quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
The gate alone, resulting from a mob no less, ought to be enough to have justified firing.

Open fire over a gate? Really?

How do you think that would have worked out for him?

Keep in mind that both the McCloskey's are personal injury attorneys (ambulance chasers--which is why he's a member of the local Lamborghini club). They know the time of day, they understand appearance and inference, and they do know duty and "liability," and of course...the law. Makes it all the more a head scratcher, really.

Stop being obtuse, please.

What if this were your home being assaulted by a mob? Stop acting as if you don't have a clue what members are saying.

If a mob were to break down a barrier in front of your home, you'd confront them with a firearm. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it, so stop playing dumb.

I don't need for you to explain or clarify your position. I just need you to cease behaving as if it's your first day on planet Earth.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Stop being obtuse, please.

What if this were your home being assaulted by a mob? Stop acting as if you don't have a clue what members are saying.

If a mob were to break down a barrier in front of your home, you'd confront them with a firearm. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it, so stop playing dumb.

I don't need for you to explain or clarify your position. I just need you to cease behaving as if it's your first day on planet Earth.

My apologies for being obtuse. Let me be clear.

If this were my home and I thought a mob equivalent to the storming of the bastille were coming to take it away from me? I can absolutely guarantee you that I would not stand out in front of it, without protection or cover or concealment, with my pea shooter, and be an unconvincing target.

On a number of occasions, I instructed my family in falling back to a room in the house, calling for help, hiding, barricading, and waiting, should a home invasion or other such event occur. Just as I'd do, with them, if I were home. My pea shooter would be there to defend that last hold out, but my value is placed in the living, not in the Lambo in the driveway, or the antique French window panes.

I have been in several places to which have been laid seige; Papua New Guinea, Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, to name a few. I have had people cut the wire and come in, en masse, screaming that they'd kill anyone inside, armed, threatening. I've been through mortar and rocket attacks, and more. None of those occurred in Louisville.

Would I go out and confront them? Bloody hell, no. Not a chance. Not with my AR-15, not with anything else I have. Might I observe them from behind cover in a window? Yes, until necessary to barricade and hope they didn't burn it down. Unlike McCloskey, I know what happened to those who tried to hold the Bastille, including Governor de Launay, who was dragged from the prison and stabbed to death. Standing out in front, sans body armor, a clue, or a plan would not be in my playlist. Nor anyone with a functioning brain cell.

During riots in Lae, I ended up in a compound that had already been raided, with the bars on the second floor windows pried out, and even the electrical wire pulled from the walls. The fences were cut, and several of us stitched them up with wire until close to dark, when the compound was breached again. Throughout the night, several attempts were made on the small structure, which resembled an upside down cake with the larger story on the second floor. I did go out, but only during lulls when we briefly re-stitched the fence and then fell back. To stand in front as a target and beat my chest in the open? No thanks. Stupid.

Yes, still on planet earth, not day one, and no, I would not go out to the crowd with my firearm and have a stand-off. Especially as McCloskey initially claimed the crowd was armed. Not happening.

What I would do is largely irrelevant, isn't it?

All it would take was a single molotov through one of the back windows and the home would have been ablaze while the mob beat them to death.

Well if not the Bastille, how about this???

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
On a number of occasions, I instructed my family in falling back to a room in the house, calling for help, hiding, barricading, and waiting, should a home invasion or other such event occur. Just as I'd do, with them, if I were home. My pea shooter would be there to defend that last hold out, but my value is placed in the living, not in the Lambo in the driveway, or the antique French window panes.

I could get you and your family out of that hiding spot in a heart beat if that were my goal. At that point it would be pointless for you to start defending yourself, you would have lost the altercation.

Everybody can pick a strategy. The McCloskey's strategy would not be mine, but I don't fault them for it, in the end it worked fine. Nobody got hurt on either side afaik and everybody went home in one piece. I don't think there is any legal case to be had based on my reading of the state law. In my State that might not be true.

quote:

What I would do is largely irrelevant, isn't it?

Kind of, yeah.
We are more focused on the actions of the St. Louis circuit attorney, Kim Gardner, with regard to what the McCloskey's did to defend their home, not what they could have done differently.

BTW, I would have probably handled it differently too.

