St. Louis Couple Use Guns to Deter Rioters

Did anyone notice the Prosecutor connected with story? ( The article was on Fox news i believe ) She called what this couple did a “violent assault” and an attempt to discourage the protest!. What ever the mistakes of this couple are, to consider their actions to be the violent ones, to attache the word assault to their actions, and then further claim they in some way intended to discourage the protest, is to put on full display the mentality we face. This is why the USCCA is so important. The way things are viewed by people now is so often though such deeply colored lenses, that the victim comes out as the one who is guilty. It’s truly chilling to the bone to see how this works in the minds of some.

5 Likes

When your objective is to rewrite history you can say whatever you want and truth will have no bearing…

5 Likes

I’m not going to dive too deeply into what the best tactics would have been here, clearly one could make a couple of different arguments. Guards, for example, don’t take the ideal tactical position they take the most visible position (i.e., they stand in front of what they are guarding with their firearm in a visible and accessible, but not immediately threatening, position. As it turns out I’d just pointed out to someone the value of a sling. The gun owners who have been standing at neighborhood corners with their rifles/carbines slung over their shoulders to say “this neighborhood is protected” are not brandishing them. You can have a political opinion on their showing they are armed, you can have a tactical viewpoint, but legally they aren’t doing anything wrong. The same can be said for open carry of a handgun in these situations, if your jurisdiction allows open carry. And that’s not even on your property. Doing the same on your property might be prudent. If you hired guards for your property, would they be visible to have a deterrent effect? In most cases, yes. Rhetorically speaking, what’s the difference between hiring an armed security detail and showing that you yourself are armed? Not so rhetorically, they probably know what they are doing and in most cases you don’t. The folks in this video fall into the “don’t” category.

Waving a gun around, making threats, pointing a gun at someone, etc. is going to get the same scrutiny in a protest (nee rioting) situation as it will get in any self-defense scenario. Both legally and in the court of public opinion. Again ignoring the tactical argument if they were to have stepped outside with rifle slung over the shoulder and handgun in a visible holster and just stood there with their mouths shut they would have sent the deterrent message without crossing a line into brandishing or worse.

6 Likes

A couple of quick reminders:

Please use the @ before someone’s name to tag them. It will send them a notification that they were mentioned. And there is a quote function to address specific comments: Reply, Quote, and Tag Someone

This is an open Community. Your comments here can be seen by anyone.

Social media comments may be used against you in court if you ever have to legally defend your actions. Take the extra time to make sure your comments are clear about your intention to stop the threat, protect yourself and your loved ones and using force as a last resort.

8 Likes

Maybe so, maybe we are splitting hairs. What is the common goal between the terror mob and their loyal prosecutors? To sow fear in the public, to send a loud message “your privilege of peace in your own home is gone, and you cannot do anything about it”, to demoralize regular people.
It is naive to ignore this angle and focus only on legalities of the particular situation. Not that you should ignore it either, but realize the prosecutor-mob tandem can create dozens of incidents, someone is bound to trip, and then they can pick a case they can prosecute in the media.
How dare I say prosecutor and the mob are working together? Cause they are financed from the same soros, excuse me, source.

3 Likes

@Dawn, You have mentioned it several times in last few weeks. Perhaps it would good idea to add these to Community Guidelines.

I don’t know if it is only me, but I’ve been seeing this Forum so political recently.
I was so excited reading post, had a great discussions, leaned a lot… but it was 2019… this ear is not good for all of us, but to be honest I haven’t been expecting so many hate posts here (perhaps “hate” word is too strong, but I cannot find any other). Thanks God not against me or any other Community Member, but against other people who have their own thoughts and ideas, sometimes completely opposite…but still, this is not a reason for fight.

Anyway… I’m so proud to be part of this Community, no reason to abandon it yet ( :wink:).
I’m hoping that I’ll be enjoying more firearm’s and self-defense threads than avoiding political discussions.

7 Likes

Good idea! I will update the Community Guidelines :slight_smile:

3 Likes

You said a mouthful brother I couldn’t have said it any better myself.

2 Likes

Back to topic, here is a video of an interview with the homeowner on Tucker. Gives a little background on the political environment and the mindset of the homeowner. One question I have is where was the private security that he references?

3 Likes

Yes, I read your post - all of it. The wife was definitely brandishing, so their OC law is meaningless, in that regard. Destruction of property is not a violent crime. We may consider it a violent act, but it is not a violent act under the law. Again, I did state that these people will not likely be prosecuted. The justification is not the destruction of property - one, in most states, cannot threaten nor use of lethal force to defend property - but their claims in a later interview that they were threatened - a he said/she said issue, with the exception that there is at least one video recording, though the videos are by people committing the trespassing acts.

I was not trying to denigrate you. I was only pointing out that property crimes are not legal justifications for brandishing or use, or threat, of lethal force. This is especially important as firearm owners, as we are often vilified in the media for merely believing in and exercising our RKBA.

5 Likes

I appreciate you making this point. Just as a failed robber calls 911 to get his intended victim in trouble, violent “protesters” may be looking to get homeowners in trouble with provocative behavior.

3 Likes

@Harold26, great post. Standing on the porch with a slung rifle and holstered pistol sends the same message, without brandishing.

3 Likes

I apologize if my post was political, and if it was I will avoid that going forward. I learned some valuable things though, that are very much the kinds of things we need to know.

2 Likes

Thank you.

1 Like

Dave17,

Yes, I agree with what you have said as ‘individual factors’. But I am not making an argument for any particular aspect of the numerous factors surrounding the event to be justification to ‘brandish’ a firearm. If anything, I am making an argument for a ‘totality of circumstances/factors’ that would need to be taken into consideration in determining if the couple acted unreasonably. I appreciate the dialogue.

Regards,

Joe

3 Likes

Correct me if I’m wrong, but in most states it’s legal to openly carry a weapon on your own property. Both of these individuals, being lawyers, would know their legal right to do that. Pointing them at someone, even if that someone is on your property, might be a problem. Also, their property has been granted “historical” status, so that might afford them a little more “right” to protect it. It can’t be replaced like most homes or personal property.

2 Likes

Thanks for the great conversation here everyone. Y’all got a bit heated, but were able to work it out amongst yourselves! What a wonderful example of working through conflict with respect!

Thank you! Carry on! :smiley:

9 Likes

Just wanted to add this. This couple is under legal heat now. The media is taking the story differently where you go. They are talking about how her finger was carelessly on the trigger and how they where pointing their guns at the crowd. From my understanding, they’ve had to board up their law firm. I’ve heard the man interviewing talking about how this incident could ruin everything he’s worked for his whole life. I think these are all things to consider with these situations. I really hope the couple gets off on this, I hope they get better training, and I hope the story fades away for them so than get back to a normal life.

4 Likes

Very true. It is horrible that the city prosecutor wants to press charges against them. And that lame white guy in the video claiming the gate appeared to be unlocked? The video evidence clearly shows it broken, not just opened. It makes me sick. I was thinking if this happened to me, how would I handle this? I do not have a rifle nor a shotgun. I know I would not go out on my lawn. I definitely would have 911 on my phone demanding police come.

I recall someone in a thread once stated tell them that they thought they heard gunfire, get them to come out. I hope that would work, though, like in Parkland, it might make them cower more. In the end, you can only do what you are prepared to do. Even in the video, it does not appear that either of them had any more ammo than what was in their firearms. At least I have multiple mags loaded for my handguns, so I have more ammo than they had available. Although, if like other criminals, once the shooting begins, just like birds, they fly away as quickly as possible. Really sick, I sure hope I never have to face anything like that. I wonder if that prosecutor would do like the one in Richmond, VA, and call the police when the “protesters” arrived at her doorstep? The Richmond prosecutor also sides with the thugs, except in front of her property. Beyond reprehensible.

5 Likes

IF IT’S STUPID AND IT WORKS, IT AIN’T STUPID!

He was on Tucker last night with his attorney, and his attorney said as long as the law was applied fairly he was in no trouble. :+1:

5 Likes