Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Wolfgang, SASS #53480

The armed citizen protecting their property

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

I got the impression the threats came after the homeowners stepped outside with their guns. Big difference. 

 

I also don’t recall seeing where property was damaged other than the gate. Despicable yes, but In my state that’s a property crime that doesn’t justify brandishing a weapon or lethal use of force. “Get off my lawn” won’t hold up in court, no matter how much we’d like it to. 

Screenshot_20200630-190749_Chrome.thumb.jpg.3ad6d7da7b44256c6c7b34fac78d676a.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

The Mob wasn’t attacking them. They reacted out of fear and ignorance. They could have escalated the situation until it was out of control. If a “mob” should meander on to my place I would handle things differently and still adequately protect myself and property.

I gotta respect your decision on the way to protect yourself and your home. But, if a mob meanders their way onto my property by breaking through a gate, I guarantee they won't meander their way out.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I consider that the gate was there for the mob's protection.  

Edited by Badlands Bob #61228
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the responses to this story I have to sit back and say “when is It enough for you”? How far must you be violated before standing your ground? When do you step out and say “this is where it ends”? Trespassing, destruction of property, and many say “turn the other cheek”. I have spent many years wondering why only 3% of alleged Americans were willing to fight for what’s right, today I actually watch it happen. Maybe we do need to defund law enforcement all that is needed is report takers after the crimes are committed. Here is the front door off the hinges, windows broken, dead dog in the hallway and two people assaulted and fighting for their lives. The report takers better write fast as the fireman are loosing the battle. Poor gun handling, aggressive stance, muzzle down range, although not textbook those three percenters stood their ground and said “Enough is enough! Would you ?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

Screenshot_20200630-190749_Chrome.thumb.jpg.3ad6d7da7b44256c6c7b34fac78d676a.jpg

Unless I missed something, there was no  attack on them, or attempt at unlawful entry into their house. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tennessee williams said:

Screenshot_20200630-190749_Chrome.thumb.jpg.3ad6d7da7b44256c6c7b34fac78d676a.jpg

 

First, they are in St. Louis, Missouri, not Kansas. Second, the "protestors" never attacked their dwelling to my knowledge, although they claim threats were made. Also, it is my understanding that the gate that was torn down was to a private street for the gated community they live in, as the protestors were on their way to the mayor's home.

According to one news report, the McCloskeys (the couple) were eating outside with their family when all of this occurred. Which means they either are in the habit of eating outdoors with their firearms, or went inside, retrieved them and came back out. Were they threatened? They say they were, so I won't say they weren't. We only have a bit of video thus far to indicate what happened. I have a feeling more will turn up over time.

As for those who want to attack SASS members who would caution restraint, my response is if you believe it is appropriate shoot every person that trespasses on your property, by which I mean your land, not invading your home, then perhaps you need to reevaluate your priorities and the value you place on human life. I don't believe there are any among us who wouldn't defend our homes and our loved ones, dying in the process if necessary. To suggest otherwise is foolish.

At the end of the day, I expect this footage will be used in firearms training classes for years to come as examples of what not to do in such a situation. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

Unless I missed something, there was no  attack on them, or attempt at unlawful entry into their house. 

They broke into a gated community. The roadway in a gated community is not public, it is private. If you read that quote, it says "to prevent unlawful entry."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

They broke into a gated community. The roadway in a gated community is not public, it is private. If you read that quote, it says "to prevent unlawful entry."

Please read again. The word “dwelling” is critical in defining the statute. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

They broke into a gated community. The roadway in a gated community is not public, it is private. If you read that quote, it says "to prevent unlawful entry."

 

You are correct. It does not, however, constitute a dwelling. Per Missouri law, 563.011(3), a dwelling is "any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DocWard said:

 

First, they are in St. Louis, Missouri, not Kansas.

First, my law quote to Slim was in response to him saying "in my state..." Slims profile says he lives in Kansas not St Louis. So that is what I quoted. You keep saying Missouri.

