Mansions are never irrelevant. The people that live there look and sound like crazy people--Locked and Loaded Karen and Ken. Their home was never threatened, you act like the protesters were throwing Molotov cocktails through the parlor window. It seems there is a question of whether or not the walkers were even trespassing. Your stance on this event doesn't puzzle me in the least.
You are talking about a different situation. You can’t determine response to this situation from something that happened elsewhere at a different time. Talk about clueless.
I leaned in favor of the McCloskeys in the first thread. Given the fact their weapons were confiscated, it appears there is evidence that they (esp the wife) indeed committed a crime by pointing said weapons at protestors. This is in lieu of evidence that they faced a legitimate threat. With this in mind and given their history of combativeness (no pun intended) it seems apparent they responded poorly and probably unlawfully. There are still questions about whether the protesters damaged an entrance gate, but that is really only a secondary consideration. The protesters were trespassing and in doing so, they set a bad example for other protesters. In one sense "they started it" and were wrong in doing so. The McCloskeys, however, responded poorly and appear to be, how can I say? . . . a$$holes.
This was weeks ago. How did it come back? I know this neighborhood and that block. I've walked through those gates a couple of times just to get a look at those homes. I don't now how these people could feel threatened. Those front yards are huge, a long way off the sidewalk. I also know a few people who were protesting that day. Sounds like these people got freaked out over nothing but used the opportunity to aim their guns at something other than paper targets.
In the news again today... "Today, both the Governor and Donald Trump came after me for doing my job and investigating a case. While they continue to play politics with the handling of this matter, spreading misinformation and distorting the truth, I refuse to do so. As I always do, I am reviewing all available facts and the law and will apply them equally, regardless of the people involved." Gardner previously told CNN in a statement that she was alarmed by the events involving the McCloskeys and her office is investigating. "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," she said earlier this month.
Of course Trump never passes an opportunity to put his thumb on the scale: In a separate interview with conservative outlet TownHall, Trump defended Mark and Patricia McCloskey, a St. Louis couple who pointed guns at protesters passing through their neighborhood en route to the mayor’s home during a protest late last month. “They were going to be beat up badly, if they were lucky. OK? If they were lucky,” Trump said. “They were going to be beat up badly, and the house was going to be totally ransacked and probably burned down like they tried to burn down churches.” “These people were standing there, never used it, and they were legal, the weapons,” Trump continued. “And now I understand somebody local, they want to prosecute these people. It’s a disgrace.” Trump stirs controversy with latest race remarks For Trump this situation is just too good to leave to local prosecutors - it strikes a nerve with two major groups of his supporters, racists and those who live in fear that the government is going to take our guns. Between this and the Confederate flag remarks this week POTUS is making sure that he completely corners the racist vote and counting on the fact that his non-racist supporters don't care.
Why try to justify what these nutcases did? They were out of control and very poor examples of legitimate use of fire arms for self defense. This is the type of situation that police are a very good resource to handle. Call the police and let them do their jobs.
The Republican governor wants to fire the black St Louis Circuit Attorney for doing her job. What would be the justification for such an action? Parson and Trump are trying to intimidate a court officer to get what they want. Isn't that illegal? "The governor on Tuesday suggested he wanted Gardner removed from office. Parson said the state legislature should consider ways to remove local elected officials in future legislative sessions, and appeared to want to involve Trump in the immediate case."
I've got no problem with them breaking out their weaponry in a potential self-defense situation. I do not think they should have leveled the weapons at trespassers unless they actually entered their property. The individuals said they were menaced, so it will be up to the State to prove that they weren't. It appears to me that the crux of the matter is that was there a reasonable belief that harm was imminent and if the trespassers were already on their property that seems obvious. However, you can't just go waving firearms at people marching down the street unless there is a real, valid reason to do so.
Usually States attorneys are removed from their jobs for not doing them (Ayala in Orlando). If this SA has made a rush to judgement in charging these folks, then she'll have enough egg on her face at the end of the day anyway (like the moron in Baltimore). Let the bar deal with her if they feel there is prosecutorial misconduct. The Governor should keep out of it.
She hasn't made a rush to judgment, that's the problem for Parson and Trump. They want the couple completely exonerated and their medals forged post-haste. As far as I know, no one has been charged with a crime.
I didn't say she did. I said "if" she did, then it will be obvious at a later day. You nor I know if she did or didn't at this stage. As I said, Governator should stay out of it. I would say having a press conference about it and confiscating legally owned weapons as potential evidence pretty well says what she is thinking of doing even if it hasn't been formally done yet.
The governor sounds like an idiot. By his own words, he doesn't know all the details, doesn't have any proof there was any trespassing, but even in his ignorance, he involves Trump. "Parson said that didn’t apply in this case because of the Castle Doctrine." “It’s on their property,” he said. “They have every right.” Parson said he didn’t have any proof protesters were on the McCloskeys’ property. As the Post-Dispatch reported Sunday, a live feed of the June 28 protest in question shows the first few protesters to enter Portland Place swerved away from the McCloskey property and onto the street. The feed then showed Mark McCloskey shouting at the protesters and holding his rifle. No protesters were on the McCloskey property when he began hollering. “I don’t know all the details of it,” Parson said.
