McCloskey's AR-15 confiscated by police

[Justabirdwatcher]

What crime? You can't stand in your yard with a gun after a mob breaks through your gate?

Sure you can. Just don't point it at random people that are off your property, and you're good to go.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Pointing a gun at someone is serious business, and lots of people don’t understand the repercussions of it. Some of us carry a gun for a living and we have to understand...

Exactly.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Did you miss that their LIVES and property WERE threatened in the face of a mob that had committed forcible trespassing (burglary in most jurisdictions)?

Like I said before, if they really felt that way, their tactics sucked. Good luck selling their position out on the lawn to the jury.

 

[SFC B]

Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or

2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.

law.justia.com

In my CC class they said the definition of brandishing is pretty broad. The recommendation was that if your weapon accidentally becomes visible in a public setting and your confronted to as quickly and politely as possible vacate the area and do everything to minimize the confrontation.

My understanding of the castle doctrine in Missouri and other states is that you don't have the duty to retreat from your own property, and can use deadly force to defend against a reasonable imminent threat to yourself or others.

Depends on the state but in many pets and animals are property and defense of property isn't included. So someone could kill your dog and you still wouldn't be justified in using deadly force.

Pretty clear to me that the violated the Missouri Statutes.

They did not use deadly force. Further, in relation to the MO statute, they were reacting to a direct and imminent threat in that their lives were being threatened and their property had been forcibly entered in furtherance of those threats. The video is clear in this matter.

 

[BackofBeyond]

"...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." How is taking their guns not a 2A issue????

So by that rational, a legally purchased firearm used to commit an illegal act, or more specifically to this case as part of an investigation of an illegal act, cannot be seized as evidence?

I'm not saying they did or did not commit a crime, that's up to the prosecuting attorney in the case and should be ultimately be decided by a jury of their peers, not people on the interwebs. But, if the firearms were seized as evidence that is not a violation of the 2A, nor should it ever be.

 

[azelkhntr]

This case will go nowhere. Their property will be returned and an apology issued. I hope he sues them for a gross violation of their civil rights, mental anguish, pain and suffering and gross negligence. Gawd I’d love to be on that jury.

 

[azelkhntr]

So by that rational, a legally purchased firearm used to commit an illegal act, or more specifically to this case as part of an investigation of an illegal act, cannot be seized as evidence?

I'm not saying they did or did not commit a crime, that's up to the prosecuting attorney in the case and should be ultimately be decided by a jury of their peers, not people on the interwebs. But, if the firearms were seized as evidence that is not a violation of the 2A, nor should it ever be.

Rational? What rational? Don’t go drifting off into the weeds.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

They did not use deadly force. Further, in relation to the MO statute, they were reacting to a direct and imminent threat in that their lives were being threatened and their property had been forcibly entered in furtherance of those threats. The video is clear in this matter.

Had "their property" been forcibly entered, I don't doubt they would have shot someone. They were clearly looking for an excuse to "defend their property" but they are also attorneys so I'm sure they knew where their property actually ends and the community property starts. As for "lives being threatened," give me a break. See my comment about tactics above. If they felt their lives were being threatened, they would have sheltered in their home. Period, end of story. They were there to prevent any vandalism to their beloved mansion. Good for them. They have the right to do that. But they don't have the right to point weapons at people that are not on their property, in the process. That is why their guns were taken and why they will be charged.

Pitiful examples of 2A if you ask me.

 

[COEngineer]

They had no time to use a cell phone? But plenty of time to grab up a couple firearms?

Unbelievable.

OK, I thought I was out of touch. The police in many jurisdictions are swamped and/or intentionally not responding to calls - especially around riots. These people were on their own, whether they called 911 or not.

 

[SFC B]

Like I said before, if they really felt that way, their tactics sucked. Good luck selling their position out on the lawn to the jury.
[/

Not saying they were in a good tactical position, but absent the presentation of a defense to the mob their next position would have been repelling after more of their property was destroyed and entry had been made into their actual home. I can't imagine a jury you could find (especially in MO) that would have issue with this after viewing the video, pictures AND the refusal of the police to respond.

 

[BuzzH]

OK, I thought I was out of touch. The police in many jurisdictions are swamped and/or intentionally not responding to calls - especially around riots. These people were on their own, whether they called 911 or not.

Prove it...influential neighborhood was going to be ignored?