Quote

Second, the "protestors" never attacked their dwelling to my knowledge, although they claim threats were made. Also, it is my understanding that the gate that was torn down was to a private street for the gated community they live in, as the protestors were on their way to the mayor's home.

When they broke through the private gate, it is the same as breaking through a gate to your driveway. With a gated community, you don't have a public road or sidewalks. Those are usually wholly maintained by the community via communal fees set forth. 

Quote


According to one news report, the McCloskeys (the couple) were eating outside with their family when all of this occurred. Which means they either are in the habit of eating outdoors with their firearms, or went inside, retrieved them and came back out.

I find this part irrelevant. I generally eat while I am heeled. Why does it matter if they eat while they have their guns? They probably just wanted to. If they went inside to retrieve their guns, I dont blame them if I seen a mob coming down my private street. Haven't we all seen the Facebook comment where the rioters have said we are coming to your communities next?

Quote

 

 

Edited by Tennessee williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

Please read again. The word “dwelling” is critical in defining the statute. 

It actually says to prevent entry or attack upon.

I'd say they did a good job of that!:D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

You are correct. It does not, however, constitute a dwelling. Per Missouri law, 563.011(3), a dwelling is "any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night." 

Dude. I'm talking to Slim about Kansas. I'll get to Missouri in a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tennessee williams said:

First, my law quote to Slim was in response to him saying "in my state..." Slims profile says he lives in Kansas not St Louis. So that is what I quoted. You keep saying Missouri.[/quote]

 

Thanks for clarifying, and my apologies. I keep quoting Missouri because the couple is in Missouri.

 

Quote

When they broke through the private gate, it is the same as breaking through a gate to your driveway. With a gated community, you don't have a public road or sidewalks. Those are usually wholly maintained by the community via communal fees set forth. 

 

Indeed they did. They did not, however, move into the home, or even near the home itself. From the video, I can't even tell if any of the protestors put foot on their personal property (not the community owned property).

 

Quote

I find this part irrelevant. I generally eat while I am heeled. Why does it matter if they eat while they have their guns? They probably just wanted to. If they went inside to retrieve their guns, I dont blame them if I seen a mob coming down my private street. Haven't we all seen the Facebook comment where the rioters have said we are coming to your communities next?

 

So, do you throw your AR over you back by the sling, lay it across your lap, lean it on the table, or flat on the floor? The point being, they retreated into the safety of their home, their dwelling, then came back out. This could be argued as inciting, or being aggressive in their actions.
 

Quote

Dude. I'm talking to Slim about Kansas. I'll get to Missouri in a bit.

 

Ask and ye shall receive. 21-113 (7) "Dwelling" means a building or portion thereof, a tent, a vehicle or other enclosed space which is used or intended for use as a human habitation, home or residence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

Thanks for clarifying, and my apologies. I keep quoting Missouri because the couple is in Missouri.

No problem brother. I get into my feelings with the 2nd amendment.

3 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

Indeed they did. They did not, however, move into the home, or even near the home itself. From the video, I can't even tell if any of the protestors put foot on their personal property (not the community owned property).

They must have been smarter than they looked.:D

3 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

 

So, do you throw your AR over you back by the sling, lay it across your lap, lean it on the table, or flat on the floor?

I usually keep one AR in the kitchen corner. My revolver is on my hip or beside my plate. I was sure glad I had one of my ARs in the truck with me the other day when my truck had a bunch of protesters around it. You could see them go away on the news helicopter footage when they seen it through my truck window.

3 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

The point being, they retreated into the safety of their home, their dwelling, then came back out. This could be argued as inciting, or being aggressive in their actions.
 

I got news for everybody. I'm gonna go in and out of my own house as many times as I want to, I don't care who likes it or not. I bought it. It would take an extremely liberal jury to even come up with that. I don't see how that is even a point.

3 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

Ask and ye shall receive. 21-113 (7) "Dwelling" means a building or portion thereof, a tent, a vehicle or other enclosed space which is used or intended for use as a human habitation, home or residence.

Yep, "dwelling" is pretty universal. People have a right to protect it too. Are you going to stand inside while people bust your windows out? You have that right just like I have the right to stop it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how fast the protesters would have called 911 if those homeowners had opened up on them.  

