Gun Totin' Karen and Chad in St. Lou Charged w/ Felonies.

[Waggs098]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...ypes-penalties

"Placing another in fear of imminent bodily harm or offensive contact"

Quoted from your page posted.

Could be said thats how the couple felt.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

Imagine for a second if they didn't do what they did. Do you think those houses would still be standing? Very little happened in this incident. I'd call it a happy ending all things considered.

Interesting that you refer to the protesters as a mob.
Mob:
noun
1. a disorderly or riotous crowd of people.
2. a crowd bent on or engaged in lawless violence.

Disorderly-certainly. Riotous, bent on or engaged in lawless violence - show me. Video from several protesters shows the group walking down the sidewalk past Pumpkin & Honey Bunny's house. It even shows people in the group making sure people didn't engage with the gun totin' duo. Contrary to what hubby says they were not there to burn his house and murder his dog.
I think you, Pumpkin & Honey Bunny took too literally the screed from Faux News that "they were coming to get you". Neither that group nor tha main group they split from engaged in any rioting, looting, pillaging or burning. Republican contributor #1 and contributor #2 had literally nothing to do with your "happy ending". They are not some American patriots defending the castle, the flag and apple pie. The most disorderly conduct committed was being noisy.

[JJIII]

The way they both handled the firearms is telling. IMO, neither one of them is comfortable with the weapons. That makes them doubly dangerous

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Interesting that you refer to the protesters as a mob.
Mob:
noun
1. a disorderly or riotous crowd of people.
2. a crowd bent on or engaged in lawless violence.

Disorderly-certainly. Riotous, bent on or engaged in lawless violence - show me. Video from several protesters shows the group walking down the sidewalk past Pumpkin & Honey Bunny's house. It even shows people in the group making sure people didn't engage with the gun totin' duo. Contrary to what hubby says they were not there to burn his house and murder his dog.
I think you, Pumpkin & Honey Bunny took too literally the screed from Faux News that "they were coming to get you". Neither that group nor tha main group they split from engaged in any rioting, looting, pillaging or burning. Republican contributor #1 and contributor #2 had literally nothing to do with your "happy ending". They are not some American patriots defending the castle, the flag and apple pie. The most disorderly conduct committed was being noisy.

Only those who get their propaganda from Faux "News" believe the "mob" narrative. Sad!

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by JJIII

That seems to describe both sides.

JJ, we have video of the gun bearers pointing and waving their guns and otherwise behaving in a menacing manner. What do you have that shows the protestors doing anything menacing? The video shows a group moving along in good order, under the direction and control of their own leadership.

I believe you feel the group was menacing, for some reason, but I don't see that the reason could be actual action by the group.

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Interesting that you refer to the protesters as a mob.
Mob:
noun
1. a disorderly or riotous crowd of people.
2. a crowd bent on or engaged in lawless violence.

Disorderly-certainly. Riotous, bent on or engaged in lawless violence - show me. Video from several protesters shows the group walking down the sidewalk past Pumpkin & Honey Bunny's house. It even shows people in the group making sure people didn't engage with the gun totin' duo. Contrary to what hubby says they were not there to burn his house and murder his dog.
I think you, Pumpkin & Honey Bunny took too literally the screed from Faux News that "they were coming to get you". Neither that group nor tha main group they split from engaged in any rioting, looting, pillaging or burning. Republican contributor #1 and contributor #2 had literally nothing to do with your "happy ending". They are not some American patriots defending the castle, the flag and apple pie. The most disorderly conduct committed was being noisy.

1. Gated community.
2. Saint Louis experienced rioting repeatedly since 2014 (fallout of Michael Brown death).
3. Large group of uninvited people in close proximity.
4. Law enforcement unable to respond to anything short of murder because of widespread unrest.

Put it all together: the behavior of the McCloskeys was expected. I guarantee you I would have gone for any weapon handy in the same circumstances as is my right as per the second amendment and enshrined in castle doctrine law.

No one will be convicted of anything related to this. Doing so would constitute a victimless crime and a violation of the Constitution. A jury would not vote to convict. Even if they did, the first appeals court it hits will reverse the decision. The McCloskeys will not spend any time in jail.


Now if one of them actually pulled the trigger, then it gets very complicated.

Originally Posted by JJIII

The way they both handled the firearms is telling. IMO, neither one of them is comfortable with the weapons. That makes them doubly dangerous

Adrenaline and nervousness would do that. Only a trained killer would be completely calm in that situation.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

I admit I made a mistake: I did not realize that the gate was open prior to the protestors passing through it. At the same time, it is reasonable that the McCloskey's believed the protestors forced entry through the gate; ergo, there cannot be a felony conviction because that requires "beyond reasonable doubt" that they weren't on the brink of their property being trespassed on and assaulted by the protestors.

Society has a solution for preventing these kinds of confrontations: getting a permit from the city to protest. To my knowledge, the protestors had no such permit; ergo, the McCloskey's had every right to be concerned especially given the context of rioting and looting from the news at the time.


You're the first to bring up race in this discussion. Pray tell us why.

Oh come now. Race has always been present in the discussion. The races of the participants are easily visible in the video. Now are you going to deny the often observed phenomena of racial panic reactions by many white people when challenged by black people in some way?

I simply assert that it strikes me as possible that your citing an extremely exaggerated threat (houses remaining standing) was an attempt to promote just such panic.

[jmcslob]

Improper handling of a firearm is the only charge that might stick.
We send armed police out to protect property during protest's all the time and you are absolutely allowed to protect your own.
I think these charges are pure bullshit.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

JJ, we have video of the gun bearers pointing and waving their guns and otherwise behaving in a menacing manner. What do you have that shows the protestors doing anything menacing? The video shows a group moving along in good order, under the direction and control of their own leadership.

I believe you feel the group was menacing, for some reason, but I don't see that the reason could be actual action by the group.

The 4 points that fordgt90 brought up speak to the way I responded.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by JJIII

The 4 points that fordgt90 brought up speak to the way I responded.

Fine. Mitigates the McCloskey's somewhat hysterical response. But I will note the four points are circumstantial, not related to intentional and direct 'menacing' actions by the protestors. It pretty much adds up to 'demonstrating while other stuff had been going on, in front of their special castle.'

And the McCloskey's are known in St Louis, btw, for not playing well with others....

https://www.insider.com/st-louis-cou...ren-cry-2020-7