Whenever the news posts about "White People With Guns" its usually scary or weird or monstrously stupid.

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
81,558
14,777
126
as has been pointed out repeatedly, the is ample evidence proving the gate was just fine when the protestors first arrived on the street.
There is no evidence showing ANY of the protestors attacked the gate, broke the gate, or walked thru the broken gate.
It is possible one of the protestors did break the gate, but its also possible someone unrelated to the protests did it, and the home owners blamed them out of hate, anger, or bigotry (which is generally based in hate and anger).
 

mistercrabby

Senior member
Mar 9, 2013
963
53
91
Short Licker, now y’all just making stuff up.

In any case, it isn’t about a gate, although the rioters broke it down to trespass. nor is it really about the reaction of the homeowners, or whether that kept them and their home safe from the mob. God bless our founders and the 2nd amendment.

The point, as I’ve spelled out now for the third time explicitly for you slow learners, is that making this about race by calling out a particular ethnicity, as the OP did, is racist.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
16,959
4,727
136
Short Licker, now y’all just making stuff up.

In any case, it isn’t about a gate, although the rioters broke it down to trespass. nor is it really about the reaction of the homeowners, or whether that kept them and their home safe from the mob. God bless our founders and the 2nd amendment.

The point, as I’ve spelled out now for the third time explicitly for you slow learners, is that making this about race by calling out a particular ethnicity, as the OP did, is racist.
Keeping up with the allegation with no proof I see.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,924
3,274
126
If you would have viewed one of the tweeter posts in the first article you would have seen this:


Does not say “No Trespassing.” It says “Private Drive. Access Limited to Residents”. Not appropriate signage based on Missouri law. How is someone to know they are “trespassing?” Yeah, being greeted by Ma & Pa Kettle with a hand gun and an automatic rifle. Nice.

You are wrong. Get some data to support yourself. Nothing on any of the videos posted show the protesters breaking the gate. They actually show the gate was not broken when they went through it.

It is always interesting when someone says, “What about racists against white people.” Really. The oppressor wants the oppressed to not lash out. How unfair. You probably were one that said this about affirmative action, “When are white people going to have affirmative action!” Like every opportunity available, being treated better at every point, getting preferential treatment constantly is not enough, you want it all. It is not racist you fool, it’s facts.

White privilege does not get to claim racism, regardless of your warped logic.
The gate was broken by the peaceful rioters. Are you stupid or lying ? Can’t tell.
yep move the gpoal posts....already debunked almost all your argument including the trespassing one....see above Greybeard....BLAMOO!!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,924
3,274
126
BJforAll, proof supplied above.

Still not the point. Stop supporting racism.
I would say on these forums it is people like you who are supporting racism.....
Anyone who supports the Republican party or White Supremacy is racist.....
So lets see -- Republican = one shoe
White Supremacist = second shoe
Damn you are wearing a pair of shoes!@How do they fit?
 
Last edited:

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
16,959
4,727
136
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,674
136
I strongly suspect that something in the video tipped off the cops that McCloskey's AR might be an illegal weapon. Or something. I don't have the specialized expertise to say quite what they thought was off. It seems to me that's why there was a warrant & that's why they took the weapon. They left the wife's pistol so it's not entirely about the incident with the protesters. Trump needs some new whackaloos to protect from gun grabber oppression & this may be it. The Governor obviously thinks so.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,825
2,006
136
Seems these folks need to fight felony charges.

“St. Louis’ top prosecutor told The Associated Press on Monday that she is charging a white husband and wife with felony unlawful use of a weapon for displaying guns during a racial injustice protest outside their mansion.

Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced the charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who are both personal injury attorneys in their 60s. They also face a misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree assault.

Gardner said in an interview with the AP ahead of more broadly announcing the charges that the McCloskeys’ actions risked creating a violent situation during an otherwise nonviolent protest.”

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,674
136
Seems these folks need to fight felony charges.

“St. Louis’ top prosecutor told The Associated Press on Monday that she is charging a white husband and wife with felony unlawful use of a weapon for displaying guns during a racial injustice protest outside their mansion.

Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced the charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who are both personal injury attorneys in their 60s. They also face a misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree assault.

Gardner said in an interview with the AP ahead of more broadly announcing the charges that the McCloskeys’ actions risked creating a violent situation during an otherwise nonviolent protest.”

Different than I'd speculated, but alrighty, then. Trump is gonna make 'em into heroes, right? Of course he is.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,924
3,274
126
Seems these folks need to fight felony charges.

“St. Louis’ top prosecutor told The Associated Press on Monday that she is charging a white husband and wife with felony unlawful use of a weapon for displaying guns during a racial injustice protest outside their mansion.

Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced the charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who are both personal injury attorneys in their 60s. They also face a misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree assault.

