I don’t recognize anymore where this country is headed. While peaceful protests are legal and guaranteed by the constitution, they certainly have gotten grossly out of hand on more than one occasion and in more than one place. Properties of uninvolved citizens have been burned down, vandalized and looted, and lives have been put in jeopardy. Unfortunately, such occurrences, quite understandably, instill a respectable measure of unpredictability and fear of protests and demonstrations in general. So, to me, when a property owner takes precautions to protect family and home, it is not only justified, it would be irresponsible to idly stand by and do nothing when means are available to do something. The McCloskeys in St. Louis are being accused by an enterprising “do-good” prosecutor of “unlawful use of a weapon”, ostensibly for the offense of flashing their legally owned firearms at protestors on or near their property, all while standing in front of their own home. No shots were fired and, thankfully, no damaged to their home or to anyone occurred. To me this was the correct use of firearms. Mission accomplished. Sometimes a show of force is the best way, maybe the only way, to avoid violence. How can that be bad?
- – – – but just the view of a common man.
Views of a Common Man 
Well said !
Sent from my iPad
LikeLike
I completely agree with Ollie’s statement, “When a property owner takes precautions to protect family and home, it is not only justified, it would be irresponsible to idly stand by and do nothing when means are available to do something”. Having lived through the Los Angeles Watts Rebellion in 1965, and survived the 1992 Los Angeles riots, this is really an emotional issue for me. Nevertheless I shall attempt to reply on the legal (not emotional) basis of an individual’s right to protect his/her property. Please note that different states have different protection of property laws. What may be the law in St. Louis, Missouri, may not be acceptable law in your state.
HISTORY AND THE WATTS REBELLION
The Watts Rebellion started with a low-key traffic stop around 7 p.m. on a Wednesday evening. Stepbrothers Marquette and Ronald Frye were pulled over by a white California Highway Patrol officer. Marquette failed a sobriety test, started a scuffle with an officer, backup police arrived, a crowd gathered and thereafter ignited what would become known as the Watts Rebellion. It lasted for six days, resulting in 34 deaths, 1,032 injuries and 4,000 arrests, involving 34,000 people and ending in the destruction of 1,000 buildings, totaling $40 million in damages.
HISTORY AND THE LOS ANGELES RIOTS
Twenty-six years ago, from April 29 to May 4,1992, in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict, where a jury acquitted four police officers of using excessive force in King’s arrest, much of the South Central area of Los Angeles was on fire and consumed by riots and looting. Homes and businesses were burglarized and destroyed by arson. Law-abiding people and business owners were mugged, beaten and robbed. Live television coverage captured an assault on a white truck driver, Reginald Denny, who was pulled from the cab of his vehicle, beaten, and smashed with a cinder block. It should be noted that he was rescued by good people from the neighborhood who had been watching the event unfold on television.
The LAPD pulled out and basically told folks in the worst-hit areas that they were on their own. The Korean-American areas were largely left without police, forcing business owners and families to take defense into their own hands. As the LA Times reported at the time, Korean shop owners and their supporters lashed out at police, saying they had begged for protection from vandals, who had already left a swath of Koreatown in ashes. But a small section of Koreatown, located just north of South Central, did not burn. Why? Because the Korean business owners banded together, exercised their Second Amendment rights and protected their property, their businesses, and their livelihoods. During a period of six days, more than 50 people were killed and more than 2,300 were injured, and property damage was estimated at about $1 billion.
STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS
About half of the states have some version of “stand your ground” laws. These laws don’t require people to back down from an attacker even when withdrawal is possible. A common variation on this concept is the “castle doctrine” which allows individuals to defend themselves against threats in and to their homes (expanded in some states to include cars and/or workplaces) without the duty to retreat. If persons are under attack and in fear for their lives, those persons have the right to use force to protect themselves. Every state has self-defense laws that detail the circumstances under which an individual can use self-defense (and the limits of the force that may be used) to justify their conduct without being convicted of a crime. It is important, therefore, to be familiar with the laws
of the state in which you reside.
THE MISSOURI CASTLE DOCTRINE
Missouri recognizes the “castle doctrine” and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your “castle.” This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances. Under the castle doctrine, Missouri law gives an individual really expansive authority to protect their own lives, their home, and their property. . Missouri’s law is more extensive than the law in other states because it permits property owners to use the amount of force reasonably perceived as necessary, including deadly force. This “deadly force” has now become an unclear issue that will likely need further clarification by the Missouri state judicary or legislature because some case law suggests that the castle doctrine does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from “the use or imminent use of unlawful force.”
THE McCLOSKEYS AND KIM GARDNER, LOCAL PROSECUTOR
The McCloskeys are personal injury attorneys who each face a single felony count of unlawful use of a weapon brought by the St. Louis Circuit Attorney, Kim Gardner, the first African-American elected to that office in 2017. She allegedly has an abysmal record in prosecuting violent crime, has been complicit in the release of dozens of inmates who have been charged with violent crimes, and has a record of allegedly making politically motivated decisions not based on the law. Billionaire George Soros was her biggest donor in her race for that office.
CONCLUSION
Will Gardner prevail in convicting the McCloskeys? Legal experts contend that they should not be prosecuted, much less convicted under Missouri law. Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said Missouri’s Castle Doctrine allows them to defend their property on Portland Place, a private street. He further
stated, “At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn,”
LikeLike