Ruger Pistol Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I know we can protect our property but is there a line we can't cross or does anything go. For me I can see both points of view and can't make a clear cut decision one way or the other. Any comments? Den
Click on the photo for better view
BB167DGt.img.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
I suspect that once reviewed by a higher court the indictment will be thrown out. Just MHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whiskeyshooter

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,586 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Whiskeyshooter

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
A group (mob) of people break through a gate and shout verbal threats of bodily harm and property damage at the home owners while they sit quietly is to be taken seriously. Displaying a fire arm in response is reasonable. IMHO. Those 2 people ,only2, and their age, would have no chance of physically defending themselves against a couple of those younger people.
If all the politics wasn't in play, the peaceful (?) protesters would be facing charges. Again IMHO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
A group (mob) of people break through a gate and shout verbal threats of bodily harm and property damage at the home owners while they sit quietly is to be taken seriously. Displaying a fire arm in response is reasonable. IMHO. Those 2 people ,only2, and their age, would have no chance of physically defending themselves against a couple of those younger people.
If all the politics wasn't in play, the peaceful (?) protesters would be facing charges. Again IMHO
I agree the protesters were on private property and were breaking the law. We have few facts of the event and for all we know the protesters passed by many homes while making their way to the final destination. Some homeowners may have simply just let them walk on by but the McCloskey's chose to go outside and stir things up. Like poking a bee hive.
If my version of the story is correct then in my view the McCloskey's may have misused the second amendment. This reminds me of an event that went down years ago when a community watch fellow picked a fight with a kid walking down the street. In the fight the kid was shot and killed. The watchman could have just watched the kid or called the police.
Believe me I think this these of protesters should be thrown in jail. And unsafe confrontations can be avoided. What a mess we are in! Den
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
It didn't appear that the McCloskey's were 'stirring things up'. Rather, they were keeping things from getting any more stirred up. Dems love context so in keeping with the context of the past few days of violent rioting and looting, and after the 'peaceful protesters' already had demonstrated their penchant for violence and property damage by breaking through a gate that had clearly been marked "PRIVATE PROPERTY" and threatening physical harm and property damage to the homeowners inside, IMHO the McCloskey's did the only reasonable thing left available to them to protect their lives and property, that is, make use of the 2A as guaranteed by the Constitution. And the facts of the event were videotaped. What else would you have had them do? Stand down and let their home be ransacked and perhaps be physically assaulted, or protect themselves from an angry mob?

Read my .sig and its worth repeating: There is no greater protection against evil on the rampage than a loaded firearm in the hands of a free man.

Seems that strategy worked pretty well in this instance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Unlawful Protest, trespassing, threatening. Victims charged. Seems to be the norm these days. CNN will constantly announce all protest as Peaceful. And that is while actual videos show burning down stores, looting, assaulting Police officers and others etc. BLM is a Terrorist Organization by all definitions including the FBI's. 2 billion dollars in damage across America and still going strong.
If Al-Qaeda had done this, they would have been neutralized by any able citizen. And of course they are watching with Glee as BLM wrecks carnage and fear across America.

BLM leader makes statement to America. "If we do not get what we want, we will burn down the system". So are we going to continue to let them? When will we draw the line and say NO MORE?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I agree with you guys. The McCloskey's had every right to protect their property. I just watched a video of the protesters walking through an open gate and were walking down the street towards the Mayer's house. It looks like the McCloskey's engaged the protesters first and if they didn't the protesters would have walked on by.
Believe me I'm tired of the silly protests and also think the rioters should be rounded up and locked up for a long time. Not for just 10 minuets like the libtards do. Den
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
". I just watched a video of the protesters walking through an open gate and were walking down the street towards the Mayer's house. "

My understanding is that while most just walked through an open gate, someone at the head of the line damaged and entered a closed gate. They also shouted threats at the people. That to me sounds like they were the first to engage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
". I just watched a video of the protesters walking through an open gate and were walking down the street towards the Mayer's house. "

My understanding is that while most just walked through an open gate, someone at the head of the line damaged and entered a closed gate. They also shouted threats at the people. That to me sounds like they were the first to engage.
I would have to agree here. From my understanding, the McCloskey's were having a BBQ in their backyard and heard the commotion at the front of their house. They went to investigate and (based upon the context I described in my post #6) determined that they'd better arm themselves to protect themselves and their property. Protestors, who in the past have demonstrated a real potential for escalation to riotous violence, breaking through a locked wrought iron gate marked "PRIVATE PROPERTY" that is, in fact, protecting private property legally suffices as 'first engagement.'
 
  • Like
Reactions: louchia

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Nothing in the video alters the facts of the case. Whether the gate was previously in disrepair is irrelevant as long at it was serving its intended purpose at the time. Whether is was on the McCloskey's property or on property common to the housing development is irrelevant. They still broke through a locked gate to trespass on private property. And again, given the protestors track record of escalating to violence, the McCloskey's were justified in using firearms as allowed by the 2A to protect themselves and their property. Your observation that Mrs. McCloskey 'looked drunk' is a personal speculative opinion and irrelevant in a court of law, however it could be used to demonstrate a level of bias against the McCloskey's. One thing is for sure... Both McCloskey's demonstrated a lack of knowledge of how to wield a firearm and need some basic training. But again, that is irrelevant to their need to protect themselves and their property against a mob that has previously demonstrated their willingness to use violence. It would be interesting to determine if any individuals in the mob had travelled across State lines and into the area to participate in the protest and if they received any outside funding for that travel.

Regardless, the Court will determine if the McCloskey's will stand trial for their actions and if any charges will be brought against the protestors. Anything said here is simple musing in a discussion group but fun to engage in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
There is no greater protection against evil on the rampage than a loaded firearm in the hands of a free man.


Your point of view is well stated and fits this discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
There is no greater protection against evil on the rampage than a loaded firearm in the hands of a free man.


Your point of view is well stated and fits this discussion.
Thank you. I appreciate that very much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
I agree the protesters were on private property and were breaking the law. We have few facts of the event and for all we know the protesters passed by many homes while making their way to the final destination. Some homeowners may have simply just let them walk on by but the McCloskey's chose to go outside and stir things up. Like poking a bee hive.
If my version of the story is correct then in my view the McCloskey's may have misused the second amendment. This reminds me of an event that went down years ago when a community watch fellow picked a fight with a kid walking down the street. In the fight the kid was shot and killed. The watchman could have just watched the kid or called the police.
Believe me I think this these of protesters should be thrown in jail. And unsafe confrontations can be avoided. What a mess we are in! Den
In all the classes I have been in you neve point a firearm at anyone unless you are ready to pull the trigger. Low ready isnwere it belongs. Once you point it it must be in a situation which calls for deadly force.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
There is no greater protection against evil on the rampage than a loaded firearm in the hands of a free man.
Your point of view is well stated and fits this discussion.
I agree!
“The Second Amendment is timeless for our Founders grasped that self-defense is three-fold: every free individual must protect themselves against the evil will of the man, the mob and the state.”
--- Tiffany Madison
 
  • Like
Reactions: chefduane

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
In all the classes I have been in you neve point a firearm at anyone unless you are ready to pull the trigger. Low ready isnwere it belongs. Once you point it it must be in a situation which calls for deadly force.
Yes. Read my Post #12. Their ability to manage a firearm in a dangerous situation is sorely lacking. And they can be rightly and correctly admonished for their lack of firearm safety awareness.

However, that does not negate or nullify their 2A right to employ one in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I respect everyone's opinion and can see where everyone is coming from. When I revert back to my training, we learned when to and when not to draw our weapons depending the scenario. In my view the McCloskey's should have just had their Pistol holstered in plain view and carbine slung over a shoulder and tell the protestors just to move on! Move on! and if the scenario changes then change with it. Pick your fights wisely when you have the choice. The McCloskey's drew attention to themselves for what reason? To practice their 2nd amendment rights or to practice their fear? The protestors were walking to another destination and couldn't care less about the McCloskey's .
In my abstract way of looking at things, this reminds me of a person going out of their way to walk up to a person with a camera and yell and scream "don't film me!" Then the person with the camera says "of course I'm going to film you. You are yelling and screaming at me for no reason!"
I must stick with my training. Denny
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
The protestors were walking to another destination and couldn't care less about the McCloskey's .
Given what has /had been going on at many other protests/ I think the McCloskeys had every reason to expect that they could be in big trouble. The protesters acted in a very provocative manner.
I also think that they should have taken a differant posture and kept the guns holstered or slung over the shoulder. She made the big mistake of pointing her revolver at the protesters. In this political climate/ that would be a no no.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top