Missouri man who guarded home with rifle reveals that 'rumor is' he and wife will be 'indicted shortly'

[laylalex 7,300]

Here is an evenhanded piece from a local journalist on the gate. I found it pretty neutral. 

https://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/videos/watch-now-about-that-broken-gate-at-portland-place/video_549aab77-78a8-550e-9474-8b1a25660e4d.html

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Whether the McClosky’s or the HO community own the gate does not matter, it is not a publicly owned piece of property and therefore not open for public protests.  When people want to protest in front of a private residence, they have to stay on public property.

This.

 

When the *ahem* "protesters" returned, they were outside the Portland Place gates. Why was that? I wonder.

 

There's this comical, not-so-clever attempt to tell us not to be rash in jumping to conclusions but at the same time smearing the McCloskeys suggesting the intent of them stepping out on their own property armed was to further some lawsuit against them and the Portland Place trustees over a "triangle of land" indenture. Wild conspiracies and red herrings flying along with the clearly contradicting language about not being rash.

 

The McCloskeys took pictures of the busted gate. When the people broke it, if they broke it, is honestly irrelevant, in the very video posted in this thread at around 6 seconds you see one of the idiots holding the gate as it tries to shut, preventing it from shutting to let people in. Still, besides the point. Signs were there saying "PRIVATE STREET" at the gate entrance, people acknowledged they were entering private property and justified trespassing on private property with "civil disobedience", which is laughable and doesn't help their case. Once they walked through that gate they trespassed onto private property. They were shouting the usual slogans people torching buildings in his city were shouting. The McCloskeys property was the very first right there. These people already demonstrated the disregard for private property when trespassing. The McCloskeys feared for their safety, not the little disputed "triangle" (the confrontation commenced well beyond that little area), and had every right to perceive them the way they did, as they just demonstrated the willful disregard of boundaries to private property. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

 

5 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

You mean this gate 

 

The gate is not broken down by the "peaceful" protestors.  Clearly, it is taking a well-deserved nap.

 

Also, for a better perspective...

 

[laylalex 7,300]

Who is Where Liberty Dwells? I thought we weren't supposed to trust FB/TikTok/Twitter. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Who is Where Liberty Dwells? I thought we weren't supposed to trust FB/TikTok/Twitter. 

He's a democratic supporter, so it's ok to believe him.

 

Or one can just look at the picture and see where the actial crime was.

[laylalex 7,300]

4 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

He's a democratic supporter, so it's ok to believe him.

 

Or one can just look at the picture and see where the actial crime was.

I don't really know that that picture is what it represents. First it's very small. Second, I do not know that those dots represent what they say they do. Third, I cannot see any property lines.

 

And I trust trustworthy sources, no matter what side of the spectrum.  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

30 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

 

The gate is not broken down by the "peaceful" protestors.  Clearly, it is taking a well-deserved nap.

 

Also, for a better perspective...

 

The gate they point out on that dot is the vehicle gate. Just above the gatehouse/gate shack or whatever, above the "ate" in "private" (no puns pls ) is the gate in question. Rest of the stuff is fairly accurate, though not sure what "their property" means. From inside the gate it's private property, the McCloskeys property supposedly extends on the grass to the gate but part of that area is also disputed between them and the Portland Place trustees. Regardless, it's private property, and those people were trespassing.

Edited July 15, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[yuna628 9,712]

14 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Who is Where Liberty Dwells? I thought we weren't supposed to trust FB/TikTok/Twitter. 

#believerandomtwitteruserthatisincorrectaboutwhereandwhatthegateisbecauseitisnottheirpropertyandifithasaguardshackwheredidtheguardgo? 

 

None of it still proves who broke the gate.

If they were threatened violently in the slightest (each appearance they make more interesting claims).

And why they are terrible in using their firearms.

Edited July 15, 2020 by yuna628

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

8 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

#believerandomtwitteruserthatisincorrectaboutwhereandwhatthegateisbecauseitisnottheirpropertyandifithasaguardshackwheredidtheguardgo? 

 

None of it still proves who broke the gate.

If they were threatened violently in the slightest (each appearance they make more interesting claims).

And why they are terrible in using their firearms.

Why exactly is "who broke the gate" an important question? If they didn't break the gate, does it mean they weren't trespassing? Does it mean the McCloskeys had no valid reason for perceiving them a threat? Elaborate. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,786]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

#believerandomtwitteruserthatisincorrectaboutwhereandwhatthegateisbecauseitisnottheirpropertyandifithasaguardshackwheredidtheguardgo? 

 

None of it still proves who broke the gate.

If they were threatened violently in the slightest (each appearance they make more interesting claims).

And why they are terrible in using their firearms.

Even if there was no gate, it is still private property.  Are you suggesting it is ok to protest on private property uninvited?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,381]

2 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

This.

 

When the *ahem* "protesters" returned, they were outside the Portland Place gates. Why was that? I wonder.

 

There's this comical, not-so-clever attempt to tell us not to be rash in jumping to conclusions but at the same time smearing the McCloskeys suggesting the intent of them stepping out on their own property armed was to further some lawsuit against them and the Portland Place trustees over a "triangle of land" indenture. Wild conspiracies and red herrings flying along with the clearly contradicting language about not being rash.

 

The McCloskeys took pictures of the busted gate. When the people broke it, if they broke it, is honestly irrelevant, in the very video posted in this thread at around 6 seconds you see one of the idiots holding the gate as it tries to shut, preventing it from shutting to let people in. Still, besides the point. Signs were there saying "PRIVATE STREET" at the gate entrance, people acknowledged they were entering private property and justified trespassing on private property with "civil disobedience", which is laughable and doesn't help their case. Once they walked through that gate they trespassed onto private property. They were shouting the usual slogans people torching buildings in his city were shouting. The McCloskeys property was the very first right there. These people already demonstrated the disregard for private property when trespassing. The McCloskeys feared for their safety, not the little disputed "triangle" (the confrontation commenced well beyond that little area), and had every right to perceive them the way they did, as they just demonstrated the willful disregard of boundaries to private property. 

It should be that much common sense to anyone not pushing the narrative. sweet little peaceful protesters. Probably helped an old lady across the street and the way in

42 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Even if there was no gate, it is still private property.  Are you suggesting it is ok to protest on private property uninvited?

Well it seems to have made kopernickel a hero to the misinformed. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,381]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

#believerandomtwitteruserthatisincorrectaboutwhereandwhatthegateisbecauseitisnottheirpropertyandifithasaguardshackwheredidtheguardgo? 

 

None of it still proves who broke the gate.

If they were threatened violently in the slightest (each appearance they make more interesting claims).

And why they are terrible in using their firearms.

I would think a mob trespassing and standing outside their home would be threatening in and of itself, especially considering the violent nature of so many of the BLM  protests 

[laylalex 7,300]

Do the McCloskeys have the right to threaten people with deadly force to leave private property which they do not own? I mean, they don't own the private street. Presumably the HOA does. I mean, even when these people wanted to enforce part of the HOA agreement in the past to exclude unmarried couples, they recognized it was the HOA who had to enforce the rules, not them. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Even if there was no gate, it is still private property.  Are you suggesting it is ok to protest on private property uninvited?

 

  It's not OK, but you can't shoot people for doing it either.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

"threaten people with deadly force to leave private property which they do not own"

 

Stopped right there, this incorrectly reframes the issue, they were not threatened with deadly force if they didn't leave Portland Place. They were warned they were trespassing and not to come onto the McCloskeys property, with guns pointed at them (at least, at one point the lady pointed the gun, but don't know why), and also told the second they entered to leave Portland Place, that it's private property and can't protest there. Easy stuff.

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds