Update: Right wing heroes charged (McCloskey‘s)

Guns don’t commit crimes, people commit crimes.

 

But, they took all their guns?

 

He was out there threatening people with his rifle too.

 

No, they didn't. They took possession of the two guns involved in the incident.

 

Did the man ever point the gun at anyone? If he didn’t, then he never threatened anyone with his gun. So unless it is illegal to possess a gun on private property, what law did he violate? Unless it is now threatening to be holding a gun on your own property while people trespass within a gated community.

This is all speculation until this goes to trial, as the truth will only fully come out then. My problem with any charges is how can the prosecutor prove the “protestors” never set foot on their property. It becomes a he said, she said, where both groups of eyewitnesses are heavily biased and broke the law. Absent proof that the protestors never set foot in their yard, reasonable doubt would be on the side of the husband and wife, as how can the prosecutor prove they were acting irrationally in response to a group of trespassers without proof the protestors never set foot in their yard?

 

2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.
A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly: (4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner
------------------------------------------
I hope you realize that "he said, she said" tends to be a problem when you have one witness on each side with vastly different stories and little other evidence. When you have a bunch of witnesses saying one thing and the two defendants claiming another (along with video supporting the bunch of witnesses), your case gets a lot easier to prove.

 

It doesn't matter if they trespassed...you don't get to threaten deadly force to terminate a trespass.
Another angle of hubby:

 

That's a ridiculous "what if." What has she done that justifies "complete idiot?" Do you think the president, DOJ, the governor, the senator, etc., really need to interfere in a local incident, in which no one even was hurt, and remove the local attorney from her job? I would love to hear their grounds for such a radical action.

 

A Karen on steroids. If I'm afraid for my life, don't think I'd wander down to within 5 or 10 ft. of the presumed murderers and arsonists.

She's waving her gun around and haranguing the protesters, and looking perfectly demented. (in the clip JMDZ posted.)

 

I am sure there is an exception to the above law to allow a person to do so if they are threatened.

Do any of the videos cover everything up to the event in question, or only start rolling after the confrontation occurs? Does any of the videos cover all the protestors and their locations as they were trespassing? Because videos only show what the camera sees while it is rolling, and not necessarily the entire incident.

Each of those witnesses against the couple were breaking the law by trespassing in said gated community. So they have a vested interest that is opposed to the interest of the defendants. So how can the prosecutor prove the protestors didn’t trespass onto the couple’s property. Absent video that shows the whole event from beginning to end, all that exists is a window into what occurred after the couple entered their yard with their guns. Like I said, it would be a he said, she said as to the reason why the couple entered their yard with guns, absent video proof one way or another.

So both sides testimony should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

They were threatening people with their guns long before anybody could have "threatened" them. You seem intent on making excuses for these people.

No, dude, just no. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you can't trust the ten witnesses who say my client murdered Person X in front of them. They're drug dealers and prostitutes. Take all those witnesses' testimony and the video showing my client with a gun standing over the dead body with a grain of salt." Yet again, a bunch of witnesses all saying the same thing versus the defendants' testimony is not "he said, she said."

The protesters have no "vested interest" outside of seeing a couple who pointed guns at them punished for the crime. And that's the same "vested interest" that any crime victim has. And the prosecutor doesn't have to prove that none of the protesters stepped foot on their property. I don't know where you are getting that idea. That's not an element of the crime.

 

Was it solely trespassing, or a potential home invasion by a mob? Because to refer to it as simple trespassing is misleading. A mob of chanting people starting to walk onto your property is different than an individual walking onto your property to ring your doorbell to sell something.

A group of people chanting outside your home and then setting foot on your property would be a cause for alarm, wouldn’t it? The protesters say they didn’t enter the couple’s property, which of course they didn’t after the couple emerged carrying guns. The question is did they trespass before the couple emerged with their guns. If they didn’t, then the couple broke the law. If they did, then the couple can argue they feared for their life, which is why they reacted in the manner they did.

 

LOL, potential home invasion? Watch the videos...no one got close to the structure. You're taking "stay of my lawn" guy to a whole new level....arm him with an AR15. Once again, you are struggling to grasp how to apply the law to a given set of facts.

 

There you go again. You don't get to threaten trespassers with firearms.

 

What sort of fantasy is this? They were walking past these people's property on the sidewalk and in the streets. You can't just create a fantasy scenario and then claim you acted lawfully to stop something that never happened.

 

Where is your proof? All you have is a video of the couple with guns AFTER the confrontation was in full swing. You don’t know what was happening before that video was taken.

With your analogy, if you take video of the murderer standing over a body with a gun without prior context, you would miss the fact that the deceased had a gun and shot at the “murderer” first, who then returned fire and killed the deceased in self defense. You are judging based on a 5 minute segment of video without context of what led to the events shown in the video

 

I posted a video before the couple were out in the front yard. The guy was peering over his fence with his gun and shouting threats. There's more than enough proof in this case. The defense lawyer can't go into trial and throw out crazy conspiracy theories without any evidence. So if this couple wants to get on the stand and risk perjuring themselves, I wish them luck. My bet is they plead this down to something minuscule, do some community service, and try to avoid losing their law licenses.

 

Bullcrap. The whole issue that I have been trying to point out, and you obtusely ignore, is that if a few of the protestors crossed into the couple’s yard, then it would enable the couple to argue they felt threatened by a mob of people invading their property. You only have the word of the protestors that no such trespassing occurred. But since they share your beliefs, you blindly accept their words as truth, instead of the words of the couple.

I want all information in before making a decision, because I see both sides have their own axes to grind.

 

I have the word of a bunch of witnesses and multiple videos, all of which show the protesters on the sidewalk or in the street and the couple brandishing their weapons and making threats. One of those videos shows the first few protesters entering through the gate and encountering the armed man (who is still in the backyard at that point) shouting at them and pointing his gun in their direction.

You can keep throwing crap at the wall and hoping it sticks, but it's baseless conjecture. Baseless conjecture isn't going to get you anywhere in a court of law. You don't get to make up wild conspiracies without evidence, no matter how much you want to obtusely ignore that point. And no, a couple of protesters stepping on their lawn as they walk past the house doesn't justify those people running outside, pointing guns at the group, and acting menacingly.

"I want all information in before making a decision." No, you don't. You want information that supports the conclusion you want to draw. Right now, you don't have it, and I bet you'll never get it.

Do you know why I take the many witnesses at their word over the couple? Because the many witnesses' description of events is supported by the video evidence. The couple's version is not. In fact, video evidence has already proven that the couple have lied in their recounting of the events.

 

Except that they claim they and their property was threatened with harm. In that case, you damn well have the right for self-defense. All the facts will come out in a court proceeding, if there is one.