Gun-toting jerks squatting on land that doesn't belong to them (ETA: will speak at GOP convention)

[essentialsaltes]

Just so I understand the intent of the thread (and know which points I need to provide a rebuttal for)...is the intent of the thread to:

A) Make a statement about gun ownership?
B) Claim that they were racists who just pointed a gun at innocent people who were peacefully protesting?
or
C) The finer points of the binding contracts and property laws regarding HOA agreements?

D) These are dangerous garbage people, much like the dangerous garbage people at CHOP.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

D) These are dangerous garbage people, much like the dangerous garbage people at CHOP.

At least they never did anybody harm or damaged anybody else's property. They never asked to be put in this situation.

 

[wing2000]

Just so I understand the intent of the thread (and know which points I need to provide a rebuttal for)...is the intent of the thread to:

A) Make a statement about gun ownership?
B) Claim that they were racists who just pointed a gun at innocent people who were peacefully protesting?
or
C) The finer points of the binding contracts and property laws regarding HOA agreements?

I'll go with C. People enriching lawyers.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

D) These are dangerous garbage people, much like the dangerous garbage people at CHOP.

There's no doubt that their gun handling/training appeared to be very poor.

However, if I gathered 200 friends up (which I don't even have...but let's say I did) and busted into private property for the purposes of intimidating people...as I noted in my previous post, the Mayor's house can't be accessed from their neighborhood, so they were't "just on their way to the mayor's house"...the only way they could've done it would be to have cut through the back yard of the person who lived at the back-end of the community, and scaled their brick wall to get out... I shouldn't have any expectation of being met with a "safe situation" once I'm in.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

The St. Louis couple who made the news for waving their guns around are also involved in a lawsuit against the private neighborhood in which they live.

The Portland Place couple, now known for pulling out a pistol and rifle and pointing them at protesters who walked by their mansion on the way to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s house in the Central West End, said they were scared. They said they were defending their property.

That’s what the two attorneys have been doing in St. Louis Circuit Court since 2017, defending a sliver of property in what they call the “private place” of the toney neighborhood where they live. The defendants in the case are the trustees of Portland Place, who say a triangle of land that the McCloskeys claim as their own actually belongs to the neighborhood.

It’s a battle that is personal to the McCloskeys. So much so that this isn’t the first time one of them has pulled a gun on someone. In fact, the McCloskeys offer that action as evidence that they have owned the section of land near the pedestrian gate on Kingshighway that borders their property.

“Between the time of acquisition of One Portland Place and the construction of the above-referenced ten foot wall, the McCloskeys regularly prohibited all persons, including Portland Place residents, from crossing the Parcel including at least at one point, challenging a resident at gun point who refused to heed the McCloskeys’ warnings to stay off such property,” states an affidavit in the lawsuit.

Such it is in Private St. Louis, where the trustees of Portland Place say the sliver of land belongs to them, as it was described in assessor’s documents more than 116 years ago, and the McCloskeys say the legal concept of “adverse possession” means they own it.

Per Wikipedia: "Adverse possession, sometimes colloquially described as "squatter's rights", is a legal principle under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property — usually land — acquires legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation of the property without the permission of its legal owner."

They are completely morally bankrupt people. Disgusting.

 

[Aldebaran]

They are completely morally bankrupt people. Disgusting.

That's what we've been warning about all this time. At least the CHOP zone has finally been chopped up and the area returned to the rightful owners, minus all the damage the CHOP people did while they killed each other.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

That's what we've been warning about all this time. At least the CHOP zone has finally been chopped up and the area returned to the rightful owners, minus all the damage the CHOP people did while they killed each other.

What does that have to do with the morally bankrupt couple who brandished their guns in St. Louis?

 

[Aldebaran]

What does that have to do with the morally bankrupt couple who brandished their guns in St. Louis?

Oh, I thought you were talking about the BLM/Antifa group that were actually killing each other with their guns.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Oh, I thought you were talking about the BLM/Antifa group that were actually killing each other with their guns.

Oh well then you should go back and re-read my post so that you can see it was directly in response to an article specifically about the St. Louis couple trying to scam land from their development by squatting on it, which has absolutely nothing to do with BLM or Antifa. Do you support the morally bankrupt St. Louis couple and squatter's rights???

 

[ViaCrucis]

I dunno, 'gun toting jerks' 'squatting on land'.....I mean there seems to be a connection there, right?

Sure, but enough about the police. That's not what this thread is about.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[civilwarbuff]

Sure, but enough about the police. That's not what this thread is about.

-CryptoLutheran

What police?....you mean they actually showed up?....and whose land were they squatting on?....bet the police union got involved in that one.....

 

[ThatRobGuy]

D) These are dangerous garbage people, much like the dangerous garbage people at CHOP.

Less dangerous...they didn't destroy any property that wasn't their own, and they didn't kill anyone.

In terms of private & public property damages, as well as bodycount, CHAZ/CHOP still takes the cake in all categories.

