Couple in gated community meet protesters while armed

[Diamondback]

Typically B&E is enough to justify shooting I think, someone should check that.

I doubt that opening a closed gate and walking in would be justification for shooting. I hope not.

There's opening one that's just closed, and then there's breaking down or forcing one that's closed and secured.

 

[4Freedom]

Looks like they even got their own apparel line now.. Wonder if they have any of these in pink polo style. BTW, living in the East Coast and Midwest you will come to see how damn popular these eye straining light colored feminine shirts are on many of guys here. In Charlotte, even 20 somethings were wearing those and to make matters worse they would wear them with khakhi shorts and tucked in. Haha, a Northwestern person like me was just left aghast and in terror

 

[4Freedom]

 

[sobo]

I don't watch the fake news anymore but I bet they didn't show the "No Trespassing/Residents Only" signs either.

Eee-yup, had to go to Fox to see pics of the signs that were ignored and the broken gate.

 

[EHJ]

Fredo swallows his own tongue. Again.

 

[sobo]

The Hodge Twins. Uproarious hilarity...

 

[nammac]

Fredo swallows his own tongue. Again.

Fredo got schooled... Got his own words fed right back at him... I absolutely love it!!! God Bless the McClousky's!!!

 

[HA556]

I want to kick that CNN reporter right in his teeth!

 

[nammac]

I want to kick that CNN reporter right in his teeth!

He's a Cuomo, I fully understand why...

 

[Hueco]

Unless I've confused you with what's been said, along the lines that "the couple never should have come out of their house", etc, etc...

Again, just cherry picking here... but how was THIS
View attachment 716579


Justified by THIS?
View attachment 716578

You don't think that couple knows what typically happens when they see the BLM mob on the march? Look at close ups of that woman's face in the OP, she's scared sheitless.




Maybe he didn't want his business (probably invested/risked his entire life towards) to be destroyed or appropriated into another "CHAZ" like in Seattle. I guess the founding fathers should have just stayed home and watched TV so all that tea wouldn't have gone to waste in the Boston Harbor.

Just because someone has no training (that weird couple) or any clue about effectively defending themselves or their property (sword man) doesn't mean they are wrong for their effort, or aren't "allowed" to... and in fact, the mob has nobody to blame but themselves. If you don't like being threatened with deadly force when breaking through access gates, or rioting, or attempting to intimidate other people, then don't break through access gates, riot, or attempt to intimidate other people.

I'm perfectly fine with trekking the dangerous jungles of freedom over the safe prison of perceived "safety".

Uh, yea, I don't think you've grasped my point at all.

You're looking at this protest and declaring it a dangerous riot before deducing any opinion on the matter...at least, that's how it comes across.

Leading up to the event, there were George Floyd protests all over the country and world (List of George Floyd protests in the United States - Wikipedia) - the vast majority were peaceful demonstrations. Conflating every protest with a riot is useless. If you want to say that all protests have the potential to become riots, then that's of course true. However, responding to a protest as if it is a riot is an overreactive response. Responding to a riot as if it were a riot is right on the money.

So, the question is, was this a violent riot? That is demonstrably false, at the time that the McCloskey's confronted them and potentially false even now (I'm getting to the gate). The protestors were guilty of trespassing on private property. That is not enough to provide a reasonable person evidence that their life is in grave and immediate danger (many of their own neighbors are denouncing their actions...something that wouldn't make sense if other neighbors felt their lives threatened: 38 neighbors pin open letter denouncing the McCloskeys for waving guns at protesters). There's evidence of a destroyed gate that was taken the day after the protest. There's video of protestors walking in through an open gate at the time of the protest. So, did they destroy it on exit or was its destruction a separate event that is now entangled with this? There's reason to believe the protestors destroyed it, but no actual proof.

The protestors had an objective of getting to the Mayor's house. When you look at the map of its location relative to the gate entry, the protest would have had to walk by the McCloskey's house. They said that they were threatened, which is why they went to get weapons. There is no evidence that they went outside, were threatened, went back inside to get weapons, and then came back out. It is possible. It's also possible that they exited the house with weapons, at which time threats were made. It's also possible that they exited the house with weapons and are lying about the threats.

Here's a video of the wife leaving her front door area to get closer to the protestors on the sidewalk:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1277398535973949440

... To answer your question: No, she does not look scared at all. She comes across as entitled, as if to say how dare you protest in my neighborhood. I don't get the impression that she is actually scared for her life, as if any one of those people could kill her at a moment's notice. The fact that she left her front door space and husband in order to get closer to protestors is a sign of aggression or antagonization, not defense.

I think this couple was imbibing heavily on main stream news hysteria and completely overreacted to the situation - escalating it and putting themselves and the protestors in danger and I'm glad that no-one was hurt.

The protestors were heading for the Mayor's house and there's little reason to believe that they would have stopped at the McCloskey's at all had the couple not confronted them. If the couple really did fear for their lives and wanted to make a show of force, then that would be accomplished by standing outside with weapons ready - but not pointing them at anyone.

You can piss and moan about "tactics" and "lack of training" but this is a key point not to be brushed aside. Aiming a gun at someone is a threat of deadly force. The wife could have accidentally killed someone easily. Did any person whom she aimed the weapon give her a reason to do so? I didn't see anything that would qualify for that level of response.

So, should they have stayed inside? In hindsight, that decision would have produced the least negative consequences. Of the options to go outside, showing a defense would have been the best. It's also not what they did. They went on the offense when there was no justifiable reason to do so.

Regarding sword man...no, the death of Floyd does not justify his beating. Of course it doesn't. Why would you even bring up such a flimsy straw man except to paint anyone who doesn't share your opinion as morally corrupt?

 

[4Freedom]

@Hueco
After you watch your former police chief get gunned down, truck drivers beaten and have their trucks looted driving down the freeway, watch your city get burned and just live day to day in St. Louis which I have been through and is one hell of a scary looking city (like a freakin warzone) and then have dozens of angry people shouting, hollering, banging drums come down your private street (which did not lead to the mayor's house) then let me know how well you handle the occasion. It's so easy to condemn these people ,but if you had a large mass of angry people marching and yelling unannounced and who were illegally trespassing on private property and indeed guilty of disorderly conduct, harassment and intimidation just by their presence let me know how cool-headed you would be. You live in the Northwest, but I wonder if you were a wealthy person living in West St. Louis (which I have driven through and has a lot of good, but also awful neighborhoods, like horrifying neighborhoods) how easy you would feel about this mob of people coming down your private street.

As well, how do you know some of these people didn't make death threats? And, if you come out of your house with a gun and someone says he will murder your dog and burn your house down, does that make the person less of a threat? If the gun was to deter violent people away, now they are justified to threaten , murder and torture his loved ones? The event was not meant to be peaceful, as the organizer himself said he wanted to create chaos and I doubt they were planning on going to mayor's house and being civil. Look what they did to Mayor Dirtwad's house in Seattle . They vandalized and spraypainted allover it. Is this your example of peaceful protesters around the country?

The protests have been mostly peaceful? I don't know if you have seen the chaos that has happened in St. Louis, but nobody knows if they are dealing with an angry crowd who is illegally marching through their property if they are the "peaceful " or "non-peaceful" protesters.

Don't judge that woman by her face. People put on a fighting face when they are scared for their lives. I didn't see an entiteld guy, I saw a terrified guy who was afraid he was going to lose everything he worked hard for. Some ofthese protesters act like the most spoiled, self-righteous, entitled jerks. I wonder if a group of white people went marching into a black neighborhood if a white person was murdered by a black guy how well they would be received or if they wouldn't have guns pointed at them or even shot the minute they walked through their private property? It seems that you may have double-standards if you cannot see it both ways.

Also, considering that guy actually defended many black people in police brutality cases I think it is kind of a hit in the face they came and attacked him, since he has actually stood up for the rights of black people unlike these bored, do-nothing, loudmouth SJWs who seem to like to scream and shout about defunding or disbanding the police but don't have any real substantial or meaningful ideas to help protect the civil rights of black people. Instead, it's just screaming , shouting, demanding the police be abolished , mayor resign, etc, etc. One extreme and hot-tempered demand after the other. Nothing very constructive or helpful.. Just fist shaking and then anger, which leads to riots. We see how well it's working in NYC, MInneapolis, Atlanta, Seattle and other cities devolving into chaos.

I am sorry, but this is America, and people shouldn't just have to cower in their houses an be scared, helpless sheeple. The McCloskey's in my opinion are American heroes and they stood up for themselves when nobody else would. They also defended an important part of St. Louis's heritage, its decaying older homes. You should drive through ST. Louis and see how many once beautiful mansions are being left to rot by neglect and societal collapse in this city. Like Detroit, St. Louis use to be one of the most prestigious cities in America.

I respect them even though the MSM and many others will look at them as troublemakers. The real troublmakers are these thugs and mobs who think they have the right to go running around the cities terrorizing people and falsely claiming they are peacefully protesting. Maybe, if so many of them didn't resort to looting, robbing and burning stores people would not be so edgy about them.

 

[NW Backpacker]

Uh, yea, I don't think you've grasped my point at all.

You're looking at this protest and declaring it a dangerous riot before deducing any opinion on the matter...at least, that's how it comes across.

Leading up to the event, there were George Floyd protests all over the country and world (List of George Floyd protests in the United States - Wikipedia) - the vast majority were peaceful demonstrations. Conflating every protest with a riot is useless. If you want to say that all protests have the potential to become riots, then that's of course true. However, responding to a protest as if it is a riot is an overreactive response. Responding to a riot as if it were a riot is right on the money.

So, the question is, was this a violent riot? That is demonstrably false, at the time that the McCloskey's confronted them and potentially false even now (I'm getting to the gate). The protestors were guilty of trespassing on private property. That is not enough to provide a reasonable person evidence that their life is in grave and immediate danger (many of their own neighbors are denouncing their actions...something that wouldn't make sense if other neighbors felt their lives threatened: 38 neighbors pin open letter denouncing the McCloskeys for waving guns at protesters). There's evidence of a destroyed gate that was taken the day after the protest. There's video of protestors walking in through an open gate at the time of the protest. So, did they destroy it on exit or was its destruction a separate event that is now entangled with this? There's reason to believe the protestors destroyed it, but no actual proof.

The protestors had an objective of getting to the Mayor's house. When you look at the map of its location relative to the gate entry, the protest would have had to walk by the McCloskey's house. They said that they were threatened, which is why they went to get weapons. There is no evidence that they went outside, were threatened, went back inside to get weapons, and then came back out. It is possible. It's also possible that they exited the house with weapons, at which time threats were made. It's also possible that they exited the house with weapons and are lying about the threats.

Here's a video of the wife leaving her front door area to get closer to the protestors on the sidewalk:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1277398535973949440

... To answer your question: No, she does not look scared at all. She comes across as entitled, as if to say how dare you protest in my neighborhood. I don't get the impression that she is actually scared for her life, as if any one of those people could kill her at a moment's notice. The fact that she left her front door space and husband in order to get closer to protestors is a sign of aggression or antagonization, not defense.

I think this couple was imbibing heavily on main stream news hysteria and completely overreacted to the situation - escalating it and putting themselves and the protestors in danger and I'm glad that no-one was hurt.

The protestors were heading for the Mayor's house and there's little reason to believe that they would have stopped at the McCloskey's at all had the couple not confronted them. If the couple really did fear for their lives and wanted to make a show of force, then that would be accomplished by standing outside with weapons ready - but not pointing them at anyone.

You can piss and moan about "tactics" and "lack of training" but this is a key point not to be brushed aside. Aiming a gun at someone is a threat of deadly force. The wife could have accidentally killed someone easily. Did any person whom she aimed the weapon give her a reason to do so? I didn't see anything that would qualify for that level of response.

So, should they have stayed inside? In hindsight, that decision would have produced the least negative consequences. Of the options to go outside, showing a defense would have been the best. It's also not what they did. They went on the offense when there was no justifiable reason to do so.

Regarding sword man...no, the death of Floyd does not justify his beating. Of course it doesn't. Why would you even bring up such a flimsy straw man except to paint anyone who doesn't share your opinion as morally corrupt?

There has been little to no coverage of peaceful protests. Coverage has been 24/7 riots, arson, assaults, looting, and murder for over a month as police, mayors, and governors sit on their fat asses and watch. We've had one story after another about how the thugs are planning to bring it to residential neighborhoods; there are threads on this website about that specific topic. People are justifiably afraid for their homes and lives - NWFA has threads on what people are doing to get ready if it comes to their location. Given all of that background, and all of a sudden a mob of hundreds of thugs enters your peaceful neighborhood yelling and screaming, some wearing gas masks, some wearing face shields, many with backpacks carrying who knows what kind of weapons, and advances toward your home. You don't know their intentions. The fact is that a mob that size, with no weapons at all, could have killed both of them if they decided to rush them. The woman looked terrified - not sure if you need glasses, a bigger computer screen, or more experience reading facial expressions, but it was clear she was very afraid.

They both did the best they could given the circumstances. They had 100% perfect trigger and muzzle control - not a single person was shot. I'll bet that little pistol of hers has a stiff trigger pull so it's probably fairly safe to point at people. Ditto for most ARs.

Give them both medals for an outstanding job doing what the government is obviously incapable of doing.

 

[EHJ]

Uh, yea, I don't think you've grasped my point at all.

You're looking at this protest and declaring it a dangerous riot before deducing any opinion on the matter...at least, that's how it comes across.

Leading up to the event, there were George Floyd protests all over the country and world (List of George Floyd protests in the United States - Wikipedia) - the vast majority were peaceful demonstrations. Conflating every protest with a riot is useless. If you want to say that all protests have the potential to become riots, then that's of course true. However, responding to a protest as if it is a riot is an overreactive response. Responding to a riot as if it were a riot is right on the money.

So, the question is, was this a violent riot? That is demonstrably false, at the time that the McCloskey's confronted them and potentially false even now (I'm getting to the gate). The protestors were guilty of trespassing on private property. That is not enough to provide a reasonable person evidence that their life is in grave and immediate danger (many of their own neighbors are denouncing their actions...something that wouldn't make sense if other neighbors felt their lives threatened: 38 neighbors pin open letter denouncing the McCloskeys for waving guns at protesters). There's evidence of a destroyed gate that was taken the day after the protest. There's video of protestors walking in through an open gate at the time of the protest. So, did they destroy it on exit or was its destruction a separate event that is now entangled with this? There's reason to believe the protestors destroyed it, but no actual proof.

The protestors had an objective of getting to the Mayor's house. When you look at the map of its location relative to the gate entry, the protest would have had to walk by the McCloskey's house. They said that they were threatened, which is why they went to get weapons. There is no evidence that they went outside, were threatened, went back inside to get weapons, and then came back out. It is possible. It's also possible that they exited the house with weapons, at which time threats were made. It's also possible that they exited the house with weapons and are lying about the threats.

Here's a video of the wife leaving her front door area to get closer to the protestors on the sidewalk:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1277398535973949440

... To answer your question: No, she does not look scared at all. She comes across as entitled, as if to say how dare you protest in my neighborhood. I don't get the impression that she is actually scared for her life, as if any one of those people could kill her at a moment's notice. The fact that she left her front door space and husband in order to get closer to protestors is a sign of aggression or antagonization, not defense.

I think this couple was imbibing heavily on main stream news hysteria and completely overreacted to the situation - escalating it and putting themselves and the protestors in danger and I'm glad that no-one was hurt.

The protestors were heading for the Mayor's house and there's little reason to believe that they would have stopped at the McCloskey's at all had the couple not confronted them. If the couple really did fear for their lives and wanted to make a show of force, then that would be accomplished by standing outside with weapons ready - but not pointing them at anyone.

You can piss and moan about "tactics" and "lack of training" but this is a key point not to be brushed aside. Aiming a gun at someone is a threat of deadly force. The wife could have accidentally killed someone easily. Did any person whom she aimed the weapon give her a reason to do so? I didn't see anything that would qualify for that level of response.

So, should they have stayed inside? In hindsight, that decision would have produced the least negative consequences. Of the options to go outside, showing a defense would have been the best. It's also not what they did. They went on the offense when there was no justifiable reason to do so.

Regarding sword man...no, the death of Floyd does not justify his beating. Of course it doesn't. Why would you even bring up such a flimsy straw man except to paint anyone who doesn't share your opinion as morally corrupt?

I asked before - and it's important to know...
Have you ever been gang mugged? Seriously.
What's the worst city you've ever experienced?
You share lots of incidental commentary eloquently in the 3rd person with the gift of hindsight - but what's the worst situation you have ever personally encountered?
St. Louis is one of the vying contenders for Murder Capital of the world - long before the locals got artificially worked up with this Marxist Movement. (only age and an excellent history teacher from 40+ years ago will help you here... because that's what this has become)
Many other gentlemen here are old enough to remember they took a literal oath to support and defend our nation against such things happening today. Armchair quarterbacking this one couple this intently seems a bit projectionist to me. Until you've (or any of us) been in their shoes and minds all of this is moot. Tackle the actual issues of today.

And as far as 'questionable gun play' with these two.... Well - that's nothing compared to how the average gang banger would approach things these days. Or even - quite a few folks i know that live at the end of long dirt driveways in Appalachia. Some folks learned from Miculek - some folks learned from Clint.

Video Bonus!
Here's peaceful Portland... Under The Spell of Anarchy.
Night before last. Watch how quick things go south for this guy.
Humans are the worst of animals thinly cloaked in a veil of civility.

And then there's Gustave...

The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (French: Psychologie des Foules; literally: Psychology of Crowds) is a book authored by Gustave Le Bon that was first published in 1895.[1][2]

In the book, Le Bon claims that there are several characteristics of crowd psychology: "impulsiveness, irritability, incapacity to reason, the absence of judgement of the critical spirit, the exaggeration of sentiments, and others..."[1] Le Bon claimed that "an individual immersed for some length of time in a crowd soon finds himself – either in consequence of magnetic influence given out by the crowd or from some other cause of which we are ignorant – in a special state, which much resembles the state of fascination in which the hypnotized individual finds himself in the hands of the hypnotizer."[3]

 

[Member 5605]

At the end of the day, they are alive and their property is safe.

Nobody was hurt and their stance protected potential life and property damage.

 

[MannyGlocks]

Dy,

Yes.

I don't understand those who mock them.

Giddiness motivated by 'glad it didn't happen to me' perhaps?

I think the couple demonstrated remarkable courage.

 

[revjen45]

It's not the end of the day. The DA may still pursue malicious prosecutions to teach people not to defend themselves and to slake the passions of the mob.

 

[Dinglenutz]

It's not the end of the day. The DA may still pursue malicious prosecutions to teach people not to defend themselves and to slake the passions of the mob.

At this point they've had to hire outside counsel and board up their business. That's not nothing as the man said.

 

[revjen45]

"I want to kick that CNN reporter right in his teeth!"

He is hardly a "reporter."
"DNC Hack" would be more accurate.
Actual reporters are rare and are de facto barred from CNN, MSNBC, etc.

 

[Member 5605]

It's not the end of the day. The DA may still pursue malicious prosecutions to teach people not to defend themselves and to slake the passions of the mob.

Yeah true and they are attorneys so they have hired counsel as well.

Irony is the DA has a stack of people that actually defaced and destroyed private property that they haven't charged yet.

Some serious and blatant hypocrisy.

 

[Hueco]

@EHJ I haven't responded to your question because it is a red herring. This is a case of a group of people being judged by the actions of others. This protest wasn't a riot; these people did not attack anyone. Showing me a video of some other incident somewhere else with other people is useless except to show your willingness to conflate them.

Where I come from, you're innocent until proven otherwise and you prepare for the worst but give people the opportunity to be their best. Had I been in their shoes, I probably would have checked to see where they were heading and gone back to work. If I actually felt threatened, you can be sure that I'd make a show of force. You can also be sure that I would not be pointing a gun at anyone until I'm ready to shoot. And that, to me, is a critical difference.

Honestly, I'm tired of this topic and will be ignoring all future posts coming from this one. You're not convincing me that this couple acted logically and responsibly and I'm not convincing you that the majority of people are not the rioters that you've seen on the news 24/7 or that the couple's actions were over a line.

Now, I've been coding all night to make up hours. I think I'll get some sleep. Cheers,