I think Bulldog7972 has a better approach than the McCloskey's did and I agree with him:

quote:

if Mr. McCloskey had simply just stepped outside with the rifle pointed at the ground, stood there and remained mute. No conversation, no wandering around with gun pointed at anyone. His point would have been made. Now, if anyone of those thugs attempted to enter his property, throw a molotov coctail etc at him, all bet's would be off at that point.

As I said before, I think Pat McCloskey may be in more trouble than her husband. She actually pointed her weapon at people. He did not.

quote:

All it would take was a single molotov through one of the back windows and the home would have been ablaze while the mob beat them to death.

Complete hypothesis, but at that point the issue of lethal versus non lethal force would have ended and the options would have expanded dramatically for the McCloskey's. not sure given their display if they actually could have used the new legal position, but it certainly would have given them greater options.

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:
Slosig,
I’d argue and I believe Thomas Jefferson would back me up, that the law of Mankind - the right to be free - which is the basis of this country and reaffirms the 2nd Amendment as a protection of one’s rights against government interference, supports the notion that no law is just that takes away said right. In other words, no government action can be taken whether a law is passed or not, allowing general confiscation of arms as it’s an inevitable right. Civil disobedience would be expected, demanded even if one swore to uphold the Constitution.

You’ll see no argument from me.

Perhaps I was unclear. Trying again, Depending on the laws passed, it may be legal (at least on the face), but it will never be okay. Some may take that action as indication that erj_pilot is right and it may be time to water the Tree of Liberty.

I think there is no lasting defense one family can muster once the mob has selected its target.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
That DA isn t pandering for votes.
Sbe is actively and defiantly advancing tbe revolution.
The transformation of America.

Yep. She's a committed Marxist, and the fools in her circuit have given her power.


.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
Yep. She's a committed Marxist, and the fools in her circuit have given her power.
.

Yes. And that's the biggest problem with all of these inner- city, Soros funded prosecutors.
They are as radical as any of the protesters.

Had they done nothing, and the mob walked by their house without any vandalism/violence, they would have been fine (like their neighbors).

Had they done nothing and the house was invaded, they would have been overrun instantly, disarmed, and the mob could have done anything to them. They probably don't know how to use the firearms, and they may not even have been loaded.

Had they done nothing and the house was firebombed, which is reasonable to expect given the previous events nearby, they may have died in the fire or would have to run outside into the mob.

Had they been fired upon by the mob, and returned fire (if loaded and able), the mob could still rush them, disarm, and do anything to them.

Which scenario should they have assumed would occur? Given the occurrences over previous days - arson and murder were reasonably likely. How in the hell do they know if a mob of trespassers breaking through the gate onto private property intends to "peacefully protest" or intends harm?

By appearing in front of the mob, armed, and making the assertion that *some* of the mob would die if they tried to enter the house was enough to deter the mob. They may have been bluffing with unloaded firearms. Their intent was to protect their lives *and* protect their home from vandalism. That's why they didn't sit inside behind cover waiting for a breach of a window or door, and possible fire bomb thrown inside.

Disparity of force is a huge issue and 2 untrained people against 100 is a guaranteed loss. If the mob wants to get you, they will. Remember the two CMOH recipients that inserted to protect the last downed helicopter pilot in Somalia. They fought the mob until they ran out of ammo and were overrun.

And seriously, this was not a third world shithole (well not yet, but maybe soon) compound where preserving life during an assault is the only goal and no one gives a shit about the property, which is 100% expendable. Yes, in real combat buildings and their contents are cover and concealment and protection of life is the only priority. This was not the case here, so applying the same tactics is questionable.

Arguing about how the Mr. or Mrs. handled their firearms misses the point completely. What you or I would do (and no matter how much you train or game plan you never know how you will respond until it actually happens) is irrelevant.

For what I understand MO has a very good ‘castle doctrine’ law. Good. Also from what I have read I predict two things:

The DA will indict them on some charge
They will be found not guilty in a court of law.

So what is the end game of the DA? A few things. First and foremost is to punish them for fighting the ‘revolution'. This sort of thing cannot be tolerated by the left. It can’t. The more people they can get to lay down the easier the revolution will be. Thats the big picture.

Little picture is by bringing the full weight of the DA’s office against them they accomplish a couple of things. They force the couple to go on the defense (when the government goes after you you MUST have done something wrong…right?). They also force the couple to expend capitol, money or otherwise, to fight the charges (this is a staple of leftist ideology). They can be identified and lambasted in the press. Their background can be researched and utilized as a weapon against them by a sympathetic press (AKA propaganda machine) to pollute a potential jury pool. Ordinary people watching this take notice. The intent here is to make defending yourself against a mob the second option to just letting the mob have their way. It really is. They want you to see submission as the “preferable” option. The more pain they can inflict on someone who “defended their home legally” the better, even if the state loses the case.

