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

[JodyH]

This case will never go to trial much less to a jury trial.
This is 100% a case of the process will be the punishment.
You don't need a conviction (much less a trial) if you can financially and socially ruin someone's life by dragging them through the public square for long enough.

[Spartan1980]

It appears that the public has lost their stomach for seeing someone in no uncertain terms let others know there will be swift and harsh penalty for violence, lawlessness, or other wise fucking around.

Very much agree with this. Reminds me of this too. It seems that if this kind of thing played out when needed we'd have a more polite and respectful society.

[JRB]

This case will never go to trial much less to a jury trial.
This is 100% a case of the process will be the punishment.
You don't need a conviction (much less a trial) if you can financially and socially ruin someone's life by dragging them through the public square for long enough.

Precisely why I think there's no justice in any of this.

Angry mob storms someone's private property, they arm themselves to protect themselves and their property from the mob.
They're meme'd relentlessly and harassed again by another mob, which was stopped only by expensive hired security.

State 'fixes' it by taking away the weapons they used to protect themselves in the first incident because of 'due process'.

Seems like lose/lose/lose for the injured party to me.

[JodyH]

Precisely why I think there's no justice in any of this.

Angry mob storms someone's private property, they arm themselves to protect themselves and their property from the mob.
They're meme'd relentlessly and harassed again by another mob, which was stopped only by expensive hired security.

State 'fixes' it by taking away the weapons they used to protect themselves in the first incident because of 'due process'.

Seems like lose/lose/lose for the injured party to me.

I guarantee that 100+ people brandished firearms at mobs in defense of their property over that week of St. Louis rioting.
I'd bet dozens of shots were fired.
I'll also bet you that the defenders were of a different socio-economic strata and complexion than our lily white lawyers so we'll never hear a negative word about them and charges will never even be considered.

[blues]

I guarantee that 100+ people brandished firearms at mobs in defense of their property over that week of St. Louis rioting.
I'd bet dozens of shots were fired.
I'll also bet you that the defenders were of a different socio-economic strata and complexion than our lily white lawyers so we'll never hear a negative word about them and charges will never even be considered.

It's almost like you're saying that there's a disparity in the way people are treated based upon the color of their skin. Unpossible.

You will be hearing shortly from the People's Committee to Ferret Out Criticism of Unpossible Events.

[JodyH]

It's almost like you're saying that there's a disparity in the way people are treated based upon the color of their skin. Unpossible.

You will be hearing shortly from the People's Committee to Ferret Out Criticism of Unpossible Events.

I fart in their general direction.

[RJ]

I've seen this mentioned several times in news articles about this incident.

"Protesters returned to their home last Friday and found more than a dozen men guarding the grounds."

It appears that after the initial event, they were intentionally and directly targeted by a group of... activists. They have apparently hired private security. I think that the fact a group of people returned to specifically go after them is troubling and something we should all consider. Most of us don't have the means to hire a private security team. Also, the fact this 2nd group was willing to go practice their activism at them is huge. A group that intentionally targets someone they know to be armed and not shying from conflict... in my mind that is a group more likely to cross the line into violence. At the minimum they are baiting a response. Regardless of their disposition or intention it is unwanted, unwarranted, and ill advised by anyone. Act like you've got some damn sense if you're trying to create change.

I don't think they're part of our tribe of gun owners or shooters. I'm positive what they did was bad tactics, I think what they did was legal but could be wrong, I'm positive it put them in a spot light. But I also can't argue that it was effective, and that I'm happy to see someone make it very clear that lawlessness would have repercussions. It appears that the public has lost their stomach for seeing someone in no uncertain terms let others know there will be swift and harsh penalty for violence, lawlessness, or other wise fucking around.

I'm reading, but don't have much else to say.

-Cory

Agree 100%

I fart in their general direction.

This is why I love p-f.

1) An intelligent, grounded post
2) A meme that reflects how I feel about my dog
And
3) A Monty Python reference.

Beautiful, just beautiful.

[vcdgrips]

*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:


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

I suspect the SW was sought in an effort to evaluate the highlighted element.
 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You have to read this:

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...59457d726.html

Watkins stood outside his Clayton office building Saturday afternoon and held the handgun wrapped in a plastic bag. He said the gun was “inoperable” and had been used as an exhibit in several cases against the manufacturer — litigation that Mark McCloskey had handled at his firm.

Patricia McCloskey knew the gun was inoperable as she confronted protesters, Watkins said, but displayed the gun as an “intimidation factor which may be utilized within the context of any self defense.”

“I’m not a gun expert,” Watkins said as he held up the bag with the gun. “This is the closest I’ve gotten to handling a gun and I, quite frankly, don’t feel comfortable doing it even though it is inoperable and unloaded.”

Watch the video.

I've said my piece on their actions, so this is FYI.

[RJ]

*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:


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

I suspect the SW was sought in an effort to evaluate the highlighted element.
 

Question - In particular to Mrs. Mccloskey’s actions in the various videos, could this 571.030 be applied to her? (Waving around what appears to be a pistol, finger on trigger, muzzling crowd)?