Missouri man who guarded home with rifle reveals that 'rumor is' he and wife will be 'indicted shortly'

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   That's a common fallacy that people need to get past. Especially in the day and age where everything is recorded on cell phone video. What you are talking about applies inside your home and/or immediate area where the castle doctrine applies. That is when you only need to demonstrate reasonable fear for safety. 

 

  The McCloskey's already admitted they went outside after they saw the crowd marching. They will not be able to justify pointing weapons at the mob. There is nothing on the video evidence that shows they will be. That is why they are facing the possibility of being charged. 

They are facing the possibility of pointlessly being charged because of politics, nothing more.

 

And no, it doesn't apply inside your home, especially not in these castle doctrine states, but I doubt it does even in others unless they explicitly say so. I don't understand when you say "where everything is recorded on cell phone video", everything wasn't recorded on cell phone video here. Only specific parts were. However, the lead up was vital because you saw people recklessly trespass (not to mention the noise they were making) and then crowd someone's house while trespassing, issuing threats on top of it. 

 

When people are already committing a certain crime, it's a lot safer than in *normal* circumstances (like your examples which are utterly irrelevant to this) to assume they are a threat to commit a similar crime. When these very type of mobs have also torched buildings and attacked people in the very same city only blocks away, it's also reasonable to expect that when you see people willfully disregarding private property in the same fashion, you have a reasonable cause to act far more aggressively to protect yourself and family. This is why there's absolutely no concern that anything will happen to the McCloskeys, even if they are politically charged. There's no law broken by them. There already is, unequivocally, over a hundred trespassers, and if they're seen on video, action can be taken against them.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

So you are saying if a mob was approaching your abode you would sit back and let them start the fire.   BTw, assault can include words, in fact in a legal sense assault typically includes only verbal threats whereas when things get physical, then battery comes into play.  The mob was illegally on private property doing what they could to threaten the homeowners living there plain and simple, whatever happens to this couple is up to the justice system,  but where are the prosecutions of the mob participants?

 

    What I am saying is, if the law gave them the right to shoot at the mob in defense then they have that protection. Time will tell, but I don't think it did. If the law didn't give them the right to shoot in defense (in that situation), then it also doesn't protect them from pointing the firearm at the mob.

 

   Personally I don't see why you point a gun at someone unless you are actually going to shoot. 

 

   

 

 

[yuna628 9,530]

18 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I would think a mob trespassing and standing outside their home would be threatening in and of itself, especially considering the violent nature of so many of the BLM  protests 

Dunno man. I have a feeling a lot of people, even if they should have felt threatened in some way, wouldn't have reacted in such an unsafe way. You ever witnessed a total throwdown of people shooting and stabbing one another on your front lawn? I mean actual bullets flying a few feet from my windows. That was a fun night for me. Still, we all managed to keep our cool, call the police, and not go outside with a weapon being held like that. On occasion I really want to run outside and beat the heck out of the ice cream truck that prowls endlessly with it's annoying loud music and I feel like it's disturbing the peace.. (who knows they might be dealing dope on the side or providing expensive child-sized cabinets to clients and the music is a signal to the cabal)

 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by yuna628

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

40 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   That's a common fallacy that people need to get past. Especially in the day and age where everything is recorded on cell phone video. What you are talking about applies inside your home and/or immediate area where the castle doctrine applies. That is when you only need to demonstrate reasonable fear for safety. 

 

  The McCloskey's already admitted they went outside after they saw the crowd marching. They will not be able to justify pointing weapons at the mob. There is nothing on the video evidence that shows they will be. That is why they are facing the possibility of being charged. 

You keep quoting castle doctrine.  But MO is a stand your ground state.  They had their rights.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

1 hour ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Don't you know that words equal violence?

members of the mob communicated a threat  - that can make one fear for their life - which is why i see nothing wrong with what the homeowners did.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

22 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

You keep quoting castle doctrine.  But MO is a stand your ground state.  They had their rights.

