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

[HCM]

Yep! And hesitation to drive through can mean getting stuck. Many of the videos of these recent riots have shown the thugs are quick to used edged weapons to deflate your tires.

It doesn't take a pig sticker either - cutting off the valve stem is the preferred TTP among the "professional protest crowd.

[BehindBlueI's]

If I'm in a random accident with a random stranger I'll be in a "let the insurance handle it" mood.

If I make a wrong turn and end up in a mob that starts beating on my car, I'll be forcing my way through with the go pedal or if I'm blocked in I'll be bringing a gun into at a minimum a covert ready position.
There's a reason everyone over about 40 knows the name Reginald Denny.
There's been at least two "mob shoots uninvolved driver" incidents in the past two weeks.
There's been at least one attempted Molotov attack on a occupied Police cruiser in the past few weeks.

I largely agree with you. Once violence starts, it's no longer just blocking a roadway. I'm dead serious in the thread asking about tools to defeat barriers on the side of the road. I want every possible egress option I can, and if I can't I at least want to show that my mindset was planning to escape if possible.

This thread has got me wondering about run-flats as well.

[Spartan1980]

"Broke down a locked entrance."

It may be broken now, but it certainly seems to be intact but open in this video.

So nobody broke it down to get in. Who broke it and when would be interesting to know.

Mr. McCloskey claims they broke it down like "storming the Bastille" but his statement is directly and flatly contradicted by video evidence, which doesn't increase his credibility in my eyes.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video...NWg.mp4?tag=10

EDIT: Additional footage of unbroken gate being held open is here.

Who you gonna believe? McCloskey, or your lyin' eyes?

Hate to break it to you, but your videos show all of about 3 people going through that gate though obviously many more than that did. As a matter of fact there are multiple reports of around 500 "protesters" going through that gate. McCloskey didn't say they broke through a locked gate or even at what point the gate was broken, only said that he saw the mob break it. Would you honestly have us believe he broke it himself?

I'll note that the cameraman in your videos walked on the McCloskey's sidewalk, so they were in fact in his yard and not all of them on the street like your snarky pic shows.

It would seem that the St. Louis PD disagrees with you on the broken gate too (emphasis mine):

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, police are investigating whether the mob of protesters, which numbered approximately 500, committed fourth-degree assault by intimidation, as well as trespassing.

Police said the mob "forcefully" broke an iron gate "marked with 'No Trespassing' and 'Private Street' signs." The demonstrators then allegedly threatened the McCloskeys.

"The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims," police said, the Post-Dispatch reported. "When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police."
SOURCE

And then there's this.

According to Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University School of Law, the McCloskeys did not violate any laws. In fact, he told the Post-Dispatch that Missouri's castle doctrine permits residents to protect private property with force.

"At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn," Walker said.

"There's no right to protest on those streets," he explained. "The protesters thought they had a right to protest, but as a technical matter, they were not allowed to be there. ... It's essentially a private estate. If anyone was violating the law, it was the protesters."
SOURCE

So what other than piss poor tactics do you suspect the McCloskeys guilty of? I haven't seen a soul anywhere on the interwebs state that what they did was smart. It does however seem to me that they protected their property pretty effectively and in a completely legal manner. It also seems to me that this is exactly what the 2A is for, no matter that the mob wasn't wearing a uniform. Change my mind.

[Wise_A]

So what other than piss poor tactics do you suspect the McCloskeys guilty of? I haven't seen a soul anywhere on the interwebs state that what they did was smart. It does however seem to me that they protected their property pretty effectively and in a completely legal manner. It also seems to me that this is exactly what the 2A is for, no matter that the mob wasn't wearing a uniform. Change my mind.

Nobody burned down the other houses in the 'hood, which incidentally were not protected by janky .380s and ARs with Walmart slings. That would sort of indicate to me that their "defense" was approximately as effective as a condom on a eunuch. All they really did was call attention to themselves. No profile is best profile.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean we have to cheerlead it. I would have thought P-F would be up for some nuance.

[Spartan1980]

Nobody burned down the other houses in the 'hood, which incidentally were not protected by janky .380s and ARs with Walmart slings. That would sort of indicate to me that their "defense" was approximately as effective as a condom on a eunuch. All they really did was call attention to themselves. No profile is best profile.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean we have to cheerlead it. I would have thought P-F would be up for some nuance.

Well the flip side is that condemnation of said non-event also draws attention and not in a good way. This is exactly what the other side wants. Us eating our own...

[MickAK]

Nobody burned down the other houses in the 'hood, which incidentally were not protected by janky .380s and ARs with Walmart slings. That would sort of indicate to me that their "defense" was approximately as effective as a condom on a eunuch. All they really did was call attention to themselves. No profile is best profile.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean we have to cheerlead it. I would have thought P-F would be up for some nuance.

Here's the thing. Eventually, somebody somewhere is going to have to make a stand.

Everyone thinks their stand is going to be different. They will follow all proper procedures and implement the best tactics. Their legal decisions will be impeccable and their motives clear.

Some of us are supporting these folks not because we think their tactics or decisions are wise. We're supporting them because we get that we might have to make this decision before the coffee maker gets done. We might be scared, unprepared, and just flat out done with hiding and running.

[Wise_A]

Well the flip side is that condemnation of said non-event also draws attention also and not in a good way. This is exactly what the other side wants. Us eating our own...

"That was counter-productive" is hardly a condemnation.

Here's the thing. Eventually, somebody somewhere is going to have to make a stand.

Everyone thinks their stand is going to be different. They will follow all proper procedures and implement the best tactics. Their legal decisions will be impeccable and their motives clear.

Some of us are supporting these folks not because we think their tactics or decisions are wise. We're supporting them because we get that we might have to make this decision before the coffee maker gets done. We might be scared, unprepared, and just flat out done with hiding and running.

Couple things.

(1) I'm totally cool with hiding and running. Thus far, these two tactics, combined with judicious amounts of foul language, have been 100% successful. Including the time that guy that threatened to put the knife inside me! I'm at my desk, I'll give you two guesses where he is. My strategy has allowed me to survive and prosper, while he stopped doing either several years ago. I didn't even need a lawyer.

(2) I couldn't care less about politics. Buying a gun does not make me your friend. Waving one around doesn't do it for me either.

(3) If you refer back to Day One/Page 7, I defended the McCloskeys. Here's the text:

Just pointing out:

--We recognize disparity of numbers as a grave danger. Numbers + verbal threats + forced entry, in my estimation, would seem to indicate opportunity, immediacy, and severity.
--Where's the self-defense playbook for "mob crashes your garden party"? It might be fun to make fun of these folks (sure is fertile ground), but how many of us have realistically trained for this scenario? Who's read a book that covered it? I'm guessing most of us here would do better, but I can think of a shit-ton of people who have done worse.
--An AR mag jammed in a pocket is a legit thing. No, it's not as good as a dedicated pouch or chest rig, but the guy had a spare mag, presumably loaded, ready to go, and on his person. That's better than probably 90% of CCWers.

They definitely made some choices I would not have made, at least from the comfort of my desk chair, but I wouldn't go balls-out on them. Especially not when all the video is from one side.

And go easy on the guy for not knowing how a sling works, he probably bought that thing like three weeks ago.

In retrospect, even busting down the gate outside your house doesn't really count as "forced entry". Forced unwelcome walking? I dunno. Language is hard. Anyways, I realize that by both criticizing their poor decisions while recognizing their point of view and limitations, I've left myself wide open to attack by zealots of both sides. That's okay, I can deal.

[TAZ]

Nobody burned down the other houses in the 'hood, which incidentally were not protected by janky .380s and ARs with Walmart slings. That would sort of indicate to me that their "defense" was approximately as effective as a condom on a eunuch. All they really did was call attention to themselves. No profile is best profile.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean we have to cheerlead it. I would have thought P-F would be up for some nuance.

Confused as to why the condition of the other houses comes into play? They were not protecting the other houses. If the mob was on private property then they were not protestors, but criminals. It’s irrelevant if the property manager is or isn’t there. Now maybe they didn’t know they were on private property, but then maybe the gate should have clued then in or the sign. If they made threats against the home owners or their property cause the home owners dared to disrespect their protest they had a right to defend themselves and their property. Or are we actually now arguing that the right to take threats from a mob of people seriously doesn’t exist?

The key piece of fact that is missing is whether the mob actually made threats. Hopefully, the homeowners have some evidence of threats. If no threats were made and the homeowners started the mess by engaging the mob, then escalating the situation by bringing guns into a situation where they were not warranted, then they are screwed.

Disagree with their tactics, weapon choices, even their choice of wardrobe..., but if they were actually threatened then they have a right to defend themselves. 100:2 is a rather large disparity of force IMO.

If we are arguing that when a mob threatens us we must bend over and take it, then why do we own guns, train in H2H or anything of that nature?

[Spartan1980]

"That was counter-productive" is hardly a condemnation.

Nonsense. I was responding to a member who is clearly condemning the McCloskeys actions in their posts. On the count of "stupidness" I'm in 100% agreement. But said poster also insinuated illegality on the part of the McCloskeys and even posted video in support of it that a first year law school student could shred like Danny Trejo. To spin it any other way is just laughable.

[shane45]

So heres a question, did the police actually respond? They were called right? Im thinking there was an honest belief that they were on their own to deal with the situation. Additionally its easy to discuss after the fact and point out nothing hapened elsewhere, if that is in fact true. But who could have guarunteed that would be the case at the time? I think much rests on if threats were made.