St. Louis McCloskey Kim Gardner
Mark and Patricia McCloskey, stand in front their house along Portland Place confronting protesters marching to St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson's house in the Central West End of St. Louis. (Laurie Skrivan/St. Louis Post-Dispatch via AP, File)

By Jim Salter and Heather Hollingsworth, AP

A judge on Friday denied a defense request to return to a grand jury the case against a St. Louis couple accused of waving guns at racial injustice protesters last year.

A St. Louis grand jury indicted Mark and Patricia McCloskey in October on felony charges of unlawful use of a weapon and tampering with evidence. Their attorney, Joel Schwartz, filed a motion this month seeking to send the case back to the grand jury to decide if the couple should have been indicted in the first place. Schwarz cited “bias” in St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s office that he said tainted the grand jury process.

Special Prosecutor Richard Callahan — who was appointed months after the indictment — said Circuit Judge David denied the motion and set trial for Nov. 1. The next hearing will be in June.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson, File)

Callahan declined to comment on the ruling itself, and Schwartz didn’t immediately respond to text messages from The Associated Press seeking comment. Gardner’s spokeswoman, Allison Hawk, said the office is no longer handling the case and had no comment.

Demonstrators were marching to the home of then-Mayor Lyda Krewson on June 28, amid nationwide protests after police killed George Floyd in Minneapolis. The protesters ventured onto a private street that includes the McCloskey mansion. The couple, both of them attorneys in their early 60s, said they felt threatened after protesters broke down an iron gate and ignored a “No Trespassing” sign. Protest leaders denied damaging the gate and said the march was peaceful.

Mark McCloskey came out of his home with an AR-15-style rifle and Patricia McCloskey emerged with a semiautomatic handgun. Cellphone video captured the confrontation.

Gardner said the display of guns risked bloodshed. A police probable cause statement said protesters feared “being injured due to Patricia McCloskey’s finger being on the trigger, coupled with her excited demeanor.”

Schwartz, from the outset, alleged that the prosecution was politically motivated.

Callahan, a longtime judge and former U.S. attorney, was appointed special prosecutor after a judge in December ruled that Gardner created an appearance of impropriety by mentioning the McCloskey case in fundraising emails before the August Democratic primary. Gardner went on to win reelection.

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner (AP Photo/Jim Salter, File)

The McCloskeys emerged as celebrities in conservative circles. They spoke on video during last summer’s Republican National Convention, and Missouri Gov. Mike Parson has vowed to issue pardons if they are convicted.

Politico recently reported that Mark McCloskey is considering running for the Senate in 2022, after Republican Sen. Roy Blunt announced in March he would not seek reelection.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

101 COMMENTS

  1. The agenda requires prosecution, or is that persecution, of anyone who exercises their God given rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Elections have consequences and we allowed the communists to steal the last two, Nov/Jan.

  2. Burn Loot Murder Rioters, not demonstrators or protesters. The overwhelming majority of Minority Homicide Victims are from Urban Street Gang Violence.

    Until that Culture is driven into extinction, Burn Loot Murder should be given no credibility whatsoever. Protest “Da Hood” and the Gang Culture.

    • Sorry to tell you this, but based on personal experience even in Texas charges will still be pressed. Even when a a retired Military Policeman displays a firearm to prevent being run off the road by a convicted Crack dealer (time in federal prison for distribution of Crack cocaine) who tried rear ending and then side swiping a vehicle that’s half the weight (2400 lbs vs crackdealers suburban)

      Charges against retired military policeman while police refused to charge the crackdealer for deadly conduct for repeatedly trying to hit the smaller vehicle. DA pressed charges too.

      2 years to get dismissed and expunged. And a crapton of attorney fees ect, and 2 pistols lost.

      • well that may be so, but they sure didn’t charge that AD Cav scout when his car got surrounded while he was rideshare driving and that dude menaced him with a low ready AK. Splattered the shit that dude had for brains with his carry piece and the worst thing that came from it was Uber or Lyft or whatever tut-tut’ing him and not letting him drive for them anymore, as if getting mobbed or shot was better.

