Gun toting St. Louie lawyers

[xerts1191]

Media Ignores Reality Over McCloskeys

The McCloskeys aren’t likely to be your typical Bearing Arms readers. From what I’ve seen, they lean heavily to the left in their politics and would probably just as soon see many of us disarmed as talk to us.

However, regardless of their opinions about anything, there’s right and there’s wrong. Neither of those things hinges on the St. Louis couple’s personal politics.

Nor does my view of the abominable treatment they’ve received not just from their local government, but from the media. Take this editorial from the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch.

The McCloskey Barefoot Armed Porch Gang is expanding into a national political movement now that President Donald Trump, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley and Gov. Mike Parson have joined this circus of absurdity and insanity. A simple navigational mistake by protesters targeting the nearby house of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson on June 28 escalated into a major issue of gun rights versus free speech after the group spilled onto a private Central West End street and were confronted by gun-waving mansion owners Mark and Patricia McCloskey.
The greatest danger the McCloskeys faced during the brief encounter was from each other as they wildly aimed their firearms and exercised minimal trigger-finger discipline. At one point, pistol-wielding Patricia McCloskey walked right in front of her husband’s assault-rifle muzzle. At various other points, he aimed his rifle directly at her upper torso and head. At no point in video footage did protesters appear to step on the McCloskeys’ property, keeping a distance of 25 to 30 feet from the mansion.
This, of course, ignores the reality on the ground that prompted the McCloskeys to get those firearms in the first place.

To start with, they were on private property. A gate was destroyed to allow these individuals to gain access to that private property. It was a private street, even, meaning they were trespassing from the start.

Further, when the McCloskeys came out, they claim they were threatened by some of the first few to step onto their property.

Now, we don’t know how true that is or not, but that claim is completely missing from the Post-Dispatch‘s editorial. That’s an important bit of context that should have been included, but it’s not.

Sure, the McCloskeys were apparently not in any actual danger except for their poor weapons handling, but did they know that at the time? Would a reasonable person who knew of violent protests all over the country faced with a trespassing mob who already committed acts of vandalism to gain access to the property and threats from members of that mob feel like their life was endangered?

Oh, you’d better believe it.

Yet many in the media simply don’t want you to have that all-important context because then, you might not view the McCloskeys in the right light. They simply must advance the narrative and damn anything that gets in the way, even facts.

You see, while I may determine right and wrong on an objective basis, it seems folks at the Post-Dispatch only view what can help the narrative as “right” and anything working against that narrative as “wrong.”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the state of American journalism.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

[Suck My Glock]

Governor declares intent to pardon them if prosecuted.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/misso ... m-gardner/

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner has a spotty record on enforcing the law. She let all of the rioters and looters go who were arrested by the St. Louis Police Department during recent civil unrest. But when two city home owners used firearms to protect themselves and their property from a crowed that had trespassed in their neighborhood and reportedly threatened them, she was outraged.

Gardner then began an investigation that is still ongoing — no charges have been brought yet — and has resulted in the confiscation of the two guns used Mark and Patricia McCloskeys used that day.

Missouri Governor Mike Parsons was interviewed by 971talk.radio.com‘s Mark Cox on Friday and was asked if he’d pardon the two if they’re ever tried and convicted.

[smithers599]

I hope the AG charges them. That will rile up a lot of Normals, and increase the turnout for Trump.

Oh please don't throw me in that briar patch!

[Tenring]

I think she will charge them, she will loose and eventually be out of office. But not before everyone knows, that if you use your firearm to stop their mob/agenda, you will be prosecuted.
The she will go to work for CNN and make lots of money.

[smithers599]

I agree with the above.
I also believe the lawyers, who are lawyers after all, will sue her, and win a big judgment. No skin off her nose; judgments are paid by the taxpayers.

[kptaylor]

Sorry, I'm of the opposite viewpoint. They acted like idiots. No danger to them while in their safe home so what made them decide to grab their guns and run outside to confront? Pretty stupid regardless of whether it was private property or not. This is a good example, especially here in AZ, why taking a CCW course is beneficial even if you can carry without it. Learning the law, what you can do legally and not do is important. People like this make law abiding gun owners like many of us look bad.

[smithers599]

I agree the tactics were terrible. Perfect example of Jeff Cooper's dictum, "Having a gun does not mean you are armed, any more than having a guitar means you are a musician."

I suspect that if they had hunkered down inside, the "peaceful protesters" would have actually stormed the house, maybe trashed it, maybe torched it, maybe tried to force entry, making it necessary to fire the guns. Or at least it was not unreasonable for them to suspect that.