Hilarious.

 

[COEngineer]

Pointing a gun at someone is serious business, and lots of people don’t understand the repercussions of it. Some of us carry a gun for a living and we have to understand...

Kicking down someone's gate and threatening their lives is also serious business. If the couple had been standing near the gate, they would have been justified in shooting to death all of the rioters, but you are ok with them having their guns confiscated for pointing a gun at the rioters?!?!?

 

[TOGIE]

i think the courts should be able to clear all this up

if he is found innocent of the crime he is accused of and doesn't get his AR back i'll start crying foul of 2A infringement

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

They did not use deadly force. Further, in relation to the MO statute, they were reacting to a direct and imminent threat in that their lives were being threatened and their property had been forcibly entered in furtherance of those threats. The video is clear in this matter.

Correct, I'm saying the castle doctrine in Missouri provides for deadly forces against a reasonable threat. It doesn't provide for brandishing as a means of protecting your property.

I watched the video... I think they were a long way from direct and imminent threat.

Very possible that they did not commit a crime, but I can see why charges were filed.

They should have had weapons holstered or carried in a more reasonable manner.

I mean come on how many times/threads are there that we rip people for poor muzzle control and weapons handling in movies, tv shows, and hunt shows.



If you are going to own firearms you need to be calm and collected.

These folks are shooting holes in the boat.

 

[MTLabrador]

Kicking down someone's gate and threatening their lives is also serious business. If the couple had been standing near the gate, they would have been justified in shooting to death all of the rioters, but you are ok with them having their guns confiscated for pointing a gun at the rioters?!?!?

I understand why they did what they did, but they did not do it in a legal way. That’s all I’m saying here. I am very pro second amendment, but having the firearms seized as evidence is simply a routine part of the process and not a violation of their second amendment rights.

 

[COEngineer]

Prove it...influential neighborhood was going to be ignored?

Hilarious.

“The dispatcher put them on hold and then finally transferred them to an officer. The officer didn’t seem to be listening to anything the McCloskey said. We’ll call you back, police said, and they never did.”
from here: https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com...ecurity-firms-initially-didnt-offer-any-help/

 

[azelkhntr]

OK, I thought I was out of touch. The police in many jurisdictions are swamped and/or intentionally not responding to calls - especially around riots. These people were on their own, whether they called 911 or not.

They did call; repeatedly and the po-lice didn’t respond. No one did. Frankly I’m impressed with the level of restraint they exhibited. I’d love to see how all you armchair qbacks will respond when they come your house. Maybe you’ll cower inside your home shacking in fear whilst the mob burns the house down with you in it. Y’all better watch that video again.

 

[BuzzH]

“The dispatcher put them on hold and then finally transferred them to an officer. The officer didn’t seem to be listening to anything the McCloskey said. We’ll call you back, police said, and they never did.”
from here: https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com...ecurity-firms-initially-didnt-offer-any-help/

If they handled their phone call like their firearms...yeah, I bet they were put on hold and nobody understood them.

 

[COEngineer]

If they handled their phone call like their firearms...yeah, I bet they were put on hold and nobody understood them.

You can be such a troll, Buzz. Your jokes are not funny and the fact that you have no knowledge of what happened in this case is obvious and disappointing.

 

[44hunter45]

A preview of what’s going to happen if 45 isn’t re-elected. Completely unconstitutional act. The police wouldn’t show up to help them and stop the violent trespassers even after multiple calls. I know we all don’t want to talk politics but you better start paying attention. These thugs aren’t playing and they will come for you. A fitting analogy is what happened to Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge seized power. You’ll have 2 choices only come Nov 3. Law and Order or chaos. Choose wisely because if chaos wins the day across the board the chaos will come for you and yours. They’ve already told you this and you should listen and believe.

It's not a preview of anything. "45" is the President now.

BTW - In my advanced CCW class, we were taught that in Idaho the castle doctrine does not include your yard, only your actual domicile. Ironically, it includes a tent , or your car, if they are legally pitched/parked.
I asked for clarification regarding holding poaching trespassers on our 40 acres. The legal answer is that it comes down to the responding officer's judgment on your threat level.
The way you respond when an officer arrives has a lot to do with how these things play out afterward.

So, it is possible that it could be a crime to brandish a weapon in your own yard. Let's hope they paid for that USCCA legal insurance.