        • Tut-tut’s… Lol

          What pisses me off is the media and all these wanna best saying they were “boog”. Lol, no. That idiot is a prime example of what the boog isn’t.

          Fucking wannabes.

  4. “The protestors feared being injured…?”

    Really? And the fact that several of that same mob were recorded while threatening to attack the McCloskeys, take their guns, and burn down their home means nothing?

    Well, since D.A. Gardner believes such a mob is permissible, I wonder what kind of a tune she’d sing if a large group of “peaceful” protestors walked up to her own house during her dinnertime and yelled threats against her?

      • True. That is the narrative.
        Note what the media and Creepy Joe’s administration is saying. “The biggest threat to the US is White Supremacy and domestic ‘white’ extremists.”

        POTG are thrown in the same basket, no matter their ethnicity or race.

    • Clearly, the “fears” were misplaced, weren’t they? Why isn’t that reason to drop the case, simply that the unreasoning panic was not just wrong, but stupid?

    • To be accurate, the group was going to the home of the Mayor. The MCCloskey’s were never the destination or target of the group. There for are no reports of any other homes feeling under threat. Nor neighbors taking to display arms.

  8. Y’all are some assholes, hell I was there, they didn’t break the gate, and those stupid ass people should’ve stayed in their fucking house or even on the porch and just let them walk on by. Their fault.

    • There are a bunch of pictures of the broken gate on the internet.
      Try using Google, it didn’t get busted up by itself.

    • Central west end,
      If you were there, as you said, then you are one of the rioters, looters, killers, arsonists that need to be forcefully removed from society.

      You also said :”…stupid ass people should’ve stayed in their fucking house…”

      The actual stupid ass is yourself, I saw the videos, and you and your “bros” were very threatening and violent while trespassing on private property. Do you even know the meaning of “private property”?
      I doubt very much you can even read beyond a third grade level.

      Just remember, what goes around, comes around…

    • Central west end,

      Stop being stupid and go back to your parent’s basement

      If you were there, you belong in jail.

    • I don’t believe you were there. Even if you were you are almost certainly Marxist scum and nothing you say is believable anyway. Long story short= no one believes your fantasy.

      • My guess is most people who actually were there were too stoned to remember it.

    • “…even on the porch and just let them walk on by….”

      In fact I think that’s what they did. They stayed on their property by the front door.

      Not seeing your issue with what they did…maybe clarify?

      • Yep, would have been just as easy to let them be if they didn’t mean any harm… Instead, the simple sight of someone willing to protect their property gets accosted and threatened. Almost like that was their intention to begin with? The only thing this couple did was tell those assholes in the crowd “I’m your huckleberry.” That crowd could have just ignored them and kept walking, but they never do, because they are not peaceful.

        • Well…. Frankly, he has a point. The people were going to the Mayor’s residence. Not the Mc Closkey’s. So the threat is questionable.

    • I hope your house gets fu**ed up by some nice rioters that give you some of your own medicine, preferrably burn the entire house down while you stay inside and disarmed, just as you suggested.

      • There was no riot. And the people were going to another address. Only one set of neighbors escalated here. They have a right to defense. But, not to egg on issues.

        • Trespassing on a private street and private garden. It doesn’t matter where they were going, Missouri law is very clear that you are allowed to kill every trespasser and even those attempting trespassing just because you feel like it. Because it is your god given right.

        • Except at the mayors house was nowhere near there. They were not only where they shouldn’t have been, they were where they didn’t even need to be.

    • too bad you didn’t get froggy…… sheet….. dat sheet wooda bin funy….ni l k a

  9. I would have an excited demeanor if a mob broke down an iron gate to my house.
    Does it matter that she had her finger on the trigger?
    You cant even protect yourself or property from a mob of “Burn Loot Murder” criminals?
    I bet the cops would have been there fast if some kids were skateboarding on a private street.
    Whats this world coming to?

