St Louis Couple Served, AR confiscated

The female prosecutor in the case was backed by Soros when she ran for office;I am sure that had NOTHING to do with this........ (uh-huh)
 
Well, McCloskey made several poor decisions from a standpoint of minimizing tactical and legal risks.* However, as a wealthy plaintiff’s lawyer, I’m betting he has both a high tolerance for risk and the resources and skillset to deal with it.

*The piece of property he was defending was arguably not even his curtilage and he’d been in litigation about the subject so he knew it.

But as FITASC points out, this is what happens when you elect Soros backed candidates for Sheriff and/or District Attorney. The mob goes unpunished but the people who stand up to it? They get the book thrown at them.
 
The news blub I saw said search warrant executed, rifle seized, no charges filed at this time.

Also included this, from the city attorney...

"Make no mistake: We will not tolerate the use of force against those exercising their First Amendment rights, and will use the full power of Missouri law to hold people accountable."

Peaceful people expressing their First amendment rights, or angry mob destroying private property and making threats against anyone in their way?

Seems the city attorney has already made up her mind on the matter and is just looking for the mechanics of the law to enforce that opinion.

I might be wrong, but i doubt it.
 
Also included this, from the city attorney...

"Make no mistake: We will not tolerate the use of force against those exercising their First Amendment rights, and will use the full power of Missouri law to hold people accountable."

Peaceful people expressing their First amendment rights, or angry mob destroying private property and making threats against anyone in their way?
Click to expand...
First amendment rights are a limitation on the government's power to abridge freedom of expression. The first amendment does not apply to private citizens on their own, private property. I think that city attorney must have printed his law school diploma at FedEx Office.
 
The search warrant means there is an ongoing criminal investigation and that the rifle (but not the pistol) is relevant evidence in it. My guesses would be:

1) A decision/deal has already been made that the wife will not be charged.
2) Whether the rifle is an actual functioning firearm, or an airsoft, or a rubber duck, is relevant to the criminal investigation.
 
I haven't really dug into this one, but what I find odd (or maybe 'questionable' is a better word) is that they seized the husband's AR, but I have not seen any pictures of him pointing it at anyone. At the same time, I have seen pictures of the wife pointing her pistol at someone in the crowd, but her pistol was NOT confiscated. So is is more about the gun than the behavior (again)?
 
Upon further reading on my part, it seems the Jimenez pistol was surrendered and found to be inoperable. Further, the McCloskeys assert she knew the pistol was inoperable when she pointed it at people during the confrontation.

Kermit.tea.jpg.
 
She was certainly more blatant about it then he was. But, with the Rifle held level and the Crowd marching down the road, im sure he muzzled some folks.

Now, was it intentional?? It didnt look like it to me. She did look like she was pointing he gun intentionally.

The whole episode SCREAMS of the need for Training with the potential for defensive firearms use. A gun in your home is NOT enough.
 
Sharkbite said:
The whole episode SCREAMS of the need for Training with the potential for defensive firearms use. A gun in your home is NOT enough.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the mob decided not to make good on any of their threats made after entering the property. So, maybe having the gun was enough.

Training is great and I could use my keen hindsight to act differently, but appearing with a rifle in hand may have saved this couple's home.
 
Last edited:
The protesters, rioters, looters, public property destroyers walk the streets while the law abiding couple is prosecuted for defending their property.

Is this country going nuts?
 
Eric Schmitt, Missouri State Attorney General was interviewed by Fox News’ Shannon Bream Friday night, and said in part:

Under Missouri law under the castle doctrine, an individual has a really expansive authority to protect their own lives their home, and their property. And I think the story here to watch here is the local prosecutor Kim Gardner has an abysmal record in prosecuting violent crime and been complicit in the release of dozens and dozens of inmates who’ve been charged with violent crimes and has a record of making politically motivated decisions not based on the law. So this is certainly something to watch
Click to expand...

The linked article also claims the pistol the woman was holding was inoperable and was a dummy used in their pursuit of legal action against the gun manufacturer. Which I find to be a delicious bit of irony.
 
On the other hand, the mob decided not to make good on any of their threats made after entering the property. So, maybe having the gun was enough.
Click to expand...

And yet with some basic training in muzzle discipline and understanding of appropriate ready positions, they would not now have the issues of pointing their guns at people. AND it would have been SAFER for everybody.
 
not sure what the problem is...
Click to expand...

The problem is the apparent lack of equal treatment under the law.

No one was shot, no one was shot at, no shots were fired at all. what's the real crime here? Standing in defense of home with arms?? Scaring the people who are breaking through your gate???

Or being caught on video resisting a "free speech" expression by people who are yelling threats and destroying property, heading for your house??

No matter what their personal leanings are, no matter what causes they support, or don't, is it right for them to be scapegoated? (and perhaps charged -yet to be seen) for NOT shooting people???
 
Guys, I need everyone to review the rules specific to this subforum. We don't do generalized liberal/conservative stuff. We don't call people "libtards," and we don't joke about people we don't agree with shooting each other.

If your post was deleted, it was with good reason. Don't make me stop this car.
 
Legally, pointing a weapon at someone requires a justifiable reason, in most jurisdictions. So, the question seems more "were they justified in threatening to use deadly force?" not "No one got shot = nothing illegal."
 
No one got shot = no one got shot. Which is why I'm asking what is the crime here?

Brandishing a firearm? some level of assault /threat due to pointing a gun?

There may be some level of offense worthy of charges, but so far its still "under investigation". Also remember that charges may be justified, but never filed.

It is sensational now, but down the road in a court, it could be the jury only considers "angry threatening mob vs. homeowners in fear for their lives". Many, many things will be in play before then, including the prosecutor's opinion of that likelyhood and the repercussions of taking such a case to court, and losing...

I have no way of knowing just what evidence either side will bring to light, if it comes to a court hearing. Some times, the real story isn't what it seems to be in the media...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top