McCloskeys have their firearms confiscated

[Crazyhole]

if you dont remember them, its the St Louis couple that stood outside with their guns when protestors broke onto their property.

The law is 100% on their side, and even if they had shot someone it would still be on their side. They aren't being charged with anything, but the cops took their guns anyway.

 

[Cubs79]

Did the protestors break on to their property? Hard to tell by the videos exactly, but if they are walking along the street or sidewalk that is not their property.

 

[Crazyhole]

Did the protestors break on to their property? Hard to tell by the videos exactly, but if they are walking along the street or sidewalk that is not their property.

Its a private gated neighborhood.

 

[Cubs79]

Its a private gated neighborhood.

I understand that, but that still doesnt make it "their" property. Owning a home in a gate community doesnt equate to owning the entire community. Plus that is a pretty dangerous view, that anyone in a gated community that doesnt live there is allowed to be shot.

 

[Crazyhole]

I understand that, but that still doesnt make it "their" property. Owning a home in a gate community doesnt equate to owning the entire community. Plus that is a pretty dangerous view, that anyone in a gated community that doesnt live there is allowed to be shot.

Nobody was shot. They are allowed to stand outside with their guns on their own property no matter what.

 

[Cubs79]

BTW, about 40 people who also live in the neighborhood wrote a letter condemning the McCloskey's actions.

 

[Crazyhole]

BTW, about 40 people who also live in the neighborhood wrote a letter condemning the McCloskey's actions.

Great. So do you think they broke a law and that their firearms should have been confiscated?

 

[Cubs79]

Nobody was shot. They are allowed to stand outside with their guns on their own property no matter what.

I was referring to you saying the law would have been on their side had they shot them. You are not allowed to threaten people with guns without reason, that is most certainly against the law. You can try an argue that they had reason, but people walking past your home doesnt strike me as a valid reason to threaten to shoot them. And yes, they were walking past their home and going to the mayors house, the only reason this happened is because the McCloskey's pointed guns at them.

 

[Cubs79]

Great. So do you think they broke a law and that their firearms should have been confiscated?

I think they most certainly might have. Do you think you can sit on your porch and threaten to shoot people walking past your house? You think that is legal?

 

[Crazyhole]

I was referring to you saying the law would have been on their side had they shot them. You are not allowed to threaten people with guns without reason, that is most certainly against the law. You can try an argue that they had reason, but people walking past your home doesnt strike me as a valid reason to threaten to shoot them. And yes, they were walking past their home and going to the mayors house, the only reason this happened is because the McCloskey's pointed guns at them.

The castle law basically makes what they did perfectly legal.

 

[Cubs79]

The castle law basically makes what they did perfectly legal.

It's either legal or it isnt, there is no "basically" to it. What you are suggesting is that it is perfectly legal to threaten to shoot people walking past your house. That is absurd.

 

[Crazyhole]

It's either legal or it isnt, there is no "basically" to it. What you are suggesting is that it is perfectly legal to threaten to shoot people walking past your house. That is absurd.

They were protecting their property, which is what the castle law allows for. Pointing a gun, on your property, at people encroaching on your property is a form of protection.

 

[Cubs79]

They were protecting their property, which is what the castle law allows for. Pointing a gun, on your property, at people encroaching on your property is a form of protection.

They were walking past their property, that isnt encroaching on their property. The only reason they stopped at the McCloskey's, from my understanding, is because they pointed guns at them. If they hadnt come out of their house pointing guns they would have just kept walking right past their property.

 

[DaShuckster]

They were protecting their property, which is what the castle law allows for. Pointing a gun, on your property, at people encroaching on your property is a form of protection.

What was it about a group of people walking past their home on the way to the mayor's house that made them "threatening?"

 

[Cubs79]

They were protecting their property, which is what the castle law allows for. Pointing a gun, on your property, at people encroaching on your property is a form of protection.

So just to be clear, you think it is perfectly legal to threaten to shoot people (or even shoot them as your first post says) walking in your neighborhood, because you deem that as protecting your house? Even though in most situations, as what appears to be this one, the people walking arent threatening your house?

 

[Crazyhole]

What was it about a group of people walking past their home on the way to the mayor's house that made them "threatening?"

According to the McCloskey's, when they went outside 2 men threatened to kill them and their dog, and take their house.

 

[Crazyhole]

So just to be clear, you think it is perfectly legal to threaten to shoot people (or even shoot them as your first post says) walking in your neighborhood, because you deem that as protecting your house? Even though in most situations, as what appears to be this one, the people walking arent threatening your house?

If they were threatening people, they should be charged. They haven't been charged, but their property has been confiscated.

 

[DaShuckster]

According to the McCloskey's, when they went outside 2 men threatened to kill them and their dog, and take their house.

...they did this while walking past the McCloskeys' home on their way to the mayor's house?

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[Crazyhole]

...they did this while walking past the McCloskeys' home on their way to the mayor's house?

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

So your position is that these 2 civil rights lawyers went outside and for no reason just started pointing guns at people? Thats a weird take that doesn't really stand to reason.

Let's say that you're right though. Why haven't they been charged? Its been weeks and the only recourse is to confiscate their property.

 

[DaShuckster]

So your position is that these 2 civil rights lawyers went outside and for no reason just started pointing guns at people? Thats a weird take that doesn't really stand to reason.

Yet we're to believe you that the people walking past the McCloskeys' home on the way to somewhere else threatened to kill them and their dog, and take their house.

Somehow THAT stands to reason in the World According to Crazyhole?