They used their guns as a deterrent, and it worked. The "peaceful protesters" stopped advancing, and went away. The better tactic would have been to stand near the doorway, visible to the "peaceful protestors" but with a quick avenue of retreat. Muzzle down/low ready, not pointing at anybody, and finger off the trigger. Just showing the gun would have had the desired effect. But, we should not expect and demand that level of proficiency from Mr. and Mrs. America. As the saying goes, "The law does not require detached reflection in the presence of an upraised knife." Nor does the law require detached reflection in the presence of a mob that has just broken through an iron gate.

Any reasonable prosecutor would say "Good for you, but next time watch the muzzle and keep your finger off the trigger. Now get out of here, you knuckleheads." This unreasonable prosecutor will charge them with terroristic threats and assault with a deadly weapon (multiple counts, one for each of the "peaceful protesters."

[smithers599]

I agree the tactics were not optimal. Perfect example of Jeff Cooper's dictum, "Having a gun does not mean you are armed, any more than having a guitar means you are a musician."

I suspect that if they had hunkered down inside, the "peaceful protesters" would have actually stormed the house, maybe trashed it, maybe torched it, maybe tried to force entry, making it necessary to fire the guns. Or at least it was not unreasonable for them to suspect that.

They used their guns as a deterrent, and it worked. The "peaceful protesters" stopped advancing, and went away. The better tactic would have been to stand near the doorway, visible to the "peaceful protestors" but with a quick avenue of retreat. Muzzle down/low ready, not pointing at anybody, and finger off the trigger. Just showing the gun would have had the desired effect. But, we should not expect and demand that level of proficiency from Mr. and Mrs. America. As the saying goes, "The law does not require detached reflection in the presence of an upraised knife." Nor does the law require detached reflection in the presence of a mob that has just broken through an iron gate.

Any reasonable prosecutor would say "Good for you, but next time watch the muzzle and keep your finger off the trigger. Now get out of here, you knuckleheads." This unreasonable prosecutor will charge them with terroristic threats and assault with a deadly weapon (multiple counts, one for each of the "peaceful protesters."

[MarkItZero]

Sorry, I'm of the opposite viewpoint. They acted like idiots. No danger to them while in their safe home so what made them decide to grab their guns and run outside to confront? Pretty stupid regardless of whether it was private property or not. This is a good example, especially here in AZ, why taking a CCW course is beneficial even if you can carry without it. Learning the law, what you can do legally and not do is important. People like this make law abiding gun owners like many of us look bad.

What about these guys?

[the1_roadrunner]

Sorry, I'm of the opposite viewpoint. They acted like idiots. No danger to them while in their safe home so what made them decide to grab their guns and run outside to confront? Pretty stupid regardless of whether it was private property or not. This is a good example, especially here in AZ, why taking a CCW course is beneficial even if you can carry without it. Learning the law, what you can do legally and not do is important. People like this make law abiding gun owners like many of us look bad.

What about these guys?

@markitzero lol! "They're calling the cops man put the piece away....." bahahahaha
Anyway I agree with you. The argument we'll get is that was '92 and took place in L.A.
Also Roof Korean and BLM folk are exempt from white boy laws...

[knockonit]

Sorry, I'm of the opposite viewpoint. They acted like idiots. No danger to them while in their safe home so what made them decide to grab their guns and run outside to confront? Pretty stupid regardless of whether it was private property or not. This is a good example, especially here in AZ, why taking a CCW course is beneficial even if you can carry without it. Learning the law, what you can do legally and not do is important. People like this make law abiding gun owners like many of us look bad.

lol, bet you're one of those guys who moved here to have some rights, but brought your shiat from your shitty state with you.

know your rights, they did, and they exercised them, so the gun handling was \n't in the Wick style, trespassers are just that, in my day on the ranch, they got shot at, just for being inside the wire.
of course its just my opinion, just like yours
Rj

[delta6]

Sorry, I'm of the opposite viewpoint. They acted like idiots. No danger to them while in their safe home so what made them decide to grab their guns and run outside to confront? Pretty stupid regardless of whether it was private property or not. This is a good example, especially here in AZ, why taking a CCW course is beneficial even if you can carry without it. Learning the law, what you can do legally and not do is important. People like this make law abiding gun owners like many of us look bad.

lol, bet you're one of those guys who moved here to have some rights, but brought your shiat from your shitty state with you.

know your rights, they did, and they exercised them, so the gun handling was \n't in the Wick style, trespassers are just that, in my day on the ranch, they got shot at, just for being inside the wire.
of course its just my opinion, just like yours
Rj

Shiat... beat me to it....

[the1_roadrunner]

It gets more interesting.

McCloskey Gun Inoperable When Police Seized It, Prosecution Ordered Lab to Fix It

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/202 ... nd-lethal/

[Flash]

Evidence tempering. The DA needs to be indicted.

[Harrier]

and dis-barred... debared?... license taken away.