I'm still trying to figure out what the protesters were doing in their neighborhood if they claimed they were just passing through to get to the mayor's house.

I provided lengthy details showing that the mayor's house couldn't be accessed from their neighborhood, in order to do so would've mean all 300 of them would've had to scale the 6 foot high brick wall that's in the person's backyard a the back of the development (I even provide streetview and GPS images in my previous post)

Seems to me like it's more of a case where the homeowners are perceived as the "right wing" and the protesters are perceived as the "left wing", so there's an effort coming from the various media outlets to vilify the entity that represents "the other side".

How about we just cut through the "Fox vs. CNN" nonsense and call this what it is with an accurate headline.

"300 protesters storm into private gated community to make rich people feel uncomfortable (to prove some sort of "point") as a detour on the way to the mayor's house, get confronted by people who clearly little to no firearms training and probably shouldn't own guns until they get better training"

Of course, that doesn't spin any sort of concise political narrative, so I don't think either side will go for it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm still trying to figure out what the protesters were doing in their neighborhood if they claimed they were just passing through to get to the mayor's house.

Does it really matter? Did MLK really need to be on the Edmund Pettus Bridge? You don't need to go through Selma to get to Montgomery.

 

[Aldebaran]

Oh well then you should go back and re-read my post so that you can see it was directly in response to an article specifically about the St. Louis couple trying to scam land from their development by squatting on it, which has absolutely nothing to do with BLM or Antifa. Do you support the morally bankrupt St. Louis couple and squatter's rights???

If I had to choose between them, I'd support the couple in St. Louis long before I'd support the terrorists and murderers in CHOP/CHAZ. People were actually being killed there, and the police and medical personel were prevented from rendering aid to those who were shot. Not to mention the fact that a larger piece of land was being squatted on and destroyed by the terrorists there.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Way more detail than anyone needs about their litigious and squatting behavior.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Way more detail than anyone needs about their litigious and squatting behavior.

Those are some nasty people.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Way more detail than anyone needs about their litigious and squatting behavior.

I am surprised he hasn’t had a Cabinet position in Trump’s Administration yet. No wonder they are held in such high esteem by some of the posters on CF.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Does it really matter? Did MLK really need to be on the Edmund Pettus Bridge? You don't need to go through Selma to get to Montgomery.

False equivalence. One is public, one is private.

One is a bridge that you can actually cross to get to the destination you claim to be going (and held a particular significance to the march as it was named after a confederate officer), the other is a private walled community that can't even be used to access the destination. Meaning, unless they all planned on cutting through someone's back yard, and scaling the six-foot brick wall at the back of the private neighborhood, they all would've had to turn around and gone back out they way they came in. (I posted the picture from Google street view showing the wall, as well as showing where they lived vs. where the Mayor lives)

To your first question...Yes, it actually does matter, because if the intent was "let's intimidate some rich people to make them uncomfortable", then that's something very different. ...and the response they got upon doing so was quite predictable.

When you storm private property with the hopes of intimidating people and "making them feel uncomfortable" (the organizer's words, not mine), you can expect certain people not to react so kindly to that.


This is really a matter of private property rights. Is a private property owner (or any member of a collective that's paying for the private roads via an HOA) obligated to allow 300 protesters to gather on their private property?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I am surprised he hasn’t had a Cabinet position in Trump’s Administration yet. No wonder they are held in such high esteem by some of the posters on CF.

An appointment to the newly created Department of White Grievances may be coming.

Missouri governor says Trump is ‘getting involved’ in case of St. Louis couple who pointed guns at protesters

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said Tuesday that President Trump would be “getting involved” in the case of the St. Louis couple who pointed guns at a group of protesters passing outside their home last month, and who are under review for criminal charges.

On Tuesday, both the president and Republican governor offered separate impassioned defenses of Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who went viral after brandishing guns at protesters on the private street outside their mansion on June 28.

The prosecutor investigating the McCloskeys, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner (D), responded by accusing Trump and Parsons of playing politics with a local criminal investigation. Gardner said the facts of the case and the applicable laws are still under review and she would “apply them equally, regardless of the people involved.”

 

[FenderTL5]

An appointment to the newly created Department of White Grievances may be coming.

Missouri governor says Trump is ‘getting involved’ in case of St. Louis couple who pointed guns at protesters

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said Tuesday that President Trump would be “getting involved” in the case of the St. Louis couple who pointed guns at a group of protesters passing outside their home last month, and who are under review for criminal charges.

On Tuesday, both the president and Republican governor offered separate impassioned defenses of Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who went viral after brandishing guns at protesters on the private street outside their mansion on June 28.

The prosecutor investigating the McCloskeys, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner (D), responded by accusing Trump and Parsons of playing politics with a local criminal investigation. Gardner said the facts of the case and the applicable laws are still under review and she would “apply them equally, regardless of the people involved.”

Fear and ignorance are often deadly when guns are introduced into the mix. The McCloskeys demonstrated all three and are very fortunate things didn't really go sideways.