Gardner said in an interview with the AP ahead of more broadly announcing the charges that the McCloskeys’ actions risked creating a violent situation during an otherwise nonviolent protest.”

I don`t agree....sorry! Did you read the article?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
If you would have viewed one of the tweeter posts in the first article you would have seen this:
Does not say “No Trespassing.” It says “Private Drive. Access Limited to Residents”. Not appropriate signage based on Missouri law. How is someone to know they are “trespassing?” Yeah, being greeted by Ma & Pa Kettle with a hand gun and an automatic rifle. Nice.

You are wrong. Get some data to support yourself. Nothing on any of the videos posted show the protesters breaking the gate. They actually show the gate was not broken when they went through it.

It is always interesting when someone says, “What about racists against white people.” Really. The oppressor wants the oppressed to not lash out. How unfair. You probably were one that said this about affirmative action, “When are white people going to have affirmative action!” Like every opportunity available, being treated better at every point, getting preferential treatment constantly is not enough, you want it all. It is not racist you fool, it’s facts.

White privilege does not get to claim racism, regardless of your warped logic.
Missouri trespass laws are very similar to most other states.


By having an enclosed fenced in area, that is enough notice in Missouri law to denote to people that don't have property rights beyond those fences, that they aren't welcomed there unless invited. That is typical. If it is not fenced in, a sign stating no trespass or similar to that counts. In this case, the area was both fenced in, and had signage stating limited access which is akin to no trespass. Since Missouri doesnt state regulations regarding signage, like how Texas does for 30.06 laws, it extends common law instead. Missouri has a special law that allows for usage of purple paint to denote no trespassing areas as well. Which is why that signage is more than appropriate to let people know they shouldn't be there. Although it is redundant since the whole areas in fenced off in the first place.

Once in a place they have no rights to be at and then asked to leave by people with rights to be there, that is yet another way for the protestors to know they aren't welcomed there. I don't know about you, but when I see someone step onto their porch with a firearm in their hands, I know pretty damn well where I shouldn't be going if I was there.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,924
3,274
126
Missouri trespass laws are very similar to most other states.


By having an enclosed fenced in area, that is enough notice in Missouri law to denote to people that don't have property rights beyond those fences, that they aren't welcomed there unless invited. That is typical. If it is not fenced in, a sign stating no trespass or similar to that counts. In this case, the area was both fenced in, and had signage stating limited access which is akin to no trespass. Since Missouri doesnt state regulations regarding signage, like how Texas does for 30.06 laws, it extends common law instead. Missouri has a special law that allows for usage of purple paint to denote no trespassing areas as well. Which is why that signage is more than appropriate to let people know they shouldn't be there. Although it is redundant since the whole areas in fenced off in the first place.

Once in a place they have no rights to be at and then asked to leave by people with rights to be there, that is yet another way for the protestors to know they aren't welcomed there. I don't know about you, but when I see someone step onto their porch with a firearm in their hands, I know pretty damn well where I shouldn't be going if I was there.
That has no bearing on what the article says --
Gardner said in an interview with the AP ahead of more broadly announcing the charges that the McCloskeys’ actions risked creating a violent situation during an otherwise nonviolent protest.

“It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner — that is unlawful in the city of St. Louis,” Gardner said.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
That has no bearing on what the article says --
Gardner said in an interview with the AP ahead of more broadly announcing the charges that the McCloskeys’ actions risked creating a violent situation during an otherwise nonviolent protest.

“It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner — that is unlawful in the city of St. Louis,” Gardner said.

Kim Gardner hasn't had a great recent history when it comes to political cases like this. That case is going no where. Missouri has Castle Doctrine law in which the home owners had property rights and the protestors didn't. By law, if the home owners wanted to just open up firing to defend their property once the protestors broke down the gate to get in, they would be justified under the current law.

Prosecutors can bring whatever charges they feel like though. Unfortunate way the judicial system works. Kim can claim whatever she wants to make media headlines. More than likely it is going to be tossed out before it goes anywhere. It screams of trying to score political points and not following the law at all.

The fact that the home owners only brought out weapons after protestors with weapons threatened them while on private property shows they had more restraint than I certainly would have shown.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,674
136
Kim Gardner hasn't had a great recent history when it comes to political cases like this. That case is going no where. Missouri has Castle Doctrine law in which the home owners had property rights and the protestors didn't. By law, if the home owners wanted to just open up firing to defend their property once the protestors broke down the gate to get in, they would be justified under the current law.

Prosecutors can bring whatever charges they feel like though. Unfortunate way the judicial system works. Kim can claim whatever she wants to make media headlines. More than likely it is going to be tossed out before it goes anywhere. It screams of trying to score political points and not following the law at all.

