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

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,924
3,274
126
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.
are you that freaking dense! Letsa play your silly game!
So thgey were not invited into the gated community! That does not matter!
They still had no right to bear arms and fake that they were concerned for their property when it was a peaceful protest!
You spreading manure all over the place!
They did not break down the gate and if they did that would not have mattered!
The law you spout is not accurate! Plus there is no sense discussing anything with you because you spout what you claim are the facts when they are lies!!
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,051
10,587
136
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. Taking a warning shot to defend property is never going to get someone convicted in any state with Castle Doctrine or similar laws. Just isn't happening.
Once again, the fence, street, and the sidewalk are still not the borrowers' private property, and they still were not in legitimate fear for their lives. If that were true, they would have stayed inside the house.
 
  • Love
Reactions: JEDIYoda

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
Once again, the fence, street, and the sidewalk are still not the borrowers' private property, and they still were not in legitimate fear for their lives. If that were true, they would have stayed inside the house.

Once again, it IS their property. They pay into the HOA. It is SHARED property rights. They have the right to defend that shared area like anyone else that belongs to that HOA. They do not lose that right just because it is a shared right. Please don't be this dumb. It has nothing to do with fear for their lives but property defense.


My land and domicile is shared between my wife, myself, and my kids. ANY one of use can defend it. The laws gives the same rights to any and all that can lay claim to any part of that property. The HOA is a management system for managing the shared property rights of the home owners of that neighborhood.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,674
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.
He's obfuscating at warp spin. It's wrong & illegal to act the way the McCloskeys did under the circumstance. Completely ridiculous & totally indefensible.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,924
3,274
126
Once again, it IS their property. They pay into the HOA. It is SHARED property rights. They have the right to defend that shared area like anyone else that belongs to that HOA. They do not lose that right just because it is a shared right. Please don't be this dumb.
Nice try! Trump would be proud of you! Now you are moving the bar!
But that is OK, we all enjoy laughing at your ridiculous assertions!
You claim they have a right to defend??? Defend against what? Peaceful protestors walking on HOA property? See how ridiculous you are making yourself out to be?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,051
10,587
136
Once again, it IS their property. They pay into the HOA. It is SHARED property rights. They have the right to defend that shared area like anyone else that belongs to that HOA. They do not lose that right just because it is a shared right. Please don't be this dumb.
You're confusing this with a condo when this is a PUD. In a PUD, the HOA is a separate legal entity which owns the common areas in separate title, and the homeowners hold title to their individual lots and dwellings and pay fees to the HOA for access to and maintenance of the common areas.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
You're confusing this with a condo when this is a PUD. In a PUD, the HOA is a separate legal entity which owns the common areas in separate title, and the homeowners hold title to their individual lots and dwellings and pay fees to the HOA for access to and maintenance of the common areas.
Not in a private neighborhood. Public neighborhood with an HOA not setup by the actual homeowners in certain states that is the case. However, that is not the case here. It is a buy bit when purchasing a house in this neighborhood. They have a shared claim to the common areas of the private property of a private neighborhood. The association may hold the title to the common area lands, but all home owners in a private neighborhood tend to have a shared ownership right to all common areas held under such titles. As part of the cost of purchasing a house in such a neighborhood, like a condo, is a fractional fee for shared ownership.

In public neighborhoods, in some states and cases, the original developer owns the titles and whomever they decide to sell it to. In which case, different states have different laws regarding property defense of shared common owned areas by homeowners. In Texas, where I live, it doesn't matter. If I see someone trying to break into a common area that isnt suppose to be there and it is after dark then I can legally shoot them. Again, different states have different laws regarding this. When it comes to private neighborhoods, almost all states treat it like the condo setup you mentioned which includes Missouri.
 
Last edited:

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,051
10,587
136
Not in a private neighborhood. Public neighborhood with an HOA not setup by the actual homeowners in certain states that is the case. However, that is not the case here. It is a buy bit when purchasing a house in this neighborhood. They have a shared claim to the common areas of the private property of a private neighborhood. The association may hold the title to the common area lands, but all home owners in a private neighborhood tend to have a shared ownership right to all common areas held under such titles. As part of the cost of purchasing a house in such a neighborhood, like a condo, is a fractional fee for shared ownership.
It seems likely in this case that the individual homeowners have shared ownership in the HOA, but their rights to the common areas are almost certainly through deeded easement and not fee simple ownership.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
It seems likely in this case that the individual homeowners have shared ownership in the HOA, but their rights to the common areas are almost certainly through deeded easement and not fee simple ownership.

