Florida Concealed Carry banner

41 - 60 of 81 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,568 Posts
7.62. I listened to that earlier and he does sound pretty credible and believable. Some lawyers that know him tell me he has an 18,000 square-foot house that he bought in the high 500’s and it’s only appraised at 1.3 million or something. He sure doesn’t live in Florida. When I first saw the video I thought it was filmed at the Naval Academy the place is so enormous. It still doesn’t explain the pink shirt tucked in and the man boobs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,869 Posts
Wifey and I went to Ozello yesterday - went out to a little restaurant near the end of West Ozello Trail. Just beyond that is a very short causeway/bridge and then a little island with maybe two dozen houses on it.

I remarked at the time that would be a great place to live during times of social unrest, or a zombie apocalypse, or whatever.

First off, the whole thing is at the end of a 10 mile long twisty road that is one way in and one way out. Not really much reason for ne'er-do-wells to go back that far in the first place. But in the event of zombies, or determined cretins, just set up a couple concrete barricades and put a couple sentries with rifles on the causeway/bridge, and nobody is getting out there unless they swim or approach by boat.

I don't know what state the video in the OP occurred in. I think I'd want to be outside so I could keep an eye on the dirtbags and make sure none of them come up into the property and approach the house. I don't want to be holed up inside and the first awareness I have of serious doodoo is when a Molotov cocktail comes through one of the windows.

That said, I wouldn't be outside threatening people. I think I'd just sit in a chair on my front porch with the M16, a Beta-C mag, and a couple spares, hanging out, watching the menagerie. Have Wifey inside with the MP5, and lots of magazines, running video. They want to walk by on the street, OK, have a good day.

If they come up on the property, oopsie, damn, the Doberman got out again. Sorry, you shouldn't have been trespassing. Didn't you see the "Bad Dog" sign?
Were y’all doing to Peck’s for lunch?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,869 Posts
It's definitely brandishing by the very definition of it.

Federal law defines brandished as, “with reference to a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) means that all or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person. Accordingly, although the dangerous weapon does not have to be directly visible, the weapon must be present.”

Presumably, each state may have its own definition, but they're usually quite similar.

Note that it does not stipulate circumstances nor exemptions.

There's a difference between open carry and brandishing. I would say that it could be argued the man wasn't brandishing, though it's a bit of a stretch. But, without any doubt (by my estimation), the woman was brandishing. She was actively pointing her gun at people (like a sprinkler!).
I don’t know, but I’m guessing that there may be a difference in “brandishing” when on public property, as opposed to “brandishing” when you’re on your own private property, and faced with others who are approaching your private property in a threatening manner.

I mean damn...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,568 Posts
Rick, it’s not brandishing and Missouri has no statue regarding brandishing. It’s just non-lawyers giving legal pronouncements from pieces of information off the internet they don’t understand. I wish people would stick to talking about something they know.

The quote is a snippet of US code regarding enhanced sentences for drug related crimes and such committed with a weapon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,451 Posts
7.62. I listened to that earlier and he does sound pretty credible and believable. Some lawyers that know him tell me he has an 18,000 square-foot house that he bought in the high 500’s and it’s only appraised at 1.3 million or something. He sure doesn’t live in Florida. When I first saw the video I thought it was filmed at the Naval Academy the place is so enormous. It still doesn’t explain the pink shirt tucked in and the man boobs.
did you hear the part where he says he’s a civil rights lawyer and is in process of defending a young man who was beaten by the police? Also mentioned he has some sort of abolitionist banner in his building.
The home for sure would be ten million if it was anywhere near me.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,332 Posts
Bet the next gate is much stronger!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,231 Posts
Some of you are just plain stupid and think a mob of terrorists that broke down a gate and were heading for these two home owners home were not there to cause trouble.
These two American Citizens may not be the 100% gun experts you people are but at least they did something to protect their home when no security or police showed up.
Two against the MANY that were there and they stood tall and did what needed to be done while terrified of what was going on.
This is one of the reasons why we have the 2nd. amendment.
Just think if if was you that had to face a nob of angry terrorists coming at you.
I wonder if the Police ever did show up and arrest this trespassing gate destroying mob of thugs.
Probably not do anything as a consequence for their actions of destroying property and threatening citizens in their homes.

And they were not brandishing weapons, They were holding them at ready and hopefully would not have to use them.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Ronnie
 
  • Like
Reactions: frgood

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #50
And they were not brandishing weapons, They were holding them at ready
Yeah, you must not have watched the wife in the video. She was muzzling everyone like a lawn sprinkler on speed.

I have changed my position slightly, now knowing that the mob was ON their property, not the street. Personally, I still would not have likely come out of the house. That's just me. My tactical sense and self-preservation inclinations.

The couple had every right to come out armed. I don't dispute that. Their gun handling skills need a lot of work, especially the wife.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,568 Posts
Bravo, Ronnie! I agree 100%

The wife looks scared to death and the second amendment does not require her to be a gunslinger to defend her home from intruders. It’s easy to be critical sitting behind our laptops or iPads but, my sense is that in that moment under that circumstance these people were scared to death of overwhelming numbers of intruders and had a right to defend themselves and their home in any manner they felt appropriate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Yeah, you must not have watched the wife in the video. She was muzzling everyone like a lawn sprinkler on speed.

I have changed my position slightly, now knowing that the mob was ON their property, not the street. Personally, I still would not have likely come out of the house. That's just me. My tactical sense and self-preservation inclinations.

The couple had every right to come out armed. I don't dispute that. Their gun handling skills need a lot of work, especially the wife.
We regularly hear about untrained gun owners solving whatever defense-related problem they might have. I would cite this one as another instance. What people would or would not do is hypothetical until it becomes factual history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,631 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Rick McC.

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #54
We regularly hear about untrained gun owners solving whatever defense-related problem they might have. I would cite this one as another instance. What people would or would not do is hypothetical until it becomes factual history.
True, for sure. They were successful. And, without a shot fired. That doesn't necessarily preclude the scenario from spirited debate. I think it's good for us to debate these scenarios. We all learn from it, I think.

I've already admitted that my initial judgement was flawed due to incorrect information regarding the location of the mob.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,692 Posts
Yeah, I've got no problems with them defending their home, but MAN! They seriously need some training and practice on safe gun handling!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,631 Posts
How very strange that I haven't heard one peep about prosecutors contemplating charging the trespassers, whomever destroyed the gate, people who may have threatened the homeowners, etc., but this article says they will not tolerate assaulting peaceful protesters and they are investigating whether to charge the defenders.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,332 Posts
How very strange that I haven't heard one peep about prosecutors contemplating charging the trespassers, whomever destroyed the gate, people who may have threatened the homeowners, etc., but this article says they will not tolerate assaulting peaceful protesters and they are investigating whether to charge the defenders.
Yes, and these two pieces of bullschiznit say it all:
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner is contemplating whether a pair of married lawyers broke any laws on Sunday when they aimed firearms at nonviolent protesters who were walking past the couple's Central West End mansion en route to a protest at the nearby house of Mayor Lyda Krewson.
It's pretty well established that the "nonviolent protestors" were issuing multiple threats of violence on the McCloskey's AND their dog! So the quote above is a lie!

Gardner issued a statement late Monday morning, stating that she was "alarmed at the events that occurred over the weekend, where peaceful protesters were met by guns and a violent assault." She added that her office is "currently working with the public and police to investigate these events."

Gardner concluded her statement with these words: "Make no mistake: we will not tolerate the use of force against those exercising their First Amendment rights, and will use the full power of Missouri law to hold people accountable."
Again, IANAL but she's apparently another St. Louis attorney, this time a prosecutor that apparently doesn't understand justified use of force. I haven't researched Missouri law but I'd be surprised if it doesn't illusrate that Ms. Gardner is dead wrong. I know if I were on the Jury, the McCloskey's walk!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,638 Posts
" . . . she's apparently another St. Louis attorney, this time a prosecutor that apparently doesn't understand justified use of force."

Sorry BH, but I think your statement is completely wrong. As an experienced prosecutor Ms. Gardner, I am certain, has a full and proper understanding of justified use of force. The thing is, you see, that she does not care. She appears to be a hack, corrupt and a political opportunist. Truth? Justice? The American Way? Dead or on life support. Just my sad but earnest opinion about the current state of affairs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick McC.

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,332 Posts
" . . . she's apparently another St. Louis attorney, this time a prosecutor that apparently doesn't understand justified use of force."

Sorry BH, but I think your statement is completely wrong. As an experienced prosecutor Ms. Gardner, I am certain, has a full and proper understanding of justified use of force. The thing is, you see, that she does not care. She appears to be a hack, corrupt and a political opportunist. Truth? Justice? The American Way? Dead or on life support. Just my sad but earnest opinion about the current state of affairs.
You may be right and that's why I used the qualifying word "apparently" but even if she does, the rest of your statement is likely spot on. Regardless, I believe she's still dead WRONG!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,636 Posts
Wow, lots of issues but in thinking more on this I know lots of folks suggest staying locking in your house and business and wait for them to break in, ok but...

In light of a lot of Molotov Cocktails being throw and fires being set to property some with people in it, during some of these “peaceful protests” of first amendment rights... I’m not so sure these folks were not better off doing what they did but differently?

Understanding that this was all private property, the protesters broke down a gate and entered his grounds, the destruction of these protests, the threat to life and limb to include fires...I am asking myself under all these circumstances if stopping them at breaking down the gate wasn’t where he should have made his stand? Questionable to be sure and most likely technically illegal but it would provide him a choke point unless they were hopping the wall to get in and one wonders if taking aim directly when they touched the fence with verbal commands to stop and back away from the gate...

I don’t know, I noticed in that short video in the beginning none of them came up his steps or rushed him so why not stop them at the gate? Why let them get that far? Then what, fall back into the house while they set fire to it or break in and fall back in to the bedroom...

I guess everyone has to draw their own line in the sand on when and where to make their own stand when forced into that situation. A situation that was forced upon them they didn’t ask for. Glad it worked out for them, this time...

Just wondering...:unsure:

YMMV
 
41 - 60 of 81 Posts
Top