St Louis couple charged for pointing guns at protesters

Watch
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
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.
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 weeks ago
#22
(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?
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#23
(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)
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by Napp)
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)
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.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 week ago
#25
(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. )

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.
0
reply
ThatOldGuy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 week ago
#26
(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.
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 week ago
#27
(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!
Image
Last edited by QE2; 1 week ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 week ago
#28
(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/missou...ense-laws.html

Spoiler:
Show
Missouri recognizes the "castle doctrine" and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your "castle." This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances.

Missouri's law is more extensive than the law in other states because it permits property owners to use the amount of force reasonably perceived as necessary, including deadly force.

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."

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?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 week ago
#29
(Original post by Napp)
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)
"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.
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 week ago
#30
(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:






Gate:
Spoiler:
Show
Image


Overview of gated community around the couple's house:


Spoiler:
Show
Image




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:
Show
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missou...ld%20be%20able

Missouri recognizes the "castle doctrine" and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your "castle." This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances.


Missouri's law is more extensive than the law in other states because it permits property owners to use the amount of force reasonably perceived as necessary, including deadly force.

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."
Last edited by Occitanie; 1 week ago
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 week ago
#31
(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!
Image
I think you're just trolling at this point.

It's an absolutely stunning refurbishment.

Image

Image

Image
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 week ago
#32
(Original post by Occitanie)
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:






Gate:
Spoiler:
Show
Image


Overview of gated community around the couple's house:


Spoiler:
Show
Image




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:
Show
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missou...ld%20be%20able

Missouri recognizes the "castle doctrine" and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your "castle." This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances.


Missouri's law is more extensive than the law in other states because it permits property owners to use the amount of force reasonably perceived as necessary, including deadly force.

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."
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.
Last edited by QE2; 1 week ago
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 week ago
#33
(Original post by Napp)
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)
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.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 week ago
#34
(Original post by Occitanie)
I think you're just trolling at this point.
It's an absolutely stunning refurbishment.
Image

Image

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

"Stunning - rendering insensible and possibly causing permanent damage through unnecessary and excessive force."
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 week ago
#35
(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?
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 week ago
#36
(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.
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.
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 week ago
#37
(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.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 week ago
#38
(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.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 week ago
#39
(Original post by Occitanie)
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.
"By their works shall they be judged"
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 week ago
#40
(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
Last edited by Underscore__; 1 week ago
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (16)
40%
Take autumn exams (16)
40%
Look for a job (1)
2.5%
Consider an apprenticeship (1)
2.5%
Take a year out (5)
12.5%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (1)
2.5%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise