Image 01 Image 03

St. Louis Couple Who Drew Guns to Protect Property Now Under Investigation

St. Louis Couple Who Drew Guns to Protect Property Now Under Investigation

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner needs to read Missouri’s castle doctrine.

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner announced her “office is currently working with the public and police to investigate” the couple who drew their weapons to defend their property from protesters.

Yes, Gardner is investigating the couple. Not the people who broke through the iron gate. The couple.

Peaceful protesters?

Mark and Patricia McCloskey, personal injury lawyers, have a different story (emphasis mine):

St. Louis police said the couple had called police for help once they saw the large crowd enter Portland Place. The McCloskeys had been at home and heard a loud commotion coming from the street; they went to investigate and saw “a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street’ signs,” police said.

“The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims,” police said. “When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.”

The police labeled “it as a case of trespassing and fourth-degree assault by intimidation.”

I think Gardner needs an education on Missouri’s castle doctrine (emphasis mine):

Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that although it’s “very dangerous” to engage protesters with guns, the homeowners broke no laws by brandishing or pointing weapons at them because Portland Place is a private street. He said the McCloskeys are protected by Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.

“At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn,” Walker said, calling the state’s Castle Doctrine a “force field” that “indemnifies you, and you can even pull the trigger in Missouri.”

Luckily, Walker said, no one got shot.

“There’s no right to protest on those streets,” Walker said. “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. In fact, if (the McCloskeys) have photos of the protesters, they could go after them for trespassing.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


wonder if the manner of brandishing is the underlying issue.

    Milhouse in reply to dmacleo. | July 1, 2020 at 2:22 pm

    No, the issue is simply Gardner misrepresenting the facts, just like “Hands Up Don’t shoot”.

      Neo in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2020 at 2:47 pm

      I did note that in one of his appearances last night, he stated that you couldn’t get to the Mayor house by going thru his property, so it seems the “protesters” misrepresented their facts.

        Paul in reply to Neo. | July 1, 2020 at 3:47 pm

        I wouldn’t be surprised a bit if they’re liars, but it doesn’t matter either way. They were on private property and they broke through the gate to get there. At that point they were a mob and the couple had every right to do what they did. I hope the moron prog pols get there noses rubbed in their own shit on this.

        Milhouse in reply to Neo. | July 2, 2020 at 12:36 am

        They weren’t going through his property, they were going past his property. But they were trespassing on the neighborhood’s common property, i.e. the street.

          rscalzo in reply to Milhouse. | July 2, 2020 at 9:35 am

          The “street” is private property
          . As one of the most noted civil rights attorney in the area he would know. The city will have their hands full.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 2, 2020 at 10:23 am

          Indeed it is. As I noted, it is the common property of the neighborhood, and they were trespassing on it. But it is not the McCloskeys’ property. They successfully kept the invaders off that.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 3, 2020 at 12:50 pm


          Maybe but maybe not. The gentleman stated that the mob began entry into his yard early, presumably prior to video, while he and his wife observed from their location in the back yard. This caused them to go inside the house and come out from armed.

          As to the community property; if it’s a former public street and sidewalk that was, by agreement with the city, rescinded to the various property owners, then the various property owners have a property interest. That interest may be divided or undivided.

          Either way the folks who own the homes/lots in the gated area have ownership. At it’s most basic that ownership gives them the right to occupy the property and the right to exclude others from the property.

          In sum, the couple own the street and sidewalk, just as they own the lot their house occupies. So for purposes of feeling threatened by a criminally trespassing mob and ordering the mob off their property the street is the same as the yard/lot.

          However, for purposes of exercising castle doctrine in defense of the home the issue is less straightforward. The home is on a separate deeded lot from their likely separately deeded lot comprising the street/sidewalk community property.

          Even though the property interest of the community property almost certainly is tied to and ‘runs with’ the lot their home occupies it is, legally, a separately recorded lot sufficiently independent from their home that I would suggest they not seek to feely upon castle doctrine protection related to the home.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 3, 2020 at 6:17 pm

          I was replying to Neo who wrote:

          I did note that in one of his appearances last night, he stated that you couldn’t get to the Mayor house by going thru his property, so it seems the “protesters” misrepresented their facts.

          I pointed out that they weren’t going to the Mayor’s house through his property but past it. The property they were trespassing on was not his but the neighborhood’s (in which of course he has a share).

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to dmacleo. | July 1, 2020 at 3:01 pm

    That couple are longtime Democratic party members you know.

      Anyone who does the right thing should be supported, no matter what their political inclinations. This applies particularly to Socialist-Democrat voters who exercise their Second Amendment rights and have a woke Soros DA trying to prosecute them for adhering to the law. Who knows, maybe they will decide they’ve been mugged enough to change their voting habits. Probably not, but they aren’t likely to be donating to any gun grabber group.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to Edward. | July 1, 2020 at 3:30 pm

        Especially after this, I bet they will be a good prospect for switching to supporting Trump 🙂

        4fun in reply to Edward. | July 1, 2020 at 8:41 pm

        No, they fully supported this junk but now it actually came to roost at their house.
        I hope they have to spend inordinate amounts of money defending themselves.
        Wonder if they donated to Gardner. I sure hope so. They need to feel the pain of their stupid political choices.

      Yes, they are but they still weren’t wrong in their actions. Only thing they did wrong is poor firearm safety, her in particular.

      I don’t wish bad things on others because of their race, religion, party affiliation, etc.

      I will remind them that they probably voted for the states attorney, assume he is a Democrat’s.

      Gardner is a Soros agent, so party is irrelevant. The Dem party is just a convenient beachhead for them to destroy representative government.

      I’ve made this point a million times: gun rights is NOT a conservative vs liberal nor Dem vs Rep issue. AMERICANS OWN GUNS! So let’s not go down that road again. All of us here who believe that put in the same situation we would have had the guts to do what the McCloskeys did owe him. The least we can do is be there to defend him and be vocal about it.

      When it comes to guns, partisan politics is only partisan within the kabuki theater of politics. Where it counts, the 2nd amendment is supported by most everybody, That is why there are so many guns. This is a major strength for us… if we could only get our heads straight.

      Then didn’t they realize if the mob killed them, they still could vote Democrat?

      “That couple are longtime Democratic party members you know.”

      That is not quite true? Do you have proof. Benny Johnson of Turning Point has posted and delete this comment that supported that fact.

      I have posted information that shows he had contributed to Trump and previously to Democrats. It is bothersome that he donated to Clare McCaskill and the Dem Party of Ill.

      You can look it up at and

      I don’t know enough about him, but he screams “privilege” by his showcasing his house and he is a member of t. Louis Lamborghini club.

      According to

      On his Facebook page, McCloskey defended the jury’s decision in the 2011 case against Casey Anthony, who was accused of murder in the death of her daughter. McCloskey wrote on Facebook after the controversial 2011 verdict, “thank God that the jury saw through all the hype and found there WAS in fact not enough evidence on this case. Stop your crazy RAILING after you’ve spent so much time trying this girl in the media.”

      He is all over the place from donations to clients he represents. I defend his right to protect his property, but I don’t think he is a very good role model for conservatives.

        Sian in reply to MarkSmith. | July 2, 2020 at 1:20 am

        The prosecution absolutely bungled that case and didn’t collect enough evidence to convict on, so I guess he was right?

        GWB in reply to MarkSmith. | July 2, 2020 at 7:43 am

        he screams “privilege” by his showcasing his house
        You mean he screams “worked hard and earned a lot of money”? Unless he inherited all those bucks, he had to do reputable work (for certain levels of ‘reputable’ given he’s an attorney – sorry Jacobson 😉 ) to make all that money to spend on the house. Her, too.

          MarkSmith in reply to GWB. | July 2, 2020 at 9:57 am

          Well I would say that for many of us, we worked hard to get were we are at and we do not flaunt it. I have no clue as to what this guy is all about except what I read and research.

          1. He had every right to defend his property no matter how he got it. I am behind him 100%

          2. The court system and the government are being abused by left wing agendas that strike at the foundation of the founding fathers principles. I want that defended 100%

          3. He has supported Trump and the RNC

          That said, he is an awful role model. He panders to the media with dumb statements that he supports BLM. He represents a car jacker that crashes a car injuring a police men and taking 15 police car chases through who knows where?

          Additional, he gave money to the DNC and Clare McCaskill. He and his wife look like they don’t know how to use their guns.

          Congratulation, he made Freddo looks stupid. That does not buy us anything. We are all working our asses off to make a living. Any chance we get ahead seems to push us hard workers back down. From a small business owner with 30 K of Obamacare and 6.5 K deductible, not seeing much of a windfall coming my way. Poster boy here is going to do zero for my cause.

          Everything he does appears to be a compromise to propel his best interest. That is fine. Good for him.

          He represents everything optical what the liberals want, a crazy gun toting rich guy that looks down on the surf.

          That is not who I am. Maybe you all are, but this battle is going to be won by the troop driving pickup trucks, not Lamborghini. If we are lucky, maybe even a 67 Camaro that we spent hours fixing.

          I think Gibson Bakery represents hardworking conservative base than this guy. Sorry just my take. We need a better poster boy than this.

          Flynn is a great poster boy too. He saved lives and seems to be a hard worker. The people I respect are those Millionaires next door. The ones that still drive that 5 year old truck, don’t need to be cool and are humble and helpful.

      Not for much longer. Its always the NIMBY doctrine that makes them come to Jesus. Not In My Back Yard. Never fails to make parlour bolsheviks and limousine liberals into staunch rule of law conservatives. Just like you will never meet an atheist in a foxhole

    Exiliado in reply to dmacleo. | July 1, 2020 at 3:48 pm

    The underlying issue is that for Kimberly M. Gardner the color of her skin ranks above the letter of the Law.

      Julio2121 in reply to Exiliado. | July 2, 2020 at 12:18 pm

      Funny you should bring that point up. If your handle is accurate “exiliado” I know exactly what you are all about and where you are coming from, myself being hijo de exiliados, nacido en el exilio. If so you know our racial concepts are more fluid and variable. How would you explain to an American, in english; “que es una mulata acomplejada.” I work as a translator and i don’t think I could ever really get this one right or do it true justice.

        Exiliado in reply to Julio2121. | July 2, 2020 at 8:00 pm

        Yes, my handle is accurate. I come from that place, born “somewhere in the Caribbean, in a place whose name I do not care to remember.”

        And no, I don’t think I can help with that specific translation, mainly because in spite of the richness of the English language,the insanity of the times we are living makes it hard to find the proper words.

          Milhouse in reply to Exiliado. | July 3, 2020 at 10:47 am

          OK, now I’m curious. As a translator myself (though not of Spanish) I’m curious about such linguistic complications, expressions that are not captured by their literal translations and can’t be rendered exactly in other languages. So what does that expression mean, in your sub-dialect?

          Milhouse in reply to Exiliado. | July 3, 2020 at 11:02 am

          PS: My family’s experience differs from yours in one important respect: They would never have called themselves “exiles”, because the USSR was never their home, it was just the place they happened to be until they got out. Once they got out they never had any intention or desire ever to go back.

    Watch the video of the incident on Tucker Carlson’s youtube fee. The entire incident is captured, at least the part involving their being on their property and threatening to kill them. There is no question that they were within their rights under the Castle doctrine.

    harleycowboy in reply to dmacleo. | July 3, 2020 at 12:00 pm

    Yes it was. Don’t stand there like a bored hall monitor pointing your finger.

smalltownoklahoman | July 1, 2020 at 2:32 pm

Is Gardner’s position an elected one? If so she may want to rethink this move if she cares about keeping her job!

    Yes, Kimberly M. Gardner is a Soros-yoked public official.

    I don’t think she is really worried about keeping her job.
    She has already caused enough trouble long before the pandemic and the riot nonsense started.
    She does seem to be more than a bit paranoid .. about everything.

      MattMusson in reply to Neo. | July 1, 2020 at 3:44 pm

      Sounds like she is ready to run for Congress as a Democrat. Knowing nothing and causing trouble are the requisites.

Brave Sir Robbin | July 1, 2020 at 2:39 pm

For the revolution to succeed, the people must be made helpless in the face of the revolution’s thugs. This is part of the plan. Defund the cops, so they cannot protect you, and then disallow your ability to defend yourself or others.

    Gardner needs to destroy the McCloskeys lest people begin to believe that they can actually protect themselves with guns, especially those assault weapony AR-15s

      fscarn in reply to Neo. | July 1, 2020 at 3:32 pm

      from above, “St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner needs to read Missouri’s castle doctrine”

      Gardner couldn’t get a wit* if she gets a conviction. The purpose of this is harassment if not intimidation of the law-abiding.

      In so, so many cases, it’s the process that’s the punishment. And there’s no downside to bringing an unjustified investigation leading to an indictment leading to a trial. All along the route Gardner has immunity while receiving a public paycheck. Ain’t that great?

      *Though it’s hard getting a wit from those in the witless left

        GWB in reply to fscarn. | July 2, 2020 at 7:49 am

        there’s no downside
        Which is why qualified immunity has to go for stuff like this. “Malicious prosecution” and “denial of civil rights” need to be things that get you canned, then in the can, then impoverished.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Neo. | July 1, 2020 at 3:33 pm

      For your consideration, please watch the whole thing before forming an opinion. Share around.

      This concisely explains the entire agenda of the Democrats and the Communist Chinese.

      CORONAVIRUS: Globalism’s Perfect Storm

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | July 1, 2020 at 9:14 pm

    Look up gas powered PVC cannons. Of course, one can make one out of steel pipe. It would be easy to automate these for repeated automatic motion sensor triggered fire. BBs,ball bearings, nails, broken glass are cheap. How about firing 100s of shot material at 5-10 second intervals?

PostLiberal | July 1, 2020 at 2:40 pm

I doubt this “investigation” is going anywhere. If the City of St. Louis indicts, it is not dealing with some poor schlub who wants to settle instead of going to court. McCloskey and his wife are wealthy attorneys. They have both the funds and the connections to make this extremely embarrassing for the City of St. Louis. An analogy is to pick a fight with an alligator.

In that sense, I hope the City of St. Louis indicts the McCloskeys (or the husband), as the City of St. Louis will find itself much worse off after the conclusion.

    I hope the City of St. Louis indicts the McCloskeys
    That thar’s just mean. To St Louis.

    However, Gardner works for the state. I’m not sure her legal jurisdiction is such to have the city indict them, but rather the state.

    But, I’m not certain.

When you have woketards in positions of power, this is what happens.

Voters getting what they voted for.

If you lump the lesson of Katrina (for the 1st 48 hours, you are on your own) with the incomplete LEO coverage (laid out in Warren v District of Columbia) and the clear lack of LEO response in many major urban centers, your only conclusion is run, don’t walk, to the nearest FFL.

    Edward in reply to Neo. | July 1, 2020 at 3:35 pm

    I thought the libs were ordering their ARs on the Net to have them delivered to their house. Or at least learning that fairy tale is just that.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Edward. | July 1, 2020 at 4:01 pm

      No, they’re buying them at gun shows because of that big loopy hole thingy at gun shows.

      drednicolson in reply to Edward. | July 1, 2020 at 7:38 pm

      The only component of a commercially purchased firearm that requires a FFL transfer is the one with the serial number. On a handgun, that’s the frame. On an AR platform, that’s the lower receiver. Every other component can be ordered and shipped to your home or business like any other freight.

      There are even “80%” frames and lower receivers that don’t require a FFL middleman because they aren’t useable out of the box. There’s wells and holes that will still need to be milled out. This can be done with common household power tools, and there’s even jigs you can buy to take the guesswork out of it.

        And I’m pondering investing in those machine tools, rather than the firearms themselves. And maybe hand-powered ones for the burning times.

Notice the overwhelming support they’re getting from the GOP, especially the governor. These people are liberals who could be converted to conservatives in a heartbeat and all their is is silence.

I notice that Mr. McCloskey has what uneducated anti-gun zealots would call an assault weapon. Who knew that such a thing could actually be used to protect your life.

    GWB in reply to dystopia. | July 2, 2020 at 7:57 am

    And one of the prime reasons for “needing” a firearm with a large capacity is… mobs/gangs.

    Standard liberal gun-grabber: “Oh, you’re just one of those paranoid prepper-militia-cult people. That would never…”.

    *this incident*

    Me: “You were saying?”

Anyone talking about this needs to interrupt when the term “protesters” is used and correct it to “tresspassers.”

I hope Andrew Branca will comment on this situation and Missouri law. My understanding is that Texas is the the only state that allows use of deadly force in defense of property, (with a lot of qualifications.) Unfortunately, self defense law in the current environment is more “political” than statutory and potentially very expensive and risky.

    Ditto here. I got into a short Twitter spat (Yeah, I know. Don’t feed trolls) with an idiot who claimed it would have been acceptable self-defense if the St. Louis couple had shot one or more of the BLM ‘protesters’ as they walked past their house. My response was more or less “Are you kidding?” and the response of Gardner in this case only reinforces my opinion.

    Leftist DA’s, politicians, and prosecutors only see votes. They would let the entire city burn into ashes and charred bloodstains if it meant they could hold onto office for another year. They need a sacrifice to throw to the mob, and it doesn’t matter where they find it, or if their preferred sacrifice is actually innocent. Before you shoot or even think about shooting, make absolutely damned sure its the last resort and you have no other options. They’re going to come after you anyway (as above), so don’t be stupid.

      SHV in reply to georgfelis. | July 1, 2020 at 4:15 pm

      ” They’re going to come after you anyway (as above), so don’t be stupid.”
      IANAL, “Castle Doctrine” and “Stand Your Ground” basically removes “duty to retreat” as part of self defense. That said, confronting protesters on the front yard with firearms, IMO, is not too smart and if the prosecutor presses on with “punishment by process” could get very expensive and painful. IMO, better wait for forced entry into home or attempt at arson of an occupied dwelling before thinking deadly force.

        MarkS in reply to SHV. | July 1, 2020 at 4:45 pm

        The forced entry occurred when the “protesters” forced entry into the community

          SHV in reply to MarkS. | July 1, 2020 at 5:12 pm

          “The forced entry occurred when the “protesters” forced entry into the community”
          I wouldn’t want a jury of my “peers” in St. Louis deciding my fate based on when forced entry occurred, however, I was thinking more about the tactical situation. Seems to me, that two people confronting a large, hostile, possibly armed mob in the front yard is rather short sighted. I would rather be in a more protected position, in the house, and confront them as they came through a “choke point”, ie. front door, window, etc.

          drednicolson in reply to MarkS. | July 1, 2020 at 9:49 pm

          At that point they don’t even need to come in. They’ll stay outside, poor gasoline around and light a match.

          Leftilibral rank-and-file are pretty dim in general, but they aren’t complete zombies.

        GWB in reply to SHV. | July 2, 2020 at 8:01 am

        I concur with drednicolson – you can’t see (nor stop) the guy with the molotov cocktail if you’re inside.

        BTW, given some of the people in that mob were armed, I would say they definitely had the right to shoot them as soon as they forcibly entered the property. Standing outside and warning them off is tactically sound – as long as you have a tactical retreat option available.

        rscalzo in reply to SHV. | July 2, 2020 at 9:40 am

        Suggest you read MO law. Defense of surrounding property is included. Waiting for the arson attempt is idiotic. At that point it’s too late.

    Music Man in reply to SHV. | July 1, 2020 at 3:52 pm

    Curios about his take as well. As to the defense of property, I think that a reasonable person would feel their life was in danger when a mob breaks down a barrier to enter their property. At that point are you not acting in self defense and the property irrelevant? The mob was making threats. Another point here is that they did not use deadly force, pretty impressive restraint in my opinion. The comments I saw from the circuit attorney were regarding brandishing and threatening, while calling the protest peaceful (clown).

    I went up and looked at the article again before hitting submit and saw this:

    “Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that although it’s “very dangerous” to engage protesters with guns, the homeowners broke no laws by brandishing or pointing weapons at them because Portland Place is a private street. He said the McCloskeys are protected by Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.”

    They will get a show trial but seem to be on safe legal ground. Crazy times…

      Mac45 in reply to Music Man. | July 1, 2020 at 9:09 pm

      Missouri does not allow the USE of deadly force to protect private property. It does allow the use of deadly force to stop the forcible invasion of a dwelling or domicile. Also, the uae of deadly force and the threatened use of deadly force are differentiated under Missouri law.

      Now, in this particular case, the home owners would not be justified in shooting the demonstrators, even if they had stepped onto the homeowner’s property. The street, while not a public thoroughfare or publicly owned property, may not be part of the homeowner’s property. However, if the mob, or a significant portion of it, moved toward the homeowners in a threatening manner, and when members of the approaching mob are delivering verbal threats of bodily harm or death, then disparity of force kicks in and can justify using deadly force against unarmed assailants.

      So, bottom line, the homeowner acted lawfully, under the laws of the state of Missouri. If they had opened fire, this would have complicated the legal situation, somewhat. But, as no shots were fired, the homeowners do not appear to have violated any laws.

        Paul in reply to Mac45. | July 1, 2020 at 9:16 pm

        Nonetheless, St. Louis being a progressive cesspool, I expect they’re about to get a heaping helping of “the process is the punishment”. Being attorneys, I hope they fight it tooth and nail.

    Colonel Travis in reply to SHV. | July 1, 2020 at 10:08 pm

    He just posted something about it on his site. For some reason I am having trouble logging in, I’ve had trouble the past few days and emailed them and haven’t heard back yet. Thank you Big Tech 2 Factor Authentication! Can’t tell you what he said about it.

    I would say, though, if you have a firearm you should be a member of his site, or at the minimum, own his book.

Regardless of whether Gardner prosecutes or not, her two goals are (1) inflict as much pain and suffering on the McCloskeys as possible, and (2) signal loud and clear that ANYONE who is thinking about standing up to the American Khmer Rouge will be punished.

And the pogrom rolls on with the dithering GOP strangely paralyzed.

I’m posting this wherever it is relevant. Please pass it on:

Patriots! Protect these people and others like them!

All of us, including those who can’t fight, won’t fight, or don’t have an opportunity to fight, can still pledge silently that if called to sit on a jury hearing a case against a patriot who took action to defend the Constitution, America, and American values, they will render a verdict of “not guilty” no matter the charge, the evidence, or the law.

This means you MUST accept jury duty when called. You may end up on stupid drug possession case, but you may end up hearing the case of a patriot who did what was necessary in the absence of appropriate and timely government or police response.

    gonzotx in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 1, 2020 at 4:39 pm

    We need to do something. Score that like call the Mo Gov and NRA, Senate turtle, lets get calling!!!

    MarkS in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 1, 2020 at 4:47 pm

    I made that decision long ago! If Hillary Comey, McCabe, et al, get off with obvious violations of the law w/o prosecution, I refuse to punish some ordinary citizen for anything

      JusticeDelivered in reply to MarkS. | July 1, 2020 at 10:52 pm

      Isn’t this what Balack Liars Matter is pushing for, a free pass for 6 out of every 7 crimes. One person getting away with a crime is not a good reason to give others a pass. The outcome will be bad.

I wonder when we’ll see citizen’s platoons march into the offices of such blatantly corrupt public officials, place them under citizen’s arrest for failure to protect and defend the constitution and physically remove them from their office and gov’t property.

We’ve seen the left carry out ‘occupy’ type protests – why can’t the good guys remove and occupy the office(s) of corrupt elected officials?

    CKYoung in reply to MrE. | July 1, 2020 at 4:34 pm

    MrE, I believe we might be very close to that point. This was a criminal mob, intent on instilling fear through threat and intimidation. If the DA is going to prosecute people defending themselves/their property, she has chosen a side. And it is the side of the criminals. She would be promoting trespass, vandalism, destruction of property and a whole host of other crimes. She needs to be arrested and removed from office if she goes that route. The DoJ needs to get control of these situations, otherwise I do believe private person arrests are in order.

      MarkS in reply to CKYoung. | July 1, 2020 at 4:48 pm

      To the Left, it does not matter what is done, what matters is who is doing it

      GWB in reply to CKYoung. | July 2, 2020 at 8:10 am

      intent on instilling fear through threat and intimidation
      Which is exactly what the local prosecutor is charging the mob with.

Easily could see St Louis Attorney wanting to stop people defending themselves from the mobs but this isn’t the best their chance of doing it, just the most visible first.

Wow, yet another Dhimmi-crat prosecutor who undermines the law, in favor of promoting Dhimmi-crat ideology and the Dhimmi-crat agenda? I am so shocked to learn about this.

ME Gardener is not going to be able to win this. She could waste taxpayer’s money and force the couple to waste money, time defending their actions in court filings etc. That is likely the goal.

This is a horrible set of facts to try to overcome and prosecute.
1. Missouri castle doctrine
2. Video
3. Mob breached gate into private / community property so probably not simply petit trespass but criminal trespass
4. Mob at early point exited community property onto the couple’s lot; advancing into throwing range of the home
5. Several weeks of t.v. footage, including from St Louis, of mobs turning to arson and violent attacks including murder
6. Mob members shouting threats to kill and damage property

That’s a considerable burden to overcome with SJW ideology by itself, which a jury isn’t likely going to accept.

Finally, one point I haven’t seen touched on. The weapons the couple had are both magazine fed semi auto. Can anyone prove a round was in the chamber? I don’t think so.

If the prosecution tries to hang their hat on brandishing then they are going to end up having to sell off fire trucks and police stations to pay for the civil suit judgement against them, IMO.

    healthguyfsu in reply to CommoChief. | July 1, 2020 at 8:26 pm

    This is a toothless “investigation” to pander.

    I doubt she even announces that she’s no longer investigating and tries to let it fade into obscurity.

    It’d be great if she gets hounded with questions for it in the future for the next 6 months or so.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to CommoChief. | July 2, 2020 at 12:28 am

    Sorry to tell you this, but the law means precisely what a prosecutor, judge and jury says it means. Nothing written anywhere has any relevance unless a prosecutor, judge or jury decides it does. They can twist any word to have any meaning desired, or make up new rules and code on the fly. See Judge Sullivan as exhibit (A) of this brief. If you ever come under the arbitrary eye of one of these entities, you are simply throwing a little metal ball onto a big spinning wheel. Avoid it at all costs.

      CommoChief in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | July 2, 2020 at 1:32 am


      Yes juries can reach surprising verdicts, but juries are not unpredictable. They are very predictable in that they respond to the facts when given them by a good storyteller. They tend to respond to that and reward the attorney who can connect with them, doesn’t talk down to them and doesn’t ask them to do something that defies common sense and most importantly doesn’t waste their time. That person is a trial attorney.

      The bottom line is our system works pretty doggone well when it isn’t corrupted by bias from the judge regarding evidentiary rulings or jury instructions. Even then that’s not insurmountable on appeal. Hell that’s why appeals exist.

