BRKG Warrants Served on St. Louis Couple Who Defended Home

[Grock]

They pointed the guns at them. Thats their mistake. They should not have shown the guns until actually needed.

WAB

Legally, and specifically that’s the issue.
Even if you don’t shoot anyone, pointing the gun at them is a crime, assault in most jurisdictions.
If you fear for your safety you may opt to unholster, but you should NOT point your weapon at another person unless you plan to pull the trigger.
This isn’t advanced training, it’s basic gun safety, as taught to everyone who ever had any weapons training over the last century.
Don‘t point your gun at anything you are not wanting to destroy.
And there is the crime.

I don’t know the precise law in St Louis, but it’s pretty much the same everywhere.
And folks should get the lesson.

Don’t point your gun at anyone unless you intend to pull the trigger.

 

[medic38572]

Presidential pardon

Not on a state charge if I am correct. It has to be the Governor unless it is a federal charge.

 

[Grock]

This guy explains it pretty well,

10 minutes

 

[TKO]

I just knocked off a letter to the MO governor for this travesty.

 

[Practical]

Glad it made the media...if the thugs want to come back a third time, they know that no guns live in the house now. Might as well hang a sign saying Open House, Help Yourselves!

 

[20Gauge]

This was done by the DA as a "chiller" to intimidate every property owning, tax paying person in the county and embolden the BLM/Antifa cannon fodder. The next time people are going to die.

This is why you have back ups for the back ups.

Everyone on the boards like to have on expensive go to battle rifle. Not me. I would rather have several low to mid range rifles that I can actually afford to lose / break so that I am never without.

 

[Mikiekimi]

I said from the beginning that flailing around as they did would not serve them well.

 

[20Gauge]

Under the law she was guilty of brandishing her weapon at people who did not provide an 'IMMINENT THREAT OF GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM." The husband maintained a "defensive posture," and should not have been served, much less charged. Soros has been funding the election of assorted DA's so he can get control at the local level.

She now has several things going for her, and that will crush the DA, First, they were trespassing. Second they engaged in verbal abuse of her and her husband. Third, they came back a second time. They are lawyers so she will have an excellent defense.

The bottom line is unless you think they will kill or seriously wound you in the immediate future you don't get to wave your gun at them. We may not like it, but no you don't get to what she did. It doesn't matter if you are afraid. It doesn't matter if they annoy you, or anger you: UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE YOU ARE IN IMMINENT DANGER OF BEING SHOT, KILLED, OR SERIOUSLY WOUNDED YOU CAN'T THREATEN THEM.

The mistake they both made was to go out, openly confront them in their front yard, engage them verbally and wave their guns around. Now, if the first rock had been thrown, or they had come up onto their porch, or tried to break into the house they could have shot all 500 of them no problem. But they knew the law, played them, drew them in and now they are going to get, the wife will, get crushed by the DA who has an excellent case against her.

The DA will win only as they most likely will through 50 charges at her trying to get one to stick. This is how they get a 99.x% conviction rate. They don't track charges laid vs success only defendants convicted of something.

Was she an idiot? Yep that has been established. Is she guilty of brandishing? Not in my opinion. She was on her own property confronting people trespassing on her property. If she was off the property, different story.

 

[Dennis Olson]

I would think that "Disparity of Force" would justify the implied use of deadly force against the angry, threatening mob that was hurling threats of bodily harm at the McCloskeys. Angry groups of people are generally much more dangerous than one or two individuals.

They had a right to defend their property, with all of those people busting down the gate/fence and trespassing. People were threatening to hurt their dog/kill the dog, and hollering which bedroom was theirs, etc.

This is absolutely insane, makes no sense...it is maybe a staged FF?

Doug’s 6 minute video in post 17 clearly defines what they did wrong. The husband was fine and should get off. The wife was CLEARLY “brandishing,” and will probably be convicted. Watch the vid. Everyone needs to commit those facts to memory.

they both have excellent cases and will likely win a jury trial.

