Posted on 07/11/2020 1:59:01 AM PDT by Helicondelta
Authorities in St. Louis executed a search warrant Friday evening at the home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the couple who made headlines last month when they took up arms to defend their home from protesters.
During the search, police seized the rifle that Mark McCloskey was shown holding during the June 28 incident, KSDK-TV of St. Louis reported, citing information from a source.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Seized on the basis of what, exactly?
I agree with Turbo Pig.
This is why he is losing in a landslide.
Trump will win in a landslide!!!
“This is why he is losing in a landslide.”
I don’t think he’ll lose in a landslide. TPTB trying to take him down now are the same ones who were against him in 2016. I think he’ll win — possibly in a landslide — thanks to We The People just as before (praying for RAT cheating to fail).
Agreed!!!
So now the mob knows they’ve been disarmed.
These liberals always thought it would be we the people that they would come for!!!
When the State feels empowered to abolish the rights of rich liberals, abolishing YOURS will be the merest afterthought.
I don’t know but I can guess - threatening or brandishing. No arrests or charges, just an “investigation”. They will Probably be returned to the owner in a year or so (or their next of kin)
“...a law abiding citizen defending his property.”
A law abiding citizen is required only to protect his property from the inside in Missouri.
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.
By exhibiting the weapon, he violated the law. I don’t think the law is in the best interest of the property owner, but it’s the law. Get it changed and reality will seep in. Otherwise the owner will have to wait until forced to protect and it won’t be property at that point. It’ll be some dead people. And the law does not establish a deterrent to the process and embolds the criminal with false reality of carte blanc.
rwood
“ So now the mob knows they’ve been disarmed.”
Yes, but the couple has hired a cadre of armed security.
I saw the AG of Missouri say this morning this falls under their Castle Doctrine and this entire thing is a political prosecution and a farce....
Even if it was a crime, why didn’t they get arrested versus just taking the gun...
Going to see if he has a legally obtained firearm... You know they have an angle to charge him and make an example of him.
From the article in the other thread, it said the crime was “brandishing a firearm.” It can be a tricky scenario, but it is illegal.
That was my first thought. It was incredibly irresponsible to release that information, but I believe that it was done on purpose.
This is a sleight of hand local police do all the time.
Seize your property and declare an investigation. Your property is then declared ‘evidence’ and remains in the evidence locker in perpetuity.
They’ll never get their property back.
Bump to your comment.
I have the same feelings about it as you do. But we need to support them if only to save ourselves.
“Even if it was a crime, why didn’t they get arrested versus just taking the gun...”
You can look at that in another direction, also. If it wasn’t a crime, why’d they take the guns?
The following article from, FOX might be helpful. Both the people were attorneys in the past, and had dealt with these type of actions.
This action is under investigation because the weapons were “brandished” by definition, and as I am seeing on the police report, the cops were called for trespassing. Without film, or witnessing, as you won’t be able to trust any of the BLM representatives in the mob to tell the truth, the only factual thing is that a few of the mob had trespassed, someone within them had broken a gate, and it’s everyone’s word about what was said or what possible threatening actions were taken.
Should there have been arrests? Okay, who? The cops got there after the incident was over, they didn’t see a thing except weapons in the hands of the couple.
Castle doctrine in Missouri is pro-perpetrator in that the burden of proof lies with the defendant, the couple. They have to prove that the people on the property were there to use imminent destruction of them or property and who it was. They just can’t point a finger at a crowd and say them. That will not cover the preponderance of the evidence as they have no proof everyone, or apparently any particular one of two in that crowd, was there to harm them or property. And it didn’t say anything in the article, or any I’ve read, who it was that was threatening them as I’m sure they acted like the roadrunner and were a puff of smoke just as soon as the cops arrived. In this case, no direct evidence, no harm no foul for the rest of them. But proof of a weapon being used by both with no one to use it for. Sad, but factual.
rwood
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.