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]

I appreciate your response but I have a couple questions.
What does that mean that “There’s a basic principle that protests for current events don’t require a permit”? They are either required, or they’re not. Simply not enforcing it doesn’t mean that it’s not required.
Their are a lot of laws like this and it rubs me the wrong way, but that’s a discussion for another day.

To your second statement-
So if I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying that the police knew about it, blocked the area off from traffic where they were going, but the protestors decided to go around the police blockade and go through a neighborhood where they were not suppose to go.

No - they were blocking vehicle traffic and not specifically foot traffic. I can’t say they could have walked around the barriers, but it heard that’s why they chose this route.

As for not having a permit, that’s often the case. The Mayor doxxed the letter writers two days earlier.

https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2020/05/7-Tushnet-773–792.pdf​

The bottom line, then, seems to be this: first, the First Amendment bars cities from imposing any notice requirement for a truly spontaneous demonstration, meaning that participants cannot be punished for participating in an unlawful assembly. Second, participants who commit ordinary traffic offenses, assaults, or trespasses can be punished for doing so, though often it will be unwise for city officials to attempt to do so. Third, assessing costs, while per- haps constitutionally permissible, will be almost impossible in practice.​

 

[bcla]

Just found this photo showing a security guard letting the protesters out. What I find interesting is that he’s smoking while everyone is walking by him.

I though this was their path earlier, judging by the interview with that UPI photographer, but here’s confirmation.

 

[Princessclab]

All anyone has to do to understand this couple in St Louis is to look at what happened in Minneapolis.
The protests, which are still ongoing, are unpredictable no matter if LE was notified or not.

People are terrified and have a right to defend themselves according to our Constitution. If the protest was not following any laws why was this allow to happen; were there allowances being made? Why is this; is there entitlement going on? Where is the line drawn regarding this?

Showing and pointing a gun is not even close to the horror we had when the city was terrorized and sections were burnt down. It supposedly started with a peaceful protest.
Things are raw and people are scared to do anything so they want to protect themselves against violence which they aren't sure why they are the focus.

Peoples' life work was destroyed, mostly in the black/minority neighborhoods; who do you blame?
Do the protests perpetuate what they are protesting?

Many black lives didn't seem to matter those days, it did not seem to matter to the protestors/rioters, very sad.
Lots of misdirected anger destroyed many small businesses owned by minorities. It was a great neighborhood known and loved by the citizens of Mpls.
None of the racism they were protesting existed by those who lived in the neighborhood.

Stay safe all.

 

[TLSnell1981]

...

Protesting in front of a personal home isn't all that unusual. That's actually pretty common, especially when someone does something controversial.

[\QUOTE]
Sorry, not normal or common. I can’t understand this mindset of mob harassing a person, their family and neighbors because they don’t like their job performance. It is way out of bounds... totally inappropriate. IMO

 

[bcla]

Sorry, not normal or common. I can’t understand this mindset of mob harassing a person, their family and neighbors because they don’t like their job performance. It is way out of bounds... totally inappropriate. IMO

Politicians regularly get protesters. The current US Speaker of the House lives on a public street and regularly has protesters in front of her home.

I get that it’s annoying, but many object to the exercise of Constitutional rights because of fear or annoyance.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Politicians regularly get protesters. The current US Speaker of the House lives on a public street and regularly has protesters in front of her home.

I get that it’s annoying, but many object to the exercise of Constitutional rights because of fear or annoyance.

Just because you have the right..doesn’t make it right. There is a time and place for everything. It’s not okay. IMO

 

[bcla]

Just a followup. They made a return visit on Friday to the area in a planned protest. I think there was also a permit requested. They hung around there for 15 minutes outside the gate, which was barricaded. The McCloskeys were prepared, with their attorney there along with armed security. This article says that the Chief of Police was seen talking to the McCloskeys before the crowd arrived.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_ed3d3b59-408d-5d01-b332-1da8403c21f8.html
The continued their protest in another private community.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

SURPRISE. They are terrible people

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html

Mark McCloskey has run off trustees trying to make repairs to the wall surrounding his property, insisting that he and his wife own it. In 2013, he destroyed bee hives placed just outside of the mansion’s northern wall by the neighboring Jewish Central Reform Congregation and left a note saying he did it, and if the mess wasn’t cleaned up quickly he would seek a restraining order and attorneys fees. The congregation had planned to harvest the honey and pick apples from trees on its property for Rosh Hashanah.


“The children were crying in school,” Rabbi Susan Talve said. “It was part of our curriculum.”

 

[mi*vida*loca]

SURPRISE. They are terrible people

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html

Why am I not surprised.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

This story will continue to change and get more interesting as information comes out. Important among the things you can say for sure are:

1. Video evidence is very powerful. And it counters the way 'eyewitness' accounts earn credit by the various attributes of the witness.
2. Lying is not smart. Especially when the lie is obvious and worse when the other person in the lie denies it. Far worse when the other person is the attorney for the first person. In this case the couple seems to be acting as if earning a lying title is important.
3. they sure seem to be terrible to live near and Mark M appears to have delusions of life in the wild wild west
4. It is not good, and not just blaming the couple, but communications like this with your attorney are extremely harmful and indicate some underlying issues between client and attorney.

The couple told police Friday that the pistol Patricia McCloskey brandished was with their lawyer, sources told NBC affiliate KSDK-TV.
The couple’s attorney, Joel Schwartz, ... said he has no idea where the handgun is.

McCloskey said in an affidavit last year that he had once challenged a neighbor cutting through that property “at gunpoint.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mark...black-lives-matter_n_5f094073c5b6480493d04299

 

[Searc]

SURPRISE. They are terrible people

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html

Shocking.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Given the other lawsuits it is entirely possible that Mark M thought the protesters were an answer to prayer. Giving him a chance to 'defend' the property that he was suing for.

This of course calls into question the entire idea that he already owned it. If anyone has a link to that lawsuit I would love to read it.

 

[robinb]

They are a couple of real peaches.

 

[wenrob]

SURPRISE. They are terrible people

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html

Holy… These people are batcrap crazy.

 

[bcla]

This story will continue to change and get more interesting as information comes out. Important among the things you can say for sure are:

1. Video evidence is very powerful. And it counters the way 'eyewitness' accounts earn credit by the various attributes of the witness.
2. Lying is not smart. Especially when the lie is obvious and worse when the other person in the lie denies it. Far worse when the other person is the attorney for the first person. In this case the couple seems to be acting as if earning a lying title is important.
3. they sure seem to be terrible to live near and Mark M appears to have delusions of life in the wild wild west
4. It is not good, and not just blaming the couple, but communications like this with your attorney are extremely harmful and indicate some underlying issues between client and attorney.

The couple told police Friday that the pistol Patricia McCloskey brandished was with their lawyer, sources told NBC affiliate KSDK-TV.
The couple’s attorney, Joel Schwartz, ... said he has no idea where the handgun is.

McCloskey said in an affidavit last year that he had once challenged a neighbor cutting through that property “at gunpoint.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mark...black-lives-matter_n_5f094073c5b6480493d04299

I was going to post that a search warrant was executed, but .......

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

SURPRISE. They are terrible people

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html

You mean all those defending them claiming they were just a couple of innocent goody little two shoes defending their property from an angry mob with torches and pitchforks at their very doorstep were wrong on all counts? No way. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell ya.

Holy… These people are batcrap crazy.

But but those protesters threatened me and my dog!!!!

 

[bcla]

Investigators have the handgun. Their previous attorney is no longer representing them, saying that he's now a witness because he was entrusted with the safekeeping of the gun. He does say that it was "not operable" and was as such for some time before the incident, although that's not quite explained. I'm not sure why he's saying anything at this point because he's talking about Patricia McCloskey handling it poorly (and possibly illegally).

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/l...olice/63-ebf0a3f0-5f81-41df-a025-12b65b4c7e79​

"The rifle is not one I was concerned about because the rifle was, not flourished and not held in a fashion inconsistent with what Mr. McCloskey lawfully could have done in the produce department at any Schnucks. This gun (the handgun), which was not operable, and was being handled by Mrs. McCloskey, was clearly being handled in a fashion inconsistent with anyone with any sort of gun or weapon training," Watkins said. "So the importance of having the integrity of the inoperable nature of this weapon was important given the elements of any potential crimes which may in your wildest imagination arise out of the situation which occurred on June 28 in the front yard and on the private property of the McCloskeys and Portland Place."​

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Is their a link that doesn’t require a subscription?
ETA- never mind, I think I found it

 

[bcla]

Is their a link that doesn’t require a subscription?
ETA- never mind, I think I found it

Which link? I think the Post-Dispatch gives a certain number of free views, but those will be reset by cleaning cookies. Most of the links are free to anyone.

 

[WillAustin]

Oddly enough, having weapons training is not a prerequisite for owning a gun. Just a fact.