 

[Cubs79]

So your position is that these 2 civil rights lawyers went outside and for no reason just started pointing guns at people? Thats a weird take that doesn't really stand to reason.

Let's say that you're right though. Why haven't they been charged? Its been weeks and the only recourse is to confiscate their property.

They arent civil rights lawyers, they are personal injury lawyers.

Their house is close to the neighborhood entrance. Supposedly they saw people coming through the gate, and then went outside and confronted them.

There is an ongoing investigation. If they arent charged, they should get their guns back. It probably varies from state to state, but it isnt uncommon to remove someones firearms when investigating them for a crime relating to those guns.

 

[Crazyhole]

Yet we're to believe you that the people walking past the McCloskeys' home on the way to somewhere else threatened to kill them and their dog, and take their house.

Somehow THAT stands to reason in the World According to Crazyhole?

Thats what they said. 2 white guys threatened them so they went in and got their guns.

 

[Cubs79]

Thats what they said. 2 white guys threatened them so they went in and got their guns.

And people on the other side are saying the opposite. I will grant you there is some he said she said that we will likely never know for sure.

 

[DaShuckster]

They arent civil rights lawyers, they are personal injury lawyers.

Their house is close to the neighborhood entrance. Supposedly they saw people coming through the gate, and then went outside and confronted them.

So you expect us to believe that after discovering these folks were, in fact, 'nonresidents' who were on their way to the mayor's home, they went back inside their home and came back out with guns?

I'm sorry but that explanation is preposterous.

I'm with Crazy on this one, the McCloskey's account that they -- and their dog -- were threatened to be killed by the marchers as they walked into their gated community is much more believable.*

 

[DaShuckster]

What a bunch of punks breaking into a gated community. The new group of beta chuds that think this is ok.

"Breaking into" a gated community??!?

You mean passing through the gates to walk down the street to the mayor's house??!?

Yeah, what thugs!!!

 

[Crazyhole]

And people on the other side are saying the opposite. I will grant you there is some he said she said that we will likely never know for sure.

I'm sure that's the case, I just think that its wrong that their guns were confiscated. Thats essentially taking a position of guilty until proven innocent. Even if they aren't charged with a crime, they still had their liberties taken away and will have to fight to get their property back. Thats not right.

 

[DaShuckster]

I'm sure that's the case, I just think that its wrong that their guns were confiscated. Thats essentially taking a position of guilty until proven innocent. Even if they aren't charged with a crime, they still had their liberties taken away and will have to fight to get their property back. Thats not right.

This yahoo couple were shown ON VIDEOTAPE pointing their frickin' guns at the marchers walking by their house for crying out loud!

That's right?

 

[Cubs79]

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...0225dd287.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

These people are completely nuts. In the past they have sued to prevent gay people from moving into their neighborhood, twiced have claimed squatters rights, including on a piece of land in the neighborhood set aside for community use, he sued his elderly father for defamation, destroyed beehives a Jewish center owned that were used to harvest honey, then threatened to sue the center if they didnt clean it up, etc etc. Think what you want about this specific situation, but these people are batshit crazy.

 

[Cubs79]

I'm sure that's the case, I just think that its wrong that their guns were confiscated. Thats essentially taking a position of guilty until proven innocent. Even if they aren't charged with a crime, they still had their liberties taken away and will have to fight to get their property back. Thats not right.

It isnt taking a position of guilty. Confiscating weapons being investigated as possibly being used in a crime isnt uncommon.

 

[Cubs79]

Lol...now protecting your own property is a hate crime. Lol

You see how peaceful these mobs can get. Countless videos of attacks daily.

This has nothing to do with my post.

 

[Crazyhole]

It isnt taking a position of guilty. Confiscating weapons being investigated as possibly being used in a crime isnt uncommon.

Have we heard whether the protestors are being investigated?

 

[Cubs79]

Have we heard whether the protestors are being investigated?

I dont know, but even if they are it doesnt change the circumstances with regards to confiscating their guns.

 

[Crazyhole]

I dont know, but even if they are it doesnt change the circumstances with regards to confiscating their guns.

At least it would show a modicum of justice seeking.

 

[Crazyhole]

After videos of mobs attacking innocent people. I don't see how you can convict people that are legitimately scared for their life. No way should mobs be able to enter public property.

Private property.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Sue the shit out of the State next

 

[DaShuckster]

These people are completely nuts. In the past they have sued to prevent gay people from moving into their neighborhood, twiced have claimed squatters rights, including on a piece of land in the neighborhood set aside for community use, he sued his elderly father for defamation, destroyed beehives a Jewish center owned that were used to harvest honey, then threatened to sue the center if they didnt clean it up, etc etc. Think what you want about this specific situation, but these people are batshit crazy.

Holy Cow! You are right--given their history, this was just another day for those two wack jobs! Look at that photograph! The wife looks like she's way overdue for a straight jacket!!!

But put guns in their hands and our resident gun fetishists are ready to step up to the plate and staunchly defend their latest stunt no matter how batshit crazy it is.

 

[DaShuckster]

What part of beta world are you allowed in a "private" gated community as a mob?

LOL---so it's a "mob" now?

How much death and destruction did this mob bring about with their invasion of this gated community on their way to the mayor's house?

By the way, that poor innocent gun-toting couple was served with a search warrant today. Weird, huh?

 

[fried-chicken]

Its most certainly not legal to stand on your property and point guns at people on the sidewalk haha.

 

[goodknightfl]

Seems to me they were acting just like the peaceful people running the CHOP neighborhood.

 

[fried-chicken]

Doesnt matter if the mob wasnt allowed. You can't stand on your property and point your guns at people. If someone was being harmed sure.