Gun Debate Time: where do you stand on the Missouri couple with their guns?

They had every right to defend themselves and their property from an angry, threatening mob. Watch the video in full. The crowd hurled insults, threats of violence, and racist rhetoric. There’s a reason why the second amendment exists and that was it.

Good luck if this goes to court. The court would side with the couple easily. They did nothing wrong.

They did nothing wrong. I don't believe they pointed their guns at the mob who broke down a fence and were trespassing.

And it's a damn shame police basically told them to F off.

Yeah I saw the initial video before the major outlets got their hands on it, it told pretty much everything.

I always knew the media, on both sides, tries to distort things but this is just blatant imo.

I wish the news was boring. Like "here are the facts. Don't ask us what we think, you make up your own mind". I'm watching the HBO series "Newsroom" right now and I wish all journalistic outlets had the integrity those folks did. Obviously it's fictionalized, dramatic, and left-leaning....but still, they have standards there.

Yeah, I don't think they did anything wrong either.

This is really going to show where people's bias lies. If there was ever a time for anti-gun folks to say "well there are occasionally times where a gun is OK" this is it.

Family felt threatened and respond by arming themselves? Protesters coming pretty close to the house despite the house being rather far from the road, behind a closed gate? Yeah I fully understand them for coming out with weapons.

You know the spin by now. The media takes great pains to paint all of these people as non violent "protestors" rather than identifying them honestly. IMO the reaction of the black DA was nothing more than a virtue signaling knee jerk reaction and I'm glad to see the state honcho not willing to take it lying down.

BTW, isn't using the term "Karen" a bit racist? What if we do the same when it comes to a black person?

My guess is the argument rests upon section (4) "exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;"

Number 5 is where the defendant's will argue from; "5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031, RSMo."

Namely, does a person have the explicit right within Missouri law to defend their private property with a firearm? And 563.031 makes that readily clear with respect to someone who reasonably believes they may have to protect themselves from an angry large mob, no duty to retreat from private property. This is an important caveat as well, "4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so."

All in all, I think the prosecution is a political sham and the odds of them winning the case are next to none. But hey, anything can happen.

@mrbojangles25: Just to be clear on where I come from, I absolutely hate guns

Trigger etiquette wasn't very good by the wife. But in the end of the day, they were on their property and legally own their firearms. If you sw a mob break though a gate onto your private property, i feel you have a right to tell the mob to move away from your property. If they choose to do that while armed i see no problem.

Side note: Their house looks like a damn museum, they have pictures of the inside posted online, its one hell of restoration job. I kinda get why they don't want an angry mob outside, next thing you know your place is on fire and getting tagged along with broken windows. Screw all that, they came for the mayor anyway, leave these people alone.

I read Missouri has a "stand your ground" law except for homes, I think it's called a "castle" law or something like that.

Prosecution is definitely a sham. This could have been a nothing burger but thanks to the whole Karen thing trending I think people were like "Hey, I saw a 'karen' on a video the other day holding a gun!" and, well....there you go.

They were wrong. That's when you call the police. And two wrongs don't make a right. Ever.

They obviously have put ALOT into this place.... place is gorgeous, classy stuff!

@LJS9502_basic: They did call the police before and were basically told they were on their own

Private security didnt even respond.

Damn, that is a museum haha

@Solaryellow: ”Karen” is something you chose to be.

I agree with everything you said.

Perhaps they should have gone inside.

@LJS9502_basic: Perphaps they could have done a million other things when they feared for their lives....

Doesn't that go without saying.......for everyone? If you applied such labels to others by using a name common in their culture you'd be called a racist. Again, why is it apropos for one but not the other?

They are choosing to be.. not so very friendly. Anyone can be “Karen”.

Had they not been outside to start with no one would have paid them any attention.

Actually they can.

@LJS9502_basic: Ya, based on everything that happened in that area around that time, I totally see how one can come to that conclusion.

They were looking for trouble.

Funniest thing you've said haha.

The McCloskeys said they came outside after hearing commotion caused by hundreds of protesters nearby who were marching against police brutality against Black people.

The couple said they pulled their firearms, a handgun and a long-barreled gun, after seeing people break through a gate with "No Trespassing" and "Private Street" signs posted.

Seems like they instigated.

That quote above is from ABC News with statements by the McCloskeys who broke the law but hey they're wealthy and white......why should they not. amirite.

@mrbojangles25: Ah, yes, it did explode into quite the "Karen" esque exposé. The amount of memes stemming from this has been quite beneficial, and equally hilarious.

@LJS9502_basic: I'm not sure if you're being serious.

"The couple said they pulled their firearms, a handgun and a long-barreled gun, after seeing people break through a gate with "No Trespassing" and "Private Street" signs posted."

They are not the ones who broke the law. I would like to take my previous comment back. THIS is your funniest moment.

Not sure what world you live in but those are the job for police not private citizens and breaking a gate does not mean we can wave guns around in public. They did break the law. Why are you okay with that? Oh wait....you're a trump supporter. Never mind then.

@LJS9502_basic: private property, not public. They werent waving their guns around.

Those people BROKE into private property. They are BREAKING the law, which you don't seem to care about, wonder why?

I'm not a trump supporter, but typical of flailing people to resort to BS.

Plenty do. Thousands of crimes are stopped everyday with firearms in this country. The fact that 1 case being singled out is meaningless.

@jeezers said:

They obviously have put ALOT into this place.... place is gorgeous, classy stuff!

expensive != classy, but to each their own i suppose.

anyway. on topic, it sounds like the protesters were in fact trespassing onto privately owner property. not sure what protections under the 1st amendment they're afforded at that point.

you do start to get into a grey area of "feeling threatened" as that is something that is hard to gauge and if interpreted too loosely can be an easy get our of jail free card for just being a terrible person.

while they look comical doing it, it was likely in their right to defend themselves if they felt personally threatened.

Private street. That is a job for the police.

People should have the right to defend themselves. At least from my armchair lawyery, they did nothing wrong.

@LJS9502_basic: Whom ignored the calls. Back to step one.

What about the people breaking the law by breaking and entering private property and threatening others? No comment on them?

Doesn't matter. They aren't the police. Police take care of the streets.

@LJS9502_basic: The couple were not on the streets, they were on their property and were not the ones breaking the law. The ones breaking the law were the trespassers who also destroyed private property.

Thankfully the governor and AG are fighting against this garbage.

Do the couple come out with guns right away or are they trying to get the protesters away from their property first?

Actually yes it's against the law in that area to wave guns around. They did break the law.

The guy's not even wearing shoes lol. They've explained it. They were eating dinner, heard bunch of shouting outside and saw whole bunch of people.

Edit: Sorry, this was after the police said they weren't coming out and the private security company didn't answer.

You don’t point a loaded gun at people in the gun range

....no shit?

Quote.........

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey on Monday and said they could face an additional misdemeanor fourth-degree assault charge.

"It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner -- that is unlawful in the city of St. Louis," Gardner said in a statement.

They were 100% correct in their actions. These people broke down a private fence and walked down a private road. They have all rights to protect what is theirs.

I will say say they need some gun safety training because the way they were waiving around the guns was not safe, but it was not illegal in my eyes.

Factual untrue. These people were on private property. You have all the rights in the world to point your gun at them. Now pulling the trigger would be a completely different story if they were not being threatened.

I will say they need some gun training if they are wanting to properly defend their property. The muzzle control was out of hand.

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey on Monday and said they could face an additional misdemeanor fourth-degree assault charge.

"It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner -- that is unlawful in the city of St. Louis," Gardner said in a statement.

I posted facts.......you spouted opinion. YOU are factually incorrect.

Innocent before proven guilty. Just because he said it and charged them doesn't make him right. We will see when this goes to court. So you are factual incorrect. They are on private property and they have all rights to protect that property. You will see how this ends up.

Now you're moving goalposts. What they did is against the law in their community. You said it wasn't. So I pointed out you're posting a BS opinion based on your feelings. You were wrong. Deal with it. Put on your big boy pants and admit you made a mistake.

This will be thrown out. AG filed hours after the stupid ass charges.

Why do those that argue they are the party of law and order consistently like those who violate the laws?

You tell me? You don't seem to mind that the mob was there illegally. I await your reasoning.

Meanwhile, the couple that was there to protect themselves and their property will be free.