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

No problem brother. I get into my feelings with the 2nd amendment.

 

I'm right there with you on that.
 

Quote

I got news for everybody. I'm gonna go in and out of my own house as many times as I want to, I don't care who likes it or not. I bought it. It would take an extremely liberal jury to even come up with that. I don't see how that is even a point.

 

Nope, just a creative attorney. If the attorney is charismatic and convincing, even worse. Unfortunately, those are the things we need to consider in this day and age.
 

Quote

Yep, "dwelling" is pretty universal. People have a right to protect it too. Are you going to stand inside while people bust your windows out? You have that right just like I have the right to stop it.

 

Ah, but they didn't bust out the window, or even try. Nothing more than words, although allegedly threats. In creating a false narrative and asking what I would do, you're approaching fallacy territory. To answer the question, though, I would likely be downstairs armed with an AR, or perhaps PCC, where I can cover points of ingress, with Mrs. Doc upstairs keeping an eye from the high ground. If some of the protestors did actually have weapons as claimed, I personally like the idea of cover and concealment. If they approach the house to break out windows, woe be unto them.

Let me toss your question back at you with a bit of elaboration. If out of a crowd of 200 or more, not on your property, a rock is thrown by an unknown person from an unknown direction, and smashes through a window, do you just start shooting indiscriminately? There aren't always easy answers, and in my experience, one of the things that the anti-2A crowd likes to latch onto as being reckless and dangerous is the 'line in the sand bravado' that I have been seeing on display.

 

Edit: From what I understand, that would be one helluva throw at your place. It would take someone with a pretty good arm at my house.

Edited by DocWard
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

Nope, just a creative attorney. If the attorney is charismatic and convincing, even worse. Unfortunately, those are the things we need to consider in this day and age.

No way in the world someone going in and out of their house no matter how numerous the times is going to be considered inciting anybody. I'd also venture to say we law abiding citizens fearing repercussions or what someone else will think is what got us into this politically correct snowflake situation we find ourselves in. Eat up a few rioters with teargas and rubber bullets and folks wouldn't do it anymore.

Quote

Ah, but they didn't bust out the window, or even try. Nothing more than words, although allegedly threats.

I'd say those folks made sure they didn't. Don't get me wrong. I would not have pointed my firearm at someone without the intention of killing them. 

Quote

 

In creating a false narrative and asking what I would do, you're approaching fallacy territory.

I'm too dumb to know what that means.

Quote


Let me toss your question back at you with a bit of elaboration. If out of a crowd of 200 or more, not on your property, a rock is thrown by an unknown person from an unknown direction, and comes through your window, do you just start shooting indiscriminately?

No. However I would call 911 and let them know to remedy the situation and that I feared for my life. 

    But they'd have to have a heck of an arm to get a rock an eighth of a mile to my house. Much closer and the tripwires would probably get them before I had the chance.

 

It's great to have a good ole debate without someone getting mad. You're quite a feller.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

No way in the world someone going in and out of their house no matter how numerous the times is going to be considered inciting anybody. I'd also venture to say we law abiding citizens fearing repercussions or what someone else will think is what got us into this politically correct snowflake situation we find ourselves in.

 

You would be surprised by what attorneys come up with, and get away with at times. I do agree with your second assertion.

 

Quote

I'd say those folks made sure they didn't. Don't get me wrong. I would not have pointed my firearm at someone without the intention of killing them. 

 

The biggest problem I have with the couple is their apparent lack of training. That's why my comment about the video used in firearms classes. My second biggest is the fact that their actions and words, particularly hers, could have served to escalate the situation. She also seemed to have the least training and firearms awareness.
 

Quote

I'm too dumb to know what that means.

 

I don't buy that for a second.
 

Quote

No. However I would call 911 and let them know to remedy the situation and that I feared for my life.  But they'd have to have a heck of an arm to get a rock an eighth of a mile to my house. Much closer and the tripwires would probably get them before I had the chance.

 

I thought about the distance part after my post. You're absolutely right, 911 should be the first thing done, if for no other reason than to create the record. I hate those pesky tripwires.
 

Quote

It's great to have a good ole debate without someone getting mad. You're quite a feller.

 

I'm humbled. I truly appreciate that, and the feeling is mutual. There's no reason to get angry, particularly when we're on the same side and essentially discussing nuances and specifics. Heck, when I debate family, friends, and others on the other side of issues I believe strongly in, I work hard not to get angry. If I reach the point where I might lose my temper, I default to "agree to disagree," and be done. If they don't let it drop, then we have a problem.

Edited by DocWard
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure am glad that I don't live in Ohio!!!:P

 

My extended family is replete with attorneys. They agree that the McCloskeys were in the right, at least if they were in Idaho. REMEMBER, most Democrat legislators are lawyers. Sure, you can get any wimpy leftist opinion you wish to glean to make your point. East of the Mississippi, good strong, working  fair  opinions are as rare as teats on a borehog.

 

As for a  an AR, I firmly believe that either my ten gauge 3-1/2" and 8 gauge 4" doubles would get the attention of the most rabid protestor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life said:

 

As for a  an AR, I firmly believe that either my ten gauge 3-1/2" and 8 gauge 4" doubles would get the attention of the most rabid protestor.

I'd say so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DocWard said:

 

 

 

The biggest problem I have with the couple is their apparent lack of training. That's why my comment about the video used in firearms classes. My second biggest is the fact that their actions and words, particularly hers, could have served to escalate the situation. She also seemed to have the least training and firearms awareness.
 

I can't disagree with that.

2 hours ago, DocWard said:

 

I thought about the distance part after my post. You're absolutely right, 911 should be the first thing done, if for no other reason than to create the record. I hate those pesky tripwires.
 

Yessir

2 hours ago, DocWard said:

 

I'm humbled. I truly appreciate that, and the feeling is mutual. There's no reason to get angry, particularly when we're on the same side and essentially discussing nuances and specifics. Heck, when I debate family, friends, and others on the other side of issues I believe strongly in, I work hard not to get angry. If I reach the point where I might lose my temper, I default to "agree to disagree," and be done. If they don't let it drop, then we have a problem.

Me too. Funny how family can sometimes be the worst of all to deal with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, if, if.

 

If yer Auntie had a moustache, she'd be yer uncle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DocWard said:

If some of the protestors did actually have weapons as claimed, I personally like the idea of cover and concealment.

Cover and concealment is a fine idea, if you are going to be shooting at someone. Makes it harder for them to shoot back, or at least harder for them to hit you when they do shhot back.

 

It looked to me however, as if these people did not wish to shoot. They wished instead to scare off the trespassers.

 

So they stepped outside and made a show of force. It worked.

 

I don't believe I would have made that choice. But it worked for them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life said:

I sure am glad that I don't live in Ohio!!!:P

 

My extended family is replete with attorneys. They agree that the McCloskeys were in the right, at least if they were in Idaho. REMEMBER, most Democrat legislators are lawyers. Sure, you can get any wimpy leftist opinion you wish to glean to make your point. East of the Mississippi, good strong, working  fair  opinions are as rare as teats on a borehog.

 

As for a  an AR, I firmly believe that either my ten gauge 3-1/2" and 8 gauge 4" doubles would get the attention of the most rabid protestor.

 

Trust me, so are we! ;) Your knowledge of the State, as well as others east of the Mississippi is wrong. There are plenty of conservatives in the Midwest as a whole and Ohio in particular, along with the South. If there weren't, our gun laws wouldn't be quite so friendly. Don't confuse the Midwest with the East Coast, nor mistake Chicago and Detroit for the midwest as a whole.

And no offense, but you might want to get that colossal chip off your shoulder. I have no clue why everything is seen from a conservative vs. liberal perspective with you, but my discussion has had nothing to do with liberal or conservative thought, but more simply what the law states and what a prosecutor, plaintiff's attorney or defense attorney might argue, along with whether the couple acted smartly in their actions. I could be wrong, but I also haven't seen anyone else asserting "liberal" arguments either, whatever those may be.