      You are certainly correct to point out that the best way to stay out of jail is not to put yourself in the position of going before a judge and jury. For the average Joe with a court appointed public defender and no funds to fight with the odds aren’t so great.

      However, the couple here appears to have sufficient funds to mount a proper defense. Hire expert witnesses, pay a quality trial attorney to pull out every possible motion, answer motions from the prosecution, hire investigators, get in front of the press with their story and in the worst case fight on in appellate court.

      No. It means what the people who actually pay attention and make things happen say it does.

      When the electorate outsources the jobs to a technocratic ruling class(es), then those classes will rule. When it insists on actually paying attention, zealously and jealously guarding its rights and following through on its responsibilities, then they will rule.

      Guess where we are now?

Pouncekitty | July 1, 2020 at 5:43 pm

Liberal Lies: “Hands up, Don’t Shoot.” LIE.
“I can’t breathe.” LIE. BLM LIE.

Note: How you design your house/yard matters as much as gun ownership.

I applaud the gated community, but this was not enough- you need a fence/gate on your property.

Most gates are easy to bypass or just bust open. Make it be a VERY deliberate act of breaking something to get in.

Then what’s inside that gate matters. I prefer Malingators, but GSDs are cheaper. Take the time to train them to shut up and sit on command when a stranger is around. You want to allow the opportunity for safe retreat.

THEN- should someone with ill intent come in, you’ve eliminated so many of the plausible bullshit defenses trespassers come up with that its just easier for them to choose someone else terrorize, because between your gate and your house, they are going to rethink a lot of their life’s decisions.

    CommoChief in reply to Andy. | July 1, 2020 at 8:07 pm


    Excellent points about creating a deterrent effect by using a holistic approach with layered defenses.

    I have well over 400+ pounds of dogs for the purpose of creating a life changing experience for would be trespasses inside my rock wall (4ft) topped with iron (2ft) total 6ft height in my backyard.

    One English Mastif, one American Mastif and one pit bull/cane courso mix. Trust me you don’t want any part of that trio.

What if a “lawfare” network of conservative firms was set up to target these issues en masse. Set up a grassroots funding mechanism so it could eventually defend and/or write amicus briefs supported by millions of Americans? The left usually wins most the battles because the martial leftist resources against relatively small targets like the Gibsons. Our side needs legal muscle and the willingness to sacrifice a tad to fund it.

Soros should be hunted down and killed like bin Laden was.

First, he needs to get her a real gun. I haven’t seen a closeup, but it looks like a Walther PP. Second, they both need training (she has no trigger discipline and he doesn’t know how to use a sling). Third, if you are going to a gun fight, put on some shoes and don’t wear a pink shirt.

    henrybowman in reply to Obie1. | July 4, 2020 at 5:53 pm

    I’m 100% in favor of the right of these folks to do what they did, however incompetently. I’m just mortified that 2020’s NRA poster couple turned out to be a barefoot yuppie in Dockers, and a woman who holds her pistol like it was her poodle’s cleanup bag.

* SHRUG *… The truth of the matter is the democrats do not want you to defend your property … In the view of many of them anything you have belongs to them and the more you have the more certain they are it belongs to them so this guy in their opinion has a lot of their stuff

The McCloskeys have my full support on this particular issue!

Does anyone see where this is going!!!!!!!!!!

Give BLM 100K and we will for “giita bout it”

Exhortion pure extortion.

I heard somewhere that they were paying people to leave CHAZ.

I found this, but I am looking for the other article. Might be an Onion story.

CHAZ Reparations: Speaker Tells White People to Pony Up Cash for Black People

The Colorado Supreme Court just ruled that magazine bans limiting the size are legal since, in part, most self-defense shootings are 2-3 shots. Amazing how life’s experiences eclipse prog logic.

I remember that during the “55 Saves Lives” and Arab oil embargo, people wanted to limit top speed of cars to 55 mph since that was the limit. They also wanted to ban the Indy 500 for wasting fuel (but failed to understand Indy cars ran on methanol.)