'Keep moving!' Couple brandish an AR-15 and a handgun at protesters

[BobLoblaw]

What is she saying? "Abolish the suburbs"? Not really thread-related, I just can't tell what I'm hearing.

It's like they just learned how to use words and they're trying to arrange them to out-radical one another.

[Jason M]

Tried to locate the law in question for the "exhibiting a weapon charge", maybe one of our legal beagles can verify for Missouri:

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSecti...ection=571.030

571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:

  (1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any area where firearms are restricted under section 571.107; or

  (2) Sets a spring gun; or

  (3) Discharges or shoots a firearm into a dwelling house, a railroad train, boat, aircraft, or motor vehicle as defined in section 302.010, or any building or structure used for the assembling of people; or

  (4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or

So, I assume how this works, is that the Grand Jury was convinced there was evidence that both McCloskey's "exhibited a weapon readily capable of lethal use"? In the case of Mrs. McCloskey, seems pretty obvious; she was waving that pistol around like a flag. I don't recall Mr. McCloskey doing the same with his AR pattern rifle, but if the GJ saw evidence of that, seems legit.

At least under what I understand of the MO law, seems like the McCloskey's are fairly charged, at least for the "Exhibiting" count. Am I missing something?

Need to know what 571.101 - 571.121 say. That may provide justification for such conduct.

[CleverNickname]

Need to know what 571.101 - 571.121 say. That may provide justification for such conduct.

Those sections aren't difficult to find, they're right at the site that RJ linked.

I don't see any potential justification in any of those sections. They're mainly about CCW licenses, which would be an exception to 571.030(1), not (4).

[CleverNickname]

It's like they just learned how to use words and they're trying to arrange them to out-radical one another.

No, they know what they're saying. They want everyone to live in government-owned Soviet-style midrise apartments. Suburbs enable the petite bourgeoisie, letting them do evil capitalist things like own their own home, and encouraging formation of nuclear families.

[LittleLebowski]

No, they know what they're saying. They want everyone to live in government-owned Soviet-style midrise apartments. Suburbs enable the petite bourgeoisie, letting them do evil capitalist things like own their own home, and encouraging formation of nuclear families.

And you’re not overstating that.

[Sanch]

The couple pleaded guilty to a misdemenor recently rather than go to trial, and the Governor of Missouri pardoned them today.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/03/polit...don/index.html

[okie john]

Bueno.


Okie John

[vcdgrips]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scotus-de...161454942.html


Mo Sct decision to put the couple on probation v. suspending their licenses as requested by counsel for the MO Bar declined to be heard by the USSC.

Bottom Line

See posts 104 ,152 and 401.

1. they are not felons
2. they did not lose their licenses
3. they are still practicing
4. they took it all the way to the USSC

...and so it goes.

[Bergeron]

And you’re not overstating that.

No Joke!! I'm reading Kotkin's first volume of Stalin and it just jumps off the page how much Lenin and his Bolsheviks (does it get more lefty than Lenin?) hated private property owners and anyone outside of the city that could not be jammed into factories and apartment complexes.