  11. Kill them all next time. Leave no witnesses 😉

    But personally, I think aside from their “poor training”, the mckloskeys were as 2nd amendment as it got in 2020, and their lack of training actually made it so much sweeter. Muzzle awareness? Yea, I’m aware my muzzle is pointed at the enemy.

  12. The Maccloskies had previously used that pistol as an exhibit in court. They had tagged it to a gun smith to be rendered incapable of firing as a precaution. Mrs MacCloskie was endangering no one and the DA knows it.

  13. McCloskey’s are lousy examples of gun owners. They over-reacted to a non-threat. No one was on their property. The gate was broken long before the protest and was broken more severely after they came out with the guns. Protestors completely ignored the McCloskeys and all other properties, they were on their way to the politician’s house.

    The background on this couple, appearing in many news stories paints a real ugly picture.

    They have nothing to do with the Second Amendment. They are the kind of elitists who’s “The law is for me not for thee” deserve to lose their gun rights forever.

    • Was it some “Jim Crow” type shit?
      You didn’t mention “Jim Crow”, are you feeling OK?

    • Lol fuck you.

      What a FUDD statement.

      “They deserve to lose their 2nd amendment”.

      Wow. All this ranting and raving about the jim crowe gun restrictions and now this is the path you chose?

      Pathetic. You will never be a POTG.

      • …and ‘Montana Actual’ knows what it is to be a tacticool loser and pretend veteran who will never know what it is to truly be a ‘Person Of The Gun’, believe me!

      • The Fuck is on you idiot. Debbie was dead on target about the McCloskeys. You do know they are wealthy Democrat lawyers right? They own guns but want to deny others the same “privilege” as they see it.

        Everyone here who has spoken out against the McCloskey Snowflake Team is giving solid facts. They are a pair of sue-happy whiny bitches. Nobody threatened them at all.

        Hell yes, they deserve to be punished.

    • The fact that it was fenced means it is private property, or government own/leased property that isn’t in the public domain. If you have to pass physical barriers you are most likely trespassing.
      When a mob comes past a barricade, even onto the common area that IS PART OF THE HOA, they are trespassing. There is a reason the fence was there.

      • So with no threat to yourself and not a single person on your land you pick up your gun and run outside to taunt them? Bunch of protestors chanting about the bad mayor, headed for the mayor’s place, and you want to entice them into a shoot-out with yu and your fat assed wife?

        Having a hard time find Castle Doctrine in this one, seeing as how they completely ignored the McCloskeys and their LIBERAL lawyer-mansion.

        How about Stand Your Ground then? Well, as another posted, nobody attacked them and Stand Your Ground only applies if you are not the aggressor.

        They fucked up. They are a pair of idiot snowflakes who fucked up. Now they are trying to POTG to get some public sympathy and maybe somebody else to pay their legal bills.

        Just as rich Democrat (Guns for me not for thee) lawyers would do.

    • They should have shot every last trespasser on sight. All of them. They broke down the gate and entered a private street and private garden. They forfeit their right to live by trespassing.

      “2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
        (3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
      3. A person does not have a duty to retreat:
        (1) From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;
        (2) From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or
        (3) If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.”
      Missouri Revised Statute § 563.031(2)(3)

      • Walking a street is not justification of force. Nobody was entering their home or any of the neighbors. The Mayor was the targeted address and the only party who could have a claim.

        • Private street on private property with a private gate that was broken down. That’s textbook trespassing and a death wish in Missouri. Their mere presence is a reason to kill them, just because you don’t want them there, and you don’t have to tolerate them there.

        • Not all streets are public property. The mob had to break down a locked gate and walked down private property (the street and sidewalk). Ergo B&E, trespassing and threatening violence & destruction of an occupied structure. If MO has a “stand your ground” law or castle doctrine, this so-called case should be thrown out with prejudice.

        • “the targeted address”…

          So if they mayor did it, then ok… Self defense. Cuz that house was the OBVIOUS target of a mob riot clad city…

          Hey real, house cat.

    • Go make a sandwich or something….sheesh….. or is that rooted in Jim crow gun control.?
      bring your nappy azz around my house and see the spectacle unfold on yous az z.

  14. Gotta throw this in. So, do we all remember how to tell when a politician is lying? Answer is the same as forever, “You can see his lips moving”. SO!! Now we know why Joe Biden continues to insist on wearing several masks when everybody within a mile of him has been vaccinated.

  15. And yet our Lieutenant Governor, Lurch Fetterman chased an unarmed black man down the road in 2013 with a shotgun, and is now a candidate for the US Senate with the blessings of the PA Democratic Party machine.

    • so does your mother…. actually it only covers her nasty mouth…. doesn’t do anything for her frumpy a zz…
      matter of fact, next time I see your mother on the street corner ima smack the ugly off that bi ch

  17. They should have shot every last trespasser on sight. All of them. They broke down the gate and entered a private street and private garden. That crime made them forfeit their right to live before they even threatened anyone. But they were threatening them, which is all the more reason to kill all of them.

    “2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
      (3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
    3. A person does not have a duty to retreat:
      (1) From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;
      (2) From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or
      (3) If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.”
    Missouri Revised Statute § 563.031(2)(3)

    • You have not met the test to use deadly force. Trespass is not going to cut it.

      2. Under Missouri Law, when does a person have the right to use deadly force?

      Under Missouri Law, self-defense occurs where physical or deadly force is used to prevent an unlawful, imminent threat of physical or lethal injury. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.031 (LexisNexis, 2016). Self-defense is a justification acting as an affirmative defense to a crime, giving the defendant the burden of introducing the issue and the prosecution the burden of defeating the justification beyond a reasonable doubt. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.031(5). To discuss the legal use of deadly force in Missouri, the use of physical force must be discussed preliminary as it sets out the foundation for deadly force.

      Under Missouri Statute § 563.031, “a person may . . . use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he . . . reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself . . . or a third person from what he . . . reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.031(1). This defense does not exist if the actor is the initial aggressor, unless he withdraws from the fight and communicates it, or he is a peace officer. Id. Also this defense will fail if in the case of using physical force to protect another, the actor reasonably believed the circumstances to be a situation in which the person being protected is not justified in using the same amount of force to protect himself.Id.

      “‘Deadly force’, [is] physical force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he or she knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.011(1) (LexisNexis, 2016). Generally speaking, a person may not use deadly force in the situations designated in § 563.031(1) unless one of three additional circumstances are involved: (1) The person defending himself/herself reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or third person against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony; (2) deadly force can also be used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by the person in defense; (3) deadly force may be used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual in defense of such. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.031(2).

      Self defense grants a defender the privilege to use deadly force in the effort to defend himself against personal harm threatened by the unlawful act of another, if the defender has reasonable cause to believe that (1) there is immediate danger and threatened harm will occur; (2) the harm threatened is death or serious bodily injury; and (3) deadly force is necessary to overcome the harm as reasonably perceived. In addition, to invoke this privilege, the defender must “have done everything in his power, consistent with his own safety, to avoid the danger, . . . and he must retreat, if retreat is practicable”, before responding to the threatened harm with deadly force.

      State v. Hafeli, 715 S.W.2d 524, 528 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986); quoting State v. Ivicsics, 604 S.W.2d 773, 776 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980); State v. Sanders, 556 S.W.2d 75, 76 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977); State v. Jackson, 522 S.W.2d 317, 319 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975). For situations (2) and (3) of section 563.031(2); in a dwelling, residence, vehicle lawfully occupied, or private property owned or leased, a person does not have the duty to retreat. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.031(3). This is commonly referred to as “the Castle Doctrine.” Thus for situations that fall under subsection (1) of section 563.031(2), the person defending himself must try to retreat if possible and safe before the use of deadly force is justifiable.

      A person may also use physical force in defending personal property, but can only use deadly force for such if it falls into one of the three categories described in section 563.031(2) above. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.041 (LexisNexis, 2016). Missouri also grants the use of force in a private person’s making an arrest. A person may use the reasonable physical force necessary to make an arrest if instructed to by someone he or she reasonably believes has the authority to make an arrest or prevent escape from custody. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.051(1) (LexisNexis, 2016). A person may also use the necessary physical force to make an arrest or prevent escape on their own account if they reasonably believe that the person they are arresting committed a crime and the person they arrest in fact actually did commit a crime. Id at § 563.051(2).

      A person may use deadly force in making an arrest or preventing an escape if (1) they are justified in doing so based on the three categories in 563.031(2); (2) he reasonably believes he is authorized to and is directed to or authorized by a law enforcement officer to use deadly force; or (3) he reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to affect the arrest of a person who, in his presence, committed a class A felony or murder, or is attempting escape by use of a deadly weapon. Id at § 563.051(3).

      Another situation where Missouri grants the use of force is when the actor is a person responsible for the operation of or the maintaining order in a vehicle or other carrier of passengers and the actor reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent interference with its operation or maintenance of order in the vehicle. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.061(3) (LexisNexis, 2016). Deadly force may be used only when the actor reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury. Id.

      Missouri has a bill currently awaiting Governor Nixon’s approval that will expand the use of deadly force: Missouri Senate Bill No. 656 (SB 656). SB 656 has two primary changes in regards to the use of deadly force in § 563.031. SB 656, pg. 5 (98th General Assembly, 2016). First, SB 656 modifies the castle doctrine by allowing those legally invited by the property or dwelling owner to use deadly force against intruders. SB 656, pg. 5. Second, SB 656 adds the “stand your ground” law by getting rid of the duty to retreat for self-defense purposes when the actor is at anyplace he or she has a right to be at. Id.

      In summary, there are many occasions where Missouri authorizes the use of deadly force, whether it’s from an immediate threat of serious bodily injury, a person is invading a home or private property and posing an unlawful threat of injury, a person is effecting an arrest and justified by law enforcement, or even a bus driver or airplane pilot trying to maintain control and safety in their vehicle against a deadly threat. With that being said, there are also some restrictions that occur such as the duty to retreat in cases not involving your castle (home, vehicle, or private property). Further, just because deadly force is justified in a criminal trial, it does not bar any remedies available in civil trial, unless the absolute defense, section 563.074, is successfully made. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.016 (LexisNexis, 2016).

      https://cantorinjurylaw.com/missouri-firearms-law/

    • Not one person trespassed on the McCloskey’s property or threatened them in any way. While I expect the Governor would pardon them if convicted, that’s political just as much as the desire of a very liberal DA to prosecute them is political.

      Problem is the McCloskey’s are guilty of threatening th use of deadly force when they themselves were under no threat and it was their own actions with the potential of creating such a threat.

      Guess what, read any Stand Your Ground statute in any state. All disallow a Stand Your Ground defense if the incident was instigating by the person claiming it.

      In other words you may not walk out of your home to start a violent confrontation with anyone who was not violent in the first place. Especially when those persons are not on your property.

      • Not one person threatened them?

        Ok… Watch the videos.

        Funny how the recordings start AFTER gates are broken down.

  18. This should be a lesson for all… When the “peaceful protesters” bust down the gate and act like idiots, put one between the eyes of the obvious leader & then train sights on the next one that acts like they’ll cause trouble. Once they’ve trespassed & broken and entered, their excuses are over and done with. Put them down like the dogs they are…. Eventually we’ll have real peace OR we’ll have a bunch of dead “protesters” that’ll start dwindling in numbers.
    I’m ALL FOR peaceful protests and speaking your mind, but once you cross the line & think you can bust through fences & private residences, you’re a criminal. Period.

