Couple 'fearing for their lives' draw guns at crowd heading to St. Louis mayor's home

Can’t find a thread on this so I assume one hasn’t been created.

What do people make of this?

I’m not much of a pro-gun advocate, although not being American I feel it’s for its citizens to argue that out, but I’ll tell you what, if they hadn’t had guns, I’ll predict they would have been attacked or at the very least had their property vandalised. Either way, having those guns did protect them from any potential violence.

6 Likes

It’s actually being discussed here:

https://forums.catholic.com/t/trump-tweets-video-with-white-power-chant-then-deletes-it/614613/142

I think this is horrible journalism. The headline puts the blame on the couple when, in fact, it was the crowd who broke their front gate, trespassed, and when the couple defended their home, people in the crowd threatened violence against them. The blame here is on the law-breaking crowd…but the article goes out of its way to paint the couple as the instigators.

The relevant facts came after these irrelevant points made by the article’s author that seem to only have the purpose of creating racial / economic division:

  1. “A white couple” - (Imagine a photo with a caption reading “a black couple…” Their race is irrelevant)
  2. “stood outside their mansion” - (Not “house” but “mansion”…in other words: “they’re evil rich people”)
  3. “pointed guns at protesters” - (implies they were the instigators of the event)
  4. “racially diverse crowd” - (race is irrelevant)
  5. “standing outside their Renaissance palazzo-style home in the city’s well-to-do Central West End neighborhood” (How is this relevant? - dang rich people)
  6. “Their home, which was featured in the local St. Louis Magazine after undergoing a renovation, is appraised at $1.15 million” (dang rich people)

Bottom line: This article tries to incite a dislike of the couple, but it was the crowd that were the instigators of this event.

20 Likes

the headline you link to will divert from the specifics of this case

And yet, everything you cite is actually true.

Once again, just telling the truth. That’s where it’s being discussed.

It happens. Sometimes a thread morphs.

Maybe. If you look at the photos, the woman doesn’t seem to have a clue how to properly hold a gun.

2 Likes

No…I understand, but discussion of a couple defending themselves is better discussed NOT in a thread about “white power,” or even “Trump” as they have nothing to do with the case at hand.

2 Likes

Irrelevant. How about the actions of the crowd in this case?

2 Likes
  1. It IS relevant to the post I was replying to. It’s often very helpful to read the full post, including the quote being responded to, before making a response that doesn’t make any sense.

  2. My post had nothing to do with the actions of the crowd, but since you ask – how about we let the police continue their investigation?

Yup. Guns work. Although I disagree with how these two presented their weapons. They both obviously need some tactical training.

Only if they will do so. Unfortunately police in many areas are told to avoid investigating crimes done by “protesters”.

And that is in addition to how little police actually care about property crimes in many areas to start with.

3 Likes
1 Like

Defending themselves against what? Trespassers?

I posted this on the other thread:

*571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121 , 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; or

Also, here is a statement from their lawyer. Sorry, I just can’t take them seriously.

“My clients, as melanin-deficient human beings, are completely respectful of the message Black Lives Matter needs to get out, especially to whites,” said lawyer Albert Watkins. He said the McCloskeys “acted lawfully” out of “fear and apprehension, the genesis of which was not race-related.”

Interesting is the focus on the couple…just like the author of the article

Maybe because trespassing is a misdemeanor or infraction and holding a firearm in a threatening manner is a felony?

I have two thoughts. One, if the protesters want a defunded police, they can expect a lot more of this. What must be understood is that the same police they do not want around harassing them, will also not harass this couple, nor will the be there to protect them. Mob rule is a two-edge sword, allowing not only for mob violence, but violence against the mob.

Second, the line this couple fed the press is bull. One does not go out and confront a mob when “in fear of their life”. Legitimate self-defense means there must not be a reasonable retreat. This “stand your ground” movement is born of pride, not fear, and is never previously been considered self-defense. Now, if the mob had moved in and the shot the people that were moving into their home and property, then that would have been legally and morally justified.

I say moving into their property because of the number of people. Normally, the home needs to be entered, but with such a crowd, the totality of the situation might make it tactically necessary to shoot before that to protect their lives. This is just my opinion.

Yes, trespassers who broke open their gate:

From the same code (bold mine)

  1. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031.
3 Likes

True perhaps I didn’t pick the best article to represent the story. I was just quickly trying to link to one, because they like it on CAF when you are commenting on a story, to have a link. I was trying to find a neutral one, but this probably wasn’t the best choice. I have seen Politico publish left leaning and right leaning opinion pieces, so I thought they may be more neutral on this. Feel free to provide a link to a fairer piece.

You didn’t read the entire section. Holding a firearm in the act of defense is permitted, thus NOT a felony. There appears to be only one crime: that of the trespassers

6 Likes

It is worth noting under Russian law my wife points out you would be well within your rights to shoot people doing this if you warned them to back off first. The law was revised a decade and half or so ago she pointed out as before that it sided more with those breaking in but now if you did this and shot those breaking in it would be considered reasonable, especially if a large group is involved. I see idiocy on both sides of this situation myself and no side as clearly been the ‘good guys’.

1 Like

Actually, I’m very glad you posted that particular article as it proved my point about the bias of the author of the article. I noticed the first articles about this story all presented it as “look at these horrible white people harassing peaceful protesters.” Kind of reminded me of the Nick Sandmann story

2 Likes
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.