Now I've seen everything: St Louis couple comes out of their house and points guns at protesters marching in front of their street

[bcla]

exactly. If she had fired that weapon, she would likely have ended up with a black eye. at a minimum.

I was thinking maybe like the 8 year old kid whose dad let him shoot a Micro-Uzi at some gun show. That was absolutely unfortunate, although it was an automatic weapon and kept on firing after it kicked back.

 

[bcla]

Wasn't this a private, gated community?
I thought I read that somewhere.

The whole point, or at least one point, of a gated community is to keep non-resident and guests out. If you don't live there and weren't invited by someone that lives there stay the heck out.

I wouldn't go into a gated community without an invitation? Leave people alone while they are at home.

If you read several pages back, some have noted that they've been in this gated community before. As a practical matter, it seems like people just walk in there all the time without any issue. However, the sheer number of people and the noise is what set of this couple.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/n...-of-their-street.3806117/page-6#post-62079967​

I have friends who live on Portland. The private streets in the CWE are now in a kind of limbo, because they are no longer fully gated. (They all run E-W. The vehicular gates leading in from the main N-S arterial streets are kept shut, but in every case you can easily drive in via a perpendicular residential street; it is that way for emergency services access. I would be very surprised if the pedestrian gates were locked; they usually are not. I've walked through them many times.)​

​

They tend to be little islands of wealth in an area that isn't so wealthy anymore (and FWIW, these are not McMansions; they are the real thing, mostly built around the turn of the last century.) You should understand that this is not what most suburbanites think of as a gated community, with a gatehouse and a guard on duty. All these streets back onto alleys, so you can also come in that way if you like. The street is not truly off limits to passerby, and the neighborhood does get the usual city services.​

 

[Skywalker]

Thankfully, nobody. But that could have gotten dicey. Private Pink Shirt and Corporal Karen didn't appear to have much in the way of training. They looked ridiculous.

Okay but, in fairness, a large mob breaking down the gates to your neighbourhood and marching to your neighbour's house might also have "gotten dicey". Works both ways.

 

[bcla]

Okay but, in fairness, a large mob breaking down the gates to your neighbourhood and marching to your neighbour's house might also have "gotten dicey". Works both ways.

Well - they certainly didn't break down the gates at first when he started to confront the marchers. All we have are his claims that they made threats, and after he made claims that they broke down the gate to enter, that puts into question the veracity of the claims that he was threatened with serious harm.

It's still somewhat odd why they were going that way since the Mayor doesn't actually live in the community. She lives in a house on a public street. I looked up the path and was thinking it didn't make any sense. However, some claimed that other intersections had been blocked so this was the most practical way.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Well - they certainly didn't break down the gates at first when he started to confront the marchers. All we have are his claims that they made threats, and after he made claims that they broke down the gate to enter, that puts into question the veracity of the claims that he was threatened with serious harm.

It's still somewhat odd why they were going that way since the Mayor doesn't actually live in the community. She lives in a house on a public street. I looked up the path and was thinking it didn't make any sense. However, some claimed that other intersections had been blocked so this was the most practical way.

Whether they broke the gate or just opened the gate to me is irrelevant. If my front door is left unlocked, it’s not an invitation to come in. Knock first and ask for permission to enter, don’t just open the gate and walk right into a gated community.
Something else that I’ve wondered is often times a legal protest requires a permit, did they have one?

 

[Searc]

Yes, go inside their home. They had a GIANT mansion. I'm sure there are plenty of safe rooms in there. And I didn't see any torches or cans of gasoline among the crowd. What are they supposed to use to burn down such a humongous house?

Adrenaline provides a "fight or flight response." It's the hormone that gives your body the ABILITY to do either. Your BRAIN still needs to kick in and make the smarter decision. The smarter decision is USUALLY flight.

Pretty sure no one is burning down an ostentatious eyesore made entirely of marble/granite.

 

[bcla]

Whether they broke the gate or just opened the gate to me is irrelevant. If my front door is left unlocked, it’s not an invitation to come in. Knock first and ask for permission to enter, don’t just open the gate and walk right into a gated community.
Something else that I’ve wondered is often times a legal protest requires a permit, did they have one?

Your own home is very different than a gated community. An old gated community has a lot more to lose by pressing a trespassing claim on community property. In many ways the status quo may be more desirable, where they put up a sign, maybe ask people nicely to leave if they're causing any problems, but don't go overboard trying to defend it. The last thing they would want is for a court to declare that the public has an unrestricted right to use the property because there was long-standing public use that wasn't stopped.

