quote:

I would assume that a house such as that would have fire extinguishers. They are pretty simple to operate and quite effective.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's irrelevant. Once an incendiary device is utilized to remove the occupants (either by death or capitulation) all bets are off. No "oh he has a 5lb Amerex in the garage, he's good".

quote:

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

I agree with your post for the most. However, we don't know how the rioters would have behaved in that neighborhood if they hadn't been confronted with guns right off the bat. They're cowards and bullies, so it is possible they would have become emboldened to do more damage if they thought there was no resistance.



.

quote:

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

"If if's were fifths we'd all be drunk".

"If I had only submitted to the rape I would not be dead".

"If I had only given them the keys to my car I would not be dead"

"If I had only let them murder my children when they invaded my home I would not be dead".

If I had only done nothing the mob would not have come back for me".

Hard NO from me.

And I'm all out of pen flares.

Ya gotta admit, had Mr. McClocky put a half dozen rounds in the air, it would have been hilarious watching this filth foul themselves while trampling each other and running and screaming out of the neighborhood.

quote:

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.

Oh, I agree with that... and with the rest of your post.
Going forward, it's about intimidating people NOT to act in their own defense.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

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.

Oh, I agree with that... and with the rest of your post.
Going forward, it's about intimidating people NOT to act in their own defense.

I’ll guess a third thing. During the next general assembly, the state legislature will fix it.

quote:

I’ll guess a third thing. During the next general assembly, the state legislature will fix it.

Well, there will be a special session.
My friend Jim Murphy will propose allowing the State's Attorney General to prosecute cases in the City where the circuit attorney refuses to act.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

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.

Clearly you've not been to St. Louis...

Glad there wasn't an actual gunfight. As they were outside of their home, with no cover or concealment, they might have lost.

Going back to the radical revolutions in Europe, it was common for the organization behind a riot to have provocateurs with hidden guns among the crowd, so that, given the opportunity, they could shoot someone opposing them or even shoot into the crowd to get the mob fired up with anger.

If the McCloskey's had been shot at, would they have fired into the crowd? Even a firecracker might have set them off. What a disaster for everyone that would have been.

Not to criticize them -- this was their first rodeo -- but a better way to handle this would have been to retreat, to escape. Choose good defensive fall-back positions. Don't retreat into a structure that can be burned down. Have a way out planned. Keep the weapons out of sight; use a weapon only to save a life - you'll never be convicted for that.

The property really is not important enough to go to jail over, or to take a life; and standing in front of it with a gun probably raises the risk to the property as well as to the family. The house can be defended in other ways. A visible surveillance system might deter an attack. And a good second videotaping system, hardened and hidden from view, would probably result in later arrests and convictions of any arsonists, as we've seen elsewhere. In these times, all of us should have a Ring camera on the front and back of the house.

And you have to be able to withstand the aftermath of whatever you do, so perception matters. A rich man in a pink polo shirt with a M-16 defending his palatial mansion was not an optic that generated universal sympathy.

If we didn't have an example like the McCloskeys to think about, any of us might find ourselves doing something similar to what they did. There is a strong impulse to defend your property, and I feel the same way, and my sympathy is with them. I hope they can win in court and get their weapons back and be better prepared for their second rodeo, if it happens.

My god, remind me to tell my lawyer to try and remove all tactical/gun and google experts from my jury if something like this happens to me.
God forbid I try to protect my property without the proper outfit and extended pinkie or a prebuilt fortification to provide "cover" or not having taken 23 tactical classes per year.
Sometimes gun owners are the worst to themselves.

An angry mob broke through a gate and purposefully was in a private area that they where not supposed to be. And the end result will be the weakening of castle doctrine and stand your ground laws.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

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

"If if's were fifths we'd all be drunk".

"If I had only submitted to the rape I would not be dead".

"If I had only given them the keys to my car I would not be dead"

"If I had only let them murder my children when they invaded my home I would not be dead".

If I had only done nothing the mob would not have come back for me".

Hard NO from me.

And I'm all out of pen flares.

My point was to list possible actions and outcomes that the homeowners had to decide from, and to say there was no way for them to predict what would happen, but it was reasonable to assume a mob breaking and entering a locked gate onto private property may intend arson and murder as occurred nearby on previous days.

Really like to see what happened to the other people on that street. They signed a letter selling out these two.

Now that they are disarmed, are the police providing protection in case the mob comes back for revenge? That would seem prudent at this point.

Also, don't tell me protecting property isn't worth it. When the mob decided to burn down LA, myself and 3 others drove up from Coronado and joined the roof Koreans.

In 2007, during the Kenya national elections, a group of us expats stood inside a compound as a mob of Luo, Pokots and Samburu broke through the main gate. We stood our ground, because that ground matters. The people in the compound matters.

No one can predict what a mob will or will not do. From my own experiences the often exceed the worst.

I see homeowners and tax payers being held to a higher standard, sometimes an impossible standard, as compared to the criminal element.

Large threatening mob trespassing on private property, no problem.

Homeowners at home minding their own business...held to a much higher standard. Never mind that they were afraid for their lives and property, and who could blame them after the things we've seen in the last several weeks.

quote:

Really like to see what happened to the other people on that street. They signed a letter selling out these two.

Personally I could care less. What a mob "DID NOT DO" is immaterial. Am I and my family alive? Then the neighbors can piss off. Signed a letter? Lol. Trying to placate the mob. They will not care about the letter when the mob marches again with torches. And they WILL burn it down. All of it. Property most defiantly IS worth fighting over, even if it means death. Tell a farmer his crops are not worth fighting for. His crops ARE his life. Take a mans property and you may as well take his life. I may not have much in this world but I will be DAMMED if someone tells me what I earned "is not worth it". Feel free to give up your property and life if you want; I will NOT. As the saying goes, "Over my dead body". Ever wonder why that saying became part of the American experience? Hint: Not because Americans gave savages "space".

This was an exercise by the left to see what the locals will take. A probing action. The righteous spoke up so the DA will bring the hammer down. This family needs to move. Sell the home and live free. I'm sure they have a lot of money and emotions invested but it's time to go. Sell the house, fall back and take up a defensive permitter in a more amicable location.

Was he "wrong" to step outside with a rifle? Nope. Was his wife "wrong" to point her pistol at the savages? Nope. Their actions most likey saved lives. The lives of themselves and the lives of the trash that wanted to do them harm. This man and his wife defended their home as Americans have been doing since the beginning of this nation. They need to be celebrated, not persecuted.

Someone needs to "sell" him another AR. With this DA he will need it.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

Someone needs to "sell" him another AR. With this DA he will need it.

Looks like a local gun shop is giving McCloskey a free AR15:

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb...ey&atb=v192-1&ia=web

Emotions aside, my home defense plan does not involve a confrontation outside. I’ll stay concealed and keep the element of surprise.

I don't give a shit bout the McCloskey's politics. It has nothing at all to do with their God given rights to protect and defend themselves and their home.

Either a man's home is his castle, and his right to protect and defend himself, family and castle, or it is all bullshit, and not one of us has an argument for our own choice to stand and defend ourselves and our own interests.

I have my own "red line". No one knows where it is drawn, and the only way it can be "found" is to cross it. (with full understanding and acceptance of any and all consequence)

The line was drawn long ago, is indelible.

I need not justify it with anyone.

Put me on a jury and the McCloskey's walk.

They did not venture out into the world to threaten or encroach upon anyone's freedoms.

People chose to come to their home, to threaten, to intimidate and to create fear.

Kim Gardner is overstepping the office she was elected to serve. She is the criminal here.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I don't give a shit bout the McCloskey's politics. It has nothing at all to do with their God given rights to protect and defend themselves and their home.

Point taken.

Nevertheless, I've ceased caring about these two litigious losers.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/...cb-ecd0225dd287.html

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Kim Gardner is overstepping the office she was elected to serve. She is the criminal here.

Just curious, do you think the situation would be different if, all else being the same, Kim Gardner were white and the McCloskeys were black? (Rhetorical, of course.)

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I don't give a shit bout the McCloskey's politics. It has nothing at all to do with their God given rights to protect and defend themselves and their home.

Well said, sigmonkey.