Agree %100! I would recommend a few hours of basic firearms training.
1 Like
I donât remember if it was the DA, but someone in charge of the case out there, tried to alter the weapon Patricia Mcklosky used. When they turned over the handgun to their attorney, it was not functioning; it was more or less a prop. So the DA had somebody reassemble the weapon, to say that it functions⊠this looks an awful lot like tampering with evidence. Iâm not making this up either.
2 Likes
The only issue I saw with them was that there were pointing at the crowd instead of being in the low ready or similar at certain points. People breaking in your fence but not charging at you is the problem here. I agree that they will and should win. They were defending themselves and have the right to do so. This is a great learning experience for all weapon holders to see how something may play out. I personally would have shouted commands then gone inside to take up a defensive position at a window after doors are locked. Then take down anyone trying to break in. That being said, my wife and I are both military trained so this may not be viable for others.
I hope that this family can walkaway with no convictions. They will deal with issues for the next few years due to this publicity which could result in loss of job or similar. I would hope any 2A supporting person/ company would stand by them if this goes that route even after charges are dropped.
4 Likes
Good! The way they were mishandling those weapons makes all gun owners look bad.
Flagging, fingers on triggerâŠjust awful.
They were in no danger, their property was in no danger, they are bad representatives of the gun community.
1 Like
How did you come to that conclusion? They were threatened with being killed, and their property being torched by people who had broken into private property.
4 Likes
They werenât representing the gun community. They were driving off trespassers on their private property who had already done damage there on, to gain access. While many of us could have looked prettier and more impressive with our posture and disciplined stance, they were skilled enough to obtain their objective of protecting their lives and property without discharging a single round. They had obtained deterence. Mission accomplished. IMO.
4 Likes
Thatâs not accurate.
The gate was not damaged at that time, it was already open. The protesters were going to the Mayorâs House, not the theirs. I am going to posit an alternate theory, these are two ambulance chasers who decided either out of fear or hope for attention, they would threaten people - and based on her give no f*cks attitude, I suspect it was wholly the later.
Edit: Based on the fact that they spoke at the RNC as a result of their âheroismâ, I would, in the words of W say: âMission Accomplishedâ.
They were both wrong, coming onto private property as a mob/ damaging property will result in some folks going nuts. That being said, these entitled a-hats also went way to far. When people backed off the lawn into the road, she should not be walking about with her finger on the trigger waiving weapon at them, assuming they were in fact peaceful. The news also said 55m in damage and a few dead in Minneapolis were âpeaceful protestsâ. The news in my city said the protests downtown were peaceful as I physically saw that is was far from. Vehicles being lit on fire and violence was very apparent.
If these protesters were in fact âpeacefulâ they were still criminally trespassing and shouting threats at the family. That being said, you cannot aim a weapon at someone for walking across your lawn even if they broke down the fence. If it is clear they are not trying to gain access to your physical home. Your article states that âa protester said it was peacefulâ well they were committing a crime regardless of how little. these same protesters support a group calling for the slaughter of white folk⊠so I am going to assume they were actually threatening the couple.
The idea that this couple was trying to accomplish a heroism mission is a bit absurd. If a mob of criminals broke through my fence and was on my property, My wife and I would be taking firing positions in my home with ammo ready for the fight. Iâd put her at one side and me on the other. The first person to try and come through a window would be brought down. If they never tried breaking in, well then let them pass the house and move on. You clearly have enough money to fix the lawn/fence damages.
@Erik16
1 Like
Doesnât matter when the gate was damaged, private property was damaged by trespassers on private property.
They didnât have any right to go to the mayors house. The mayor has an office downtown that they could have gone to and not broken private property laws. Even if it is true that they were going to the mayors house, when they engaged the McCloskeys and threatened their lives and property the McCloskeys right to self defense was valid.
You wonât find me defending the protesters who go
violent, but as my momma always said two wrongs never made a right.
I believe the McCloskeyâs instigated and the protesters would have passed them by had they not decided to engage, but I suspect weâll have to agree to disagree
2 Likes
Yep. On this one at least.
1 Like
As you said in another post, we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
1 Like
Life would be boring if we all had the same views on everything but we all agree that 1) we love America and 2) the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment matter.
Thatâs some good common ground, Iâd sayâŠ
3 Likes
I see the taxpayers having to pay for the prosecutorâs and policeâs illegal and solely political actions.
3 Likes
Moral of the story is donât point your firearm at anything you are not about to destroy. If the McCloskeyâs would not have pointed their firearms at the rioters, they would not be facing charges. While I agree with all the comments in this thread, the McCloskeyâs would have benefited from some actual training on the use of lethal force. Just being present outside their homes with their weapons pointed downward would have been all that they needed to do. IMHO
2 Likes
I disagree-- as soon as they came out of their door with firearms they were going to be charged⊠I also think that if they pointed their firearms they may have felt an immediate threat, which is justifiable. The police want the benefit of the doubt when they draw their firearms in disputable situations, why shouldnât a citizen get the same benefit of the doubt? because the police play by their own set of rules.
3 Likes
More updates (kinda) on this case. The âAssistant Circuit Attorney and Chief Warrant Officer Chris Hinckleâ (I have no idea what those titles mean) really wanted charges and was pressuring âSt. Louis Police Sgt. Detective Curtis Burgdorfâ the lead detective to charge and serve warrants.
Burgdorf created a list of 14 âreservationsâ about how Hinckley had written it, claiming they werenât factual, including the use of the term âassaultâ rifle, which Burgdorf said was a âpropagandaâ term.
Hinckley responded: âIâm more than willing to remove the term but in alleging Iâm using propaganda youâve crossed a line, If anything, your changes, conduct and unexplainable edit in the PC strongly hint of bias or agenda.â
Uh huh. Thereâs a kettle/pot joke in there somewhereâŠ
4 Likes
Thanks for this update @Harvey
4 Likes
2 Likes