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.
How much rioting, burning and looting did this group do before or after passing the McCloskey's house?
Doesn't matter. What matters is whether the McCloskeys had a reasonable fear this was a dangerous mob and their lives and property were in danger. I think that fear is very reasonable.
We don't have to wait for them to do damage or assault us before defending ourselves.
Quote:
Did the verbal threats start before or after Calamity Jane started waving her pistola around?
Doesn't matter but if there is proof of threats happening (most self defense situations don't have all this lovely video!) it would tend to validate the level of perceived threat, not disprove it... Wouldn't it?
Oh, did you move from WA to STL? I didn't know that. Congrats! I can tell you all the good spots to eat and drink - especially in the Central West End by the McCloskey's place. City Museum is a can't miss, too. Hope you enjoy your new life in the Gateway to the West!
Good grief. Certainly you're not saying the only people allowed an opinion on a national forum are locals?
Can I assume your argument is now exhausted?
Good because I have things to do. I think we've fully discussed this. Good day.
Correct. And only a moron doesn't see that the legal bar for self-defense is the same between brandishing/assault/shooting another person.
Agree, as the law does not appear to make such distinctions.
Their defense strategy at that time appeared to be an attempt to dispute the McCloskey’s weapons were “readily capable of lethal use” at the time they were used to menace protesters by claiming that the guns could not have hurt anyone.
The following piece explains more fully & quotes from relevant case law State v. Lutjen
‘They Took My AR’: St. Louis Lawyer ‘Surprised’ After Authorities Seized Rifle He Pointed at Protesters
Doesn't matter. What matters is whether the McCloskeys had a reasonable fear this was a dangerous mob and their lives and property were in danger. I think that fear is very reasonable.
We don't have to wait for them to do damage or assault us before defending ourselves.
Well, I would argue this group destroying things would go a long way toward demonstrating reasonableness. You're free to disagree, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook
Doesn't matter but if there is proof of threats happening (most self defense situations don't have all this lovely video!) it would tend to validate the level of perceived threat, not disprove it... Wouldn't it?
If threats are going to be used as justification for Mrs. McCloskey's actions, it most certainly does matter if they happened before or after. Threats prior to Mrs. John Wayne pointing her pea-shooter at folks go to reasonableness of fear. Threats after she has already done so do not, obviously.
If the threats are NOT going to be used for justification, then they are wholly irrelevant, regardless.
Agree, as the law does not appear to make such distinctions.
Their defense strategy at that time appeared to be an attempt to dispute the McCloskey’s weapons were “readily capable of lethal use” at the time they were used to menace protesters by claiming that the guns could not have hurt anyone.
The following piece explains more fully & quotes from relevant case law State v. Lutjen
‘They Took My AR’: St. Louis Lawyer ‘Surprised’ After Authorities Seized Rifle He Pointed at Protesters
The McCloskeys do not have to be right, but they have to be REASONABLE.
Given all the factors and circumstances, their action was reasonable.
1) St Louis was under civil unrest and violence for 2 weeks straight over the killing of George Floyd before the mob showed up to McCloskey's private community on June 28
2) The community McCloskeys reside is a PRIVATE community with fence, gates, and "private property" and "no trespassing" signs posted. Any reasonable people should be able to figure it is a private property.
3) The mob was estimated to be 200+ people, not 2 people.
4) the mayors home is not even in the same private community as the McCloskeys
Yes, they were trespassing. The gate wasn't locked and it wasn't damaged before the confrontation with the homeowners.
Pretty sure pointing a firearm at someone is not a legally acceptable response to simple trespass. In fact, it can be assault according to MO statutes.
Has that point been established?
It is pretty clear that the right side gate was initially intact, but I haven’t see anything that addresses whether the gate was initially locked or unlocked.
It is pretty clear that the right side gate was initially intact, but I haven’t see anything that addresses whether the gate was initially locked or unlocked.
Hmmmm, I don't remember typing that bit, honestly. The claim is that it was unlocked and the lack of apparent damage to the gate in the video would seem to support that claim, but I don't think it has been demonstrated to be true, necessarily.
I know people that live around that neighborhood and have said the gate is frequently unlocked. Take that for what it's worth.
...4) the mayors home is not even in the same private community as the McCloskeys
Correct. It's evidently on Lake Ave, which bisects Portland Place (and Westmoreland Place directly to its south). Not sure where on Lake Ave the mayor's house is.
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.
