St. Louis gun-waving couple pleads
guilty to misdemeanors
Associated Press,
by
Jim Salter
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
6/17/2021 8:02:14 PM
ST. LOUIS— A St. Louis couple who gained notoriety for pointing guns at social justice demonstrators pleaded guilty Thursday to misdemeanor charges, but the man left the courthouse defiantly pledging to “do it again” if faced with the same circumstances.
Patricia McCloskey pleaded guilty to misdemeanor harassment and was fined $2,000. Her husband, Mark McCloskey, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor fourth-degree assault and was fined $750. They also agreed to give up the weapons they used during the confrontation.When several hundred demonstrators marched past their home in June of 2020, the couple waved weapons at them.
Other than completely innocent of the bee ess charges, it’s not too horrible. Bee ess again, they were defending themselves from the rioting mob.
42 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Mushroom 6/17/2021 8:15:45 PM (No. 818962)
I assume the trespass charges for the rioters are forthcoming?
63 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
LesUNo 6/17/2021 8:22:21 PM (No. 818964)
No!! This is so wrong.
53 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
comstock 6/17/2021 8:24:14 PM (No. 818965)
They're both lawyers. They know how the game is played and took their best option.
FTA: Because the charges are misdemeanors, the McCloskeys do not face the possibility of losing their law licenses and can continue to own firearms.
So they're out $2750 and Mark got some good publicity for his Senate bid.
53 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
DVC 6/17/2021 8:35:53 PM (No. 818975)
It's a clear miscarriage of justice to charge them with anything.
58 people like this.
So defending your homestead with a gun is harassment, but threatening to burn down my homestead with me in it is not?
Got it.
66 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
DARling 6/17/2021 8:37:14 PM (No. 818979)
Didn't the rioters trespass on a private drive? What charges are they facing? I'm betting none. They can trespass, throw rocks, burn down businesses and occasionally kill people with few to no consequences.
41 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
anniebc 6/17/2021 8:37:23 PM (No. 818980)
They are lawyers; all the more reason they should have fought this. They gave up their weapons. Shame! What kind of senator will Mark be if he folds like this? Is this how he'll fight for his constituents? Again, shame.
23 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 6/17/2021 8:37:32 PM (No. 818981)
We used to call this ''Blame the Victim.'' Now we can just call it ''Bury the Wounded.''
10 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
chumley 6/17/2021 8:44:03 PM (No. 818990)
They should have stayed behind cover in case of return fire. Besides, the peta people get all bent out of shape when you point guns at gorillas, even in self defense.
7 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
smokincol 6/17/2021 8:44:05 PM (No. 818991)
wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute I take serious issue with the opening sentence of this article ie: "A St. Louis couple who gained notoriety for pointing guns at social justice demonstrators ... " in what area of the Universe is Jim Salter, Associated Press, living in that instills in him the authority to write this trash!!!! he obviously did not see any of the event and is taking someone else's word that the McCloskeys are guilty of protecting their home. this kind of "journalism" has to stop!!!
44 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
EQKimball 6/17/2021 8:52:25 PM (No. 819003)
Had they gone to trial and lost, because they are lawyers the court would have been harder on them. No mitigating factor of ignorance.
14 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Robert D 6/17/2021 9:06:20 PM (No. 819014)
Plead guilty = guilty. No spine in this couple. Why vote for him?
12 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
FunOne 6/17/2021 9:42:48 PM (No. 819044)
These kind of stories make me feel great about living in a deep red rural state where everyone in the neighborhood has a small collection of "assault weapons" (referred to as an "arsenal" in the blue states), and with law enforcement that understands that selective violence by armed citizens toward rioters and other trouble-makers is justified. Related to that, the folks tend to avoid electing democrats.
16 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
padiva 6/17/2021 9:47:31 PM (No. 819048)
They had to give up those guns........and then go buy more. DUH!
Life isn't fair. I think they chose the best path which will protect their future plans.
(I think they should become a judges.)
7 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Omen55 6/17/2021 9:49:39 PM (No. 819053)
Remember the Gov said he would pardon them.
So how about it,Gov?
13 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
HisHandmaiden 6/17/2021 10:19:48 PM (No. 819070)
This is AP, folks...
Wait for ‘The Rest of the Story.’
KAG
6 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Sandpiper 6/17/2021 10:53:58 PM (No. 819087)
I moved out of California to another state, a much more conservative area. There was a home invasion in the neighborhood a few weeks ago and the criminal was shot and killed by the homeowner. No charges against the homeowner since it was justifiable homicide. In Cali the homeowner would now be behind bars. Ya gotta leave those crazy blue states!
17 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Newtsche 6/17/2021 11:16:40 PM (No. 819098)
Gun-waving, huh?
How about "threatened couple", acting prudently after the St.Louis mob had torn through the city in previous days, including at least one murder.
11 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
pensom2 6/17/2021 11:29:25 PM (No. 819105)
I seem to recall that the couple "brandished" their guns, but did not point them at the crowd of trespassers. Maybe I'm wrong?
8 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
web 6/17/2021 11:34:10 PM (No. 819108)
They were standing on their own private property defending their lives and property from dangerous trespassers, who made oral threats against them. In any sane community, they would then have been justified in shooting after being put in fear for their lives. No rioters, protestors or trespassers were prosecuted, as far as I know. Only them. When the government sides with the criminals, who do we turn to?
15 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
milwaukeeroad 6/17/2021 11:39:28 PM (No. 819109)
Curious what the result of the unchecked mob attack would have been if not tempered by a couple of gutsy homeowners? Any opinion on that, judge?
11 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
DVC 6/18/2021 1:42:55 AM (No. 819172)
I suspect that the two most important things in the negotiations were 1) keeping their law licenses and 2) keeping their 2nd Amendment rights. The rest is just a bit of $$ spent.
7 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
Jesuslover54 6/18/2021 7:31:15 AM (No. 819280)
Travesty.
4 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
TJ54 6/18/2021 8:42:25 AM (No. 819374)
Why did the Governor not pardon them and go after the persecutor, er, prosecutor
1 person likes this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
Laotzu 6/18/2021 10:40:22 AM (No. 819531)
They weren't "gun-waiving." They "produced a weapon."
0 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
Ebenezer 6/18/2021 1:16:10 PM (No. 819661)
Conveniently left out of the Ass. Press story was the fact that the "social justice demonstrators" broke down a gate to trespass on private property, and made threatening comments to the residents.
0 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
DVC 6/18/2021 1:19:51 PM (No. 819662)
Unfortunately, #26, the clearly untrained wife was waving the little Raven .25 pistol around like it was a flag or a pointer or something. Her gun handling was truly cringe worthy and if any student of mine on any range had come anywhere close to what she was doing, I would have removed the gun from her hands and had a good discussion about never pointing and waving guns around unless you are immediately going to shoot. She did herself no favor with that behavior.
And the husband should not have ever leveled the rifle at the crowd. Keeping that gun visible, but pointed straight up, and not pointed at any person would have had just the same deterrent value, and may possibly made a charge of threatening more difficult to sustain legally, once the dingbat prosecutor was replaced.
Pointing a gun at someone is entirely different than having a gun visible and not pointed at anyone. Both of these people pointed guns when they didn't need to and shouldn't have.
I support, in concept, what they were doing, but some better gun handling training might have saved them some of their legal problems.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)