Almost forgot about this couple.
- Thread starter Maser
- Start date
made me wonder what the deal was if the gun she had and pointed was really made able to shoot from the state so they could frame the family why plead guilty you know something unknown is happening .
It doesn’t matter if the gun was functional.
Lesson learned. Stay inside with weapons ready. There is no way to win if you are on video.
Set up an FPL right inside the front door. Stack bodies when they cross the FPL.
Set up an FPL right inside the front door. Stack bodies when they cross the FPL.
Missouri governor pardons St. Louis couple Mark, Patricia McCloskey after guilty pleas in gun-waving incident
The St. Louis couple who was famously pictured wielding guns as Black Lives Matter demonstrators marched outside their property last year received a pardon from Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, his office announced Tuesday.
www.foxnews.com Missouri governor pardons St. Louis couple Mark, Patricia McCloskey after guilty pleas in gun-waving incident
The St. Louis couple who was famously pictured wielding guns as Black Lives Matter demonstrators marched outside their property last year received a pardon from Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, his office announced Tuesday.
So if they have been pardoned, do they get the money back that they paid in fines and firearms returned?
Why? Despite then being stupid in reality, they lived in a gated community, correct? That means all the protestors were already trespassing, does it not? And with hundreds of them, seems pretty reasonable that one might be scared for their life and property! Or are we going by the cardinal rule, don’t draw unless you absolutely must end someone? Do you really think they would have fared any different being in their house?
I wonder what would have happened if the couple had used paint ball guns and actually shot at the crowd?? Or if they didn't shoot PB guns at the crowd?
From a moral standpoint, I would have had no problem with the McCloskeys doing a mag-dump on the trespassers. I’d have no problem with anyone stacking bodies right there.
We don’t have a justice system in this country. We have a legal system. Therefore the legalities don’t line up with what is morally right.
If some Jews would have defended themselves against Nazis they would have been breaking the law in Germany at that time. There would have been no way to win against that system.
The McCloskeys had every moral right to do what they did. The press and the prosecutor did their best to cast their actions in a bad light.
That’s why I am saying if in similar situations, don’t be in a position where you can be caught on camera and let the enemy come to you and on your terms.
Set up the FPL inside the door.
They would still have been prosecuted.
I haven't seen an answer to that. I did see the story in late June about them buying new firearms. Hopefully the new ones are more than just nonfunctional prop guns in case next time their bluff is called.
What would have been the most appropriate course of action and still be within the law if BLM started tearing stuff up?
Open the front door, retreat and when they cross the FPL inside the house; start stacking bodies.
An open door to BLM and ANTIFA is like a gut pile to a coyote.
There is no justice system anymore, just the just us system. If you are morally wrong then you can now pretty much get away with whatever you want without fear of prosecution. Cop friends are getting very pissed and have no idea why they even go to work because they catch people only for them to be released. I was told a story about one gent arrested 4x in the same day a few weeks back. That has got to be frustrating. So now we are only enforcing some laws, for some people, quite literally. And we are paying people to not enforce said laws most of the time it seems in some places. Yes, this country has become completely ass backwards.
Does this thought hold true for those trespassing inside the capital on Jan 6th?
Can you elaborate on your question a little more? I'm not sure from what premise you are asking the question. I think that if I attempt to answer your question I would be speculating and making assumptions on your thoughts behind the question. In that case, I couldn't give you a good answer.
BLM was there to fuck shit up ,did McCloskeys wrong BLM no. Did BLM have a right to fuck up the McCloskeys property in anyway of course not.
Jan 6th was a protest of an election that by all means is questionable. Our government present day only functions first and foremost to fill their pockets and then for their supporters. The other half of the Country gets the middle finger under the slogan Elections have Consequences. If we are a land of two sects which one is more oppressive to the opposition when in power then we are not Nation of one . Most still believe we are what was started some 245 years ago, its a nice thought but you must face reality we are 245 years removed from those morals and patriotism.
Jan 6th was only a small fringe of people not the core of what Patriots would of done if the Keepers of Freedom hadn't retired centuries ago.
I find the very thought of trespassing on those buildings offensive. We own them! fking elites need to be brought down
I dont know that I can elaborate. All of me thinks youre right on the McCloskeys stacking bodies. At the same time, I firmly believe what happened on Jan 6th was justified and when I hear conservatives berate that action I feel pissed. Yet, tresspassing is tresspassing.....blm was wrong, so Jan 6 was wrong, but I still feel Jan 6 was right. Not sure how to condem one without condeming the other. Both parties are shitting on property not belonging to them!
I agree. Quite the conundrum. So, if 1/6 was justified then how or why should the McCloskeys be charged with anything? The BLMers literally broke into a gated community, hundreds of them. They didnt shoot anyone but by your premise they could have and would have been justified. Trespassing is trespassing. It doesn’t matter whether it’s outside or inside. There is only one key difference. One broke into a neighborhood and one inside a capital building. Technically, both situations one could argue that they feared for their lives, I suppose as both situations were mobs. One guy gets away with actually killing someone and not even a peep as to prosecution while the others get drug through the mud for waving some weapons around. Quite the unbalanced application of what some call justice. There is a major problem with this and is precisely why people are growing ever more pissed daily. I guess some argue that in some respects, it’s hard to break into a tax payer owned, semi public building. The ones needing to be held responsible in my mind are the ones up top, those that allowed each situation to happen. But then they have a problem also on how to deal with these massive protests that turn into outbreaks of riots. If they control the situation they get blamed for not allowing free speech and peaceful assembly, if they control it then they get blamed for being too heavy handed. Cops have to deal with this kind of issue daily and it’s super frustrating I’m sure.
Last edited:
I don't think that you can lump everyone who entered the capitol building into the same category.
Recall that there were some individuals that were destroying property to enter the building. There were other areas around the premises in which the doors were flung wide open and the security personnel (who are now suffering from PTSD) ushered the participants into the building.
Some folks went inside, looked around and left. They didn't cause any problems. So how can they be charged with trespassing when they were invited in by security personnel?
On the other hand, the ANTIFA/BLM crowd have, unequivocally, advocated the destruction of property, physical harm, taking of lives and overthrow of the government.
So I repeat myself. The McCloskeys would have have had every moral right to stack bodies whilst outside their home. In the eyes of the media, they would have been made the bad guys. In the eyes of the law they would have been, and were, prosecuted.
We all know that the best outcome of a shooting is to survive it and stop the threat. The second priority is to survive the legal consequences of a shooting. Part of my every day strategy is to not put myself in a situation where I will not suffer from the after effects of a shooting. I don't go looking for a fight.
I don't go to rallies or protests anymore. The ANTIFA/BLM crowd have learned that they can get in someone's personal space, yell obscenities and strike them and get away with it. They aren't even charged. If they are charged, the complaint is usually dismissed or reduced to a misdemeanor. On the other hand, a conservative defending himself will get the book thrown at him. I won't play into some turd's hands and get into trouble by merely protecting myself.
I won't play another man's game even if I can win the fight right then an their. The game isn't over until I go to trial. If I go to trial, there is no guarantee that I will win.
The McCloskeys were playing another man's game when they stepped outside the house. They prevented further destruction of their home but lost the case. They were fortunate that a sympathetic governor pardoned them. Also think about this; if one of the rioters had called their bluff, attacked and was shot down, they would be like Kyle Rittenhouse now. I won't talk about him. That's for another discussion.
It would have been difficult for the media to portray the McCloskeys as bad guys if they are inside their home if they kill someone inside their doorway threatening or attempting harm. If I were them, I'd rather see some destruction of my home rather than my life destroyed. I make that statement with a caveat. Read on...
A parallel facet to this conundrum is the shooting of Ashli Babbit. From everything that I saw, she was not causing harm and by all accounts was probably one of the participants that was invited inside. She was murdered. Even as this assertion is debated, what is salient is that the government hasn't released the name of the person that shot her. If there is any investigation it is being conducted in the killer's favor.
If it had been a white officer killing a black woman, his name would have been all over the place with riots cropping up faster than whores meeting troop ships.
Someone posed a question earlier about what to do if the creeps confronting the McCloskeys started destroying property. Let me see if I can answer this question with a couple of examples.
If one is inside their home and a rioter is going to throw a Molotov cocktail or other incendiary at their house, then IMHO, the homeowner needs to protect their lives by preventing a fire. Shooting the pyro would be justified.
If one is inside their home and a rioter starts shooting at the house, then IMHO, the homeowner has every right to protect themselves from harmful gunfire. Make the gunman look like a piece of Swiss cheese.
Did that answer your question?