The fact that the home owners only brought out weapons after protestors with weapons threatened them while on private property shows they had more restraint than I certainly would have shown.
Bullshit. You can't wave guns at people for walking down the sidewalk or the street. There is no evidence that the protesters were armed, either. The protesters had no interest in the McCloskeys other than to point out the crazy motherfuckers waving guns around. They marched right past a lot of houses on their way to the Mayor's place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,924
3,274
126
Kim Gardner hasn't had a great recent history when it comes to political cases like this. That case is going no where. Missouri has Castle Doctrine law in which the home owners had property rights and the protestors didn't. By law, if the home owners wanted to just open up firing to defend their property once the protestors broke down the gate to get in, they would be justified under the current law.

Prosecutors can bring whatever charges they feel like though. Unfortunate way the judicial system works. Kim can claim whatever she wants to make media headlines. More than likely it is going to be tossed out before it goes anywhere. It screams of trying to score political points and not following the law at all.

The fact that the home owners only brought out weapons after protestors with weapons threatened them while on private property shows they had more restraint than I certainly would have shown.
I am very sure you have no clue!
First clue that you have no clue or you just ignore the reaL Facts!
Many are saying the gate was open and NOT broken by the protestors!
Second the McCloskeys were never in fear for their property or their lives!
They were just saying that to justify their stupidity!
Also at no time did the protestors threaten the McCloskeys!
The McCloskeys over reacted and will pay the price for being stupid!
You cannot pull weapons on peaceful protestors just because you think they might harm or attack your property!
Nice try though......keep spreading your FUD!!
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
Bullshit. You can't wave guns at people for walking down the sidewalk or the street. There is no evidence that the protesters were armed, either. The protesters had no interest in the McCloskeys other than to point out the crazy motherfuckers waving guns around. They marched right past a lot of houses on their way to the Mayor's place.

It's not a street or sidewalk. It is private property. If I put a sidewalk or street on my private property, those areas are mine. In Missouri, with Castle Doctrine laws, people with property rights to those streets and sidewalks have legal protection to defend it from people that aren't suppose to be there. These are NOT public streets nor public sidewalks. Here you are wrong.

That whole area was fenced off and that makes that whole neighborhood private property. NOT PUBLIC. If they had been invited to be there then that would be one thing. They broke down a gate and entered onto private property. No different in the eyes of the law of breaking into a house in Missouri. If you don't like it move to Missouri and do what you can to change their laws. Good luck.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,079
10,657
136
This isn't political, except for the McCloskeys and MAGAs. The fence designated the HOA's private property, not the McCloskeys. The street and the sidewalk are owned by the HOA, not the McCloskeys. Meanwhile, the video shows no evidence of McCloskeys being threatened, nor are they acting like they genuinely feel threatened. But it does show them engaging in obvious and blatant brandishing, and making a big show of it to boot.
Self-defense laws are really very straightforward. It's either self-defense, or it's the other thing. Which means that there are no warning shots, you missed. And that if you pull a gun and didn't need to use it, then it's brandishing.

So calling the charge political is like when is like when climate change deniers say that science is politicized. No, it's not. You are.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
This isn't political, except for the McCloskeys and MAGAs The fence designated the HOA's property, not the McCloskeys. Meanwhile, the video shows no evidence of McCloskleys being threatened, nor are they acting like they genuinely feel threatened. But it does show them engaging in obvious and blatant brandishing, and making a big show of it to boot.
Self-defense laws are really very straightforward. It's either self-defense, or it's the other thing. Which means that there are no warning shots, you missed. And that if you pull a gun and didn't need to use it, then it's brandishing.

So calling the charge political is like when is like when climate change deniers say that science is politicized. No, it's not. You are.

Your statements in this post are wrong here. First, most states have escalation of force laws. Where it is legal to use deadly force for self defense, it is legal to brandish first the majority of time. For an anecdote, I've been charged with this before as a legal permit carrier. I had someone threatening me before and I pulled out my gun to brandish it to make them back off. They did and we both reported it to the police. Since witnesses were on my side showing that they were threatening me with physical violence first, the case against me was thrown out.

This case wasn't self defense by itself. It is CASTLE DOCTRINE, which doesn't have to be based on self defense but property defense. Similar but different legal concepts. While it is usually a bad idea in most states to fire warning shots for legal reasons, because the prosecution has in some states won cases saying that a person firing a warning wasn't in imminent fear, which most people should see as bullshit, that has no bearing in property defense cases. The cases where people got shafted for firing warning shots are in places that have duty to retreat laws still though. At least all the ones I know of. That being said, taking a warning shot to defend property is never going to get someone convicted in any state with Castle Doctrine, stand your ground, or similar laws. Which is the vast majority of America. The case against this couple just isn't going anywhere in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY