St Louis Lawyers Have Firearm Seized

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Gatoragn, Jul 11, 2020.

  1. sheriffjohn

    sheriffjohn Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,747
    3,208
    113
    Missouri courts have a website "case.net" through Missouri Courts website which lists court actions folks are involved in. Mark T. Mccloskey has 44 cases, not an unusual number for an attorney. If you're bored, look at it. Basically overviews of court actions.
     
    schnuffleupagus likes this.
  2. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,032
    4,937
    113
    W.T. Sherman and Mercator like this.

  3. sheriffjohn

    sheriffjohn Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,747
    3,208
    113
    Suing lawyers is like fighting a newspaper. One does it for a living, the other buys ink by the barrel. Disbarment, on the other hand, gets a lawyer's attention. Conviction of certain crimes can result in loss of their license to steal. I'm going to stay tuned as this story isn't over yet.
     
  4. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,045
    4,307
    113
    Really? Who's sueing them? Didnt see anything about them being sued over this in that link.

    And what does being a unpleasant overbearing couple have to do with their defense of themselves and property?
    Actually nothing.
     
  5. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    852
    1,191
    93
    Speaks to motive and reasonableness, more or less. If it can be shown they've a history of being unreasonable turds, the supposed unreasonableness of their actions on their lawn might then be successfully questioned.

    Since, in the end, it's reasonable actions that are justifiable, according to the laws in nearly every U.S. state. If deemed unreasonable by a jury of peers (if ever charged and it goes to trial), this sort of thing might well speak to a history of "lashing out at others," to show how acting unreasonably (in a manner the average person wouldn't) is how they roll.

    All guesses. But we're in the "character assassination" phase, now. They're being excoriated in the media with the social "trial" that comes before any charges, since the DA is going to have to determine whether to charge based on the pressure the DA's feeling from the public. Irrespective of the justifiability of the actions they took.

    Always loved the theatre. Just not this particular variant of it.

    A good warning to folks, though, on the manner and "style" with which one goes about defending the homestead. Better to err on the side of reasonableness at all times, to the extent one can ... 'cause the wolves are out there and will tear one to pieces if they can. Particularly in the Era of Woke.
     
    bluez and ellis36 like this.
  6. ellis36

    ellis36 Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,533
    7,296
    113
    And, keep in mind who are the attackers. Defense against a mob waving the
    American flag and yelling "stop burning down our cities!" would allow most any method of defense from cannon to boiling pots of oil.

    But then we hardly ever hear of that situation! :)

    ellis
     
  7. oO_Rogue_Oo

    oO_Rogue_Oo Well-Known Member

    921
    858
    93
    WOW really?

    So then maybe they solicited the mob attack (yes I consider it an attack, the moment they crossed a private property line)? 50+ people show up on my lawn threatening; and I come out side, armed with a gun. What is my motive? Take a wild guess.
     
    Caveman Jim likes this.
  8. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    852
    1,191
    93
    Yes, really.

    As I'd suggested, IF it turns out their current actions are deemed unreasonable and they get hauled before a court to face charges by the DA, then any past situations involving them and unreasonableness will likely become a part of testimonies.

    Has nothing to do with determination of whether this act was reasonable or not. That's on the DA to initially determine, and on the shoulders of a jury to decide.

    I'm with you, though: IF there actually were threats or threatening behavior known at the time, in a situation I'm watching unfold, then I'll be damned if I won't defend my property and the lives of my loved ones with whatever it reasonably takes to do that.

    I'd hope everyone would.

    The big question in this highly-publicized case is: given the he-said, she-said angle of the thing, who's correct? No way to know, for certain, without concrete proofs corroborating the claims (from both sides).

    At this point, I'm inclined to believe the residents, given the times we're in, given the general official acceptance of boisterous gatherings (even riots), and given the broken-down fencing apparently caused by the new arrivals in order to forcibly enter the place. I would like to think the standard for officialdom is: show how it's highly likely it couldn't have been what they say it was, else leave them the hell alone. Of course, all the "proofs" that I've seen so far are the videos and stills from the apparent perps in the mob; nothing seems to exist about what threats and invective were hurled by the mob at the residents. A fact the mob seems to be heavily banking on, at this point.
     
  9. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,773
    6,281
    113
    Reckon the subject matter folks would appreciate having audio and video of members of the mob threatening them? Would that help or hurt their case?
     
    Caveman Jim likes this.
  10. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,890
    3,368
    113
    That would depend if the crowd did and said what the claim they did. if they did, then yes it would help them. I would be very surprised if they did not have security cameras around the exterior of the house.
     
    W.T. Sherman and Sniper03 like this.
  11. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    12,885
    2,474
    113
    If this is true, whatever happens to them, they had it coming. Moral support withdrawn.

    Dudes many of you confuse justice with fairness. Also, no bad words will legally justify pointing a firearm. She is trying to elicit compassion, can’t blame her, but legally it’s hopeless BS. The NRA will be smart not to support them.
     
    W.T. Sherman, manta and alsaqr like this.
  12. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,045
    4,307
    113
    Why do some in this thread refuse to look at MO statues. The couple broke no law. At all.

    If they are suit happy has nothing to do with it and though I'll look more closely other than acts of domestic violence in the past , their bee killing and disputes in court over land , etc would not be admissible in court .
    Even 5 senators have already penned a letter to the left wench prosecutor warning her persecution of this couple is a clear abuse of power.

    You may not like them. May not agree with the way they reacted. But in spite of that they broke not a single MO statute. And should not be the subject of searches, witch hunts, etc.
     
    schnuffleupagus likes this.
  13. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    852
    1,191
    93
    Though, if it turns out that "death threats" and other similar statements were not made by anyone in that crowd, then the unjustifiable assault/threat type statutes in the state would be relevant.

    Which is what it comes down to. The he-said, she-said part.

    These residents are greatly in need of some corroborating evidence, and/or multiple witnesses who can testify that that's exactly what happened. Else, my bet is that the DA's going to have no choice but to charge them under the relevant "assault" statutes. The pressure's too heavy.
     
  14. sheriffjohn

    sheriffjohn Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,747
    3,208
    113
    Gardner, the Circuit Attorney, keeps the new "black privelege" going. This week it's Catholic/Muslim protesters at the statue of "St. Louis", the king of France for whom the city was named. Protesters this time were "white" mostly. While praying the Rosary they were attacked by three men of color, attacks filmed, attackers not only identified but interviewed by TV news crew and openly admitting and bragging about what they did. No charges.

    Attacker beat up an old bald white guy because he "thought he was a skinhead". Nope, just a bald white guy. Ganging up on a victim seems to be a common thread among them.
     
    alsaqr and schnuffleupagus like this.
  15. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,890
    3,368
    113
    There must have being death threats, burn the house down etc, some on this forum keep saying there was. They would not say that without any evidence that happened, would they.

    I suppose having some common sense it not a law. If what you say is the case, then they have nothing to worry about have they.
     
  16. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    852
    1,191
    93
    People are capable of anything.

    Hence the skepticism about he-said, she-said stuff.

    Again, without corroborating evidence or supporting testimonies, it can be a "sticky" thing to get others to believe claims.

    In this case, in a nasty, caustic climate, we've got what appears to be a rowdy gathering of people that broke fencing to enter. Claims were made of deadly threats made, thus the arming-up. No corroborating evidence exists of the death threats. And the only videos that appear to exist are of the back-and-forth shouting match, along with the stills of miss-wide-eyes aiming directly at some folks.

    So. Could have been anything. A mob behaving as one, breaking in. Residents going overboard, imagining they heard things when (as of the moment of arming-up) there'd been no such thing. Threats, even death threats, not captured on audio on anyone's devices, at least not that's gotten publicly disseminated (yet). Nobody, apparently, in the group (mob?) who's come forward yet to speak to the claims of death threats, though it'd be a surprise if one did. Nobody, apparently, in the neighborhood who's come forward (yet) to publicly confirm what they heard or absolutely didn't hear.

    But all it takes is one person saying one "death threat" type thing that legitimately put dire concern into the residents, even if dozens heard nothing. And that technically would make arming-up in that situation valid and justifiable. Even if dozens or hundreds who'd marched in that private neighborhood swore up and down the opposite.

    Depends on what occurred ... and whether any corroboration can be found. If not, the two residents have an uphill climb. 'Cause they've been character assassinated and have scores of people's claims against them.
     
  17. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,890
    3,368
    113
    That would depend on if a death threat was made, if it was made before or after they came out brandishing firearms. Giving threats as justification for coming out with firearms, only works if they were made before they came out of their house armed.
     
    Chainfire, W.T. Sherman and Mercator like this.