Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

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 46110 hours ago

Who does Dockers Dan think he is? Tony Montana?

by Anonymousreply 106/29/2020

I feel so much safer due to them!

by Anonymousreply 206/29/2020

They were protecting their food.

by Anonymousreply 306/29/2020

Is that an automatic weapon that Napoleon is brandishing?

by Anonymousreply 406/29/2020

Great house though.

by Anonymousreply 506/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 606/29/2020

[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 706/29/2020

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 806/29/2020

R8 correction: a back-owned home

by Anonymousreply 906/29/2020

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 1006/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 1106/29/2020

Last night's thread here -

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1206/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 1306/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 1406/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 1506/29/2020

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 1606/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 1706/29/2020

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 1806/29/2020

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

But people are calling to defund the police.

by Anonymousreply 1906/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 2006/29/2020

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 2106/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 2206/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 2306/29/2020

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 2406/29/2020

There’s a lot of misinformation in this thread, unsurprisingly in sympathy with the gun toting lawyers. Both are actually facing assault charges for aiming guns at peaceful protestors. Our right wingers live to hysterically overreact to news stories like this, so take what you read here with a grain of salt.

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.

The gate is just the gate to this “gated community” that segregates the wealthy neighbors that live there from regular people. No one stormed this couple’s property or damaged anything they own. The protesters were there to confront their mayor, who has the gall to live in such an elitist way, walled off from their constituents.

These two lawyers are just another example of wealthy elitist conservatives (and definitely Trump supporters) playing the victim while actually acting like villians. The posters here praising and defending them are only telling on themselves. Fucking scum.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2506/29/2020

r20 = Edwina

by Anonymousreply 2606/29/2020

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2706/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 2806/29/2020

[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 2906/29/2020

[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 3006/29/2020

They can both be disbarred for this and should.

by Anonymousreply 3106/29/2020

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 3206/29/2020

[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 3306/29/2020

"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 3406/29/2020

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 3506/29/2020

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 3606/29/2020

[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 3706/29/2020

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 3806/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 3906/29/2020

[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 4006/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 4106/29/2020

[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 4206/29/2020

Or poorly dressed, R41.

by Anonymousreply 4306/29/2020

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 4406/29/2020

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 4506/29/2020

[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 4606/29/2020

[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 4706/29/2020

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 4806/29/2020

[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 4906/29/2020

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 5006/29/2020

[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 5106/29/2020

By the way, R48, English is capitalized.

by Anonymousreply 5206/29/2020

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 5306/29/2020

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 5406/29/2020

[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 5506/29/2020

I ain't mad at 'em.

by Anonymousreply 5606/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 5706/29/2020

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 5806/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 5906/29/2020

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 6006/29/2020

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 6106/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 6206/29/2020

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 6306/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 6406/29/2020

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 6506/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 6606/29/2020

"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 6706/29/2020

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

You misspelled Class D felony.

by Anonymousreply 6806/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 6906/29/2020

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 7006/29/2020

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 7106/29/2020

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 7206/29/2020

[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 7306/29/2020

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

This crazy bitch would have set Charles Manson free.

by Anonymousreply 7406/29/2020

[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 7506/29/2020

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 7606/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 7706/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 7806/29/2020

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 7906/29/2020

[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 8006/29/2020

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 8106/29/2020

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 8206/29/2020

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 8306/29/2020

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 8406/29/2020

[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 8506/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 8606/29/2020

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 8706/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 8806/29/2020

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 8906/29/2020

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 9006/29/2020

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 9106/29/2020

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 9206/29/2020

Patricia, we talked about horizontal stripes. Sigh.

by Anonymousreply 9306/29/2020

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 9406/29/2020

[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 9506/29/2020

[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 9606/29/2020

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 9706/29/2020

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 9806/29/2020

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 9906/29/2020

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 10006/29/2020

[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 10106/29/2020

[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 10206/29/2020

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 10306/29/2020

[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 10406/29/2020

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 10506/29/2020

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 10606/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 10706/29/2020