 

   Stand your ground is not a valid legal defense for pointing a firearm and not shooting. I think that's what is being missed here. Perhaps it's counter intuitive, but they would have more claim to a legal defense if they had actually shot someone. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

14 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Dunno man. I have a feeling a lot of people, even if they should have felt threatened in some way, wouldn't have reacted in such an unsafe way. You ever witnessed a total throwdown of people shooting and stabbing one another on your front lawn? I mean actual bullets flying a few feet from my windows. That was a fun night for me. Still, we all managed to keep our cool, call the police, and not go outside with a weapon being held like that. On occasion I really want to run outside and beat the heck out of the ice cream truck that prowls endlessly with it's annoying loud music and I feel like it's disturbing the peace.. (who knows they might be dealing dope on the side or providing expensive child-sized cabinets to clients and the music is a signal to the cabal)

I've had a gun pulled on me, knives, but I've never seen these wild west scenarios because they almost never happen, even amongst the rarities I've experienced, and that's with what I consider a good track record of staying away from troublemakers. No matter how good one is at avoiding bad things/people, it's clear that you can always wind up stuck confronting it, ready or not. And while there's a series of choices one can make, especially with self-preservation in mind, one might be stuck a situation where it's me or them. I don't think I appreciated it much before I had kids, but our way of thinking does (and should) change when we have things to protect.

 

Yet, what I have seen in the news, on TV, live streams, etc. is armed people ready to take out as many people possible who were threatening to torch their business and burn people alive with the building. And they'd have been justified. When others are being threatening, it's not incumbent upon the people threatened to walk on eggshells. Mobs are inherently dangerous and can cause incalculable damage in an extremely short time. We ought to be bending over backwards to protect civil society. People demonstrating such wanton disregard for people and property are not peaceful, despite the narrative the media tries to sow normalizing that type of destabilizing extremism. Regardless of what we think of them personally (I don't know them personally, and I doubt I'd want to), the McCloskeys never did anything to these people, never encroached upon them, the mob illegally came into their neighborhood, at their property. They were thinking they were gonna show up the mayor and likely anyone else that got in their way, mobs tend to think they're untouchable. Those guns helped remove that idea of invulnerability, which is why they were quite necessary in that situation. They were lucky that the couple was hesitant, because if they were as awful as portrayed, they could've justifiably put holes in some people. 

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Stand your ground is not a valid legal defense for pointing a firearm and not shooting. I think that's what is being missed here. Perhaps it's counter intuitive, but they would have more claim to a legal defense if they had actually shot someone. 

i would say it is - it is a final attempt to stop a situation without bloodshed. 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Ban Hammer

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

i would say it is - it is a final attempt to stop a situation without bloodshed. 

 

  They can certainly make that argument, but they still face the possibility of charges. They ultimately might beat the charges in court, but none of the legal doctrines of self defense specifically applies to the situation as it occurred. 

 

   

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

9 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  They can certainly make that argument, but they still face the possibility of charges. They ultimately might beat the charges in court, but none of the legal doctrines of self defense specifically applies to the situation as it occurred. 

 

   

If they beat those charges, then they clearly did apply. 

 

Getting charged is not a conviction. And it's interesting to me that anyone would cheer the abuse of power of charging people they know they won't get a conviction on when conventional logic points out the McCloskeys were in their legal right to do what we saw. Of course, there stands the possibility something else happened, but beyond that, nothing will result, they will get their firearms back, and could win a good chunk of money from the city in a lawsuit.

 

All this just to politically send a message. It's very interesting where all this "truth to power" stuff magically went, when the "power" is going after two people that never asked for the trouble that came to them. Another meaningless cudgel/gimmick purely aimed toward a political demographic. 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

26 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Stand your ground is not a valid legal defense for pointing a firearm and not shooting. I think that's what is being missed here. Perhaps it's counter intuitive, but they would have more claim to a legal defense if they had actually shot someone. 

