Guns seized (2 Viewers)

[Lazybones]

McCloskeys served with search warrant, police take rifle shown in viral pictures

Sources told 5 On Your Side police seized one of the weapons, the rifle, from the couple and they told police their attorney has the pistol seen in photos.

www.ksdk.com

The police were called on the people who were protecting their property from people who broke into their neighborhood protesting the police. Who needs to repeal the 2nd amendment when you have rogue Da’s to do the work for you.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I’m not sure what that shows. Either way Cut it they were trespassing.

It shows people walking calmly through an open (intact) gate. You asked if the gate opened by magic. I am showing you that they opened it, which counters your claim that they broke it down in order to gain entry.

 

[Lazybones]

It shows people walking calmly through an open (intact) gate. You asked if the gate opened by magic. I am showing you that they opened it, which counters your claim that they broke it down in order to gain entry.

bravo bravo. I give you a check mark.

They are still trespassing. And that video doesn’t show how they opened the gate just to be clear.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

bravo bravo. I give you a check mark.

They are still trespassing. And that video doesn’t show how they opened the gate just to be clear.

It shows that they didn't break it down like you have repeatedly stated as fact. That should be enough for any sensible person to step back and reevaluate the things they think are fact to ensure that no other falsehoods crept in.

 

[Lazybones]

It shows that they didn't break it down like you have repeatedly stated as fact. That should be enough for any sensible person to step back and reevaluate the things they think are fact to ensure that no other falsehoods crept in.

whatever.i call that you grasping at straws because the story is a bad look for the narrative. Please read the article above about zero protestors being charged in St. Louis. However the same DA wants to pursue this case.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

whatever.i call that you grasping at straws because the story is a bad look for the narrative. Please read the article above about zero protestors being charged in St. Louis. However the same DA wants to pursue this case.

The article from Legal Insurrection? I did.

Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner’s spokeswoman, Allison Hawk, said in an email that police only sought charges in “a few” cases of stealing during looting, and prosecutors refused charges because they wanted more investigation. “In an effort to hold the offenders accountable, we need essential evidence from the police. These matters remain under investigation,” she wrote.

From the original St. Louis Post=Dispatch article:

“To be clear, as of right now the police department brought to my office a group of eight individuals involving stealing for prosecution,” Gardner said. “We need police to bring admissible evidence to charge. My office cannot issue any case when there is not admissible evidence. Point blank.”

The DA is waiting for the cops to actually finish gathering evidence before charges are brought. Isn't that how this is supposed to work?

 

[Lazybones]

The article from Legal Insurrection? I did.



From the original St. Louis Post=Dispatch article:



The DA is waiting for the cops to actually finish gathering evidence before charges are brought. Isn't that how this is supposed to work?

sure the da to use the cops as scapegoat goats. Does she need more than video evidence. Intel you what. Let’s revisit in 30 days and see how many charges she files for crimes committed in protest.
Funny you are picking a DA to stand behind that doesn’t have the best track record.

 

[V Chip]

7 people charged in connection with riots, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner says

The police department provided booking photos of four of the suspects, saying it's uncertain on identities of remaining three

www.ksdk.com

It says here 7 suspects were charged, and lists the names of four of them (from June 5/6).

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner said she has charged seven people police arrested in connection with rioting and looting that took place following protests earlier this week – a number that differs from information St. Louis police provided to 5 On Your Side.
Police department spokeswoman Officer Michelle Woodling said the department arrested 36 people on suspicion of charges related to the violence that followed peaceful protests in downtown St. Louis between Sunday and Tuesday morning.

Here's where they charged the man in the slaying of the retired police captain:

Man charged in slaying of retired St. Louis police captain

Charges have been filed against a 24-year-old St. Louis man who police say shot and killed a retired police captain during a night of violent protests as the former officer tried to protect his friend’s pawn shop

www.boston.com

 

[cuddlemonkey]

sure the da to use the cops as scapegoat goats. Does she need more than video evidence. Intel you what. Let’s revisit in 30 days and see how many charges she files for crimes committed in protest.
Funny you are picking a DA to stand behind that doesn’t have the best track record.

I'm not picking anything or anyone. You have made a series of incredibly suspect claims and I looked into them. Turns out you've been wrong on your major claims so far.

 

[efil4]

bravo bravo. I give you a check mark.

They are still trespassing. And that video doesn’t show how they opened the gate just to be clear.

So you went from rioters that broke down a gate to gain entry into a private neighborhood to protesters walking along the street after walking thru an open gate.

so all that you have left is trespassing. Which is argumentative because the gate was OPEN.

LOLOL.