He will, she won’t.

Finally, I'm not sure two Democrat lawyers are a good sample of Patriots.

They’re PERFECT for the cause of “educating the clueless suburbanites” however. It’s clear that these people just went to a gun store and bought “something.” (“Dear, we’ve got to get something for self defense.” “I know sweetheart, but what?” “I’m not sure. Let’s get one of those and one of those.”) No training, no understanding of how to operate them, or “shoot/don’t shoot” rules. To be frank, I doubt he’d chambered a round in his AR, and may not have even known how to operate the charging handle.

The wife was completely out of control, sweeping the crowd repeatedly with the barrel. And that one-handed, bent elbow, limp-wristed grip on the gun? If that were a 9mm or greater, and if she’d had to fire it, after the first shot the gun would be laying on the ground.

No, the couple is a textbook case for “clueless liberals” who’d never touched firearms before. This little trip through the criminal justice system is going to accomplish two things: first, it’s going to separate them from about a quarter million in attorney fees, and second, it’s going to drive the point home about how to properly deploy firearms in self-defense. Too bad they didn’t take a weekend class on defensive firearms use for a couple hundred bucks. Oh well, they were “woke” and knew better than everyone else.

Personally I have no sympathy for them. And remind me to NOT be in a critical situation with those of you who don’t recognize the extraordinarily poor weapon skills the couple displayed.

 

[CaryC]

They had a right to defend their property, with all of those people busting down the gate/fence and trespassing. People were threatening to hurt their dog/kill the dog, and hollering which bedroom was theirs, etc.

This is absolutely insane, makes no sense...it is maybe a staged FF?

Every state has different laws, and as Doc1 said know YOUR state laws.

I don't know about Missouri, but do know some for Mississippi.

We have Castle Doctrine/Laws. Even with that we can't go out in the yard, and point guns at people. If you are going to protect yourself, and your property, you have to be standing under a roof. Like on a porch, with a roof over it. This shows you didn't go after them, they came after you.

In our case in Mississippi for example. I can be standing on my covered porch, and all the bodies need to be on the inside of the fence.

Any bodies on the outside of the fence would be considered murder. They can walk along the fence on the street, pee in the street, take a dump, have sex, cuss me to kingdom come, and I can't do anything about it other than call the police. Unless they shoot first, or brandish a gun at me. Doc1 can correct but that would seem to be justified.

I can let them see that I have a gun, slinged over my head, and a visible holster, with a weapon in it. But that's about it.

Not sure how that would work in a gated community. Because the entire property is not owned by me. It is only in a communal pact, the each provides money for upkeep/security for the whole.

The situation these homeowner's are in will depend on the laws of their state. Without Castle Laws, the homeowner has to be in the very back room of the house, with the perp making an entrance into that room, BEFORE they can act.

It should also be noted that gun owners insurance will not be in force, if deadly force is used to protect property, only human beings.

 

[rbt]

These people were on private property being threatened its clear they they don’t have any firearms training.
Why do people have to go to court to defend themselves because a communist DA or judge decides to write law not follow it. We have two things happening every day people following the law and people following what they want to happen.

 

[Dennis Olson]

we can't go out in the yard, and point guns at people. If you are going to protect yourself, and your property, you have to be standing under a roof. Like on a porch, with a roof over it.

In texas (during the day), the goblin has to “breach the plane of your walls” (using a home invasion example.) That is, if they come into a carport, you can’t shoot, because there are no walls. Entering the home itself is entirely different. It means too that if the perp stands on your porch threatening you verbally, you can’t shoot. But if they kick the door in, the moment their foot clears the door sill, you’re good to go. At night however, the rules are greatly relaxed. At night you can shoot someone who’s 1) on your property, 2) running away, if 3) they’re carrying any property they’ve stolen from you.

 

[Millwright]

I the few cases of armed people effectively defending their property during riots there is a commonality.

They were heavily armed and just stood there, almost ignoring the rioters.

