn trespassers off, they, emphatically, should not have pointed guns at the protesters.

by Anonymousreply 189June 29, 2020 10:35 PM

The fact that they both made large donations to the Dump campaign makes that claim kind of doubtful, R188.

by Anonymousreply 190June 29, 2020 10:43 PM

^^ that's bullshit. Stop it. These two are Dems and so is the mayor.

by Anonymousreply 191June 29, 2020 10:45 PM

I'm sure the protestors passed by any number of houses where the occupants didn't feel sufficiently threatened to come out fully armed. What made these two feel so special? If they'd stayed indoors and minded their own business they could have avoided all this and no one would have given them a second look.

by Anonymousreply 192June 29, 2020 10:53 PM

He's going crazy

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 193June 29, 2020 10:57 PM

Wrong, R181. Here is the record of Mark McCloskey's political contributions.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 194June 29, 2020 11:00 PM

^ sorry, I meant R191.

by Anonymousreply 195June 29, 2020 11:01 PM

R192 They were already outside, eating dinner with their family on their private property, when the protestors showed up.

by Anonymousreply 196June 29, 2020 11:05 PM

I've heard so many times that St. Louis is a hellhole.

by Anonymousreply 197June 29, 2020 11:14 PM

"If they'd stayed indoors and minded their own business they could have avoided all this and no one would have given them a second look."

Boy, if this statement isn't fodder Trump's "radical left" propaganda machine, I don't know what is.

"By edict of the Bolshevik Bros and BLM, no one is allowed outside on their patio on summer days. You are hereby ordered to remain inside and mind your own business."

by Anonymousreply 198June 29, 2020 11:14 PM

[quote] R174 Yes, they were. As stated above all homeowners share ownership of the community - including the busted gates and streets. It is a private community, not a public street.

The sidewalks and streets more likely belong to trustees who themselves should be preventing trespassing. Mark and Pat own everything on their plot, granted, but their plot was not invaded; they should spend 15 days inside for third degree assault, fined $500 each and bound over to keep the peace for a year. Mark and Pat should also go on anger management courses and enroll at AA. The damage to the gate should be punished, if there is a record of who caused the damage.

by Anonymousreply 199June 29, 2020 11:17 PM

You have a mob right outside your house and you have no idea if they're going to break in and do god knows what? Sorry, you have a right to protect your home and property.

by Anonymousreply 200June 29, 2020 11:18 PM

[quote]Mark and Pat should also go on anger management courses and enroll at AA.

Weight Watchers should also be a requirement.

by Anonymousreply 201June 29, 2020 11:20 PM

"Anyway, the McCloskeys’ best hope now is that they won’t be charged with either a felony or a lesser charge. That would keep their law firm in business, assuming that the potential client base they once served still finds them acceptable potential counsels and competing firms don’t paint them as rich white folks who point guns at brown people who aren’t giving them a percentage of their personal injury awards."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 202June 29, 2020 11:20 PM

R194. My apologies I read in one of these articles that there is irony at play here because the couple are Dems who support BLM.

His last donation to Trump's campaign was in 2017. One can hope this guy has dumped Trump at this point

by Anonymousreply 203June 29, 2020 11:20 PM

[quote] If they'd stayed indoors and minded their own business they could have avoided all this and no one would have given them a second look.

That attitude is why so many impoverished(White, Black, Hispanic, etc.) neighborhoods are shitholes. Being a part of a community means that anything criminal that happens in that community, especially in public, IS the business of every person in that neighborhood.

by Anonymousreply 204June 29, 2020 11:22 PM

[Quote]The sidewalks and streets more likely belong to trustees who themselves should be preventing trespassing

What is this fuckery? No, hon. No.

by Anonymousreply 205June 29, 2020 11:23 PM

R200 When you see a number of passers-by who are trespassing on neighboring land, you do not jump up from your lunch and start yelling, drunkenly and provocatively while handling a semi-automatic, "Get out of my neighborhood." Mark did not yell, "Get off my land," because they were not on his land as well he knew. If the residents of that estate had any sense, they should have proper security, then Mark could have called security which he wouldn't have done anyway because he was belligerently spoiling for a fight. Do we know if the couple have been charged?

by Anonymousreply 206June 29, 2020 11:24 PM

"The sidewalks and streets more likely belong to trustees who themselves should be preventing trespassing."

Do you have any concept of what an HOA is? The trustees ARE the homeowners.

I lived in a condo. I slipped and fell and hit my head on an icy sidewalk in the development. I contacted a lawyer to see if I could sue the HOA for failing to maintain the sidewalks. The lawyer advised me I would be basically suing myself.

by Anonymousreply 207June 29, 2020 11:24 PM

R201 I don't know if the judge has the power to condemn them to Weight Watchers!

by Anonymousreply 208June 29, 2020 11:25 PM

I apologize that I didn’t have the time to read through all 207 posts, but did anyone mention that Mrs. Militia shouldn’t be wearing horizontal stripes, given her height and BMI?

by Anonymousreply 209June 29, 2020 11:27 PM

R204 the crowd did nothing criminal, unless trespass on a private road/sidewalk is a crime in St Louis. The damage to the gate could have been criminal damage.

by Anonymousreply 210June 29, 2020 11:29 PM

r206 they were right in fornt of the house, on private property. Yes, you would have a right to jump up and demand that they leave.

by Anonymousreply 211June 29, 2020 11:30 PM

R207 Unfortunately, we do not know what the set up is on that estate. It may be that the road and sidewalks are owned by a separate corporation held in trust which levies the upkeep on residents.

by Anonymousreply 212June 29, 2020 11:33 PM

Trespassing is pretty much a crime everywhere, R210, not just St. Louis. A misdemeanor, but still a crime.

by Anonymousreply 213June 29, 2020 11:33 PM

R211 There were a few people passing by on the edge of his plot, but it's a large plot. He has no right to demand they leave someone else's property, ie the sidewalk and road beyond his plot.

by Anonymousreply 214June 29, 2020 11:36 PM

R210

[quote]the crowd did nothing criminal, unless trespass on a private road/sidewalk is a crime in St Louis.

Oh no, it's retarded.

by Anonymousreply 215June 29, 2020 11:39 PM

OP People had trespassed inside the gates of the house. You can clearly hear a marcher asking people to get off the lawn.

by Anonymousreply 216June 29, 2020 11:41 PM

R213 Exactly, some people just don't care or want to follow the law. My parents, the ones I mentioned up thread who instilled in me to NOT trespass, had some neighbors move in with teenage boys. Those kids would come onto my parent's property all the time, especially at night. They talked to the teens and their parents and it continued. Finally, they called the cops, who were useless and just told my parents they were being petty and implied they were being racist. Yes the neighbor teens were black, but that wasn't the issue. They have called the cops on White and Hispanic people who were trespassing, as well.

The right to control who is allowed on your property is a fundamental part of US property law.

by Anonymousreply 217June 29, 2020 11:45 PM

Something tells me that civil rights activists and BLM supporters are not likely to contribute money to Trump campaigns.

by Anonymousreply 218June 29, 2020 11:46 PM

What does R215 know about the law there? Tell us please; try to be constructive.

by Anonymousreply 219June 29, 2020 11:48 PM

For how much money they have, she really dresses dumpy.

by Anonymousreply 220June 29, 2020 11:48 PM

Interesting how people defending the Calamity Jane and Joe are posting on this thread only, some of them with over 20+ posts.

by Anonymousreply 221June 29, 2020 11:48 PM

[quote] they called the cops, who were useless

Exactly R217; if the law is not enforced is should be regarded as having been repealed. The answer lies in civil suit, but that has problems of its own.

by Anonymousreply 222June 29, 2020 11:51 PM

Lock them up!

by Anonymousreply 223June 29, 2020 11:53 PM

I live here (and in Philly) and I own properties in both places, R221, so yes, I have made multiple posts on this thread. I was not aware of any limits on how many posts an individual can make on a single thread. Can you please cite where this rule is located in the DL rule book, or did you, as I strongly suspect, just pull some shit from your prolapsed asshole.

Do you or any of the BLM professional protesters live here?

by Anonymousreply 224June 29, 2020 11:58 PM

R222 No, cops should just enforce the law. A law can only be repealed by legislation or a court decision, not the cops nor a mob. Allowing cops to decide what laws they will enforce is legal anarchy. If cops decided to not enforce hate crime laws, should we just pretend those laws don't exist, what about rape, murder, assault, theft, etc? If cops decide to no longer enforce speed limits, does that mean I can fly through downtown going 150mph?

