• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Couple threatened for defending themselves agains a mob who broke in their property ?

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Very dismissive of law. Trespassing on a private street, destroying a gate and intruding into a private home property are all cause to stand outside one's home to defend it and advise the protestors they are on private property

Would you allow Right to life protestors to go on private property? no and in fact they insist they stay a distance from it

They went into a gated community (ie an almost entirely white community, guaranteed). No one was harmed. BLM is literally protesting law enforcement, so yes obviously they engage in civil disobedience, as civil rights protestors have a long history of doing.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It was a private street and the mob was on it.
Portland Place is a private street. The McCloskeys are protected by Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.

Their house was private property on a private street
the entire think was trespassing on several levels

Yes, legally they were allowed to go on the private street with the arms to defend their property
The street isn't their personal property and the street isn't their home.

They're just one of many joint owners of a street (which, like several in the area, became "private" under dubious circumstances). Do you think that if someone was a shareholder in a mall, this would give them the right to threaten people with a gun for being in there after closing time?
Ironically they were Black Lives Matter supporters and Democrats and just thrown under the bus by the left.... oh well....
Seeing how they were ready to kill - and almost did kill - BLM protesters, they're probably the sort of "supporters" the movement won't miss.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Some background facts that a few are conveniently ignoring. First, the cause of the march was by the mayor releasing addresses of advocates (subtlety giving right wing terrorists critical information):

(NB: Yes there was trespass to get to the mayor's home but the mayor caused the demonstration):

Sunday night's demonstration was sparked by mayor releasing names and addresses of "defund police" advocates.


Then:

In this video you can see protestors walk right through the gate. It’s not destroyed when they walk onto the street.

Of course what's "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" The NRA should be thrilled that armed protestors faced off with armed homeowners, of course of course.

When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed,


A witness statement:

he didn't see anyone breaking into the neighborhood and instead recalled seeing protesters simply strolling through an open gate.

"I kind of turned around to take some pictures of people coming through the gate, then I turned back around and by then he had his long gun in his hand," Shular told NBC News. "And the woman came out with a pistol and started pointing it with her finger on the trigger at everybody."

Shular said "people were just kind of yelling at" the couple, but he couldn't clearly make out what was said.

Couple recorded pulling weapons on protesters outside their St. Louis home
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
The street isn't their personal property and the street isn't their home.

They're just one of many joint owners of a street (which, like several in the area, became "private" under dubious circumstances). Do you think that if someone was a shareholder in a mall, this would give them the right to threaten people with a gun for being in there after closing time?

Seeing how they were ready to kill - and almost did kill - BLM protesters, they're probably the sort of "supporters" the movement won't miss.

Actually, one legal professor said yes they were within their rights on a joint owned street

If someone broke in a mall after hours and refused to leave, they would probably be within their rights. And the couple was saying to the crowd they were trespassing. That was true.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Some background facts that a few are conveniently ignoring. First, the cause of the march was by the mayor releasing addresses of advocates (subtlety giving right wing terrorists critical information):

(NB: Yes there was trespass to get to the mayor's home but the mayor caused the demonstration):

Sunday night's demonstration was sparked by mayor releasing names and addresses of "defund police" advocates.


Then:

In this video you can see protestors walk right through the gate. It’s not destroyed when they walk onto the street.

Of course what's "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" The NRA should be thrilled that armed protestors faced off with armed homeowners, of course of course.

When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed,


A witness statement:

he didn't see anyone breaking into the neighborhood and instead recalled seeing protesters simply strolling through an open gate.

"I kind of turned around to take some pictures of people coming through the gate, then I turned back around and by then he had his long gun in his hand," Shular told NBC News. "And the woman came out with a pistol and started pointing it with her finger on the trigger at everybody."

Shular said "people were just kind of yelling at" the couple, but he couldn't clearly make out what was said.