The last 3 pages of your posts speak volumes.

 

[dtc]

What about 100 people with a propensity for violence and property damage? Big difference in a teen ager jumping the fende to get to the next yard and 100 incels who act as if the law does t matter.

However, where I live they would have had a warning shot at their feet as soon as they stepped through my gate.

That may have happened at my house too, but then I'd be in jail for breaking the law.

You can't assume 100 people need to be threatened no matter what color they are or what some other protestors in other cities may or may not have done.

 

[efil4]

However, where I live they would have had a warning shot at their feet as soon as they stepped through my gate.

you dont have a gate. So your bluster is for naught.

 

[Farb]

you dont have a gate. So your bluster is for naught.

So having a gate on ones property is the only way you can have an opinion on this matter?

Does it matter that there were 2 signs on the gate and at the gate that said private property and no trespassing?

 

[JimEverett]

Were the protestors on this couple's property or just in the common area of the subdivision?

If the protestors, or at least the protestor that the gun was pointed at (assuming a gun was pointed at anyone), were on the couple's property then it seems like a very weak case.
If the person claiming assault was just in the common area then it seems less clear.

I am not sure, though, what the 1st Amendment right to protest has to do with it if this was a gated community. Roads are private, not public, in gated communities. There would be no right to protest there. So the question would be whether residents can legally brandish guns and assault someone who has illegally entered a subdivision's private, but common, area.

 

[The moose]

Were the protestors on this couple's property or just in the common area of the subdivision?

If the protestors, or at least the protestor that the gun was pointed at (assuming a gun was pointed at anyone), were on the couple's property then it seems like a very weak case.
If the person claiming assault was just in the common area then it seems less clear.

I am not sure, though, what the 1st Amendment right to protest has to do with it if this was a gated community. Roads are private, not public, in gated communities. There would be no right to protest there. So the question would be whether residents can legally brandish guns and assault someone who has illegally entered a subdivision's private, but common, area.

I have been trying to stay out of this.

They were in the same common area that they pulled guns on people before accually their neighbors.

This is not a one time thing. They already used the get out of jail free card so to say.

Pull a gun twice once on film expect actions. Expect guns to get seized.

This is simple people don't read so much into it.

 

[CoolBrees]

But the whole point is moot because those aren’t truly private streets anyway. they are public because they get serviced by public entities (fire, police, etc.). So unless you are conducting those ALL of those activities In house, paying for the utilities all the way back to the substations, AND treating your own water, your utilities- including roads -aren’t private. You can put up gates as a covenant to a community, but the protesters First Amendment rights to assemble trump (pun intended) any goofy community covenant. That is probably why the gate was unlocked in the first place (proof from the video above), their association President knows the law.

 

[JimEverett]

But the whole point is moot because those aren’t truly private streets anyway. they are public because they get serviced by public entities (fire, police, etc.). So unless you are conducting those ALL of those activities In house, paying for the utilities all the way back to the substations, AND treating your own water, your utilities- including roads -aren’t private. You can put up gates as a covenant to a community, but the protesters First Amendment rights to assemble trump (pun intended) any goofy community covenant. That is probably why the gate was unlocked in the first place (proof from the video above), their association President knows the law.

That doesn;t make much sense at all. Your house is serviced by fire, police, etc.: does that mean your house is not private property?

By all accounts I have seen, it being a gated community as well, the streets are private: paid for and serviced by the community itself - not the county or city at large.

 

[CoolBrees]

Your home is private property. The street, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and power poles (or vaults) that bring the power to your home and neighborhood are owned by the public on easements that are part of your property deed. They were in a “private” public square.

Just because your neighborhood goes together and buys a fence doesn’t mean it’s truly private- you have to provide access to emergency services via a Knox box or the like because they are still serviced by the public.

 

[JimEverett]

Your home is private property. The street, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and power poles (or vaults) that bring the power to your home and neighborhood are owned by the public on easements that are part of your property deed. They were in a “private” public square.

Just because your neighborhood goes together and buys a fence doesn’t mean it’s truly private- you have to provide access to emergency services via a Knox box or the like because they are still serviced by the public.

Not all roads are owned by the public. This one apears to be one of them:

St. Louis City Counselor Julian K. Bush affirmed that Portland, as well as several other streets in the West End, are indeed private.

“They are owned by the property owners, and the owners pay for them, the street repairs and maintenance,” Bush said Monday.
“The city has no right-of-way onto those streets,” he said.

Portland Place, where couple pointed guns at protesters, has long been home to wealthy St. Louisans

City attorney says private streets — which became popular in St. Louis in the 1800s — are not open to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

www.stltoday.com