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 10806/29/2020

R106 = Eric Trump

by Anonymousreply 10906/29/2020

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 11006/29/2020

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 11106/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 11206/29/2020

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 11306/29/2020

R112 Not how lawsuits work.

by Anonymousreply 11406/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 11506/29/2020

[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 11606/29/2020

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 11706/29/2020

"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 11806/29/2020

"self-governing enclaves"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11906/29/2020

Melissa

by Anonymousreply 12006/29/2020

[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 12106/29/2020

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 12206/29/2020

[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 12306/29/2020

[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 12406/29/2020

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

Oh shit, Halloween is canceled!

by Anonymousreply 12506/29/2020

R85 you clearly have a reading comprehension problem.

by Anonymousreply 12606/29/2020

[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 12706/29/2020

[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 12806/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 12906/29/2020

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 13006/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 13106/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 13206/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 13306/29/2020

R130 "I also do not believe in reality."

by Anonymousreply 13406/29/2020

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 13506/29/2020

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 13606/29/2020

R135 because it doesn't fit their narrative

by Anonymousreply 13706/29/2020

[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 13806/29/2020

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 13906/29/2020

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 14006/29/2020

[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 14106/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 14206/29/2020

^^Sorry, Panthers.

by Anonymousreply 14306/29/2020

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 14406/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 14506/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 14606/29/2020

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 14706/29/2020

[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 14806/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 14906/29/2020

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 15006/29/2020

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 15106/29/2020

Bang bang bang, kamikaze!

by Anonymousreply 15206/29/2020

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 15306/29/2020

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 15406/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 15506/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 15606/29/2020

Good for them.

Those punks need to realize that their actions have consequences.

People are going to start killing these rampaging idiots.

by Anonymousreply 15706/29/2020

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 15806/29/2020

Link ^

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15906/29/2020

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 16006/29/2020

Trash with money is still trash.

by Anonymousreply 16106/29/2020

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 16206/29/2020

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 16306/29/2020

[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 16406/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 16506/29/2020

"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 16606/29/2020

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 16706/29/2020

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 16806/29/2020

the gate in question, not just a broken lock:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16906/29/2020

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 17006/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 17106/29/2020

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 17206/29/2020

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 17306/29/2020

[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 17406/29/2020

I don't blame them.

by Anonymousreply 17506/29/2020

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17606/29/2020

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 17706/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 17806/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 17906/29/2020

Wow! They’re really keeping their neighborhood KKKlassy!

by Anonymousreply 18006/29/2020

Notice that wingnuts are calling peaceful protests "riots"?

by Anonymousreply 18106/29/2020

Why enter this community in the first place?

by Anonymousreply 18206/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 18306/29/2020

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 18406/29/2020

Here, R177.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18506/29/2020

I meant R179.

by Anonymousreply 18606/29/2020

"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 18706/29/2020

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 18806/29/2020

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 18906/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 19006/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 19106/29/2020

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 19206/29/2020

He's going crazy

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19306/29/2020

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19406/29/2020

^ sorry, I meant R191.

by Anonymousreply 19506/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 19606/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 19706/29/2020

"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 19806/29/2020

[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 19906/29/2020

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 20006/29/2020

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

Weight Watchers should also be a requirement.

by Anonymousreply 20106/29/2020

"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 20206/29/2020

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 20306/29/2020

[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 20406/29/2020

[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 20506/29/2020

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 20606/29/2020

"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 20706/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 20806/29/2020

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 20906/29/2020

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 21006/29/2020

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 21106/29/2020

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 21206/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 21306/29/2020

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 21406/29/2020

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 21506/29/2020

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 21606/29/2020

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 21706/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 21806/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 21906/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 22006/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 22106/29/2020

[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 22206/29/2020

Lock them up!

by Anonymousreply 22306/29/2020

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 22406/29/2020

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 22506/29/2020

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 22606/29/2020

I meant R224.

by Anonymousreply 22706/29/2020

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

Uh, yes.

by Anonymousreply 22806/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 22906/29/2020