Doesn't matter. They still have shared ownership. They have a stake to it. They can legally defend it in Missouri law. This is a nothingburger case brought by Gardner again for political points. The homeowners here did nothing legally wrong.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,674
136
It seems likely in this case that the individual homeowners have shared ownership in the HOA, but their rights to the common areas are almost certainly through deeded easement and not fee simple ownership.
None of it really matters. It wasn't about the McCloskeys at all until they made it that way. They were under no threat. "Look at Me! I'm an asshole!" Guys like Humble Pie just luvs 'em some assholes waving guns around. He apparently likes doing it himself.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
None of it really matters. It wasn't about the McCloskeys at all until they made it that way. They were under no threat. "Look at Me! I'm an asshole!" Guys like Humble Pie just luvs 'em some assholes waving guns around. He apparently likes doing it himself.
Your ignorance of the law and feelings about it doesn't change the facts nor the laws. I am not here to argue feelings and I was pointing out the salient points of the case. Don't like it? My grandma would say "Tough titty said the kitty but the milk still good." In other words.. too bad.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,674
136
Your ignorance of the law and feelings about it doesn't change the facts nor the laws. I am not here to argue feelings and I was pointing out the salient points of the case. Don't like it? My grandma would say "Tough titty said the kitty but the milk still good." In other words.. too bad.
I doubt you know the facts of the law any better than the rest of us. You're just running cover for fellow RWNJ waving guns around. Of course it's about the feels when the McCloskeys said they felt threatened when there was no threat at all. "Grab your gun, honey! We're gonna be Heroes!" And so they are, in the minds of people like you.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,924
3,274
126
Your ignorance of the law and feelings about it doesn't change the facts nor the laws. I am not here to argue feelings and I was pointing out the salient points of the case. Don't like it? My grandma would say "Tough titty said the kitty but the milk still good." In other words.. too bad.
It would sem top be that you are the one who is ignotant of the law!
Again -- all the laws you spout or misrepresent have no bearing on what the McCloskeys are being charged with!! Nada!!
Thwy were charged with -- were each charged Monday with one felony count of unlawful use of a weapon.
Which has no bearing on any of the laws that you supposedly believe to be applicable!!
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,825
2,006
136
Not in a private neighborhood. Public neighborhood with an HOA not setup by the actual homeowners in certain states that is the case. However, that is not the case here. It is a buy bit when purchasing a house in this neighborhood. They have a shared claim to the common areas of the private property of a private neighborhood. The association may hold the title to the common area lands, but all home owners in a private neighborhood tend to have a shared ownership right to all common areas held under such titles. As part of the cost of purchasing a house in such a neighborhood, like a condo, is a fractional fee for shared ownership.

In public neighborhoods, in some states and cases, the original developer owns the titles and whomever they decide to sell it to. In which case, different states have different laws regarding property defense of shared common owned areas by homeowners. In Texas, where I live, it doesn't matter. If I see someone trying to break into a common area that isnt suppose to be there and it is after dark then I can legally shoot them. Again, different states have different laws regarding this. When it comes to private neighborhoods, almost all states treat it like the condo setup you mentioned which includes Missouri.
We have been over these point a number of times. Regardless, private, public, personal, whatever, Missouri law states that there must me signage to show it is private property. You can just claim it’s private, start brandishing a semi-automatic weapon to “keep people out.” Not sure what laws you know but nothing is like that in any State. There was a sign saying Private Drive, but nothing said “Private Property, No Trespassing!” Without you have limited to no leg to stand on. Castle Doctrine? Is that what they used for the basis of the show a few years back, Castle? Oh I might be confused. Kind of like you.
 
  • Love
Reactions: JEDIYoda

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
30,320
17,516
136
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,924
3,274
126
Just for clarification -- this has nothing to do with the broken fence, trespassing , HOA property or any other Missouri law concerning property rights!!
But it does concern unlawful use of a weapon!

According to The Associated Press, Gardner said that the McCloskey's actions risked creating a violent situation during an otherwise nonviolent protest.
Patricia and Mark McCloskey face a single felony count each of unlawful use of a weapon. A widely viewed video shows Mark waving a rifle at protesters and Patricia waving a handgun.

Gardner said that the charges were made after thorough investigation of the incident. A charge for unlawful use of a weapon is a class E felony, which can carry a sentence of up to four years in prison and a fine of $10,000.
“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," Gardner said in a statement.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
I doubt you know the facts of the law any better than the rest of us. You're just running cover for fellow RWNJ waving guns around. Of course it's about the feels when the McCloskeys said they felt threatened when there was no threat at all. "Grab your gun, honey! We're gonna be Heroes!" And so they are, in the minds of people like you.
I have a Criminal Justice degree, and a family with lawyers/cops/military although they are retired and not practicing anymore. Yah, I am sure I have the same credentials as everyone else right?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
We have been over these point a number of times. Regardless, private, public, personal, whatever, Missouri law states that there must me signage to show it is private property. You can just claim it’s private, start brandishing a semi-automatic weapon to “keep people out.” Not sure what laws you know but nothing is like that in any State. There was a sign saying Private Drive, but nothing said “Private Property, No Trespassing!” Without you have limited to no leg to stand on. Castle Doctrine? Is that what they used for the basis of the show a few years back, Castle? Oh I might be confused. Kind of like you.
No, I listed the statute for Missouri law. It specifically states a fenced in area, signage letting people know no trespassing with no directions given on how that signage must be displayed, using purple paint, or oral statements can all be used to designate a private area is not for public access. This was a fenced off (check 1) area with signage stating private property (check 2 on signage notice that fulfills the no trespass requirement). If there is no specifications to how signage must be displayed then any reasonable sign will do. A sign stating private propery limited access would be considered reasonable. There is very specific directions for how the purple paint has to be applied in the statute for example of how that has to be done to denote a private area.

You are completely wrong on this.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,924
3,274
126
Not at all. Again, Kim Gardner is doing the charging as a political stunt. I haven't been proven wrong on anything on these forums yet. I specifically said the case is going to be tossed out like a bad ham sandwich by the courts.
YES!! Proven wrong again!! Political stunt...you do realize your refusal to acknowledge that you are wrong even when confronted with facts, smells up this whole thread!!
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
YES!! Proven wrong again!! Political stunt...you do realize your refusal to acknowledge that you are wrong even when confronted with facts, smells up this whole thread!!
A charge doesn't make them guilty of anything. It literally proves nothing at this point. Kim Gardner has a history of pulling political charge stunts like this which gets tossed out. Right now there is an official request from the Missouri Senator Josh Hawley to have Barr step in on this shit she is pulling.


Also, the Governor, the President, and many others are rebuking her on this.

This is literally a cut and dry case where Kim has no legal standing on her charges. She can bring them to a court though and has every right to do so. Doesn't mean her charges are legally justified. Nor does it mean the court will take the case after initial appearance or arraignment hearings. Depending on how Missouri operates their court system and if this stays a local case or not.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,825
2,006
136
No, I listed the statute for Missouri law. It specifically states a fenced in area, signage letting people know no trespassing with no directions given on how that signage must be displayed, using purple paint, or oral statements can all be used to designate a private area is not for public access. This was a fenced off (check 1) area with signage stating private property (check 2 on signage notice that fulfills the no trespass requirement). If there is no specifications to how signage must be displayed then any reasonable sign will do. A sign stating private propery limited access would be considered reasonable. There is very specific directions for how the purple paint has to be applied in the statute for example of how that has to be done to denote a private area.

You are completely wrong on this.
Without signage of “No Trespassing” you cannot just shot someone who happened to jump your fence. Somehow your background has not prepared you for the nuances of the real world. Maybe you should sit for the Bar and then tells us about the law. Until then, it’s hearsay.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
439
126
Without signage of “No Trespassing” you cannot just shot someone who happened to jump your fence. Somehow your background has not prepared you for the nuances of the real world. Maybe you should sit for the Bar and then tells us about the law. Until then, it’s hearsay.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. A fence denotes the same thing as NO TRESPASS signage. If you hop my fence where I live I can legally shoot you down. Many cases in many states have upheld that. So long as I wasn't trying to "trap" you into hoping over my fence and expecting to shoot you beforehand with premeditation. That is literally what is part of the laws that castle doctrines define. You have zero knowledge on how this works and should refrain from posting about it. I have already listed the relevant legal statute above. Please go read it and inform yourself instead of coming off stupid.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
22,373
15,718
136
Instead of the arm chair lawyering above now the actual legal system will get to render its opinion.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
30,320
17,516
136
A charge doesn't make them guilty of anything. It literally proves nothing at this point. Kim Gardner has a history of pulling political charge stunts like this which gets tossed out. Right now there is an official request from the Missouri Senator Josh Hawley to have Barr step in on this shit she is pulling.


Also, the Governor, the President, and many others are rebuking her on this.

This is literally a cut and dry case where Kim has no legal standing on her charges. She can bring them to a court though and has every right to do so. Doesn't mean her charges are legally justified. Nor does it mean the court will take the case after initial appearance or arraignment hearings. Depending on how Missouri operates their court system and if this stays a local case or not.
So now you need the corrupt AG Barr to prove once again how wrong you are? I thought the Feds aren't supposed to get involved in a local LE matter? Haven't you people always been agin' it?

You used this as a defense...
Once again, it IS their property. They pay into the HOA. It is SHARED property rights. They have the right to defend that shared area like anyone else that belongs to that HOA. They do not lose that right just because it is a shared right. Please don't be this dumb. It has nothing to do with fear for their lives but property defense.
Unless the HOA gave that couple the authority to enforce egress to the streets of the HOA that couple only has jurisdiction for their own property. Based on your argument, if another neighbor was fine with the protesters walking down the street, then what? What if homeowner A throws a party and homeowner B objects to some guests because they are black, then what?

See why your defense makes no sense?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY