St Louis couple charged for pointing guns at protesters

Scroll to see replies

What happens if people in the crowd have guns? It's America after all.

It would rather put paid to the idea that they were peaceful protesters. Breaking into someones property with a firearm being quite clear.

Reply 21

Gundabad(good)

Original post by Napp

It would rather put paid to the idea that they were peaceful protesters. Breaking into someones property with a firearm being quite clear.

They were walking through there property, weren't they? So why did the couple point their guns at them, instead of waiting for them to pass through?

Reply 22

Napp

Original post by Gundabad(good)

They were walking through there property, weren't they? So why did the couple point their guns at them, instead of waiting for them to pass through?

Because they smashed down the gate and threatened to storm the property apparently. With some accounts having that the rioters were threatening them.
Either way if a bunch of lowlife thugs broke into your property, whilst burning other parts of the city, would you sit on your haunches and allow them to potentially loot your house and harm your family? (that being the home owners point of view)

Reply 23

Gundabad(good)

Original post by Napp

Fair enough. The couple has the right to bear arms so they might as well use it to defend themselves and their property. Smashing down your gate and entering your estate is a sign of trouble.

Reply 24

anarchism101

Original post by ThatOldGuy

Yes, and I'll tell you why (Though, given your name is 'Anarchism101', I suspect we have two entirely separate ideologies and this may be useless. :wink:

)

A private community is a community paid and maintained entirely without public funds.

False. Even at a surface level, such a community requires at least two publicly funded institutions to maintain itself, namely the police and the courts.

At a level below that, any community resident who worked in the public sector, or as a contractor for a public sector agency, or had a client who was a public sector worker, ultimately requires public funds to pay towards the community.

And at the very bottom level, all the money ultimately comes out of public funds - in the US, it is physically created by the Treasury Department (yes, I know that because of Fractional Reserve Banking, private banks can directly create virtual money, but i) they can only do this because the state guarantees its value, and ii) they need reserves of state-created physical cash to do it).

And of course there's the issue of the history of land ownership. Given they're in the US, very likely at some point the land was forcibly taken from its previous Native American inhabitants by the American state.

In fact, isn't one of the tenets of anarchy that government interventionalism is a net negative and that the state apparatus is a lie? By that token, the private syndicalism of the group that holds that land and does with it as it wants is fine. In fact, the attempt of the crowd to create a coercive society should be anathema to you.

On the contrary, as noted above government intervention is required for them to "hold" the land in the first place. The crowd coerced no-one - indeed, it is the proprietors who seek to coercively prevent them from passing through the land.

Reply 25

ThatOldGuy

Original post by anarchism101

And of course there's the issue of the history of land ownership. Given they're in the US, very likely at some point the land was forcibly taken from its previous Native American inhabitants by the American state.

On the contrary, as noted above government intervention is required for them to "hold" the land in the first place. The crowd coerced no-one - indeed, it is the proprietors who seek to coercively prevent them from passing through the land.

Ah! So your argument is that it wasn't private land at all because private ownership doesn't count for anything.

I suspect you're simply using that as an excuse, but I could be wrong. Can you post your address and your picture, along with evidence of your identity and the words that you don't believe in private property and therefor anyone can take or damage anything of yours they want to?

I don't want to say you're a hypocrite because we have no evidence of that, yet. I just suspect it.

The native argument is an interesting one. Let's take your 'very likely' scenario at face value. Which tribe owned it? The one who originally settled it or the tribe who eventually took it in the internecine wars that the native tribes of the area engaged in? Maybe it was the Chickasaw? The Osage? The Quapaw? Which tribe owned it originally? They're all Missouri-regional tribes and they all engaged in violence to take from their neighbors. If you could tell me which one it is that owned it originally, that would be greatly appreciated.

For that matter, why worry so much about tribe? What about individuals or families? Chances are, all of them are dead. Does that mean the land no longer counts for anything or are we sticking to the private ownership has no meaning clause?

Because I'm not sure which argument you're using - That it's native and or that it's no one's land and the protesters shouldn't have been stopped in the first place.

Reply 26

QE2

Original post by Napp

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

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

While everyone has the right to security in their own home, these two lose that right on grounds of taste alone.
Remember that this is a recent build. Shame on them!

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 27

QE2

Original post by Occitanie

Citizens in Missouri have Castle Law, which is effectively the right to defend private property.

I believe this couple did have reasonable presumption that their property was under threat.

I think that the maximum they could get would be 4 years, and I simply don’t think this will stand in court.

I’m not a lawyer, so take this with a pinch of salt.

Here’s some further info at https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-self-defense-laws.html

Spoiler

The 300 odd protestors had broken into the gated community. Video evidence supports this.

I firmly believe that the couple were well in their right to defend their property.

You could possibly argue that the wife pointing her gun may be an instigation, however since she didn’t fire it, it’s not a crime (according to state law).

Did all the other residents of Portland Place feel the need to threaten protesters with automatic weapons?

Reply 28

QE2

Original post by Napp

"Some accounts"?
White lawyer - "I felt threatened by the black man, so I shot him".
White judge - "Seams reasonable. You're free to go".

Oh how they laughed down at the NRA Samuel Bowers memorial BBQ.

Reply 29

Occitanie

Original post by QE2

Did all the other residents of Portland Place feel the need to threaten protesters with automatic weapons?

Completely irrelevant, but I'll bite:

The protestors entered the gated community via a gate off the main road. Plenty of videos showing the protestors gaining access through said gate, here's one of them:

Spoiler

Gate:

Spoiler

Overview of gated community around the couple's house:

Spoiler

They then entered onto the couple's property (first house directly after the gate).

Castle Law permits them to use their guns in a non-lethal manner to protect their property:

Spoiler

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 30

Occitanie

Original post by QE2

While everyone has the right to security in their own home, these two lose that right on grounds of taste alone.
Remember that this is a recent build. Shame on them!

I think you're just trolling at this point.

It's an absolutely stunning refurbishment.

Reply 31

QE2

Original post by Occitanie

Spoiler

Gate:

Spoiler

Overview of gated community around the couple's house:

Spoiler

They then entered onto the couple's property (first house directly after the gate).

Castle Law permits them to use their guns in a non-lethal manner to protect their property:

Spoiler

So it was only Ken and Karen from the whole gated community that felt the need to brandish automatic weapons at unarmed protestors.
Fair enough. Having seen the inside of their house, they clearly have problems judging what is acceptable or necessary.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 32

Occitanie

Original post by Napp

There seems to be conflicting reports/videos on whether the protestors did or did not break the gate. However, the crux of the matter is that they gained entry onto private land - which is illegal.

They then proceeded to enter onto the McCloskey's (the owners) land, again illegal.

Reply 33

QE2

Original post by Occitanie

I think you're just trolling at this point.
It's an absolutely stunning refurbishment.

Thanks for that. A little bit of sick came up.

"Stunning - rendering insensible and possibly causing permanent damage through unnecessary and excessive force."

Reply 34

Underscore__

Original post by QE2

So it was only Ken and Karen from the whole footed community that felt the need to brandish automatic weapons at unarmed protestors.
Fair enough. Having seen the inside of their house, they clearly have problems judging what is acceptable or necessary.

What makes you think they had automatic weapons?

Reply 35

Occitanie

Original post by QE2

I fail to see what the inside of their house has to do with this? Are you jealous/envious? Who the hell cares. They made their money, bought a run-down house and refurbished it and made it into, in my opinion, a beautiful abode.

The McCloskey's felt threatened on their OWN property and used reasonable force to remove the trespassers. No shots fired, no one hurt and no one killed. That's Castle Law to the T.

Reply 36

Occitanie

Original post by QE2

Thanks for that. A little bit of sick came up.

"Stunning - rendering insensible and possibly causing permanent damage through unnecessary and excessive force."

You're a meme/troll.

Reply 37

QE2

Original post by Underscore__

What makes you think they had automatic weapons?

Ah, so you are part of the "but the AR15 is just a single-shot possum hunting rifle" brigade?
Fair enough.

Reply 38

QE2

Original post by Occitanie

"By their works shall they be judged"

Reply 39

Underscore__

Original post by QE2

Ah, so you are part of the "but the AR15 is just a single-shot possum hunting rifle" brigade?
Fair enough.

All I asked was what makes you think they had automatic weapons, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and just correct you to say they were holding semi automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are very hard to get hold of, very expensive, and very uncommon