The unmistakable look of "I'll just kill 'ya" is very obvious tho.

Not even the tiniest bit of fear is diplayed.


The people in the OP were scared.

Fear makes for bad decisions.`

 

[Jeff B.]

Presidents can't grant pardons for state crimes.

But, the Republican Governor can...

Jeff B.

 

[Troke]

Every state has different laws, and as Doc1 said know YOUR state laws.

I don't know about Missouri, but do know some for Mississippi.

We have Castle Doctrine/Laws. Even with that we can't go out in the yard, and point guns at people. If you are going to protect yourself, and your property, you have to be standing under a roof. Like on a porch, with a roof over it. This shows you didn't go after them, they came after you.

In our case in Mississippi for example. I can be standing on my covered porch, and all the bodies need to be on the inside of the fence.

Any bodies on the outside of the fence would be considered murder. They can walk along the fence on the street, pee in the street, take a dump, have sex, cuss me to kingdom come, and I can't do anything about it other than call the police. Unless they shoot first, or brandish a gun at me. Doc1 can correct but that would seem to be justified.

I can let them see that I have a gun, slinged over my head, and a visible holster, with a weapon in it. But that's about it.

Not sure how that would work in a gated community. Because the entire property is not owned by me. It is only in a communal pact, the each provides money for upkeep/security for the whole.

The situation these homeowner's are in will depend on the laws of their state. Without Castle Laws, the homeowner has to be in the very back room of the house, with the perp making an entrance into that room, BEFORE they can act.

It should also be noted that gun owners insurance will not be in force, if deadly force is used to protect property, only human beings.

"....Any bodies on the outside of the fence would be considered murder. They can walk along the fence on the street, pee in the street, take a dump, have sex, cuss me to kingdom come, and I can't do anything about it other than call the police. Unless they shoot first, or brandish a gun at me. Doc1 can correct but that would seem to be justified...."

AAhhh.....the 'fence' was the gate they busted down, if I understand correctly. Seems that should make a difference because they were on private property from that point.

 

[Dennis Olson]

These people were on private property being threatened its clear they they don’t have any firearms training.
Why do people have to go to court to defend themselves because a communist DA or judge decides to write law not follow it. We have two things happening every day people following the law and people following what they want to happen.

Because if one is going to have the means to take another person’s life, they have a moral and ethical obligation to know when they can or can’t do so. Would you strap a pistol on a raw police recruit and send them out into the streets? Why not?

 

[Dennis Olson]

The people in the OP were scared.

Fear makes for bad decisions.

THIS!

 

[Dennis Olson]

the 'fence' was the gate they busted down, if I understand correctly. Seems that should make a difference because they were on private property from that point.

They were on private property, yes. But NOT THE COUPLE’S PROPERTY.

 

[Troke]

They were on private property, yes. But NOT THE COUPLE’S PROPERTY.

Well yeah, except I bet they got some legal title that street. And the mob having broken down a gate to get into the place............ but these people have to be taught that the mob rules. Or did I miss the arrests for trespass after breaking down the gate.

 

[CaryC]

"....Any bodies on the outside of the fence would be considered murder. They can walk along the fence on the street, pee in the street, take a dump, have sex, cuss me to kingdom come, and I can't do anything about it other than call the police. Unless they shoot first, or brandish a gun at me. Doc1 can correct but that would seem to be justified...."

AAhhh.....the 'fence' was the gate they busted down, if I understand correctly. Seems that should make a difference because they were on private property from that point.

The point being whose private property was it, the communities, or theirs?

If someone goes on my neighbor's "private property" I have no legal means to gun them down. Every property in the state of MS that is privately owned, is posted land. Meaning permission must be given to be on. There may be some technicalities as to driveway's etc. But you can't just go traipsing all over someone else's property without written consent.

You can't use the argument in court, "he made you so mad, I shot his cow".

And second to that, what are the laws concerning community property in Missouri? And was the land/property outside of yard, actually owned by them, or only a part of the "covenant".