Couple recorded pulling weapons on protesters outside their St. Louis home


Even the title is misleading of your article "outside their home" was a joint owned private street, conveniently left off. It was a gated community and they were private property within the gated community the protestors had no legal right to be there and were trespassing
 
Last edited:

Curious George

Veteran Member
If you rent an apartment from somebody else, then it's not your property.

So somebody who rents an apartment wouldn't be allowed to defend their neighbourhood, as it wouldn't be their property, correct?
It is absolutely your property: it is property in which you have property rights.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The problem is that this whole scenario is that it's based in knee-jerk idiocy, and cowboy movie fantasies, instead of facts, and reality.
Oh, don't be so hard on yourself.
The moment you point a gun at a crowd, ANYONE in that crowd with a weapon has the right, and even an obligation, to shoot you dead, immediately.
Yeah....I disagree with that.
But also, I think it wrong to point guns at crowds.
Defense doesn't have to mean provocation.
Because you are posing an open, obvious, and deadly threat to everyone in that crowd. And anyone in that crowd that can respond to that threat, should. This is why anyone with a brain in their head knows that you NEVER point a gun at someone thinking that they will capitulate to your threat. If there were a cop in that crowd, he or she would shoot you dead. Because in real life, when you pose a deadly threat to a cop, or to any other human being, for ANY REASON, they will kill you before you kill them, if they can. They are not going to talk it over, or capitulate. They are simply going to shoot first, if they are able, to stop you from shooting them.
Are you suggesting that the BLM crowd is armed, & prepared
to do battle with people protecting their homes & businesses?
Or is this a hypothetical scenario?
For this reason, if for no others, it was patently moronic of these two home-owners to go out and point their guns at a crowd, no matter what they thought that crowd was intent on doing. And they are very lucky that they were not both shot dead, immediately, by some heroic armed citizen within that crowd. Because he/she would have been completely within their rights to do so.
As I said, those 2 lawyers handled their situation poorly.
Secondly, the idea that human lives are not as valuable as the property one thinks he owns, is pathetically irrational.
No, you've not made a rational argument.
You feel this way, sure.
But you've established no agreed upon premises from which to reason.
Ownership is a social pact. It only exists as a functional ideal so long as the humans we live with and among agree to honor it as such. If they have not agreed, and we insist on their capitulation, then WE become the aggressor: the 'enemy' of the people, not them. And they have the right (as well as the superior ability) to treat us as such.
Your "social pact" that property shouldn't be defended is one I've not made.
Everything we have in life, no matter how much or how little, we have because we are a member of a cooperative society of human beings. Our well-being depends on theirs, and theirs on ours. Understanding this, we mutually agree to abide by the laws that order and control our interactions. Because without that mutual agreement, there is no society. There is no cooperation. There is only endless strife, and competition, and struggle, and suffering, and violence, and death. There is no point in our existing at all, if this is the path we are going to choose as extant beings.
The threat of deadly violence in order to deter deadly violence
& property destruction is useful. Countries use this effectively.
So do soldiers, cops, & civilians. Did you know that most self
defense cases with guns involve mere presentation of the
weapon, without a shot ever fired?
Which is why both under the law, and under the rule of ethical reason, we do not have the right to end a human life for the sake of some inanimate object. No matter how much money it's worth, or how much we may 'love it'.
You're trying to argue that your values are absolute & universal.
But it's not so.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"They didn't actually shoot" <> "they were peaceful."

Brandishing a loaded firearm and pointing it at another person is not a peaceful act.
I've already said that such behavior is bad.
But nonetheless, thins proceeded peacefully as I defined
it, ie, no one was shot & no property was destroyed.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Actually, one legal professor said yes they were within their rights on a joint owned street
Which legal professor?

Eric Banks, lawyer and former St. Louis City councillor, has the opposite opinion:
Banks, also a former St. Louis city counselor, said residents cannot control which people enter the neighborhood, despite erecting gates and hiring private security.