A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use lethal force to defend themselves or others (right of self-defense) against threats or reasonably perceived threats, regardless of whether they can safely retreat from the situation. Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be^[1] and may use any necessary force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes. The exact details vary by jurisdiction.

 

There is no need to shoot in order to be covered by the law.

 

That being said, people need to know that if you pull a gun on someone, especially if you discharge it, you are almost always going to court over the incident, perhaps even to jail.  Concealed Carry 101.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use lethal force to defend themselves or others (right of self-defense) against threats or reasonably perceived threats, regardless of whether they can safely retreat from the situation. Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be^[1] and may use any necessary force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes. The exact details vary by jurisdiction.

 

There is no need to shoot in order to be covered by the law.

 

That being said, people need to know that if you pull a gun on someone, especially if you discharge it, you are almost always going to court over the incident, perhaps even to jail.  Concealed Carry 101.

 

     There you go. If they came out armed and didn't point the weapons at the mob, they would not be facing charges. If they were attacked and fired the weapons they would also not be facing charges. Neither of those situations describe what happened. They will likely still get off though, and chances are there will be enough political pressure that they actually don't get charged. The point, going back to your original post, is understanding why they can be charged. 

 

   I actually don't see a point to all this anyway. If the crowd really intended violence on them, the McCloskey's actually made themselves targets by walking outside and waving guns around.  IMO, the McCloskey's were trying to intimidate the crowd so they would leave. If they actually believed they were in danger, they would have fired at whomever it was they believed was attacking them.

 

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

12 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     There you go. If they came out armed and didn't point the weapons at the mob, they would not be facing charges. If they were attacked and fired the weapons they would also not be facing charges. Neither of those situations describe what happened. They will likely still get off though, and chances are there will be enough political pressure that they actually don't get charged. The point, going back to your original post, is understanding why they can be charged. 

 

   I actually don't see a point to all this anyway. If the crowd really intended violence on them, the McCloskey's actually made themselves targets by walking outside and waving guns around.  IMO, the McCloskey's were trying to intimidate the crowd so they would leave. If they actually believed they were in danger, they would have fired at whomever it was they believed was attacking them.

 

one could easily argue that with that many people around, it would be pretty much impossible to not point the gun in someone's direction............

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

6 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     There you go. If they came out armed and didn't point the weapons at the mob, they would not be facing charges. If they were attacked and fired the weapons they would also not be facing charges. Neither of those situations describe what happened. They will likely still get off though, and chances are there will be enough political pressure that they actually don't get charged. The point, going back to your original post, is understanding why they can be charged. 

 

   I actually don't see a point to all this anyway. If the crowd really intended violence on them, the McCloskey's actually made themselves targets by walking outside and waving guns around.  IMO, the McCloskey's were trying to intimidate the crowd so they would leave. If they actually believed they were in danger, they would have fired at whomever it was they believed was attacking them.

 

Say what? If the law says they're innocent, then the only political pressure here was to charge them anyways. But some of us knew that in the first place.

 

In order to come to the conclusion you are, you have to be presuming innocence of this mob. The problem with that is, they're already guilty. To be where they are, they're trespassing. Their own people admitted they did (not a necessary element since they were smart enough to record themselves trespassing, but helpful), and they tried to justify it with "civil disobedience". They weren't peacefully standing on a public road, sidewalk, or grass, having weapons pointed at them. They were already trespassing. The idea that they could not be a threat is already dispensed with, they are an established threat, and the other contextual circumstances i.e. mob (massive group of shouting people beating drums already disregarding laws) and what happened at that time, in that city, only strengthens what's already a slam dunk case for the McCloskeys who only need to show they felt threatened on their own property. Shouldn't even be contested.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

9 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

one could easily argue that with that many people around, it would be pretty much impossible to not point the gun in someone's direction............

 

    True, as I said they can argue all relevant details. Just because they are charged, doesn't mean they are convicted. I'm sure that will be part of their argument.