The problem with saying it is a civil matter, is that most of the time, you have no idea who the people are. So if the police aren't involved, how will you be able to take civil action against them?

by Anonymousreply 225June 30, 2020 12:01 AM

I do not live in St Louis R225, couldn't anyway as it would feel odd living in a place whose name's pronunciation is still undecided.

by Anonymousreply 226June 30, 2020 12:04 AM

I meant R224.

by Anonymousreply 227June 30, 2020 12:04 AM

[quote] If cops decide to no longer enforce speed limits, does that mean I can fly through downtown going 150mph?

Uh, yes.

by Anonymousreply 228June 30, 2020 12:05 AM

I split time between Toronto and Boston, R224. So, yes, you're racist deplorable flyover trash to me.

by Anonymousreply 229June 30, 2020 12:08 AM

How St. Louis’ History of Private Streets Led to a Gun-Brandishing Couple

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 230June 30, 2020 12:14 AM

From an interview Mark McCloskey did tonight, on local STL tv.

[quote] I do civil rights cases. Right now, I'm representing a young man who was assaulted by the police who is sitting in prison right now for being involved in a car accident after which the police came in and assaulted him. It's on video. I'm not some kind of extreme, you know, anti- Black Lives Matter guy. I do these cases. I have been doing them for decades. I mean, I have on the wall of my conference room, I've got an anti-slavery broadsheet, the abolitionist broadsheet from 1832. It's been there as long as I've owned this building. I mean, I'm not I'm not the enemy of people that really care about the Black lives, but I'm apparently the enemy of the terrorists and the Marxists that are running this organization.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 231June 30, 2020 12:19 AM

'The only thing that stopped the crowd was my rifle'

If they stopped, they stopped in horror as you appeared several times to be about to shoot your wife.

The fact that he has abolitionist memorabilia on is conference room wall doesn't really help me, disgusted as I am that he is a Trumptard Deplorable.

by Anonymousreply 232June 30, 2020 12:24 AM

r232 let's have a mob of people show up on your front lawn and see what you do.

by Anonymousreply 233June 30, 2020 12:25 AM

[quote] Three threads on this? There's nobody attractive enough to masturbate over involved in this story.

In the original thread, someone offered to fuck the racist husband while the wife ate a salad.

by Anonymousreply 234June 30, 2020 12:27 AM

Patty Hearst was better looking, had more money, a bigger gun, AND A BERET, and even she couldn't get the job done.

by Anonymousreply 235June 30, 2020 12:28 AM

"I split time between Toronto and Boston."

Ah yes, that liberal bastion of Boston. The city of Marky Mark, the guy who put out an eye of an innocent person. Boston, the city of a multiyear school desegregation case.

Clean up your own shithole city, R229, before you start disparaging the racial tensions in other cities, or the people who live there.

Typical East Coast elite trash for whom rules are for "the little people.".

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 236June 30, 2020 12:32 AM

R232 There was no mob, just a group of people taking a shortcut some of whom strayed on to Bozo's precious grass and were told to get off by other peaceful protesters. If they don't want people taking shortcuts, they should lock the gates: simples.

by Anonymousreply 237June 30, 2020 12:33 AM

"If they stopped, they stopped in horror as you appeared several times to be about to shoot your wife. "

r232, exactly. They seem the type to have a 'tragic' accident and I honestly hope it happens. Two less MAGAts!

by Anonymousreply 238June 30, 2020 12:33 AM

^R233

by Anonymousreply 239June 30, 2020 12:34 AM

Of course he and missus have to cultivate the image of being pro-minorities. Who do you think personal injury lawyers target as potential customers? The minorities and the poor. Who these shysters vote for and support in private is a whole different story.

by Anonymousreply 240June 30, 2020 12:36 AM

[quote] "If they stopped, they stopped in horror as you appeared several times to be about to shoot your wife. "

To be completely unbiased, we should also record that she pointed her gun directly at hubby's head more than once. What a fiasco. I predict their business will be ruined by this one drunken gun-toting Sunday escapade. Goodbye house: it is a bottomless cash pit which only successful and dedicated ambulance chasers can afford (unless your dad owns a brewery).

by Anonymousreply 241June 30, 2020 12:38 AM

OMG, R229, I forgot all about Toronto and its fine, upstanding mayor, Rob Ford. How could I forget that paragon of virtue.

Again, asshole, clean up your own act in the shitholes where you live before making derogatory remarks about other places and people.

by Anonymousreply 242June 30, 2020 12:40 AM

The idea that a lawyer must believe in an idea or cause just because they have taken a case is completely laughable and the husband ought to be ashamed for making such a weak argument. It was probably the only one he had to make though.

The general idea that they were being threatened is hard to believe even if the family were outside as they say since it’s not as if this house has a picnic table in the front yard. There’s no way they could see or be seen from where they were eating.

It would have been better for the McKloskeys if they’d burned the house down because their business is toast and they won’t be able to afford it. They will soon learn the value of being happy over being right.

by Anonymousreply 243June 30, 2020 12:40 AM

R166 , unfortunately , YOU ARE AS STUPID AS A BOX OF ROCKS . The people who Live on that street pay for the upkeep of that street. Therefore the protestors were TRESPASSING. YES , the people took it too far , but they were within their rights .

by Anonymousreply 244June 30, 2020 12:40 AM

All I see are 2 graduates of the "Shelley Hack School For Gun Holding".

by Anonymousreply 245June 30, 2020 12:44 AM

R243 It might depend, if they have a history of taking such cases. Though it must be remembered Fred Phelps, of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church, was a well known civil rights attorney in Topeka, before committing his life to hating gay people.

R240 My personal injury attorney is African-American.

by Anonymousreply 246June 30, 2020 12:46 AM

[quote] The people who Live on that street pay for the upkeep of that street.

Yeah, I pay for groceries in the supermarket but I don't claim to own the supermarket.

by Anonymousreply 247June 30, 2020 12:47 AM

They could be John Waters characters.

by Anonymousreply 248June 30, 2020 12:52 AM

R247 That is different and you know it. This would be like if every aisle in the grocery store was owned by a different family, who paid to maintain that aisle and stock it. If that was how the grocery store was set up, I would then care strongly about shoplifting or looting at that grocery store and would want to protect it.

by Anonymousreply 249June 30, 2020 12:52 AM

That's because buying groceries in a grocery store and buying property on a private street are two completely different animals, R247. Buying groceries at Safeway doesn't make you a shareholder of Safeway. Buying property on Portland Place entitles one to not only ownership of the a house on Portland Place, but joint ownership of the common areas (an asset) and their related maintenance expenses (a liability).

Apples and oranges. But you knew that, didn't you.

by Anonymousreply 250June 30, 2020 12:53 AM

[quote]The fact that he has abolitionist memorabilia on is conference room wall doesn't really help me, disgusted as I am that he is a Trumptard Deplorable.

Registered Democrats, actually.

by Anonymousreply 251June 30, 2020 12:55 AM

The simple fact of the matter is that they had a massive overreaction. They had no reason to think they or their home were going to be targeted by the protestors. If they did, they should have retreated indoors where it would be safer instead of coming out like two idiots who don't know how to use guns. I'm seriously amazed they didn't wind up killing someone.

by Anonymousreply 252June 30, 2020 12:56 AM

If they are indeed registered Democrats, why have they donated to Trump multiple times?

by Anonymousreply 253June 30, 2020 12:57 AM

The couple, attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey are cunts....CUNTS I SAY!!!!

by Anonymousreply 254June 30, 2020 1:10 AM

I laughed my ass off seeing pictures of her with her gun pointed at her stupid husband's head

by Anonymousreply 255June 30, 2020 1:15 AM

r193, I hope this isn't news to you, but he's a RACIST.

by Anonymousreply 256June 30, 2020 1:23 AM

He has nice feets .👣

by Anonymousreply 257June 30, 2020 1:36 AM

"Why enter this community in the first place?"

Because the Mayor lives there and she had just read on live tv the addresses of people who had demanded they defund the police....

by Anonymousreply 258June 30, 2020 1:38 AM

The protesters broke through their private gate and were trespassing on a private road.

by Anonymousreply 259June 30, 2020 1:39 AM

R258 No, the Mayor's house is on a public street. One does not need to go on Portland Place to reach the Mayor's house.

by Anonymousreply 260June 30, 2020 1:44 AM

Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual. This means that if someone illegally enters your front porch or backyard, you can use deadly force against them without retreating first.

Seems to me that the protestors were nowhere near the front porch. And did other neighbors freak out I the same way?

by Anonymousreply 261June 30, 2020 1:52 AM

R251 evidence of many Trump donations, though.

by Anonymousreply 262June 30, 2020 1:53 AM

[quote] Buying property on Portland Place entitles one to not only ownership of the a house on Portland Place, but joint ownership of the common areas (an asset) and their related maintenance expenses (a liability).

Regrettably, on this thread very little is known about how Portland Place was established and is held. For all we know, it's held by Cayman Islands trustees: good luck in finding transparency there.

by Anonymousreply 263June 30, 2020 2:34 AM

[quote] Registered Democrats, actually.

So what? They're not giving to Biden are they hunty?

by Anonymousreply 264June 30, 2020 2:35 AM

[quote] Registered Democrats, actually.

Missouri does not register by party.

by Anonymousreply 265June 30, 2020 2:45 AM

[quote] And did other neighbors freak out I the same way?

No they did not. Punch and Judy were drunk after a long lunch; they're fucked.

The other thing re the so-called trespassing b/s on a private road: the gate is not locked; there are signs to say no admittance but it is almost certain that over the years they tolerated people passing through as a short-cut; for the sake of community relations. Just one person has to say, "I use that shortcut all the time to get to the Mayor's house," and the alleged criminal trespass issue evaporates.

by Anonymousreply 266June 30, 2020 2:49 AM

[quote] Missouri does not register by party.

What does Missouri register?

by Anonymousreply 267June 30, 2020 2:51 AM

You register as a voter, but not as a Republican, Democrat, etc.

by Anonymousreply 268June 30, 2020 2:53 AM

[quote] Incorrect. Within gated communities homeowners are responsible for streets, sidewalks,all maintence, etc. Think off it as a privately owned development All homeowners share ownership of and responsibility for roads.

Wrong. They committed a crime.

[quote] Yes, this is a private community. Mr. McCloskey tells KSDK that “There is nothing public in Portland Place. Being inside that gate is like being in my living room.” Except that’s not true at all. Members of that community are not empowered to enforce trespass laws by pointing guns at unarmed people. This is why you call the police. Did the McCloskeys call the police? (Editor’s note: Yes, though it’s unclear when they called the police and what the circumstances were when they did so.) Crimes committed on private property are not exempted from legal scrutiny. Brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner on private property is not like an exemption for a farm vehicle in the Missouri countryside. There are exemptions, and then there are crimes.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 269June 30, 2020 3:01 AM

mccloskeylaw.com has been pulled for some reason.

While they are jailed they will start divorce proceedings in family court, from their respective cells.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 270June 30, 2020 3:04 AM

R269's link refers to lack of gun discipline. Pinky and Perky have no idea how close they would have come to shooting each other to death in front of the passers-by, had their weapons been loaded.

by Anonymousreply 271June 30, 2020 3:15 AM

There is the third degree assault and the brandishing. I recommend that all you Trumptard deplorables who tried to defend Pat and Mark live in basement shame under your caftans for a few days while you try to reconcile your internal demons, racism, hatred etc.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 272June 30, 2020 3:27 AM

r272 they were trying to protect their property from a mob practically at their front door. Many of the people were white, btw. Not everything fits a certain narrative. If I saw a crowd like that on my front yard I'd be scared too.

by Anonymousreply 273June 30, 2020 3:31 AM

R273 White fragility and paranoia may be a justifiable reason to threaten deadly force on a crowd of peacefully assembled community members demanding accountability from their mayor to you, but in the eyes of the law it's not. The protestors committed at best an infraction of the law, the couple committed a felony.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 274June 30, 2020 3:36 AM

R273 a mob practically at their front door

The passers-by (the alleged mob) were nowhere near the front door. Mark got his gun out as they came through the gate to the estate as he has, regrettably for him, the first house on that private road. He was having dinner en famille in the yard, which must be noisy given the main road/highway nearby, saw some people using what seems to be a well-established short-cut and went nuts. Only drink or drugs can explain this over- reaction. The passers-by (the mob, as you call them) stayed off his property (when one put a foot on his sacred lawn another of the protesters said keep off the lawn). There is no excuse.

by Anonymousreply 275June 30, 2020 3:37 AM

Will gun wielding St. Louis attorneys be able to hide behind the state's castle doctrine?

Short answer; Hell No!

[quote] But according to law professors, the statement is unlikely to serve as a defense under the state’s castle doctrine which, in subsection 3, also specifies that deadly force cannot be used unless “[s]uch 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.”

[quote] According to Kansas University School of Law professor Corey Rayburn Yung, the McCloskeys’ case would be directly at odds with established Missouri precedent regarding the castle doctrine.

[quote] “Whereas the large majority of jurisdictions limit the castle doctrine to the boundaries of the house, MO’s is more expansive. Some commenters are reading the statute to mean that you could lawfully shoot someone who stepped onto your lawn. Despite the availability of signs saying, ‘Trespassers will be shot,’ mere trespass has not historically been a basis for using deadly force. So, does MO’s statute represent a new trend, allowing expansive use of deadly force to protect private property? No,” Yung wrote in an extensive Twitter thread.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 276June 30, 2020 3:42 AM

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment and would suggest one way of trying to manage gun ownership (without the defunct militia clause) would be to require people who own guns to know how to handle them responsibly: storage, maintenance, deployment. These two morons are clueless about any gun management. People who want guns should obtain gun tuition rather than get their first gun for their tenth birthday along with other gifts.

by Anonymousreply 277June 30, 2020 3:44 AM

[quote]White fragility and paranoia may be a justifiable reason to threaten deadly force on a crowd of peacefully assembled community members demanding accountability from their mayor to you,

They had no idea who those people were or why the fuck they were in their front yard.

by Anonymousreply 278June 30, 2020 3:44 AM

r275 they were right in front of his house.

by Anonymousreply 279June 30, 2020 3:45 AM

Kansas University School of Law Professor would like to clear up some confusion for all the ignorant dipshits in this thread that believe it is perfectly lawful to threaten deadly force on a crowd standing from your porch. Please heed his expert advice and don't find yourself in one of these situations.

[quote] Many people with Twitter law degrees are commenting on whether the armed St. Louis couple were justified in defending their "private property" under the castle doctrine. As an actual criminal law professor, I thought I should clear up some confusion. 1/

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 280June 30, 2020 3:46 AM

[quote] Kansas University School of Law Professor

What? We're in MO. Fuck him.

by Anonymousreply 281June 30, 2020 3:49 AM

[quote] At first glance, the text of MO's self-defense rule seems quite broad.

[quote] "A person shall not use deadly force … unless … [s]uch 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…"

[quote] Whereas the large majority of jurisdictions limit the castle doctrine to the boundaries of the house, MO's is more expansive. Some commenters are reading the statute to mean that you could lawfully shoot someone who stepped onto your lawn.

[quote] Despite the availability of signs saying "Trespassers will be shot," mere trespass has not historically been a basis for using deadly force. So, does MO's statute represent a new trend, allowing expansive use of deadly force to protect private property? No.

[quote] The "private property" clause is limited by other sections of the self-defense statute. A MO appellate court, in State v. Whipple, 501 S.W.3d 506 (2016) explained:

[quote] "an owner or lessee of private property ("the owner or lessee") is entitled to use deadly force to repel an unlawful entry, but only if he meets the requirements of self-defense set out in section 563.031.1" So what are the requirements of 563.031.1? Here is the statute:

[quote] "A person may ... 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..."

[quote] There are three exceptions to that clause combined with an initial aggressor limitation, but none apply in this case. MO's statute is bit of a mess, but that's quite typical of self-defense statutes across the country. The Whipple court concluded:

[quote] "we cannot find that subsection 3 gives the occupier, owner, or lessee authority to stand his ground and use deadly force without having a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or (cont.)

[quote] imminent use of unlawful force." Be careful taking 1 clause out of a statute and interpreting it alone. tldr: MO law does not allow deadly force to be used to merely defend private property (excepting the home itself). /end

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 282June 30, 2020 3:50 AM

Have charges been brought against these two yet? What is the delay? When is the estate sale? Can I have their stuff?

by Anonymousreply 283June 30, 2020 3:51 AM

[quote] They had no idea who those people were or why the fuck they were in their front yard.

Which demonstrates they had no reasonable cause to believe their lives were in imminent danger. See R280

by Anonymousreply 284June 30, 2020 3:52 AM

r284 the crowd could've been seen as hostile to them. If I saw a crowd of people in front of my house making a racket like that, and I had no idea who they were or why they were there, I'd have every right to feel frightened.

by Anonymousreply 285June 30, 2020 3:54 AM

R275, it is not a well-established shortcut. No one except residents uses those streets.

by Anonymousreply 286June 30, 2020 3:57 AM

[quote] I'd have every right to feel frightened.

Sure. But feeling frightened is not the same as having reasonable belief that your life is in imminent peril, which is what the statutes hinge on. You'd still have no right to brandish a weapon from the safety of your home at passersby and would have committed a felony. See R280. Of course the safety and fear concerns of the protestors who were unarmed and had an AR-15 pointed at them is what any sensible person SHOULD be assessing this through the lens of, but in the land of white fears and tears....

by Anonymousreply 287June 30, 2020 4:04 AM

[quote] “Whereas the large majority of jurisdictions limit the castle doctrine to the boundaries of the house, MO’s is more expansive. Some commenters are reading the statute to mean that you could lawfully shoot someone who stepped onto your lawn. Despite the availability of signs saying, ‘Trespassers will be shot,’ mere trespass has not historically been a basis for using deadly force. So, does MO’s statute represent a new trend, allowing expansive use of deadly force to protect private property? No,” Yung wrote in an extensive Twitter thread.

Their defense would be that they didn't actually use deadly force. They just warned the protestors that they would, if provoked. If they are charged it will be up to the judge and/or jury to decide. I very much doubt they would be tried in St. Louis. As attorneys, they would probably have personal and or professional relationships with the judges and the publicity would taint the jury pool. There was an attorney in my city charged with possession of cocaine, she got her trial moved to another part of the state where no one knew her, because she argued that judges that she had appeared before couldn't be impartial, even though she was a personal injury lawyer, like these two. If they are charged and this case is heard in some rural part of Missouri, with a local jury, they will prevail, if it is heard in a more urban area they could lose.

Another constitutional law professor from St. Louis University sees it differently than Mr. Yung.

[quote] Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that although it's "very dangerous" to engage protesters with guns, the homeowners broke no laws by brandishing or pointing weapons at them because Portland Place is a private street. He said the McCloskeys are protected by Missouri's Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property. "At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn," Walker said, calling the state's Castle Doctrine a "force field" that "indemnifies you, and you can even pull the trigger in Missouri." Luckily, Walker said, no one got shot. "There's no right to protest on those streets," Walker said. "The protesters thought they had a right to protest, but as a technical matter, they were not allowed to be there. ... It’s essentially a private estate. If anyone was violating the law, it was the protesters. In fact, if (the McCloskeys) have photos of the protesters, they could go after them for trespassing."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 288June 30, 2020 4:05 AM

A mob breaks into a gated community and gets threatened by residents....whats wrong with that?

by Anonymousreply 289June 30, 2020 4:10 AM

Did anyone get any dick last night?

by Anonymousreply 290June 30, 2020 4:16 AM

R289 How DARE you lose logic and reason?!?

by Anonymousreply 291June 30, 2020 4:16 AM

[quote]But feeling frightened is not the same as having reasonable belief that your life is in imminent peril, which is what the statutes hinge on.

Feeling frightened with a mob outside your door is justifiable fear, and you absolutely can believe that your life is in imminent peril. Again, they had no idea who these people were or what they were there for.

[quote]Of course the safety and fear concerns of the protestors who were unarmed and had an AR-15 pointed at them is what any sensible person SHOULD be assessing this through the lens of, but in the land of white fears and tears....

They didn't know the protesters were unarmed. Again, they knew nothing about them. Many of the protesters were also white, so save the race narrative for another time. A black or Hispanic couple would've felt the same way.

by Anonymousreply 292June 30, 2020 4:16 AM

[quote] Their defense would be that they didn't actually use deadly force.

They did. It's not in dispute. MO precedent equates brandishing of a weapon with deadly force and the statutes explicitly characterize brandishing of a weapon as unlawful use of a firearm.

[quote]We initially note that Abdul-Khaliq's reliance on § 563.036.1 as justification for his action of ordering Wally Loum out of his home at gunpoint is misplaced. Section 563.011(1) states that "`[d]eadly force' means physical force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury." See also MAI-CR3d 333.00. In the present case, the evidence shows that Abdul-Khaliq used deadly force by brandishing his gun in a threatening manner. The State argues, and we agree, that § 563.036 makes it clear that a person may only use "physical force," not "deadly force" to eject a trespasser from his home under circumstances like the ones in the present case. Consequently, the State argues, when Abdul-Khaliq put a loaded pistol to Wally Loum's head and ordered him to leave, he became the "initial aggressor" and could not justify killing Loum on grounds of self-defense. The State further argues that since Abdul-Khaliq shot Sulayman Loum while Loum was standing at the top of the stairs, there was no dispute that Abdul-Khaliq was the "initial aggressor" in that confrontation.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 293June 30, 2020 4:20 AM

[quote] They didn't know the protesters were unarmed. Again, they knew nothing about them. Many of the protesters were also white, so save the race narrative for another time. A black or Hispanic couple would've felt the same way.

The "race narrative" persists because of flagrantly stupid comments like yours. It is inconceivable in this country to imagine a black or hispanic couple brandishing an AR-15 at a crowd and escaping with their lives, let alone getting off scot free and enjoying a wave of support from uneducated racists unfamiliar with the law.

by Anonymousreply 294June 30, 2020 4:22 AM

R282 Love how you failed to quote this little tidbit. I guess it didn't fit your narrative.

[quote]@CollinSealsEsq Professor I’m curious as to what might constitute “private property” here under MO law, if – as many Twitter JDs are saying – the street is “private” and may or may not be “owned” by the homeowners association (or some similar group — I don’t know)

[quote]@CoreyRYung I'm not sure. I expect there isn't a lot (or any) case law on the issue. I didn't see anything in my search of MO law about the castle doctrine. But it might be in other cases that I didn't read.

by Anonymousreply 295June 30, 2020 4:22 AM

[quote] Feeling frightened with a mob outside your door is justifiable fear, and you absolutely can believe that your life is in imminent peril. Again, they had no idea who these people were or what they were there for.

The appropriate course of action here is not to confront the party you're allegedly afraid of. In fact, it's the law. Multiple MO precedent cases like this have been decided based on who the initial aggressor is. Hint: In this case it's the belligerent, bourgeois, confrontational and armed racists.

by Anonymousreply 296June 30, 2020 4:24 AM

R295 This is the only thing of significance from that thread you need to wrap your tiny little pea-brain around.

[quote] MO law does not allow deadly force to be used to merely defend private property (excepting the home itself).

by Anonymousreply 297June 30, 2020 4:26 AM

It's interesting how so many on here are calling them "Nazis", "White Supremacists" etc. despite the makeup of the crowd and the lack of any racist speech from the couple.

by Anonymousreply 298June 30, 2020 4:29 AM

[quote]It is inconceivable in this country to imagine a black or hispanic couple brandishing an AR-15 at a crowd and escaping with their lives,

But wait a minute, the protesters were unarmed. Now you're going to double back and say that they would've killed a black or Hispanic couple? And now you're admitting that many of the protesters were white as well? Wow, you're really all over the place with this.

by Anonymousreply 299June 30, 2020 4:39 AM

[quote]The appropriate course of action here is not to confront the party you're allegedly afraid of. In fact, it's the law.

Circumstances are everything. Every case is different.

by Anonymousreply 300June 30, 2020 4:40 AM

R299 Congratulations, you've reached uncharted levels of stupidity.

by Anonymousreply 301June 30, 2020 4:41 AM

Hey r301 you made the comparison, I didn't. I was just pointing out how you twisted and turned things to fit your narrative.

by Anonymousreply 302June 30, 2020 4:43 AM

Lol R299, you've finally broken R301, who now has no choice but to call you stupid because 301 has lost the argument.

by Anonymousreply 303June 30, 2020 4:45 AM

r301 etc. who is all over this thread is the one who got his ass handed to him in the Oscars thread for thinking Cleopatra was mixed race and Tilda Swinton's casting in Dr. Strange was racist.

by Anonymousreply 304June 30, 2020 4:45 AM

It seems weird that the most exclusive neighborhood in St. Louis is a cul de sac of $1 million-$2 million homes.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 305June 30, 2020 4:46 AM

R298 all white people are inherently racist White Supremacists who benefit exclusively from Western culture because they're in the majority. Do try to keep up!

by Anonymousreply 306June 30, 2020 4:48 AM

[quote]'Castile' or Stand Your Ground laws

You'll have to pry it from my wet, dead hands!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 307June 30, 2020 4:50 AM

If I thought my life was endangered by marchers/protesters aka " a mob". I would stay in in my home. Bolt the doors. Close the shutters and call the police. Look at their faces. They weren't terrified, they were enraged.These two were armed assholes looking for a fight.

by Anonymousreply 308June 30, 2020 4:50 AM

R304 = Obsessive racist everyone has blocked.

by Anonymousreply 309June 30, 2020 4:59 AM

Just stating facts r309. Far from racist, just don't get swept up in the hyperbole and narrative train unlike so many others lately.

Here's something else to ponder: Trans women of color had fuck-all to do with Stonewall.

by Anonymousreply 310June 30, 2020 5:05 AM

[quote]They weren't terrified, they were enraged.These two were armed assholes looking for a fight.

Of course they were.

from the r288 link:

[quote]“Private property!” Mark McCloskey shouted repeatedly at the crowd, as he held a rifle. “Get out! Private property, get out!”

They were inCENSED that their illusion of a gated community, well, wasn't.

by Anonymousreply 311June 30, 2020 5:07 AM

R308 Exactly. Whether the public has easement to the road is also irrelevant in the case of their hostility and criminal behavior. I guarantee you that road which may be privately funded and the sidewalk privately owned is managed by a HOA which means individual residents believing commonly owned property to be "part of their kitchen" are mistaken. The law would be just as clear if these two wanted to build a kitchen extension that spilled into the street or into their neighbor's yard. The boundaries are clear; clearer still is what constitutes as "real property" in Missouri which is the actual structure of your premises and not the street in the front of it. You may be liable if someone slips and falls on your pavement that you are charged with the maintenance of if it's owned by an HOA or private entity, but this does not cancel out any felonies you are in the process of committing like illegally brandishing a weapon while not under duress in your real property

by Anonymousreply 312June 30, 2020 5:10 AM

R310 I know how much you Communists hate private property and all, but we still have rights in America (for now) and one of those rights is the protection of private property. So.

by Anonymousreply 313June 30, 2020 5:11 AM

Street is not his property, and no homeowner's association want residents playing cop with trespassers in the common areas.

BTW, where is the video of the police responding to reports of two people brandishing guns in the Central West End?

by Anonymousreply 314June 30, 2020 5:21 AM

R313 You should know that you are not within your rights to commit felonies like assault, threatening of deadly force on your property or commonly owned property. Defense of property is an abstract, the actual laws and statutes revolve around the protection of the self from imminent harm, which these two were clearly not in as they felt comfortable confronting the protestors with weapons.

MO broadened its castle doctrine to include "non-retreat" provisions that remove the duty to retreat, this is true, however it is STILL necessary to demonstrate your life is in imminent danger if you are to claim self defense under these laws. The paranoid ravings of Fox News watchers that believe Rudy Giuliani when he says BLM is coming to steal your home is unfortunately not evidence that this couple was in any real harm. Additionally, if you are found to be the initial aggressor in a confrontation the stand your ground law is null and void. These two by all video and witness accounts were the aggressors.

You would be surprised at how many people find themselves in jail or prosecuted for not knowing this stuff.

by Anonymousreply 315June 30, 2020 5:27 AM

I meant R311.

R315, if the couple can prove that they had reasonable cause to be afraid of from a group of people who were harassing them while they were having lunch outside on their own property, then that point is moot. Time will tell.

by Anonymousreply 316June 30, 2020 5:34 AM

The face of white victimhood

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 317June 30, 2020 5:34 AM

R317 she looks absolutely terrified. I know that I would be.

by Anonymousreply 318June 30, 2020 5:36 AM

She looks like a savage. A paranoid racist soccer mom that descended from her gauche and extravagant mansion to aim a gun at bunch of innocent protestors walking down her street to see the mayor.

by Anonymousreply 319June 30, 2020 5:40 AM

R319 must be terrible at reading a room. No hostess jobs for you!!

by Anonymousreply 320June 30, 2020 5:42 AM

Quivering with white fear™

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 321June 30, 2020 5:44 AM

r319 most of those protesters were white.

by Anonymousreply 322June 30, 2020 5:44 AM

R322 Not the ones they aimed the guns at you lying cunt. Look at the photos and the video.

by Anonymousreply 323June 30, 2020 5:45 AM

Translation for R323: Stop fucking up my narrative, R322!!1!1!

by Anonymousreply 324June 30, 2020 5:48 AM

Sigh, St. Louis. How far she's come!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 325June 30, 2020 5:52 AM

R322 R323 Do you have any evidence to support the claim that "most of the protestors were white?" I've seen multiple video angles and photographs that show this to be untrue. I'll wait.

by Anonymousreply 326June 30, 2020 5:52 AM

R324 Trumptard translator: Don't believe your eyes and ears.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 327June 30, 2020 5:56 AM

We saw video after video of savages looting and destroying property, of course people would be terrified. The couple had no idea what that mob was up to.

by Anonymousreply 328June 30, 2020 5:56 AM

R328 I have blocked already so I know it's some racist babble about "looters" and white pride without even looking at it.

by Anonymousreply 329June 30, 2020 5:59 AM

Bring concerned about looting is "white pride". Tells you all you need to know about R329

by Anonymousreply 330June 30, 2020 6:05 AM

That R330 sees black people in his neighborhood and thinks "looters" is all you need to know about him.

by Anonymousreply 331June 30, 2020 6:07 AM

The funny thing about white supremacy being so entrenched is that people can look at a photo like this that tells such a robust story and STILL sheepishly talk about "looting" as if anyone can't see through their racist veneer.

Just end it all already, R330.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 332June 30, 2020 6:09 AM

Like any good Datalounger they should have struggled in to their caftans, come out on to the steps and barked, "Move it along, Toots" followed by a disapproving hiss!

by Anonymousreply 333June 30, 2020 6:10 AM

Note how idiot R331 must make it about race.

by Anonymousreply 334June 30, 2020 6:10 AM

[quote]Do you have any evidence to support the claim that "most of the protestors were white?" I've seen multiple video angles and photographs that show this to be untrue. I'll wait.

Your wait is over.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 335June 30, 2020 6:10 AM

Still waiting on the unverified claim that most of the protestors were white to be verified. I see we've given up on that line of bullshit diatribe.

by Anonymousreply 336June 30, 2020 6:11 AM

[quote] No, the Mayor's house is on a public street. One does not need to go on Portland Place to reach the Mayor's house.

Apparently the public road in front of the mayor's house was closed off because the mayor was getting threats, so they went through the gate to the pro9vate road to get to her house that way.

by Anonymousreply 337June 30, 2020 6:13 AM

R332 actually thinks that photo he posted tells the whole story. What a dope.

by Anonymousreply 338June 30, 2020 6:13 AM

R335 No cigar. One photo from one angle that definitely does not show a majority white crowd does not negate the multiple videos and photos of Ms. Chad aiming her gun with her finger on the trigger at a group of 3-4 black people at a time. Crawl on back to Stormfront.

by Anonymousreply 339June 30, 2020 6:13 AM

[quote]Still waiting on the unverified claim that most of the protestors were white to be verified. I see we've given up on that line of bullshit diatribe.

Again...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 340June 30, 2020 6:14 AM

R335 Took like 20 minutes to scrounge for a photo that directly contradicted his claim. Laughable.

by Anonymousreply 341June 30, 2020 6:14 AM

r339 that pic was taken right outside their house. Just give it up already.

by Anonymousreply 342June 30, 2020 6:15 AM

That is a majority white crowd

by Anonymousreply 343June 30, 2020 6:15 AM

Lots of white folks in that crowd r341. Of course photographic evidence is not a strong suit with people addicted to their own narrative. See also: Stonewall.

by Anonymousreply 344June 30, 2020 6:16 AM

[quote] Apparently the public road in front of the mayor's house was closed off because the mayor was getting threats, so they went through the gate to the pro9vate road to get to her house that way.

Anyone that has a problem with a mayor responsible for endangering her constituents days prior by reading a list of names aloud of residents that had launched grievances against the police and then chooses to cloister herself in a gated community full of mansions is on the right track.

by Anonymousreply 345June 30, 2020 6:16 AM

R330 Lmao! Reminds of me this little gem from DL fave Talcum X. The whole post at the link sums it up perfectly:

"Black Lives Matter Advocate and pretend black person Shaun King (aka Talcum X) has outdone himself this time:

Shaun King @ShaunKing I've noticed that it's only White Americans who complain about the fecal matter on the streets of San Francisco. White entitlement issues again.

Damn white people and their...

*shuffles deck, picks card*

...aversion to living in their own shit!

Since when did it become racist to not want to have to play "don't step on the doo-doo grenade" on your way to work?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 346June 30, 2020 6:17 AM

R344 "Lots" does not mean "mostly" as was claimed. Furthermore, since it's not the white people she feels confident approaching with her finger on the trigger as evidenced by multiple photos and videos I'd say you can drop this now.

by Anonymousreply 347June 30, 2020 6:18 AM

r347 just admit you're wrong and move on. And that is a mostly white crowd.

by Anonymousreply 348June 30, 2020 6:19 AM

Since this is Datalounge...

Has anyone been able to identify the stains on her shirt?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 349June 30, 2020 6:19 AM

That is a majority white crowd. Hilarious to claim otherwise.

by Anonymousreply 350June 30, 2020 6:19 AM

R346 Cherrypicking for trivial matters by fringe voices is a favorite tactic among white supremacists to discredit actual cases of racial animus in this country. You're not clever or sly. You're being replaced by a much more intelligent generation. I feel sad for you.

by Anonymousreply 351June 30, 2020 6:21 AM

R348 I will not disbelieve what I witnessed in an untampered videos and photographs to appease your white guilt.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 352June 30, 2020 6:23 AM

R346 Great post. Being concerned about looting or shit in the street is surely the stuff of white supremists.

by Anonymousreply 353June 30, 2020 6:25 AM

R352 still waving that photo around. You are a joke.

by Anonymousreply 354June 30, 2020 6:27 AM

R353 I bet 0prah doesn't appreciate "shit' in the street. She has a toilet.

by Anonymousreply 355June 30, 2020 6:28 AM

R351 Using direct quotes is not cherry picking. I'm sorry to break it to you, but it seems like your path is going to be a strange and difficult one. Good luck. A chop suey batshit food processor like you is really going to need.

by Anonymousreply 356June 30, 2020 6:28 AM

This has nothing to do with Shaun King or what anyone else who is black or speaks up for black people on twitter is saying. That you can't help yourselves from deriding pushes for police reform and racial equality with this sort of stuff places you squarely in the history books with the likes of other condemned and forgotten racists throughout history. Tragic.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 357June 30, 2020 6:31 AM

But Talcum X is your ultimate nemesis: a white male!

It's funny how you will make allowances for the most outrageous statements and behavior from your toxic little far left enclave, and no one else. Like Trudeau's black face. Trans activists' open misogyny. Corbyn's racism. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge you blatant hypocrisy, coupled with the inability for self-reflection, just proves your willfully blind hubris. Continue on this path of scorched earth destruction, and you will not be remembered kindly by future generations. To say the least.

by Anonymousreply 358June 30, 2020 6:40 AM

8/10 racist threads on this website and the majority of the ongoing racist bile currently circulating on this website can be traced to R356/R358 and his sock accounts.

He really is a racist cretin not worth engaging with.

Here's a recent quote:

[quote] Let's just go back to segregation. Black people vs the world. We are like cats and dogs. We will NEVER understand each other. Desegregation is a failed experiment. We segregate naturally, anyway..

by Anonymousreply 359June 30, 2020 6:43 AM

The owners of this fabulous house need to adopt 16 Darfur orphans in order to atone for their sinfulness.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 360June 30, 2020 6:50 AM

Here comes the sock account excuse and the "quotes". With nothing left to lose, he throws himself down on the ground and rolls on the floor, with no insightful responses in sight. When all else fails, right R359?

by Anonymousreply 361June 30, 2020 6:57 AM

DL catnip. This thread will be periodically updated during the trial, so I'll be back for part 2.

by Anonymousreply 362June 30, 2020 7:00 AM

Agree, R362! Some bipolar poster off his meds (and his sock puppets) versus people with knowledge of the area and actual lawyers. A true DL catfight!

Hiss, hiss!

by Anonymousreply 363June 30, 2020 7:09 AM

Hiss, hiss!

I remember that fascinating tale about the DLer going next door and the house was full of strangers HISSing!

by Anonymousreply 364June 30, 2020 7:33 AM

With all the wealth on that street I'm surprised they don't pay for 24/7 armed private security. And I'll bet the gate that replaces the old one that looks more decorative than security strength will be a much more substantial gate.

by Anonymousreply 365June 30, 2020 9:47 AM

They should have retired to the interior of their mansion, gone upstairs and brandished their weapons from the balcony. That would have been much more stylish rather than to confront the mob at street level.

by Anonymousreply 366June 30, 2020 10:46 AM

At R352's pic he looks like he's about to shoot his wife in the back, which would have been a mistake as it is she who is attacking the passers-by at street level while he stays in the relative safety of the raised area in the back.

by Anonymousreply 367June 30, 2020 10:53 AM

R365 The lack of armed professional around the clock security is astonishing. I imagine the HOA are finally going to decide to spend the money. I wonder why they waited until now.

by Anonymousreply 368June 30, 2020 10:59 AM

The linked thread is an interesting dissection of the couple, current events, religion...and the craziness being discussed by R359 & R361

[quote] White supremacy is about believing that people of color are naturally inferior and violent and susceptible to manipulation.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 369June 30, 2020 11:17 AM

"The lack of armed professional around the clock security is astonishing. I imagine the HOA are finally going to decide to spend the money. I wonder why they waited until now."

Because they never had hordes of people swarming through the gates of their private community. And, despite being a 10 minute walk from some of the worst crime/drug infested streets in America, they never had any problems in the century of the place's existence.

by Anonymousreply 370June 30, 2020 11:27 AM

Too bad they didn't have decent security, like a lock on the entrance gate: would have spared us the vigilante antics we've just seen.

by Anonymousreply 371June 30, 2020 11:46 AM

When these "peaceful protestors" start destroying property in the outlying rural counties in Missouri, someone IS going to get shot.

by Anonymousreply 372June 30, 2020 12:55 PM

Hell R372, they don't have to do all that traveling. all they have to do is get on I-64 west or I-44 west about 20 mins to Chesterfield, Ballwin or Fenton and they'll get their asses handed to them. Those people out there are rabidly "anti-urban," to be polite, and want absolutely nothing to do with the City of St. Louis, its government, its citizens and most importantly, its protestors.

by Anonymousreply 373June 30, 2020 1:07 PM

R373 There is truth in what you say. Many in St. Charles County moved there to get away from the shit hole that is St. Louis. I just went a little father out. I grew up in St. Louis, but never go there. I haven't been with in the city limits in years.

by Anonymousreply 374June 30, 2020 1:13 PM

You're not alone, R374. Thousands proceeded you and thousands more will follow you. Metro St. Louis has worse sprawl than L.A. or Phoenix. People keep moving further and further away from the city center to stay away from the crime, the drug trafficking, and the general lawlessness that permeates the city, and now, is shifting to the St. Louis County suburbs like Jennings, Ferguson, Florissant and Hazelwood.

by Anonymousreply 375June 30, 2020 1:26 PM

This couple are not white supremacists they a hard working couple that has managed to make a good life for themselves and their family! This wasn't " Avon calling" it was a braying mob who broke into the neighbourhood. If it had been me I would defend my property too! If you want their lifestyle. Get an education, Get a job, Get off Drugs, Work Hard, Don't sire children with multiple partners. Rais and pay for those children. Live a respectable life.

by Anonymousreply 376June 30, 2020 10:37 PM

[quote]Don't sire children with multiple partners. Raise and pay for those children.

No problem with that. I'm 100% gay. No such thing as an unwanted, unexpected pregnancy.

by Anonymousreply 377June 30, 2020 11:24 PM

[quote]This couple are not white supremacists they a hard working couple that has managed to make a good life for themselves and their family! This wasn't " Avon calling" it was a braying mob who broke into the neighbourhood. If it had been me I would defend my property too! If you want their lifestyle. Get an education, Get a job, Get off Drugs, Work Hard, Don't sire children with multiple partners. Raise and pay for those children. Live a respectable life.

Oh honey, your morals are so quaintly middle class. Rich people get married multiple times, have kids with different women, have mistresses, etc. They do all kinds of despicable things and get away with it.

by Anonymousreply 378July 1, 2020 12:06 AM

Found on Reddit:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 379July 1, 2020 12:24 AM

R378 Once they are rich or if they are born rich. They don't do those things while trying to climb out of poverty, unless they are athletes or entertainers, who can count on extreme talent. Even then, many times such behavior leads to their downfall. Those are things that the rich can afford to do. For instance, a rich man can have children with many different women, because he can afford to provide for all of them. If you are working at McDonald's or Walmart you can't afford it, you are hurting your own chances of climbing out of poverty and your child's chance.

by Anonymousreply 380July 1, 2020 12:46 AM

[quote]Oh honey, your morals are so quaintly middle class. Rich people get married multiple times, have kids with different women, have mistresses, etc.

Oh dearie, rich people can afford to get married multiple times, have kids with different women etc. If you can't afford to ....then don't.

by Anonymousreply 381July 1, 2020 12:57 AM

LOL!!!! I love it r379

by Anonymousreply 382July 1, 2020 1:07 AM

[quote] For instance, a rich man can have children with many different women, because he can afford to provide for all of them.

A man can have children with many different women, whether or not he can afford to provide for them.

by Anonymousreply 383July 1, 2020 1:10 AM

R383 Yes, but if an impoverished man does that it will contribute to his remaining impoverished. Anyone "can" take their whole paycheck and use it at the strip club or casino, but the consequences are different for a poor man doing it and a rich man doing it. The poor man could end up homeless, with nothing to eat, no car, etc. The rich man might not even notice a difference in his bank account.

I noticed it acutely in college, my richer classmates felt free to flaunt their underage drinking, drug taking, and promiscuity. As a first generation college student, I couldn't be that free. One underage drinking ticket, drug offense, surprise baby, etc. and my college career would have been over.

by Anonymousreply 384July 1, 2020 1:39 AM

[quote]R378 Once they are rich or if they are born rich. They don't do those things while trying to climb out of poverty, unless they are athletes or entertainers, who can count on extreme talent. Even then, many times such behavior leads to their downfall. Those are things that the rich can afford to do. For instance, a rich man can have children with many different women, because he can afford to provide for all of them. If you are working at McDonald's or Walmart you can't afford it, you are hurting your own chances of climbing out of poverty and your child's chance

Oh, it's not just that. If you're really rich you can sexually assault women and become president. If you're Jeffrey Epstein, you can sexually assault underaged girls and get away with it for years. Justice is not blind. It's different for the rich and the poor. Some of you people are really naive.

A lot of you would have problems with the ruthless things CEOs do behind the scenes.

by Anonymousreply 385July 1, 2020 2:05 AM

Oh FFS stop bitching about rich people, that's not the topic. If you don't have a pot to piss in and want a better life, get an education. Don't have kids until you can afford to take care of them. For the love of god don't have multiple kids, especially with different partners. What are you, a fucking idiot? Work hard and move up the ladder. It's not a huge secret as to how to get out of your situation.

by Anonymousreply 386July 1, 2020 2:07 AM

R385 It isn't that justice is different for the rich, it is that the rich can afford better lawyers. Just like OJ would have been convicted if he couldn't have afforded the "dream team." Look at how different his theft trial went, when he was no longer able to afford top quality attorneys.

by Anonymousreply 387July 1, 2020 2:10 AM

[quote]With all the wealth on that street I'm surprised they don't pay for 24/7 armed private security.

How do you know they don't?

This house from the next street over has the real estate agent reaving about the security always around. That street is a different homeowner's association, but the two HOAs work together I read somewhere.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 388July 1, 2020 2:14 AM

[quote]Oh FFS stop bitching about rich people, that's not the topic. If you don't have a pot to piss in and want a better life, get an education. Don't have kids until you can afford to take care of them. For the love of god don't have multiple kids, especially with different partners. What are you, a fucking idiot? Work hard and move up the ladder. It's not a huge secret as to how to get out of your situation.

You have a terribly naive, idealistic view of what rich people are like. You must be a staunch Republican.

by Anonymousreply 389July 1, 2020 2:15 AM

Protestor video.

It doesn't look like the gate is locked, the house looks like a fortress, and it's daylight.

The "mob" is pretty mixed racially, and some of them seem well dressed. They are chanting and drumming--not exactly how you sneak attack somebody

He repeatedly shouts "get out of my neighborhood"--so, it really seems more to be about his "status" than his actual property.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 390July 1, 2020 2:16 AM

R388 I saw an interview with the homeowner, and he said security wasn't there. So I infer that security must be normally around.

by Anonymousreply 391July 1, 2020 2:17 AM

[quote]R385 It isn't that justice is different for the rich, it is that the rich can afford better lawyers. Just like OJ would have been convicted if he couldn't have afforded the "dream team." Look at how different his theft trial went, when he was no longer able to afford top quality attorneys

Rich people can do all kinds of tawdry things and get away with it. They use their lawyers to intimidate people who threaten to expose them. That's been shown time and time again.

by Anonymousreply 392July 1, 2020 2:19 AM

[quote] You have a terribly naive, idealistic view of what rich people are like. You must be a staunch Republican.

No one is saying that, that is how rich people are like. What we are saying is that is how impoverished people who want to become rich are.

by Anonymousreply 393July 1, 2020 2:20 AM

Protestors should be jailed.

by Anonymousreply 394July 1, 2020 2:22 AM

for?

by Anonymousreply 395July 1, 2020 2:23 AM

Raymond and Connie Marble - I'd know those bitches anywhere!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 396July 1, 2020 2:25 AM

[quote]Oh dearie, rich people can afford to get married multiple times, have kids with different women etc. If you can't afford to ....then don't.

I'm a gay man. No unplanned pregnancies here.

by Anonymousreply 397July 1, 2020 2:28 AM

The husband probably has his own wing of the mansion, complete with a separate bedroom. Manuel the pool boy spends an inordinate amount of time visiting him, for some reason.

by Anonymousreply 398July 1, 2020 3:49 AM

It's an amazing house but really what's the point if it's just the two of them (and poolboy)?

by Anonymousreply 399July 1, 2020 5:02 AM

They probably have a separate room for their arsenal of weapons.

by Anonymousreply 400July 1, 2020 5:20 AM

This Forum has been taken over by Anti White Communists!

by Anonymousreply 401July 1, 2020 7:16 AM

Check out their defense attorney's profile.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 402July 1, 2020 7:38 AM

If only there had been a parrot...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 403July 1, 2020 1:48 PM

There is only one female attorney in that firm R402.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 404July 1, 2020 1:52 PM

[quote]Manuel the pool boy spends an inordinate amount of time visiting him...

as well as his wife.

Frankly, I'm exhausted.

by Anonymousreply 405July 1, 2020 1:54 PM

From R402's link: "Albert S. Watkins, the founding member and senior counsel with the firm is, quite candidly, beyond description." But then the site goes on to describe him!

Is he the one who came up with that felicitous phrase, "melanin-deficient"? That's worth $$$ in legal fees on its own, surely.

by Anonymousreply 406July 1, 2020 2:35 PM

R359 Black people want to segregate also. Haven't you heard of what's happening in colleges nationwide? Black college students have demanded racially segregated housing. Sounds like you're a white person who still believes that we can all live together in harmony. Look outside your window. Do you still believe that?

by Anonymousreply 407July 1, 2020 3:41 PM

Sounds like Apartheid all over again.

by Anonymousreply 408July 1, 2020 3:46 PM

R368 As more and more policeman walk off the job/get fired because of the "defund the police" movement, they are going to start being hired by rich people as high paid security, leaving the poor communities who need them the most without any help from law enforcement in the inner cities. What a shitshow.

by Anonymousreply 409July 1, 2020 3:48 PM

Yes, yes, I do see a resemblance.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 410July 1, 2020 3:48 PM

R401 The Democratic Party itself has been taken over by anti-white communists, and the DL is a Democrat majority website.

by Anonymousreply 411July 1, 2020 3:55 PM

R411 has posted 45 times on this thread and this thread only. *Someone* is trying to take over DL but I'm pretty sure it's not some fictitious communists... Maybe it's St.Louis Calamity Jane or her travel size hubby?

by Anonymousreply 412July 1, 2020 5:36 PM

R412, if a poster is having a conversation with another poster, they are going to reply back and forth and will have lots of posts. There is no specific number of times someone can post on a thread. This isn't Lipstick Alley or some other site, this the DL.

by Anonymousreply 413July 1, 2020 6:26 PM

R415 I love the self appointed hall monitors who meticulously count how many times a poster posts.

Would the Gladys Kravitz at R412 tell us how many posts are the proper amount?

And if that poster had posted opinions you agree with....would his 45 posts been OK? I bet they would have.

by Anonymousreply 414July 1, 2020 6:45 PM

Obviously R412 has absolutely, positively nothing else going on in her life but to play Nancy Drew, Detective and Official DataLounge Bookkeeper.

Sad. Very sad.

by Anonymousreply 415July 1, 2020 6:48 PM

Oh, look, George Zimmermann has joined us!

by Anonymousreply 416July 1, 2020 6:50 PM

The post counters are such losers. The even bigger losers are the ones who use ignoredar to pull quotes from a particular poster they don't like and then paste a long list of those quotes in totally unrelated threads in an attempt to "shame" the poster, like "gotcha!" Everybody else just rolls their eyes and thinks they're pathetic.

by Anonymousreply 417July 1, 2020 6:53 PM

The right wing sock puppets have spoken.

by Anonymousreply 418July 1, 2020 6:59 PM

r418 people who don't agree with you are just that, people who don't agree with you. Not everyone is a sock puppet because they don't share your opinions.

by Anonymousreply 419July 1, 2020 7:05 PM

"Lipstick Alley" is pretty much a racist dogwhistle on DL. I saw it so much I had to google what it was, and it's basically a Black Datalounge. People throw it around so much here, and now I get why.

by Anonymousreply 420July 1, 2020 7:21 PM

Tamir Rice gets shot and killed by a cop because he was playing with a toy gun at a playground, yet these whiteys are free.

by Anonymousreply 421July 1, 2020 7:49 PM

R420 So is EVERYTHING associated with Black people a racist dog whistle now? LSA is one of the only other popular gossip sites that everyone uses. Oh, and it's crawling with white and Asian people, any LSA user will tell you that. But yes, it's an Afrocentric site, and it's also the last of the popular gossip sites, a dying breed. If you see racism everywhere, you will find it.

by Anonymousreply 422July 1, 2020 8:02 PM

If Blacks hate Whites so much then the sooner we have segregated Cites the better it will be for everyone. But can the White cites keep the police, please?

by Anonymousreply 423July 1, 2020 9:09 PM

People are at last waking up to the real agenda of BLM and its hidden Communist links.

by Anonymousreply 424July 1, 2020 9:16 PM

r423 the last thing anybody who is not white wants is segregated cities. Just think what an all-white city would be like. Other cities would not look so great in comparison. And everybody knows that.

by Anonymousreply 425July 1, 2020 10:15 PM

R425 And I wonder why that is?

by Anonymousreply 426July 1, 2020 10:26 PM

[quote] ...my Black clients love us

Um, okay.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 427July 1, 2020 10:33 PM

I think the people in this thread can be divided between those who DO own a house and those who DON'T.

by Anonymousreply 428July 1, 2020 10:58 PM

I think the people in this thread can be divided between those who DO own a home and those wannabe communists (Bernie Bro Bolsheviks and BLM) who think nobody should own anything.

by Anonymousreply 429July 1, 2020 11:11 PM

[quote] Just think what an all-white city would be like.

I live in one: Portland, OR

by Anonymousreply 430July 1, 2020 11:22 PM

R430 Yet, you are still having BLM riots.

by Anonymousreply 431July 1, 2020 11:24 PM

Portland is not an all white city. It's majority white, but there is a vibrant minority community.

by Anonymousreply 432July 1, 2020 11:29 PM

Portland is not all-white, but it is the whitest large city in the USA--it is even whiter than SLC.

by Anonymousreply 433July 1, 2020 11:32 PM

And the Portland BLM protests were dominated by white protestors.

by Anonymousreply 434July 1, 2020 11:32 PM

When was the last time the husband ate out his wife’s pussy because she looks like she needs it bad

by Anonymousreply 435July 1, 2020 11:42 PM

R434 ..because Portland is dominated by white people.

by Anonymousreply 436July 1, 2020 11:46 PM

Yes, that was my point.

by Anonymousreply 437July 1, 2020 11:49 PM

People sure love drama.

by Anonymousreply 438July 2, 2020 12:02 AM

Why does 'minority' always have to be qualified with some kind of ameliorative live 'vibrant' or some such? It's so patronizing.

by Anonymousreply 439July 2, 2020 5:42 PM

Now it's come out that they've been nasty neighbors, too. Getting no sympathy from the people living around them.

by Anonymousreply 440July 2, 2020 7:09 PM

Link R440

by Anonymousreply 441July 2, 2020 7:11 PM

Here 'tis

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 442July 2, 2020 7:15 PM

R442's link is not much good without a subscription.

by Anonymousreply 443July 2, 2020 7:23 PM

These home-owners didn't want any potential looters.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 444July 2, 2020 9:58 PM

Have they been charged?

by Anonymousreply 445July 3, 2020 3:28 AM

R445 With what protecting their property from a mob?

by Anonymousreply 446July 3, 2020 3:24 PM

Now the couple are saying they have been receiving death threats and threats that the mob will return this weekend and burn down their house. They claim they have contacted local and state authorities, as well as private security firms, and that none will help them. They further claim that they all told them they should vacate their home and basically let it burn. They are saying they will not and will be protecting their home while armed.

I don't know if any of that is true. It is just what the couple is reporting. If it is true, I would be concerned that authorities are saying just let it happen.

by Anonymousreply 447July 3, 2020 4:21 PM

"Now they're threatening us, these awful cheap girls!"

by Anonymousreply 448July 3, 2020 4:25 PM

LOL r448!

by Anonymousreply 449July 3, 2020 4:29 PM

[quote] Why does 'minority' always have to be qualified with some kind of ameliorative live 'vibrant' or some such? It's so patronizing.

Just to annoy you, because it's fun to watch you whine.

by Anonymousreply 450July 3, 2020 4:30 PM

A yahoo article claims these two are a pain in the ass for the whole community. No one likes them.

by Anonymousreply 451July 3, 2020 5:12 PM

A yahoo article claims these two are a pain in the ass for the whole community. No one likes them.

by Anonymousreply 452July 3, 2020 5:12 PM

Link R452 please. (Are you new here?)

by Anonymousreply 453July 3, 2020 8:26 PM

No been here forever.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 454July 3, 2020 8:39 PM

No been here forever.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 455July 3, 2020 8:39 PM

Don't have a link for this but someone told me the blonde's sister has started a Go Fund Me page for them because "their lives have been ruined." To the tune of $250,000. Of course, it was featured on Tucker Carlson. So far has only raised $1,300, which is still ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 456July 3, 2020 8:58 PM

[quote] Crowds gathered outside at the mccloskey house. Men, I presume with some access to firearms, stood watch on the balcony. We are hovering on the brink of a cliff and over time the chances of being lucky goes down.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 457July 4, 2020 1:53 PM

Right-wing sources, e.g., the Gateway Pundit, report the McCloskeys have been served with a search warrant.

by Anonymousreply 458July 11, 2020 5:08 AM

Did someone shoot and kill the white couple? Here's hoping.

by Anonymousreply 459July 11, 2020 5:31 AM

Did someone shoot and kill the white couple? Here's hoping.

by Anonymousreply 460July 11, 2020 5:32 AM

Will you pull the trigger, R450?

by Anonymousreply 461July 11, 2020 5:34 AM

They're all-around terrible people, who are constantly in conflict with those around them

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 462July 11, 2020 4:20 PM

R459 You're probably a looter, I mean "peaceful protestor." FUCK OFF!!

by Anonymousreply 463July 12, 2020 12:55 PM

Hi, Mrs. McCloskey @R463!! May I recommend a beret? And wearing something more slimming?

by Anonymousreply 464July 12, 2020 1:10 PM

Bitches got their guns CONFISCATED. Hilarious!

by Anonymousreply 465July 12, 2020 1:43 PM

They have been charged.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 466July 21, 2020 1:00 AM

Has the St. Louis mayor ever explained why she felt it necessary to read the names and addresses of protesters in a live broadcast?

by Anonymousreply 467July 21, 2020 12:39 PM

R467 Why should the privacy of these protesters be protected?

This incident would never have happened if this threatening angry mob didn't intrude into a private residential area.

Protesters and looters should confine their activities to commercial areas.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 468July 22, 2020 1:07 PM

"This incident would never have happened if this threatening angry mob didn't intrude into a private residential area."

The protesters in this case weren't armed, nor were they threatening anyone. Nice of you to defend two far right loons who hate gays.

by Anonymousreply 469July 22, 2020 4:41 PM

[quote]Why should the privacy of these protesters be protected?

Because we don't need or expect elected officials to dox citizens?

by Anonymousreply 470July 23, 2020 2:27 AM

^. The Twitter mob dox citizens.

Twitter is the instant-judge and instant-jury.

by Anonymousreply 471July 23, 2020 2:43 AM

Protests are fun.

It's more entertaining to run around the streets than sit at home on Twitter.

They set the adrenaline at sky-high!.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 472July 23, 2020 4:45 AM

[quote]^. The Twitter mob dox citizens.

The mayor of St. Louis did.

Why?

by Anonymousreply 473July 24, 2020 1:39 AM

0:30 'They're guarding their dwelling'

'There's 2% black folks here.'

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 474July 28, 2020 1:55 AM

Yesterday, I read that these crackers will be speaking at the Republican Convention. Also speaking, "Smirks-A-Lot" Sandemann.

by Anonymousreply 475August 20, 2020 3:30 PM

They are a couple of homophobes.

by Anonymousreply 476August 25, 2020 4:15 PM

R476 What makes you say that?

by Anonymousreply 477August 25, 2020 5:51 PM

R477

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 478August 25, 2020 7:38 PM

R477, their advocacy of the rule not to have unmarried couple living in their development was aimed at keeping gay couples out. (This was before gay marriage.)

by Anonymousreply 479August 25, 2020 7:47 PM

R477, their advocacy of the rule not to have unmarried couple living in their development was aimed at keeping gay couples out. (This was before gay marriage.)

by Anonymousreply 480August 25, 2020 7:51 PM

All gussied up for the RNC.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 481August 26, 2020 12:34 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!