Now a brand new gated community can set up a guard shack and absolutely implement entry controls. That's a lot easier to establish as trespassing than an older community without active entry controls.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

Legally a "dwelling" must be a structure/building. The sidewalk is not a dwelling. The front yard isn't a dwelling. If someone ran on to his porch and tried to get into the building, he might have a case for the use of deadly force.

And yes I've watched the interview with the UPI photographer. He wasn't the first to enter. Have you seen this? There's a 1 minute, 29 second video that shows the first people in the crowd entering through an open gate.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1277607426934616065

I don't doubt that someone damaged the gate. That's pretty obvious. But McCloskey was already out with his gun as people were entering the area through an opened but intact gate. I don't buy his claim that he went in and grabbed his gun because they were breaking down the gate. It was already open. Why someone would be stupid enough to bend it when it was already open I can't really understand. I know some thrive on chaos. But even then it wouldn't be anything that should provoke a potentially deadly response.

The reason I was confused about you using the word "dwelling" is because of how you worded the sentence. You said: "They're going to have a tough time claiming that they were protecting their house because the law specifically notes that it only applies to a dwelling or a vehicle." (Bolding mine). When you said "house" I didn't realize you were meaning they can't claim defense of a house when it wasn't actually their house they were defending. I read it as you were saying that a house wasn't a dwelling. It was just a little unclear, but I understand what you're saying now.

The law does apply to private property too, as subsection 3 of the law that you quoted states, so *if* the protesters had entered their front yard (not saying they did, just mentioning it since you used that as an example that wouldn't apply to a dwelling), then that would be considered private property. The sidewalk, as has been noted by several posters (and where it appears the protesters were), probably would not be considered their private property. If they had been in the yard, I think their actions may have been more legally justified. Or if the wife wasn't pointing her gun, finger on the trigger, it probably would have been fine to just be standing with their guns. Since the protesters don't appear to be on their property and she is pointing the gun, finger in the trigger, it definitely makes the case harder. I agree with you there.

Yes, I know that the photographer was not the first to enter and I have seen that video. I'm not trying to say that the gate was damaged to allow the first person to be able to enter, since we can see from video people first entering through an undamaged gate. I was just providing the photographer's statement as it seemed to help provide context for *why* the gate may have been damaged. You and other posters have said you don't understand why they would have damaged it since it wasn't needed to gain the immediate entrance into the community.

From his statement, we can glean that while the damage occurred after some protesters had entered, but it sounds like *not all* had entered yet when the gate was damaged. Going along with what I said in my previous post, it seems likely that the protesters began entering through the left side of the gate, which did not get damaged. They could not get the right side of the gate opened (possibly due to the post being in the cement/it being locked), so they bent that part of the gate down *after some, but not all protesters had entered* so that protesters would have a larger area to walk through. That gives the why.



We can see in this screenshot from the video that the protesters began entering just through the left side of the gate, but the right side is still closed.


In this aftermath pic, we can see the left side of the gate (right in this pic since it's from the opposite direction) still open, but the other side that was closed initially, still closed but bent down and damaged. You can see the post I mentioned still down in the cement, indicating they were not able to open that side. Hence, it was likely damaged in an attempt to allow for a larger opening to get additional protesters through.

Again, I'm not trying to say it was damaged initially to let the first protesters in, but it does seem likely it was damaged to allow protesters in the back to get through quicker by having a larger opening. Also, I agree with you that the husband's claim that he saw the gate being broken and he *then* got his gun seems suspect. It seems like he had the gun before the gate was broken.

I will note though, that we do not see in the video how the left side of the gate was opened, just that it was held open for the first people to walk through. While it's very possible it was unlocked, it is also possible that it was locked and the protesters managed to break into it before what we see in the video without *at that time* causing damage. IF that were the case, it's possible the husband saw that happening, thought the protesters were trying to break the gate, grabbed his gun and thus had it in his possession by the time the first protesters actually entered. Not saying that's what happened, but it is possible given the evidence we have.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Your own home is very different than a gated community. An old gated community has a lot more to lose by pressing a trespassing claim on community property. In many ways the status quo may be more desirable, where they put up a sign, maybe ask people nicely to leave if they're causing any problems, but don't go overboard trying to defend it. The last thing they would want is for a court to declare that the public has an unrestricted right to use the property because there was long-standing public use that wasn't stopped.

Now a brand new gated community can set up a guard shack and absolutely implement entry controls. That's a lot easier to establish as trespassing than an older community without active entry controls.

My point still stands that whether the gate was broken or simply opened, the protesters where wrong and trespassing. If no one is going to enforce a closed gate or sign(not even sure if their was one here) then what’s the point of even having it?

 

[littlejimmy]

its odd how we have 23 pages of a couple pulling their gun out and no shots fired, and the discussion is still going strong and no one has convinced anyone else to change their point of view, and probably nothing new has been added in the last 10 pages, but this past weekend in Chicago and new York and many other cities, hundreds of people pulled guns out and actually shot and killed other people, and that barely registers on our radar. just seems weird how focused we are on something that really caused no problems, except in the "what if" realm of thinking. ok. continue on.

 

[sam_gordon]

its odd how we have 23 pages of a couple pulling their gun out and no shots fired, and the discussion is still going strong and no one has convinced anyone else to change their point of view, and probably nothing new has been added in the last 10 pages, but this past weekend in Chicago and new York and many other cities, hundreds of people pulled guns out and actually shot and killed other people, and that barely registers on our radar. just seems weird how focused we are on something that really caused no problems, except in the "what if" realm of thinking. ok. continue on.

So what's stopping you from starting a thread talking about the "hundreds" of gun killings across the country? Instead, you criticize others for NOT talking about them, when you're not doing anything either.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

People can be concerned about more than one thing at the same time. The reason that this is so interesting is because it is so bizarre.

I, for one, don't care about changing anyone's mind nor am I interested in hashing out the definition of "home" or "dwelling" or the legal implications of private versus community property. I am interested in the psychology of the kind of people who would pull out firearms on a peaceful BLM march. I think this is a legitimate thing to wonder about and feel like discussing.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Okay but, in fairness, a large mob breaking down the gates to your neighbourhood and marching to your neighbour's house might also have "gotten dicey". Works both ways.

Yet this is no longer the McCloskey story. Their lawyer has made clear it was not a mob, and it was not black people it was a few WHITE trouble makers that precipitated McCloskey's arming themselves. Outside of the original McCloskey story, which obviously false based on the video, there has been no allegation of a mob by anyone who was there.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I am interested in the psychology of the kind of people who would pull out firearms on a peaceful BLM march. I think this is a legitimate thing to wonder about and feel like discussing.

I’ve read that police like to keep protests out of residential areas, probably for these type situations.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

That's interesting. The police directed the march that I participated in through a residential area in order to get to the intersection where the main demonstration was going to be held. We had several homeowners come out with coolers of water but no guns. This wasn't a super left leaning area either.

 

[Hikergirl]

That's interesting. The police directed the march that I participated in through a residential area in order to get to the intersection where the main demonstration was going to be held. We had several homeowners come out with coolers of water but no guns. This wasn't a super left leaning area either.

Were you marching to a specific's person's home because you were angry at what they had done?
Just curious as I see a general march different than a march with a specific target.
It sounds like you were passing through that neighborhood but not planning to congregate in it. I wonder if the police would have handled it the same way had you been planning to stay there in front of a specific persons home.
(you as in protesters, not just you).

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Apparently the attorney who is still walking back the original 'story' of the McCloskey's has started on Mark M to change the story as well. Some interesting marketing and positioning going on. It seems impossible that McCloskey can avoid a formal complaint to the Missouri bar. The decision on that will ultimately be public. Given the requirements on the attorney I would expect it to be very accurate. Changing stories so much in public will hurt in front of the bar. It does not appear there is any sense of reality by the McCloskey's and no idea of how important consistency is. Once the original story is abandon by them what defense do they have?

The change in the story from an initial mob storming to no mob just a few white agitators leaves open the question if the white agitators 'high jacked' the protest into a mob.

However, the police assertion that the McCloskeys picked up their guns after being threatened was apparently contradicted by Mark McCloskey himself, who told KMOV, “The threats happened probably after we got the guns.”
https://people.com/crime/st-louis-prosecutor-investigate-couple-pointed-guns-protesters/
"They are appalled that they have been portrayed in a fashion which they believe is going to be used by some to support the position that its time to grab the Confederate flag and grab a gun and protect ourselves against the BLM movement," he said. "My clients know that they looked like lunatics."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...er-pointing-guns-st-louis-protest/3284186001/

 

[Hikergirl]

"They are appalled that they have been portrayed in a fashion which they believe is going to be used by some to support the position that its time to grab the Confederate flag and grab a gun and protect ourselves against the BLM movement," he said. "My clients know that they looked like lunatics."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...er-pointing-guns-st-louis-protest/3284186001/

Yeah, they've probably seen all the memes

 

[bcla]

The reason I was confused about you using the word "dwelling" is because of how you worded the sentence. You said: "They're going to have a tough time claiming that they were protecting their house because the law specifically notes that it only applies to a dwelling or a vehicle." (Bolding mine). When you said "house" I didn't realize you were meaning they can't claim defense of a house when it wasn't actually their house they were defending. I read it as you were saying that a house wasn't a dwelling. It was just a little unclear, but I understand what you're saying now.

The law does apply to private property too, as subsection 3 of the law that you quoted states, so *if* the protesters had entered their front yard (not saying they did, just mentioning it since you used that as an example that wouldn't apply to a dwelling), then that would be considered private property. The sidewalk, as has been noted by several posters (and where it appears the protesters were), probably would not be considered their private property. If they had been in the yard, I think their actions may have been more legally justified. Or if the wife wasn't pointing her gun, finger on the trigger, it probably would have been fine to just be standing with their guns. Since the protesters don't appear to be on their property and she is pointing the gun, finger in the trigger, it definitely makes the case harder. I agree with you there.

Yes, I know that the photographer was not the first to enter and I have seen that video. I'm not trying to say that the gate was damaged to allow the first person to be able to enter, since we can see from video people first entering through an undamaged gate. I was just providing the photographer's statement as it seemed to help provide context for *why* the gate may have been damaged. You and other posters have said you don't understand why they would have damaged it since it wasn't needed to gain the immediate entrance into the community.

From his statement, we can glean that while the damage occurred after some protesters had entered, but it sounds like *not all* had entered yet when the gate was damaged. Going along with what I said in my previous post, it seems likely that the protesters began entering through the left side of the gate, which did not get damaged. They could not get the right side of the gate opened (possibly due to the post being in the cement/it being locked), so they bent that part of the gate down *after some, but not all protesters had entered* so that protesters would have a larger area to walk through. That gives the why.

View attachment 505891

We can see in this screenshot from the video that the protesters began entering just through the left side of the gate, but the right side is still closed.
View attachment 505892

In this aftermath pic, we can see the left side of the gate (right in this pic since it's from the opposite direction) still open, but the other side that was closed initially, still closed but bent down and damaged. You can see the post I mentioned still down in the cement, indicating they were not able to open that side. Hence, it was likely damaged in an attempt to allow for a larger opening to get additional protesters through.

Again, I'm not trying to say it was damaged initially to let the first protesters in, but it does seem likely it was damaged to allow protesters in the back to get through quicker by having a larger opening. Also, I agree with you that the husband's claim that he saw the gate being broken and he *then* got his gun seems suspect. It seems like he had the gun before the gate was broken.

I will note though, that we do not see in the video how the left side of the gate was opened, just that it was held open for the first people to walk through. While it's very possible it was unlocked, it is also possible that it was locked and the protesters managed to break into it before what we see in the video without *at that time* causing damage. IF that were the case, it's possible the husband saw that happening, thought the protesters were trying to break the gate, grabbed his gun and thus had it in his possession by the time the first protesters actually entered. Not saying that's what happened, but it is possible given the evidence we have.

There was another photo showing the other side of the gate swung open and intact with the marchers filing in. They weren’t climbing over a broken gate. It sounds like someone vandalized it. It’s not a good look for a group that I understand was loud but otherwise peaceful.

 

[bcla]

Were you marching to a specific's person's home because you were angry at what they had done?
Just curious as I see a general march different than a march with a specific target.
It sounds like you were passing through that neighborhood but not planning to congregate in it. I wonder if the police would have handled it the same way had you been planning to stay there in front of a specific persons home.
(you as in protesters, not just you).

That day they weren’t actually congregating in the community. Not sure why they went through, but they did. They Mayor’s house is outside. They apparently had to use a pedestrian path to get there. One of the interviews with the UPI photographer has him saying they needed a security guard to open the gate that led outside.