St. Louis Couple Loses their AR15 (1 Viewer)

[Rich2018]

If you have no credibility of your own you have no grounds on which to attack The credibility of others.

So you ***DO*** still claim that you know what you're talking about ?

And you base your credibility on what legal training and experience exactly ?


You claim that your opinion is a credible source, but you cannot show any authority for it being so

And also you have abandoned the argument to attack my credibility. That's an ad hominem.

No, my argument is based on the sources quoted and still stands. Yours is based purely on your own opinion and is unsubstantiated
That is not an ad hominem attack, it is an accusation that you can't demonstrate that you know what you're talking about - and it's true, you can't.

 

[CLAX1911]

So you ***DO*** still claim that you know what you're talking about ?

And you base your credibility on what legal training and experience exactly ?


You claim that your opinion is a credible source, but you cannot show any authority for it being so





No, my argument is based on the sources quoted and still stands. Yours is based purely on your own opinion and is unsubstantiated
That is not an ad hominem attack, it is an accusation that you can't demonstrate that you know what you're talking about - and it's true, you can't.

You're attacking my credibility and ignoring my argument because my argument is sound.

Thanks for the compliment.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, I see no possibility that they were justified in their actions. They were overreacting by a country mile. Reasonable people just don't act that way. Your situation was different and I agree with your action. These guys on the other hand were showboating and it's going to cost them.

your definition of reasonable is banning anyone from even owning an AR 15, so pardon me if I don't find your arguments as to what is reasonable to be convincing. And given the massive news reports of protests morphing into violent incidents of beatings, arson, property damage and, in some cases, murder, that might well justify what YOU think is overreacting.

 

[Court Jester]

I doubt that you can be 100% sure of anything

But for our amusement please give an alternative meaning for MAGA

"Mothers Against GOP A*******s" ?

 

[Rich2018]

You're attacking my credibility and ignoring my argument because my argument is sound.

You have made no argument (I doubt if you understand what one is)

What you have done is state (a highly personal) opinion. And in this regard, you absolutely lack credibility


Your stated opinion lacks support of any kind and is utterly baseless with regard to your credentials, for making any kind qualified judgement on the subject

In short you know NOTHING, yet pretend your opinion is some kind of fact, backed by some kind of reasoned argument. It is not

Thanks for the compliment.

So it's no longer an ad hominem attack, but it is still an accusation that you don't know what you're talking about


I guess, based on the relative standard of how your posts are valued, it might well rank as a "compliment" on your personal scale.

 

[Rich2018]

Originals

 

[CLAX1911]

You have made no argument (I doubt if you understand what one is)

What you have done is state (a highly personal) opinion. And in this regard, you absolutely lack credibility


Your stated opinion lacks support of any kind and is utterly baseless with regard to your credentials, for making any kind qualified judgement on the subject

In short you know NOTHING, yet pretend your opinion is some kind of fact, backed by some kind of reasoned argument. It is not





So it's no longer an ad hominem attack, but it is still an accusation that you don't know what you're talking about


I guess, based on the relative standard of how your posts are valued, it might well rank as a "compliment" on your personal scale.

My argument is that it was self defense.

 

[NWRatCon]

I have tried through the various threads on the topic to be specific and cite sources and the law for a reason. I happen to be a Missouri lawyer (aw shucks), although I have not practiced there in 35 years. I grew up in St. Louis County (where I was a law enforcement cadet), and my grandmother lived on McPherson (you'll see it on the map). I lived in that neighborhood while in law school, on Waterman (again, map). So I'm familiar with the neighborhood dynamics. Delmar (map) used to be the dividing line between the "good" parts of town (white/rich) and the "others" (read black), but the expense of keeping up mansions, and even modest neighborhoods, drove white flight to the suburbs until the mid-eighties when well-to-do yuppies began the re-gentrification process. The McCloskeys were part of that trend.

Portland Place, and the surrounding blocks, were part of an earlier trend in St. Louis of creating exclusive (VERY white, by law - Jim Crow was very active in st. Louis) enclaves in the early twentieth century. St. Louis and St. Louis County are historically one of the most segregated regions of the country. The story of segregation in St. Louis. That's the background for this situation.

Mayor Krewson lives in an adjacent neighborhood. About 4 blocks from Portland Place. As previously noted, her street does not connect to Kingshighway (see history), so the protesters heading up Kingshighway took the most direct route they could to get to her house. One of the local preachers led the way. The gate was not damaged, as I've noted, upon their entry - video clearly shows and contemporaneous news reports verify. I've no doubt that the crowd was boisterous, but there is no evidence - none - that they were violent. Nor, is there evidence they ever threatened the McCloskeys, other than their self-serving declarations. Mark McCloskey himself admitted that he previously pulled a gun on another unarmed resident that he perceived was "trespassing". That's their only justification, here, too. But, again, there is no evidence the crowd ever entered their property, nor intended to.

There is no legal question that their actions constitute "brandishing" under the previously cited Missouri law. It's textbook.

What's left? The trial, I suppose, where they can present their defense. But enough of making up facts and pretend laws.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have tried through the various threads on the topic to be specific and cite sources and the law for a reason. I happen to be a Missouri lawyer (aw shucks), although I have not practiced there in 35 years. I grew up in St. Louis County (where I was a law enforcement cadet), and my grandmother lived on McPherson (you'll see it on the map). I lived in that neighborhood while in law school, on Waterman (again, map). So I'm familiar with the neighborhood dynamics. Delmar (map) used to be the dividing line between the "good" parts of town (white/rich) and the "others" (read black), but the expense of keeping up mansions, and even modest neighborhoods, drove white flight to the suburbs until the mid-eighties when well-to-do yuppies began the re-gentrification process. The McCloskeys were part of that trend.

Portland Place, and the surrounding blocks, were part of an earlier trend in St. Louis of creating exclusive (VERY white, by law - Jim Crow was very active in st. Louis) enclaves in the early twentieth century. St. Louis and St. Louis County are historically one of the most segregated regions of the country. The story of segregation in St. Louis. That's the background for this situation.

Mayor Krewson lives in an adjacent neighborhood. About 4 blocks from Portland Place. As previously noted, her street does not connect to Kingshighway (see history), so the protesters heading up Kingshighway took the most direct route they could to get to her house. One of the local preachers led the way. The gate was not damaged, as I've noted, upon their entry - video clearly shows and contemporaneous news reports verify. I've no doubt that the crowd was boisterous, but there is no evidence - none - that they were violent. Nor, is there evidence they ever threatened the McCloskeys, other than their self-serving declarations. Mark McCloskey himself admitted that he previously pulled a gun on another unarmed resident that he perceived was "trespassing". That's their only justification, here, too. But, again, there is no evidence the crowd ever entered their property, nor intended to.

There is no legal question that their actions constitute "brandishing" under the previously cited Missouri law. It's textbook.

What's left? The trial, I suppose, where they can present their defense. But enough of making up facts and pretend laws.

Given prior incidents of "protests" turning into violent lootfests, the question remains this: did the two homeowners have a reasonable fear of being attacked? I'd say YES

 

[Rich2018]

My argument is that it was self defense.

No, that's just your opinion

On what legal basis do you construct an opinion that, that was the case ?

Moreover what support does your opinion have, to the best of your knowledge ?

 

[NWRatCon]

Given prior incidents of "protests" turning into violent lootfests, the question remains this: did the two homeowners have a reasonable fear of being attacked? I'd say YES

You'd say that only because you would say that no matter what the facts indicated. The facts clearly indicate otherwise. But let's not let facts interfere with a preconceived notion.

 

[Lutherf]

You'd say that only because you would say that no matter what the facts indicated. The facts clearly indicate otherwise. But let's not let facts interfere with a preconceived notion.

You are simply wrong. Lots of these protests, LOTS of them, have turned violent and resulted in personal injury as well as property destruction. In many of those cases the police didn't, couldn't or wouldn't intervene.

 

[Court Jester]

Given prior incidents of "protests" turning into violent lootfests, the question remains this: did the two homeowners have a reasonable fear of being attacked? I'd say YES

BINGO!

And despite our resident "no longer practicing lawyer" ('s) opinion--- the Stand Your Ground law in Missouri allows a person to protect their property when IN THEIR MINDS there is a reasonable fear. 300-500 people entering into a PRIVATE neighborhood posted "PRIVATE, RESIDENTS ONLY" would lead a reasonable person to assume that there was a good chance that their property or even their safety could possibly be at risk. And like you pointed out, many so called "peaceful protests" have NOT ended up being peaceful.