I could care less if they were pointing firearms at people. Really. The couple was on PRIVATE PROPERTY when a MOB, stoked by weeks of hateful rhetoric from the ‘media’, BROKE THROUGH the gate (which by the way was their first line of defense) and began to verbally threaten them. When your first line of defense is breached do you hide in the bunker? Do you completely give up the second line of defense? Do you wait for them to set the structure on fire with you inside? Or do you present a show of force in the hopes that the mob will back down? You present a show of force; you let the criminals know that their illegal actions will have consequences. In my opinion he was very conservative in his escalation. When they ILLEGALLY and VIOLENTLY broke onto his property he asked them to leave. They did not. Then they threatened him, his wife, and his home with violence if he did not concede to their demands. So he upped the game. He produced a firearm. Good. Lives were saved by his actions, most notably his and his wife’s and also probably a few of the criminals.

What would a normal person conclude after watching MONTHS of violent riots, riots where businesses were burned and looted, where police officers were shot at and attacked, when this same mob, chanting the same hateful and violent phrases they have been chanting for weeks, suddenly broke down their gate and were standing on their property threatening them? They would conclude that it was time to escalate the defense from more than “can you please leave my yard” to “get off my lawn”.

Yea. This guy had some restraint. A LOT of restraint. From what I read of the MO castle doctrine he is WELL within the law. I would have done nothing different.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:

quote:

All it would take was a single molotov through one of the back windows and the home would have been ablaze while the mob beat them to death.

Complete hypothesis, but at that point the issue of lethal versus non lethal force would have ended and the options would have expanded dramatically for the McCloskey's. not sure given their display if they actually could have used the new legal position, but it certainly would have given them greater options.

Correct but fact is, had they stayed inside of the house and an incendiary device been tossed in, they likely would have been in serious trouble. Obviously going by the video neither one of them had much in the way of firearm training so personally, I don’t see how they could have reacted with any type of effectiveness had the house been lit.

Were they right in how they reacted? Hell I don’t know. I don’t necessarily think they were wrong. I live in a gated community and had something like that taken place here I definitely would have been outside if I knew it was happening. I might not have taken their exact approach but I definitely would have had an extra piece or two concealed along with other items out of sight but within reach.

My thing is I’m really having an issue seeing what they did wrong here. Maybe Pat shouldn’t have pointed the alleged non functioning firearm at the group but it’s already been noted that this group wasn’t supposed to be where they were and at some point voiced threats to this couple.

I mean I’m kind of with Mars on this especially seeing all the other BS violence that’s taken place lately. Don’t take chances.

OK I'm a firefighter so that's my credential on commenting on this. Tossing an incendiary device would not be an immediate issue unless it actually landed on you. It takes a meaningful amount of time in the case of household construction for it to mean anything. And in this case we don't have typical household construction and so its probably not going to be a serious issue for a very long awhile. Again assuming its not where you actually are. My house I'm not going outside. But once you toss that device all bets are off and your response is one of lethal force with respect to the law.

quote:

Tossing an incendiary device would not be an immediate issue unless it actually landed on you. It takes a meaningful amount of time in the case of household construction for it to mean anything.

While this may be factually true, making the choice between waiting out/fighting a fire in the living room that will spread to the entire dwelling eventually and cause your death and being forced to evacuate into the arms of a waiting lynch mod is essentially the same thing. Setting fire to structures under siege has been a staple throughout history.

The mob does not care how long it takes as the goal is the same.

^^^^^^^^^
Thanks. I think we are all conditioned to see things in flames within seconds. The people throwing these things are not particularly bright. I think one of the protestors in NY used toilet paper as a fuse and nothing happened. If I remember correctly she was an attorney.

quote:

While this may be factually true, making the choice between waiting out/fighting a fire in the living room that will spread to the entire dwelling eventually and cause your death and being forced to evacuate into the arms of a waiting lynch mod is essentially the same thing. Setting fire to structures under siege has been a staple throughout history.

^^^^^^^^^^
I would assume that a house such as that would have fire extinguishers. They are pretty simple to operate and quite effective. If the mob used flame throwers with napalm that would be a problem.