I don't know about those things, I wouldn't live in a community/gated property/HOA If I want to put a car up on concrete blocks for 20 years, in my front yard, it ain't nobodies business but mine. Put a recliner in the front yard, with a Rebel flag, it's all me. It my mailbox is 2 inches to high, suck it up, and take a chill pill, but you touch my mailbox its federal law.

I wouldn't do those things, but just saying.

 

[CaryC]

Well yeah, except I bet they got some legal title that street. And the mob having broken down a gate to get into the place............ but these people have to be taught that the mob rules. Or did I miss the arrests for trespass after breaking down the gate.

You missed the part that they turned them loose.

 

[Faroe]

Don't put me on the jury.

 

[Dennis Olson]

Well yeah, except I bet they got some legal title that street.

Well no, I bet they don’t. You love to make ASSumptions Troke. It’s a sure bet that the HOA “owns” the streets in that private community, and maintenance is supported by membership fees. Stop ASSuming. Why don’t you call the HOA for that community and ask them?

 

[mistaken1]

Self Defense Laws

Missouri has Castle Doctrine laws and became the 25th state to adopt the “stand your ground” canon. It empowers gun owners to defend themselves outside of their homes or properties. They are not required to retreat, wherever they may lawfully be, prior to using deadly force. This assumes the person was not the initial aggressor and is not attempting to commit a crime.

Physical force is justifiable:

When an individual believes that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an attack of unlawful force from another person.
When an individual believes that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from committing stealing, property damage, or tampering.

Deadly force is justifiable:

When an individual reasonably believes that the force is necessary for self-defense or defense of others (including unborn children) to prevent death, serious physical injury, or a forcible felony.
When an individual uses such force against a person who unlawfully enters a dwelling, residence or vehicle.

Missouri law also prohibits political subdivisions to preclude the use of firearms to defend people or property.

[[§§ 563.033 and 563.041, RSMo]

Missouri Concealed Carry Gun Laws: CCP & Reciprocity Map | USCCA

Last Updated 09/03/2020. Missouri allows open & concealed carry without a permit at 19+. Learn about Missouri gun laws, Concealed Carry Permits & Reciprocity Map.

www.usconcealedcarry.com

 

[CaryC]

Self Defense Laws
Missouri has Castle Doctrine laws and became the 25th state to adopt the “stand your ground” canon. It empowers gun owners to defend themselves outside of their homes or properties. They are not required to retreat, wherever they may lawfully be, prior to using deadly force. This assumes the person was not the initial aggressor and is not attempting to commit a crime.

Physical force is justifiable:

When an individual believes that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an attack of unlawful force from another person.
When an individual believes that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from committing stealing, property damage, or tampering.

Deadly force is justifiable:

When an individual reasonably believes that the force is necessary for self-defense or defense of others (including unborn children) to prevent death, serious physical injury, or a forcible felony.
When an individual uses such force against a person who unlawfully enters a dwelling, residence or vehicle.

Missouri law also prohibits political subdivisions to preclude the use of firearms to defend people or property.

[[§§ 563.033 and 563.041, RSMo]

Missouri Concealed Carry Gun Laws: CCP & Reciprocity Map | USCCA

Last Updated 09/03/2020. Missouri allows open & concealed carry without a permit at 19+. Learn about Missouri gun laws, Concealed Carry Permits & Reciprocity Map.

www.usconcealedcarry.com

As noted earlier, the guy seems to have been within his rights. The woman is toast.

And it should also be noted that the law is directed towards the use of deadly force, not registration, open carry, etc. Nor does that law suggest any community property. (As in the gate was not to his personal property, but rather to the community).

My meaning is there are a bunch of other legal things to consider.

As for myself if I were there, as I would here, there would be no doubt to the public that I was armed, but would not engage, until.

 

[mistaken1]

As noted earlier, the guy seems to have been within his rights. The woman is toast.

And it should also be noted that the law is directed towards the use of deadly force, not registration, open carry, etc. Nor does that law suggest any community property. (As in the gate was not to his personal property, but rather to the community).

My meaning is there are a bunch of other legal things to consider.

As for myself if I were there, as I would here, there would be no doubt to the public that I was armed, but would not engage, until.

Low ready position.

As I understand it the guy ordered them to leave as they were trespassing on private property. Once they refused to leave they all became trespassers. It was then that some in the mob made threats of violence. After the assault by the mob the couple retrieved firearms. Then karen went nuts with her magic bullet wand.

 

[Dennis Olson]

The couple called the police long before they retrieved their guns. The cops told them THEY WEREN'T COMING TO HELP THEM. At that point, they had every right to get those firearms and stand ready. But this country isn't quite "Thunderdome" yet. They (well, she) couldn't wave the guns around and point them at people. If the crowd started toward them, then certainly. (Actually, I think that had that happened, the couple would have stood there frozen, while their guns were taken and they were beaten to death. New gun owners, particularly LIBERAL new gun owners, haven't yet made peace with the possibility of taking lives in self defense. They'd have been immobilized by their internal ethical arguments, while they went down before the mob.)

 

[Elza]

In texas (during the day), the goblin has to “breach the plane of your walls” (using a home invasion example.) That is, if they come into a carport, you can’t shoot, because there are no walls. Entering the home itself is entirely different. It means too that if the perp stands on your porch threatening you verbally, you can’t shoot. But if they kick the door in, the moment their foot clears the door sill, you’re good to go. At night however, the rules are greatly relaxed. At night you can shoot someone who’s 1) on your property, 2) running away, if 3) they’re carrying any property they’ve stolen from you.

An attached garage is also included as part of the house. If it is detached then the 'night time' laws apply.

 

[Dennis Olson]

Correct.

 

[pinkelsteinsmom]

Here is a good video on brandishing a weapon.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g26KZFMxTis


Concealed Carry Tip: Brandishing vs. Defensive Display
38,949 views
•Mar 8, 2018

1.2K33SHARESAVE

This video proves the second amendment has been so illegally watered down, it no longer exists. I find nowhere in the second amendment that states "unless brandishing". We're between a rock and a very hard place with the BM movement now announcing they will be coming to our homes.

Antifa and the BM brothers ARE required to brandish, and given carte blanch to murder whitey. Unless the good guys in the blue states and cities remove by force if necessary the local city county board members crooked governors, mayors etc in the next few weeks brandishing won't be a problem. Escape from L.A. is our future.

TRUMP believing "states rights" means the Chinese or Iran can take over the west coast if the folks vote for it means, he will not do one thing to stop what is coming.

 

[Dennis Olson]

Watch the video in post 17. In 6 minutes, the issues are clearly defined.

A mob of 500 people is clear "disparity of force," and thus a person can employ deadly force as long as the other two conditions are met. But this ain't the 1800's, and you're not living "way back in the piney woods." The more people around you, the greater one's circumspection in the employment of deadly force must be.

That's as sure as gravity.

TRUMP believing "states rights" means the Chinese or Iran can take over the west coast if the folks vote for it means, he will not do one thing to stop what is coming.

You're way overreacting (as well as completely wrong.)

 

[David Nettleton]

The couple called the police long before they retrieved their guns. The cops told them THEY WEREN'T COMING TO HELP THEM. At that point, they had every right to get those firearms and stand ready. But this country isn't quite "Thunderdome" yet. They (well, she) couldn't wave the guns around and point them at people. If the crowd started toward them, then certainly. (Actually, I think that had that happened, the couple would have stood there frozen, while their guns were taken and they were beaten to death. New gun owners, particularly LIBERAL new gun owners, haven't yet made peace with the possibility of taking lives in self defense. They'd have been immobilized by their internal ethical arguments, while they went down before the mob.)

Read years ago that this scenario is the greatest single cause for female loss of life when holding a gun on another person. Women freeze. They threaten the perp ("One more step and I'll shoot.") The perp edges close enough to get her gun and you fill in the blanks.

 

[Doomer Doug]

I the few cases of armed people effectively defending their property during riots there is a commonality.

They were heavily armed and just stood there, almost ignoring the rioters.

The unmistakable look of "I'll just kill 'ya" is very obvious tho.

Not even the tiniest bit of fear is diplayed.


The people in the OP were scared.

Fear makes for bad decisions.`

Doug’s 6 minute video in post 17 clearly defines what they did wrong. The husband was fine and should get off. The wife was CLEARLY “brandishing,” and will probably be convicted. Watch the vid. Everyone needs to commit those facts to memory.


He will, she won’t.


They’re PERFECT for the cause of “educating the clueless suburbanites” however. It’s clear that these people just went to a gun store and bought “something.” (“Dear, we’ve got to get something for self defense.” “I know sweetheart, but what?” “I’m not sure. Let’s get one of those and one of those.”) No training, no understanding of how to operate them, or “shoot/don’t shoot” rules. To be frank, I doubt he’d chambered a round in his AR, and may not have even known how to operate the charging handle.

The wife was completely out of control, sweeping the crowd repeatedly with the barrel. And that one-handed, bent elbow, limp-wristed grip on the gun? If that were a 9mm or greater, and if she’d had to fire it, after the first shot the gun would be laying on the ground.

No, the couple is a textbook case for “clueless liberals” who’d never touched firearms before. This little trip through the criminal justice system is going to accomplish two things: first, it’s going to separate them from about a quarter million in attorney fees, and second, it’s going to drive the point home about how to properly deploy firearms in self-defense. Too bad they didn’t take a weekend class on defensive firearms use for a couple hundred bucks. Oh well, they were “woke” and knew better than everyone else.

Personally I have no sympathy for them. And remind me to NOT be in a critical situation with those of you who don’t recognize the extraordinarily poor weapon skills the couple displayed.

My understanding is the group came back a second time. That is malice. The husband should never have been charged at all. The wife will likely get a reduced sentence if anything when a jury gets it due to the 500 rioters, the trespassing. And the return trip defeats the DA's case.

 

[Dennis Olson]

They didn't come back a second time THAT DAY. They organized another pass on a different day, like a week later. The threads are on the board.

 

[TammyinWI]

Well, the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms should cover it totally, I believe.

 

[Dennis Olson]

The 2nd doesn't cover for criminal activity.

 

[Warthog]

Just set up inside at your fortified windows folks. No need to show your firepower to everyone either. I don't believe the Judge should have issued that warrant because of the situation. Must be a Obama Judge!

 

[TammyinWI]

The 2nd doesn't cover for criminal activity.

I will watch the video, in a bit...I am in a semi-cranky mood, more like snarky, with all of the ridiculousness that is transpiring.

I think I know the whole backstory on the gated community and this couple.

Did they sign something in the lease that says that the gate and fence is good enough, so they forfeit the right to defend their property? I thought I caught wind of something like that, worded in legalese...and they hired private security. I would have, too.

I saw that she didn't know how to properly brandish an iron, a real amateur...no replies needed here...I am just thinking out loud, trying to make sense of it all, and am kind of reluctant to watch that vid...afraid that more stupidity is rolling down-hill with trickle-down insanity...but, I will.

 

[Dennis Olson]

I saw that she didn't know how to properly brandish an iron, a real amateur

That's really what the warrants are all about. Had they BOTH acted without waving things about (he was fine, she was not) then the prosecutor couldn't get the case past a grand jury.

 

[packyderms_wife]

This was done by the DA as a "chiller" to intimidate every property owning, tax paying person in the county and embolden the BLM/Antifa cannon fodder. The next time people are going to die.

Agreed. The mistake the couple made was not firing at the crowd. Now they will do time for defending their property. Either way they were going to end up dead or doing hard time.