St Louis couple charged for pointing guns at protesters

A husband and wife have been charged with unlawful use of a weapon for pointing guns at demonstrators outside their home in St Louis, Missouri.
Lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey drew guns on racial justice protesters marching through the grounds of their $1.15m mansion last month.
The couple said they armed themselves because they felt threatened.
But St Louis' top prosecutor said their actions had risked creating violence at an otherwise peaceful protest.
"It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in nonviolent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St Louis," said Kim Gardner, who is the city's the first black circuit attorney.
"We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation will not be tolerated," she added.
The McCloskeys also face a charge of fourth-degree assault.
The couple's lawyer, Joel Schwartz, called the decision to press charges "disheartening as I unequivocally believe no crime was committed".

The couple, both personal injury attorneys who live on a private street, have said they were within their rights to defend their property.
Missouri Governor Mike Parson has said he was prepared to exercise his pardon powers if prosecutors brought criminal charges in the case.
"I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail," the Republican told a local radio station last week.
When he was a legislator, the governor co-wrote Missouri's "castle doctrine" law that justifies deadly force for those who are defending their homes from intruders.
Video footage showed Mr McCloskey, 63, and his wife, 61, draw firearms as demonstrators marched past their mansion to the home of St Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson to call for her resignation on 28 June.
The mayor had infuriated activists by reading out on Facebook Live the names and addresses of people advocating for defunding police.
The McCloskeys' legal team has said two or three white protesters had threatened the couple and their property.
According to a police report on the incident, the couple said a large group of people had broken through an iron gate marked with "No Trespassing" and "Private Street" signs. One of the protest leaders maintained the gate was already open.
The march was part of a nationwide wave of demonstrations over police brutality and racism prompted by the alleged killing of an unarmed black man, George Floyd, by a white policeman.
Ms Gardner is recommending that the husband and wife participate in a "diversion programme" designed to reduce unnecessary involvement with the courts.
It could see them ordered to take part in community service or a remedial course.
Class E felonies like unlawful use of a weapon can carry prison sentences of up to four years.

Interesting development, especially given the legal right to defend your property from a dangerous mob...


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53481537

Being lawyers themselves, and wealthy as hell, I am sure they'll find a way out of this.

As much as it was wrong for protesters to break onto their land, threatening them with guns (when the protesters themselves weren't being violent, save for a broken gate) was clearly disproportionate and unnecessary. Can't think of a better case of 'both sides are morons'.

You should consider looking into Castle Law in Missouri. I provided a link in response to Napp.

It's not hard to understand that if you trespass onto someone's private property and the owner reasonably believe they or their property are under threat they are allowed to use their legal and registered weapons in a non-lethal manner.

Anyway, I'm quite certain the charges will be dropped.

As much as it was wrong for protesters to break onto their land

Why was it wrong? As far as I can they didn't actually go up to the house, just walked on the street outside it.

Interesting development, especially given the legal right to defend your property from a dangerous mob...


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53481537

Why was it wrong? As far as I can they didn't actually go up to the house, just walked on the street outside it.

The street was still on private property (a gated community, apparently).

Because it was all private property. That was a gated community and they had broken the gate and walked inside.

So? Do you think it's right that parts of the city and the streets through them should be forcibly made off-limits to poor people? As that's ultimately both the goal and the result of privately owned streets and gated communities.

You never point a gun at a crowd. That's how you escalate a situation.

So? Do you think it's right that parts of the city and the streets through them should be forcibly made off-limits to poor people? As that's ultimately both the goal and the result of privately owned streets and gated communities.

I';m more inclined to side with the couple here. A violent crowd of rioters breaks onto your property, you should be allowed to defend it.

You can defend your property how you like, but if you accidentally shot one of them, don't expect to be treated nicely by the crowd/police.

It hardly matters what the crowd would have though to be honest. An AR15 rather speaking for itself on the matter, no?
On a slightly more serious note though your example does run into the legal problem of a mob lynching vs. legal defence of the property (however much people might disagree with the law).