“That is a myth that private street residents frequently want to put forth,” he said. “But you cannot act with impunity, come out of your house with an automatic weapon and point it in the direction of the people coming down the street. It’s just beyond the pale.”

St. Louis Couple Points Guns At Protesters — Was It Legal?

If someone broke in a mall after hours and refused to leave, they would probably be within their rights. And the couple was saying to the crowd they were trespassing. That was true.
No, it actually isn't true.

I was operating with some bad assumptions before: I assumed that Portland Place had a right-of-way that was a distinct property that happened to be jointly owned; turns out that this isn't the case... which is actually important: the property extends out into the middle of the road.

This means that there was an easement - either de facto or on title - granting access across the roadway part of the McCloskey's property. This is how the McCloskey's landlocked neighours - and their servants, deliveries, garbage pickup, road maintenance crews, etc. - were able to access their properties without the McCloskeys threatening to kill them.

So even though the road in front of their house was private property, it seems they didn't have the right to try to deny access.
 

Attachments

  • EbsZyhMX0AE8uBn.jpeg
    EbsZyhMX0AE8uBn.jpeg
    119.4 KB · Views: 0

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The equivocation of the KKK and BLM is exactly the kind of inaccurate frame that incites fear in right wingers like the people in this story and leads people like Trump to engage in both sides-ism when actual, literal white supremacists protest.
Caution: Some mocking ahead....
Failing to recognize that different standards for different races "is exactly
the kind of inaccurate frame that" shows emotion over reason in left wingers
"like the people in this story and leads people like" BLM to engage in violence.
BLM is not a black supremacist group. The vast majority of BLM protestors are peaceful and have no interest in "torching businesses and homes."
Nonetheless, BLM protests have been violent & destructive
at times. Defending one's home or business, one shouldn't
have to think....
"Oh, wait....defense is wrong when attacked by protestors who
are mostly peaceful. Defense is only OK when attacked by
white supremacists."
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"intending to torch..." Sheer speculation without any factual evidence.
I proposed a hypothetical scenario.
The underlined word should be a clue to why I presented no evidence.
But the KKK does have a record of that.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Caution: Some mocking ahead....
Failing to recognize that different standards for different races "is exactly
the kind of inaccurate frame that" shows emotion over reason in left wingers
"like the people in this story and leads people like" BLM to engage in violence.

I'm not engaging in "different standards for different races." You're aware not all BLM protestors are black, yes?

Nonetheless, BLM protests have been violent & destructive
at times. Defending one's home or business, one shouldn't
have to think....
"Oh, wait....defense is wrong when attacked by protestors who
are mostly peaceful. Defense is only OK when attacked by
white supremacists."

Defending your home is fine. Threatening protestors at gunpoint when they dare to walk by your home is extremely problematic.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
You are special.
As one who doesn't live in N Ameristan,
your definition could be at odds with
usage of the term here.
By Murrican definitions, everyone who doesn't hate public healthcare and college students, and doesn't sleep with a Glock-17 under their pillow is an unreformed communist.

I proposed a hypothetical scenario.
The underlined word should be a clue to why I presented no evidence.
But the KKK does have a record of that.
I thought the KKK just put burning crosses on lawns?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm not engaging in "different standards for different races." You're aware not all BLM protestors are black, yes?
I did notice that in the many pix in the news.
But that really doesn't address my point about differing
standards on who can protect their property from whom.
Defending your home is fine. Threatening protestors at gunpoint when they dare to walk by your home is extremely problematic.
I agree.
They were wrong to do that.
Hey....they're lawyers....we can't expect good behavior.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
View attachment 41165

The entire street was a private street and private property. The street they went out to was private property.

looks like destruction of private property and trespassing on even their home property

What exactly is the peaceful purpose of destroying a gate and entering?
So as a homeowner I could legally gun down anybody walking through that street because they were "trespassing"? How bizarre.
 
Top