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 23006/29/2020

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 23106/29/2020

'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 23206/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 23306/29/2020

[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 23406/29/2020

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 23506/29/2020

"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 23606/29/2020

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 23706/29/2020

"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 23806/29/2020

^R233

by Anonymousreply 23906/29/2020

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 24006/29/2020

[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 24106/29/2020

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 24206/29/2020

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 24306/29/2020

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 24406/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 24506/29/2020

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 24606/29/2020

[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 24706/29/2020

They could be John Waters characters.

by Anonymousreply 24806/29/2020

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 24906/29/2020

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 25006/29/2020

[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 25106/29/2020

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 25206/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 25306/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 25406/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 25506/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 25606/29/2020

He has nice feets .👣

by Anonymousreply 25706/29/2020

"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 25806/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 25906/29/2020

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 26006/29/2020

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 26106/29/2020

R251 evidence of many Trump donations, though.

by Anonymousreply 26206/29/2020

[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 26306/29/2020

[quote] Registered Democrats, actually.

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

by Anonymousreply 26406/29/2020

[quote] Registered Democrats, actually.

Missouri does not register by party.

by Anonymousreply 26506/29/2020

[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 26606/29/2020

[quote] Missouri does not register by party.

What does Missouri register?

by Anonymousreply 26706/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 26806/29/2020

[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 26906/29/2020

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 27006/29/2020

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 27106/29/2020

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 27206/29/2020

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 27306/29/2020

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 27406/29/2020

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 27506/29/2020

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 27606/29/2020

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 27706/29/2020

[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 27806/29/2020

r275 they were right in front of his house.

by Anonymousreply 27906/29/2020

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 28006/29/2020

[quote] Kansas University School of Law Professor

What? We're in MO. Fuck him.

by Anonymousreply 28106/29/2020

[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 28206/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 28306/29/2020

[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 28406/29/2020

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 28506/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 28606/29/2020

[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 28706/29/2020

[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 28806/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 28906/29/2020

Did anyone get any dick last night?

by Anonymousreply 29006/29/2020

R289 How DARE you lose logic and reason?!?

by Anonymousreply 29106/29/2020

[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 29206/29/2020

[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 29306/29/2020

[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 29406/29/2020

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 29506/29/2020

[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 29606/29/2020

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 29706/29/2020

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 29806/29/2020

[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 29906/29/2020

[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 30006/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 30106/29/2020

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 30206/29/2020

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 30306/29/2020

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 30406/29/2020

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 30506/29/2020

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 30606/29/2020

[quote]'Castile' or Stand Your Ground laws

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 30706/29/2020

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 30806/29/2020

R304 = Obsessive racist everyone has blocked.

by Anonymousreply 30906/29/2020

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 31006/29/2020

[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 31106/29/2020

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 31206/29/2020

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 31306/29/2020

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 31406/29/2020

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 31506/29/2020

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 31606/29/2020

The face of white victimhood

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31706/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 31806/29/2020

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 31906/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 32006/29/2020

Quivering with white fear™

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 32106/29/2020

r319 most of those protesters were white.

by Anonymousreply 32206/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 32306/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 32406/29/2020

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 32506/29/2020

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 32606/29/2020

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 32706/29/2020

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 32806/29/2020

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 32906/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 33006/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 33106/29/2020

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 33206/29/2020

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 33306/29/2020

Note how idiot R331 must make it about race.

by Anonymousreply 33406/29/2020

[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 33506/29/2020

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 33606/29/2020

[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 33706/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 33806/29/2020

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 33906/29/2020

[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 34006/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 34106/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 34206/29/2020

That is a majority white crowd

by Anonymousreply 34306/29/2020

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 34406/29/2020

[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 34506/29/2020

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 34606/29/2020

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 34706/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 34806/29/2020

Since this is Datalounge...

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 34906/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 35006/29/2020

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 35106/29/2020

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 35206/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 35306/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 35406/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 35506/29/2020

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 35606/29/2020

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 35706/29/2020

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 35806/29/2020

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 35906/29/2020

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 36006/29/2020

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 36106/29/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 36206/29/2020

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 36306/29/2020

Hiss, hiss!

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

by Anonymousreply 36406/29/2020

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 36506/30/2020

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 36606/30/2020

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 36706/30/2020

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 36806/30/2020

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 36906/30/2020

"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 37006/30/2020

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 37106/30/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 37206/30/2020

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 37306/30/2020

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 37406/30/2020

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 37506/30/2020

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 37606/30/2020

[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 37706/30/2020

[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 37806/30/2020

Found on Reddit:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 37906/30/2020

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 38006/30/2020

[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 38106/30/2020

LOL!!!! I love it r379

by Anonymousreply 38206/30/2020

[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 38306/30/2020

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 38406/30/2020

[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 38506/30/2020

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 38606/30/2020

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 38706/30/2020

[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 38806/30/2020

[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 38906/30/2020

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 39006/30/2020

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 39106/30/2020

[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 39206/30/2020

[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 39306/30/2020

Protestors should be jailed.

by Anonymousreply 39406/30/2020

for?

by Anonymousreply 39506/30/2020

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 39606/30/2020

[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 39706/30/2020

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 39806/30/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 39906/30/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 40006/30/2020

This Forum has been taken over by Anti White Communists!

by Anonymousreply 40106/30/2020

Check out their defense attorney's profile.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40206/30/2020

If only there had been a parrot...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40307/01/2020

There is only one female attorney in that firm R402.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40407/01/2020

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

as well as his wife.

Frankly, I'm exhausted.

by Anonymousreply 40507/01/2020

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 40607/01/2020

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 40707/01/2020

Sounds like Apartheid all over again.

by Anonymousreply 40807/01/2020

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 40907/01/2020

Yes, yes, I do see a resemblance.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 41007/01/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 41107/01/2020

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 41207/01/2020

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 41307/01/2020

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 41407/01/2020

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 41507/01/2020

Oh, look, George Zimmermann has joined us!

by Anonymousreply 41607/01/2020

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 41707/01/2020

The right wing sock puppets have spoken.

by Anonymousreply 41807/01/2020

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 41907/01/2020

"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 42007/01/2020

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 42107/01/2020

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 42207/01/2020

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 42307/01/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 42407/01/2020

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 42507/01/2020

R425 And I wonder why that is?

by Anonymousreply 42607/01/2020

[quote] ...my Black clients love us

Um, okay.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 42707/01/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 42807/01/2020

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 42907/01/2020

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

I live in one: Portland, OR

by Anonymousreply 43007/01/2020

R430 Yet, you are still having BLM riots.

by Anonymousreply 43107/01/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 43207/01/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 43307/01/2020

And the Portland BLM protests were dominated by white protestors.

by Anonymousreply 43407/01/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 43507/01/2020

R434 ..because Portland is dominated by white people.

by Anonymousreply 43607/01/2020

Yes, that was my point.

by Anonymousreply 43707/01/2020

People sure love drama.

by Anonymousreply 43807/01/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 43907/02/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 44007/02/2020

Link R440

by Anonymousreply 44107/02/2020

Here 'tis

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 44207/02/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 44307/02/2020

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 44407/02/2020

Have they been charged?

by Anonymousreply 44507/02/2020

R445 With what protecting their property from a mob?

by Anonymousreply 44607/03/2020

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 44707/03/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 44807/03/2020

LOL r448!

by Anonymousreply 44907/03/2020

[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 45007/03/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 45107/03/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 45207/03/2020

Link R452 please. (Are you new here?)

by Anonymousreply 45307/03/2020

No been here forever.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 45407/03/2020

No been here forever.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 45507/03/2020

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 45607/03/2020

[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 45707/04/2020

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

by Anonymousreply 45811 hours ago

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

by Anonymousreply 45910 hours ago

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

by Anonymousreply 46010 hours ago

Will you pull the trigger, R450?

by Anonymousreply 46110 hours ago
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. 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!