 

[Court Jester]

I have tried through the various threads on the topic to be specific and cite sources and the law for a reason. I happen to be a Missouri lawyer (aw shucks), although I have not practiced there in 35 years. I grew up in St. Louis County (where I was a law enforcement cadet), and my grandmother lived on McPherson (you'll see it on the map). I lived in that neighborhood while in law school, on Waterman (again, map). So I'm familiar with the neighborhood dynamics. Delmar (map) used to be the dividing line between the "good" parts of town (white/rich) and the "others" (read black), but the expense of keeping up mansions, and even modest neighborhoods, drove white flight to the suburbs until the mid-eighties when well-to-do yuppies began the re-gentrification process. The McCloskeys were part of that trend.

Portland Place, and the surrounding blocks, were part of an earlier trend in St. Louis of creating exclusive (VERY white, by law - Jim Crow was very active in st. Louis) enclaves in the early twentieth century. St. Louis and St. Louis County are historically one of the most segregated regions of the country. The story of segregation in St. Louis. That's the background for this situation.

Mayor Krewson lives in an adjacent neighborhood. About 4 blocks from Portland Place. As previously noted, her street does not connect to Kingshighway (see history), so the protesters heading up Kingshighway took the most direct route they could to get to her house. One of the local preachers led the way. The gate was not damaged, as I've noted, upon their entry - video clearly shows and contemporaneous news reports verify. I've no doubt that the crowd was boisterous, but there is no evidence - none - that they were violent. Nor, is there evidence they ever threatened the McCloskeys, other than their self-serving declarations. Mark McCloskey himself admitted that he previously pulled a gun on another unarmed resident that he perceived was "trespassing". That's their only justification, here, too. But, again, there is no evidence the crowd ever entered their property, nor intended to.

There is no legal question that their actions constitute "brandishing" under the previously cited Missouri law. It's textbook.

What's left? The trial, I suppose, where they can present their defense. But enough of making up facts and pretend laws.

In typical liberal fashion you attempt to mitigate the impact of the trespass into a private neighborhood posted PRIVATE by giving us the history of oppression in the South and other Jim Crow laws, including "white flight" and then onto "yuppie gentrification" as YOUR excuse for the first WRONG done, which was entering into a posted private street in the first place. Your obvious support for entitled behavior IS exactly the same thinking the mob of trespassers had when they decided they didn't want to take the longer route to the Mayor's home in order to do their public 'doxing' and intimidation game on her. They are exactly how a MOB acts, and any homeowner in that neighborhood could have a reasonable fear for the damage to their property or worse.

We don't care what the past history was, it cannot be an excuse for mob rule, other people have rights too even if you don't agree with that.

 

[NWRatCon]

You are simply wrong. Lots of these protests, LOTS of them, have turned violent and resulted in personal injury as well as property destruction. In many of those cases the police didn't, couldn't or wouldn't intervene.

Repeating unbased assertions does not convert them into facts. If you're ignorant if the circumstances, please oblige the rest of us by refraining from commenting.

 

[Rich2018]

And despite our resident "no longer practicing lawyer" ....

How do you make an 80 year old woman say the "F" Word ?

BINGO!

 

[NWRatCon]

In typical liberal fashion you attempt to mitigate the impact of the trespass into a private neighborhood posted PRIVATE by giving us the history of oppression in the South and other Jim Crow laws, including "white flight" and then onto "yuppie gentrification" as YOUR excuse for the first WRONG done, which was entering into a posted private street in the first place. Your obvious support for entitled behavior IS exactly the same thinking the mob of trespassers had when they decided they didn't want to take the longer route to the Mayor's home in order to do their public 'doxing' and intimidation game on her. They are exactly how a MOB acts, and any homeowner in that neighborhood could have a reasonable fear for the damage to their property or worse.

We don't care what the past history was, it cannot be an excuse for mob rule, other people have rights too even if you don't agree with that.

And being completely ignorant of the facts certainly doesn't inhibit you from vomiting crap all over a conversation.

 

[Court Jester]

And being completely ignorant of the facts certainly doesn't inhibit you from vomiting crap all over a conversation.

You are just frustrated that even despite your continued insistence to excuse the mob of "protestors" for their trespass, other people aren't buying your narrative. It may be fine for you from your 'lenses' to see 500 people feet away from your house carrying "BLM" signs as "no threat" and as "peaceful". But given the current situation and current history of these so called "peaceful protests" other reasonalbe people just may interpret that as possible danger. It isn't like problems haven't happened. In fact ANY MOB may quickly turn violent at any moment given the right triggers. There is a reason they call it "mob mentality". One thing sparks another thing---and then within the mob perceptions and/or pent up anger explodes into violence. Why do you NOT accept that a possible outcome, and therefore adding to the homeowners reasonable suspicion?

I've seen mobs like this start out at first just celebrating a sports team victory and then quickly turn sideways. Having that many people outside anyone's home----especially a residential street, and a private one at that, is a circumstance which would alarm many people.

These groups ALWAYS say: "we were just there to pray, or just there to demonstrate"---and many times that is all that happens. But currently that isn't the only thing that might happen. So if you want to have a debate, then have a debate--- I'm your Huckleberry! But if you all you expect is submission to your false narratives, then you are barking at the wrong person.

 

[ludin]

So that lawyer couple that brandished guns at peaceful protesters lost their AR15 -

St. Louis Cops Seize Gun That Couple Pointed At Black Lives Matter Protesters | HuffPost



And apparently they are also a real pain for their neighbors. I knew that there was more to this than appeared. Stupid people with guns should be separated.

They will get it back.
It was an illegal search warrant for something that wasn't a crime and no crime was found.

it was an illegal search and seizure and a violation of their 4th amendment rights.

 

[ludin]

Wrong again: the videos of the incident area very very clear. YOU just don't like the outcome. How about addressing the outcome instead of ducking behind untruthful conjecture.

breaking down a gate of a gated community is not peaceful it is vandalism and destruction of private property.

 

[VanceMack]

You'd say that only because you would say that no matter what the facts indicated. The facts clearly indicate otherwise. But let's not let facts interfere with a preconceived notion.

Two city employees assaulted during overnight protest outside St. Louis City Hall, police say | Law and order | stltoday.com
Peaceful day of protests turns violent at night as Ferguson is damaged | Law and order | stltoday.com
Looters take over peaceful protest causing violence, chaos in St. Louis | News Headlines | kmov.com
Armed St. Louis protesters broke iron gate, threatened couple before they drew their own guns, attorney says | Fox News
Police: Four Officers Shot in St. Louis When Protests Turn Violent
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/l...ience/63-b70cabd7-a8e4-4298-a05d-9f35d3d12f3d

Tragic watching people like you literally squat and take a giant **** on your own integrity.

You talk about 'facts'. Start there. True or false...the 'protestors' tore broke down gates to a private community?

 

[Lutherf]

Repeating unbased assertions does not convert them into facts. If you're ignorant if the circumstances, please oblige the rest of us by refraining from commenting.

"Baseless assertion"? Wow.

My friend, if you didn't see many, MANY of the protests turn violent then I guess there isn't much to discuss. I mean, it was on Twitter and everything!

 

[NWRatCon]

Two city employees assaulted during overnight protest outside St. Louis City Hall, police say | Law and order | stltoday.com
Peaceful day of protests turns violent at night as Ferguson is damaged | Law and order | stltoday.com
Looters take over peaceful protest causing violence, chaos in St. Louis | News Headlines | kmov.com
Armed St. Louis protesters broke iron gate, threatened couple before they drew their own guns, attorney says | Fox News
Police: Four Officers Shot in St. Louis When Protests Turn Violent
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/l...ience/63-b70cabd7-a8e4-4298-a05d-9f35d3d12f3d

Tragic watching people like you literally squat and take a giant **** on your own integrity.

You talk about 'facts'. Start there. True or false...the 'protestors' tore broke down gates to a private community?

False.

 

[VanceMack]

False.

So you arent satisfied with ****ting on your integrity...you have to smear it all over your character as well...I see...

"The attorneys called the St. Louis Police Department shortly before 7:30 p.m. on Sunday and the police report confirmed that “a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street’ signs.” (For the record, I have seen pictures of the gate and it is not exactly formidable and does appear “smashed.” However, it is clearly marked as private property and was forced open)."



When protesters smash down gates to private property have they committed a destructive act and are they trespassing? Are they peaceful protesters if they are threatening occupants of residencies? Are they still 'peaceful' protesters if they are violating the law?

 

[TurtleDude]

You'd say that only because you would say that no matter what the facts indicated. The facts clearly indicate otherwise. But let's not let facts interfere with a preconceived notion.

right back at you. Lefties tend to support the mobs over wealthy white gun owners.