 

 By the way, there are plenty of liberals and <gasp> defense attorneys that live out west in places such as Idaho, Wyoming and Utah. A couple pretty famous ones, as a matter of fact. There are plenty of conservative legislators that are lawyers as well. It tends to be the most common background for those going into the field. Although, interestingly, I read recently that the most common profession in Congress is "public servant," meaning the majority of them have spent their careers being elected to one office or another.

I don't believe I have said the actions of the couple were illegal, although the female's could cross the line in numerous states, as she actively pointed her PPK at protestors. Given the video we currently have, I think Colion Noir's analysis is accurate.

I'm sure you mean your shotguns to sound impressive. Maybe I should be, but I'm not.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tennessee williams said:

Me too. Funny how family can sometimes be the worst of all to deal with.

 

Don't get me started! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

If, if, if.

 

If yer Auntie had a moustache, she'd be yer uncle.

 

 

 

Clearly you've never seen Eddie Murphy talk about Aunt Bunny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life said:

I sure am glad that I don't live in Ohio!!!:P

 

My extended family is replete with attorneys. They agree that the McCloskeys were in the right, at least if they were in Idaho. REMEMBER, most Democrat legislators are lawyers. Sure, you can get any wimpy leftist opinion you wish to glean to make your point. East of the Mississippi, good strong, working  fair  opinions are as rare as teats on a borehog.

 

As for a  an AR, I firmly believe that either my ten gauge 3-1/2" and 8 gauge 4" doubles would get the attention of the most rabid protestor.

What's wrong with OHIO? We have a Castle doctrine here which would have applied, we have very liberal gun laws, meaning you can get anything you want. I don't understand why you're picking on OHIO!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

What's wrong with OHIO? We have a Castle doctrine here which would have applied, we have very liberal gun laws, meaning you can get anything you want. I don't understand why you're picking on OHIO!

 

He insults anyone and everyone that doesn't live in Idaho. The "East of the Mississippi" statement just shows his arrogance and the lack of knowledge. Mud Marine is the only person on the entire SASS website that I have chosen to use the "ignore" feature on. Seems that there isn't a way to ignore it if someone quotes it in another post however.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

If, if, if.

 

If yer Auntie had a moustache, she'd be yer uncle.

 

 

 

If frogs had wings they'd fly.

 

Kind of like reading some of the  "What's the Call" replies!  :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion on this incident has nothing to do with legality, the right of self-Defense, BLM, any political party, liberal or conservative philosophy, the 2nd amendment, or trespassing. 
It is simply about the actions these two people took in this particular situation. 
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that stepping out of the house armed and confrontational was a defective tactic defective at best and downright foolhardy at worst.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alpo said:

> snip <

So they stepped outside and made a show of force. It worked.

> snip < 

It looked like a mob of people/protesters walking down the street to the Mayor's house and these people came out and made fools of themselves.

I didn't see any video of the looters/rioters running away in fear. :rolleyes:

The article however accomplished it's goal ... the "strutting" has begun .. and there will be several more pages to follow ..  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DocWard said:

 

Clearly you've never seen Eddie Murphy talk about Aunt Bunny.

Goonie goo hoo.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Matthew Duncan said:

Kind of like reading some of the  "What's the Call" replies!  :huh:

If it were only that easy, at least that is one set of rules.  Instead we have 50 different sets of laws that vary from state to state as well as Federal law with prosecutors often having their own agenda.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Alpo said:

Goonie goo hoo.

 

Yes, I guffawed.

 

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that everyone taking part or following this discussion would agree that it is now more evident than ever we need to change these laws. As an American without the right to defend your property, family, neighbors and yes the family dog using whatever means possible the rest doesn’t mean squat. The criminals carry the weight of the law on their sides while the victims stand alone. Any person that can stand by this misuse of justice allowing our civil rights be trampled by those claiming to be just exercising theirs is simply wired wrong. God help this country and those that will take it back, the rest should sit back and wait to reap the benefits of a Free Nation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.