Update: Right wing heroes charged (McCloskey‘s)

I get the claim about a private street, but it still seems to me that the claim that the protesters broke the gate is pretty central to the argument.

Attorney: Armed protesters broke iron gate, threatened St. Louis couple before they drew their guns

Armed St Louis couple claim 300-500 BLM protesters broke down gate and threatened to kill them | Daily Mail Online

A few of the comments from this thread:

 

I think you misunderstood my posts. I'm not disputing obviously clear video evidence. I just think that there also might be video evidence of the gate being destroyed at some point (don't know when) in the future.

 

I had not seen that portion of the video, thank you. A lawyer embellishing a story on national TV. Never seen that kind of thing before!!!

There is still a trespass here as it is private property. Whether the gate was open or not does not determine the trespass.

 

Possibly. As of now, all they have released in their defense is the still photo possibly taken later.

 

It’s one thing if you’re filing lawsuits on behalf of others. It’s another if you are the plaintiff in a myriad of lawsuits.

 

“This is an unacceptable abuse of power and threat to the Second Amendment,” Senator Hawley wrote in a letter to Attorney General William P. Barr. “I urge you to consider a federal civil rights investigation into the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office to determine whether this investigation and impending prosecution violates this family’s constitutional right.”

"Gardner told The Washington Post on Thursday that she was being targeted simply for doing her job as a local prosecutor. “This is a dog whistle of racist rhetoric and cronyism politics,” Gardner said. “Senator Hawley, who believes in the Constitution, is usurping the will of the voters. I thought the Republican Party was all about states’ rights and local control. What happened?”

 

Ah yes, good to see Hawley wants the DOJ's Civil Rights Unit's priorities in the right place. I can't stand that guy. He was a god awful AG of Missouri (like not just political but also incompetent). And they gave him a promotion.

 

I think several people (and I may have been guilty of this in the other thread too) have used the broken gate to support an argument. Criminal trespass, however, should be the central argument in favor of the McKloskeys. If I understand the law correctly, they would had to been threatened in order to lawfully aim a gun at others. Which action, breaking the gate or criminal trespass, offers the McCloskeys their best defense?

 

I think the Mccluskey's should get some kind of firearm violation fine.

If it's proven that the protestors were on the McC's property, they should be charged with trespassing.

Trump, Bill Barr, the governor, the senator, and everyone else should just STFU and let the woman do her job. Doesn't all this whining and complaining usually come after an indictment?

 

The trespass is also two issues,
Trespass in the neighborhood vs trespassing on their property

 

That woman has terrible trigger discipline. I am still somewhat surprised that she didn't accidentally shoot someone.

 

Nothing should happen to the husband the wife committed a felony every person she pointed the weapon at.

 

Who you gonna believe me or your lying eyes. The gate looks pretty messed up.

 

Neither.

 

What a complete idiot this Gardner is. What if the will of the voters was to kill all black children under twelve or white children under 8. That is literally why we have a constitution. If you throw that out people need to protect what they have.

 

Nobody's constitutional rights have been violated here.

 

trespass definition - Google Search

Even if there are no gates. By definition. But a guy with 40 years education and experience in RE wouldn't know anything about that according to DJT logic. You know, talent and all...

 

They had their guns confiscated.

 

Their guns were evidence of a crime. That's not a violation of your constitutional rights.

 

I thought it was only her gun that committed a crime.