Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely according to the videos. No one set foot onto his property. All on the sidewalk and street which he does not own. Well he might own the sidewalk. But if he does he has an easement allowing the use by passers by. So no - no one was on his property uninvited.
Absolutely according to the videos. No one set foot onto his property. All on the sidewalk and street which he does not own. Well he might own the sidewalk. But if he does he has an easement allowing the use by passers by. So no - no one was on his property uninvited.
All of them most multiple times. You folk do not seem to understand that lots have limits and in general do not extend into the street.
Mine actually does. But easements allow others to pass at will.
Unless you've seen the plats for McCloskey's property as they are recorded in the St. Louis municipal government you have no way of knowing if they were on his property. The videos show multiple thugs/rioters on the lawn and sidewalk within several feet of them.
I'd bet a large sum of money they were on his property even without seeing the land plats. Even if they weren't, he did nothing wrong by standing on his property with a legally purchased and owned firearm.
Unless you've seen the plats for McCloskey's property as they are recorded in the St. Louis municipal government you have no way of knowing if they were on his property. The videos show multiple thugs/rioters on the lawn and sidewalk within several feet of them.
I'd bet a large sum of money they were on his property even without seeing the land plats. Even if they weren't, he did nothing wrong by standing on his property with a legally purchased and owned firearm.
Cite a video showing anyone on the couples lawn. I have locked dozens of times and it appears they were carefully avoiding his lawn.
Yes I understand the plats that define property boundaries. I also understand how it is virtually always done.
The only thing that would be in doubt is the ownership of the sidewalk and the strip between it and the road. That is generally dedicated with the road though it is sometimes retained by the property owner. Actually many complain when that happens as the municipality shifts the maintenance to the plot owner rather than themselves. However if maintained as part of the lot it always has an easement allowing access by the public.
Cite a video showing anyone on the couples lawn. I have locked dozens of times and it appears they were carefully avoiding his lawn.
Yes I understand the plats that define property boundaries. I also understand how it is virtually always done.
The only thing that would be in doubt is the ownership of the sidewalk and the strip between it and the road. That is generally dedicated with the road though it is sometimes retained by the property owner. Actually many complain when that happens as the municipality shifts the maintenance to the plot owner rather than themselves. However if maintained as part of the lot it always has an easement allowing access by the public.
Now that you've conceded you don't know if they were on his property, you need to also concede that in St. Louis it is perfectly legal to stand on your front lawn with a lawfully purchased and owned firearm.
Now that you've conceded you don't know if they were on his property, you need to also concede that in St. Louis it is perfectly legal to stand on your front lawn with a lawfully purchased and owned firearm.
No I have asserted that they most likely were not on his property and if, in the odd outcome they were, it was legal.
And no. In MO and pretty much everywhere in the US pointing a firearm at someone who is not an immediate threat is a crime. And I suspect they may yet be charged.
All of them most multiple times. You folk do not seem to understand that lots have limits and in general do not extend into the street.
Mine actually does. But easements allow others to pass at will.
This easement was on private property. Generally, I thought easements on private property were for use by people who live in that subdivision, so the easement is for use by the residents that own the land in which the easement passes through. The easement of course could be used by emergency personnel. It's not for use by the general public though.
Looking at the video, I do think the wiser decision would've been for them to keep their cool and letting the mob pass by. If the mob started to approach their house, then I can understand, but it looks like they were headed in another direction altogether. Unfortunately, I feel like after this stunt that was pulled, they actually painted a target on their house. This is a situation where cool heads probably would've prevailed.
No I have asserted that they most likely were not on his property and if, in the odd outcome they were, it was legal.
And no. In MO and pretty much everywhere in the US pointing a firearm at someone who is not an immediate threat is a crime. And I suspect they may yet be charged.
What MO statute are you referring to when you call this man a criminal? I can show you the libel statute, or maybe (hopefully) his lawyers will.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
