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.
In fact they were, and the vast majority of them didn't stop to engage the McCloskeys, even after they confronted them.
Funny the protesters seemed to just walk on past - and not engage/harass/damage/etc - scores of other homes on their 1+ mile march to the Mayor's house. I wonder why the McCloskey's house was different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cremebrulee
...and they by law they shouldn't have been there...
Agreed, 100%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cremebrulee
...they swore at the McCloskeys and threatened them and their dog.
Before or after Mrs. McCloskey pointed a firearm at them?
It wasn't the first house the protesters passed, though. Just the first one on Portland Place.
Again, why was their house different?
Explain how the McCloskeys could know that they weren't peaceful?
I said, "It was the first house the "protesters" passed after coming through the gate."
They could not know whether they would be peaceful or not. That is the point. Assuming that they would be peaceful could have been a disaster if some in the group planned to be violent.
They are charged with violating a Missouri law about threatening people with guns.
At the trial, they can present evidence that they were threatened, were in fear for their lives, etc.
That's how our justice system works.
Surprising that so many on this thread are unaware of this.
all the McCloskeys have to say is the were in fear of imminent danger to their lives and their properties. That's it. They don't have to provide "evidence" for fear because fear is not tangible object that you can physically touch or present as evidence (i.e. a gun or a knife)
What you are referring to is "circumstantial evidence". Circumstantial evidences that they will use are:
1) weeks of violent protest in St Louis where one retired St Louis police captain was shot dead by the mob
2) mccloskeys home is in a private community
3) the mayor's home is not in the same block as the Mccloskeys
4)mccloskeys home was the first home on the block where the mob entered
In any use of force, the defendant does not have to be right, but they have to be reasonable using a reasonable person standard in the same circumstances without benefit of 20/20 hindsight
There has to be a reasonable perceived threat of bodily harm can't shoot someone for trespassing. You probably can get away with pointing a gun at them as we seen with this case can be charged. If your well connected have deep pockets nothing will happen, but working class guy could end differently. Different in every state why good idea to know your laws, and always take the most Conservative route. If you see someone breaking into a parked car call the police don't go running out there with your AR-15 any number of bad outcomes could end up from that.
The courts have ruled "you can use deadly force if YOU deem it necessary.
It wasn't the first house the protesters passed, though. Just the first one on Portland Place.
Again, why was their house different?
Explain how the McCloskeys could know that they weren't peaceful?
They broke a gate and entered private property illegally. The land was posted. Thar makes it a crime to enter. In Missouri, a purple post or tree is a sign of private property. It is well known that is what it means under the law.
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.