forced entry onto their property via a locked gate that was torn down? did this not happen?
1. There is video that CLEARLY shows the protesters entering through a gate that appears to be undamaged. I've posted it on TFL in post #12 of this thread:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=607697
There's no way to know if it was locked or not from the video--they might have broken the lock to enter but, if so, that isn't shown in the video. What is certain is that the damage to the gate that has been shown in pictures very clearly did NOT happen at the time the protesters came through it. Both gates were still on their hinges with no visible damage at the time they walked through.
2. The gate was not a gate to the McCloskey's property, it was a gate to Portland Place, a gated community where the McCloskey's mansion is located. There is no evidence that I am aware of that the protesters ever set foot on the McCloskey's actual property. They were walking down a street (albeit a private street in the gated community) past the McCloskey's property when the incident took place. They were on their way to protest at a different house.
It is certainly possible that the protesters were trespassing. But if they were, it appears that they were trespassing on Portland Place property, not on the McCloskey's property.
It is certainly possible that the protesters broke the lock on the gate to gain entry--since the gate has subsequently been badly damaged it's impossible to know.. But it is clear that the gate was not torn down or visibly damaged at the time of entry.
The protesters certainly did come through the gate (which may or may not have been locked and may or may not have been posted) but doing so doesn't seem to have put them on the McCloskey's property. The gate was to the Portland Place gated community, not specifically to access the McCloskey's property.
Questions:
Is it legal to point a firearm at a person trespassing on someone else's property in MO? I don't know about MO law, but it seems to me that pointing a gun at someone for simply being where they don't belong (i.e. walking across property that's not theirs) is a bit extreme.
Would that trespasser having walked past a no trespassing sign provide justification for pointing a firearm at them in that case? I think that the sign might make it easier to prosecute the trespasser, but the offense would still be a minor one--I'm guessing not the kind of thing that would (in the absence of other evidence) justify assaulting the person with a deadly weapon. And yes, pointing a gun at someone without sufficient justification is assault with a deadly weapon.
Would that trespasser having broken the lock on a gate provide justification for pointing a firearm at them in that case? Maybe? I don't know. Remember, we don't know that the lock was broken to gain entry--that's just supposition. Butl let's assume it was. Now it is no longer just someone walking across property that's not theirs--it's not even just ignoring a sign--they had to actually work to defeat/damage some kind of restraint that made it plain the intent was to exclude them. I think that this is clearly a more serious level of trespass, perhaps if one knew for sure that a trespasser had to break a lock to get where they were, it might be sufficient justification for being somewhat concerned about their own safety than just seeing someone on property where they didn't belong. It might justify the display of firearms--but we'd have to look at MO law to be sure.
No one was shot, no one was shot at, no shots were fired at all.
Threatening someone with a gun is assault with a deadly weapon. In TX, it's called aggravated assault and is a second degree felony even if the weapon is not fired and no one is actually injured.
