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.
Then their first instincts shouldn’t be to reach for firearms when it is clear neither knows how to handle one. They have no business owning firearms when they are so trigger happy without proper training. There is absolutely zero doubt that the McCloskeys displayed utter lack of judgment and I would not trust their professional advice if I were looking for legal counsel. On top of that, they escalated the situation when they brandished their weapons, endangering their own lives and the lives of protestors. They deserve all the ridicule they are receiving and I hope this is a wake up call for them to get rid of their firearms, given how poorly they reacted and handled the weapons.
In all the years they’ve owned loaded firearms, they can’t act like responsible owners and train themselves on proper handling of firearms. They also have a history of pointing a gun at neighbors over property dispute. Time and again, they use firearms not as a mean of self-defense, but as a means of intimidation. To add to this, they don’t know how to handle guns. They represent a danger to the community.
I’m glad this incident is under investigation.
As I said in post #765:
Quote:
However, their tactics and gun handling need a lot of training, and they themselves admit that the way they confronted the crowd evoked counter-confrontation from the crowd that might not have otherwise occurred. Better tactics would have avoided an armed confrontation while simultaneously providing more real protection.
I didn't know about the earlier conflicts. I'm not sure it makes a difference in this situation, but it does indicate that these people already had some issues.
Not at the house. At least this time, they stayed out on the public street, rather than trespassing on the private street the McCloskeys live on.
I have nothing against protesting, as long as you are not breaking the law while doing it.
It's not actually a private street. It's actually a public street that has been treated as private by local custom. That's been a civic issue several times in the past.
And, interestingly, the quasi-private status of that street was an issue that three years ago caused the McCloskeys to pull a gun on their own neighbors. That incident is still working through the courts.
It's not actually a private street. It's actually a public street that has been treated as private by local custom. That's been a civic issue several times in the past.
And, interestingly, the quasi-private status of that street was an issue that three years ago caused the McCloskeys to pull a gun on their own neighbors. That incident is still working through the courts.
The Chicago Tribune claims that your post is all fake news.
The Chicago Tribune says it is a private street.
The Chicago Tribune says the last dispute involving a gun involves a small piece of property the the McCloskeys claim is their property and the trustees say it belongs to the neighborhood.
The Chicago Tribune says nothing of the street being in dispute.
I apologize if my post seems blunt, but these days, with everybody saying all kinds of things about everything, fake news spreads faster than wildfire. If you have an equally, or more, credible source, I encourage you to be just as blunt about it. I like the truth, not narratives.
The Chicago Tribune claims that your post is all fake news.
The Chicago Tribune says it is a private street.
The Chicago Tribune says the last dispute involving a gun involves a small piece of property the the McCloskeys claim is their property and the trustees say it belongs to the neighborhood.
The Chicago Tribune says nothing of the street being in dispute.
I apologize if my post seems blunt, but these days, with everybody saying all kinds of things about everything, fake news spreads faster than wildfire. If you have an equally, or more, credible source, I encourage you to be just as blunt about it. I like the truth, not narratives.
Your link has a link to a St Louis Post-Dispatch article that speaks of what I mentioned.
But another Post-Dispatch article does indeed confirm that the area is private property with no city right of way.
From the way I am reading it, a professor of African American studies is arguing over whether there SHOULD be privately owned communities. Not whether there is a legal dispute over whether this land is privately owned from a legal standpoint.
The McCloskeys, claimed that a sliver of land near the gate is their land. They moved the sign to the other side of the street and tried to make residents walk on that side. Again, this was a dispute over whether the land was owned by the McCloskeys vs the association. The defendants were the trustees of Portland Place, not the town. No outsiders have made claim to this land, so it is not relevant.
Edit: I see that you have edited to add the link. Thank you.
The real full story is here! https://www.facebook.com/OfficialLiz...Tg3MDA3Nzk3Ng/ It's not what you think & the MSM didn't report it. Here on the link & on -1:45. Hope this clears up what the news failed to show you.
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.