    • That would all be true but none of it happened to the McCloskeys. The gate was busted and complained about by residents long before this march on the Mayor’s house. Nobody busted into any private residence. No one even set foot on McCloskey property.

      The McCloskey’s have been trying to take property they do not own, by legal chicanery. A tiny area of grass, up to the gate. Also they have been trying to take a piece of property that the neighborhood association allowed school kids to place bee hives on for a school project. McCloskey destroyed the children’s bee hives and threatened neighbors with a gun to keep off the strip of land they were trying to lay claim to.

      I find nothing in their behavior to make laudable about their gun ownership or behavior toward anyone.

      But yes, if a trespasser forced entry onto private land by breaking down a gate, or busted into a home, hell yes on Castle Doctrine and all the rest.

      Trouble is, none of that happened to the McCloskeys.

      • Busted before huh…

        So it was easier for them to bust it wide open.

        Just because my fence has a broken board doesn’t make it not private property all the sudden.

        Dumbass.

  19. Tactically speaking, I would not have stepped outside, as the McCloskys did. I would not want the mob to see me.

    I would be armed and have multiple magazines and weapons at-the-ready, but would have remained out-of-sight while monitoring the crowd from behind blinds or curtains. Out on the lawn, they were too much of a target. They could be cut down while firing in self defense. Indoors the ability to shoot and move under cover increases the chance surviving while stopping the bad guys.

    Also, indoors and out-of-sight is far less antagonistic.

    That being said, the McCs had every right to defend their property. Aside from sloppy gun handling, they had courage and acted within the law (at least, as I understand the law). I hope they are successful counter-sueing those that are persecuting tham.

    • Lifesavor: what you would have done is what any normal person would have done. Faced with superior numbers, most likely some armed, and inside a somewhat defensible position (not trying to get tacticool here, just common sense) why wouldn’t you watch it develop from a place of cover and react if the situation warrants action? Sure, they have the right to do what they did, but really they were just being dicks for the attention. Oh, and BLM can suck my balls. I don’t think I’d like to have a beer or three with BLM or these Lawyer assholes.

    • Along with some others here I have to point out that no one stepped a toe onto the McCloskey’s property. That i snot a thing that happened, Instead, the McCloskey have been attempting to claim ownership of common property held by the neighborhood association. Including a small area of grass up at the gate.

      Another area they claim to own had some children’s bee hives for a school project, with permission from the real owners. The McCloskeys destroyed the kids bee hives and threatened adult neighbors with guns and lawsuits.

      I do not see how the McCloskeys were under such a threat that they needed to got out and point guns at people. I do not see how they deserve any respect when their behavior is looked at in the light of real events and their history of severe overreaction and land grabs by hook or by crook.

      Not nice people.

      • Not claiming it… They invested in a gated community for obvious reasons….

  20. “… the display of guns risked bloodshed.”

    Wow — now people can break out in wounds just from seeing guns?

    . . .

    Where can I get one of those?!?!

    • No, not what it means and I’m sure you know that.

      The angry woman had her finger on the trigger sweeping the crowd of passersby with the gun. A crowd including children. Any person that stupid could accidentally shoot someone.

      Which is the point.

      • But that’s not what the blathering politician said. And it being a politician, I doubt there’s enough knowledge about guns there to recognize poor gun discipline.

      • If you brought your children to a mob during riots in the city (riots don’t start and stop just cuz it’s night time) then you are the idiot.

        Funny how it’s acceptable to target a mayor when it’s your liberal mob, but if conservatives target politicians it’s instantly a riot…

  21. Wow, some crazy talk in this place but some straight talk too.

    Trespassing? How? The McCloskey never saw a single person on their property, not a one. They saw a big crowd coming down the street.

    Broke down the gate? Nope, the gate was complained about for being busted long before this thing happened. It got busted more than it was but that was after the McCloskey’s and their temper tantrum. So somebody in that crowd of Mayor Haters could be charged for vandalizing a previously and still busted gate.

    What we have here is a big crowd of people walking down a private street chanting anti-Mayor stuff. The snowflake McCloskeys are hopping mad about it, so they call the cops. So far that’s fine, no problem there. They grab their guns too, had they stayed in their home, that’s fine too. They go outside, well, gee whiz, there’s nobody on their property. So they go further, they get closer to the Mayor Haters and point guns at them.

    Wifely McCloskey even has her finger on the trigger and is just pointing the gun up and down the crowd, back and forth.

    Some people take notice and stop to yell at the McCloskey’s. Others move to stop them, keep people moving to the Mayor’s house.

    Nobody ever does one god damned thing to the McCloskeys or so much as a blade of grass on their property and never had any intention of doing so.

    You people should read up on the history of the McCloskeys. This is not their first rodeo of acting like elite, above the law asswipes. They’ve tried to seize property they do not own. They’ve pointed guns at neighbors and destroyed property themselves. They’ve sued just about everybody including their own family to get control of property.

    Calm the fuck down and get informed about who those idiots are. They are the worst possible characters for POTG to be promoting as heroes.

    Then look up Stephen Willeford. Now there’s a hero for you. There’s an outstanding example of why American citizens need and have a right to own guns. Go ahead, run a search on him, you’ll figure it out.

    Fuck the McCloskeys.

    • Sadly, many are thinking with passion and emotion over facts and law. The idea this was a lethal force situation is losing credibility here.

      • No it’s not.

        You FUDDs and liberals come out of the wood works for threads like these.

        You are not fooling anyone here. We see it all the time. Come as fast as they go.

        Bye, little house cat.

    • Heroes, lol. No.

      People like you confuse our acknowledgement of 2 people standing up to a mob as total defense for their actions, or that any of the details on their last matter at all.

      Would most of us chosen a safer path? Probably. Would most of us had more discipline? Yea. Would most of us not seen how important the bigger picture of standing up to a mob is? Clearly. No matter how much you tell yourself that stopping them from stepping one foot on a blade of grass is “wrong”… It’s the rightest shit anyone did in that whole state that year.

      If more people did it, instead of arming behind doors, would the moba have lasted so long? Tell me no. Tell me we are not the first line of defense against the entire shit show that was 2020… Tell me. People like you believe that conceal carry is safer not because out of sight and out of mind, but you have been manipulated for so long by gun control that you believe the one crazy person with a gun represents the majority. You feed them. You give them a reason to push the out of sight out of mind argument.

      Hide and cower. It’s what you’ll always do best. Those who chose to disregard the public opinion and meet a mob at their lawn, or the end of their fucking street for that matter, deserve more credit than you ever will for being selfish behind locked doors. It doesn’t matter what kind of people the mckloskeys were, or are… It’s what they did in that moment. That is all. Stop trying to twist a narrative out of it and undermine actual POTG, just because you wish so desperately to fit in where you never will.

      Run along now little troll, find another username to hide under.

      • NAILED IT!!!!!….. EXCELLENT POINT MONTANA!..
        THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE MAJORITY OF GUN OWNERS….. THEY ARE ALL ABOUT THEMSELVES…… THESE PEOPLE ONLY HELP THE LEFT WITH THE HIDE MENTALITY…

  22. Kim Gardener is a piece of scum BLM Attorney General. She is a example of how our Laws are trashed and BLM Terrorist are running the Country. BLM Protesters that came into the gated community with a no Trespassing sign should have ALL been Arrested, charged and sent to Jail. NOT released. No one should have to put up with Terror from BLM. And if they want to stand on their Front lawn they should damn well have that right. Americans are So damn sick of BLM terrorist. 180 violent riots alone in 2020. Destruction to the innocent business’s, torching Police Cars, attacks on thousands of People. NO SIR! NO MORE catering to these animals period. Bravo to the Gardners. They took a STAND and all of Good Americans should be PROUD. Damn BLM to hell!

Comments are closed.