Comments

ABOUT THOSE LETHAL LAWN LAWYERS — 126 Comments

  1. Mas — Responding to your comment, “the husband was smart enough to go on TV, explain his actions and hers, and get at least somewhat ahead of the narrative.” At first I thought the same, but… I think he made matters worse in how he did it. As I was mentioning to Jonah Smith above, here’s a rich white man who’s made a good living off the injuries and injustices done to black folk (his implication, he’s on the side of BLM and the protestors). But sure his clients are not living in mansions within gated communities as he is. Yes, he deserves his cut of the settlements for his hard work, but this has just GOT to be coming off to most folks as poorly applied veneer over his “white privilege.” I don’t think he “controlled” the spin. I think he tossed gasoline on a fire: “Oh, not *us* — we’re on *your* side. Promise. It’s not the money we make off your cases, no. It’s that we believe in your *cause*.” If you can’t say amen to that, say ouch.

    • Joe,

      You are probably right. The McCloskeys have three strikes against them; they are white, rich, gun owners. Leftists will view them as the enemy.

      On the other hand, many Americans can identify with the McCloskeys. They probably think, “If that nice suburban couple had to defend themselves against a mob, then that might happen to me also.” Those first-time gun buyers are now going back to the gun shop to purchase even more guns and ammo.

      Interesting. During the cold war the Soviets and the USA prevented WWIII because of Mutually Assured Destruction. Both sides had weapons of mass destruction, but neither used them because both sides valued life. Maybe we have so many guns in this country that a shooting civil war will be prevented, because neither side wants to die.

      • @ Roger Willco – “Maybe we have so many guns in this country that a shooting civil war will be prevented, because neither side wants to die.”

        Despite its acronym, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is actually a rational response to conflict. It required both sides to (a) perform a benefit/cost analysis and then to (b) logically decide that the risks and costs are too high to continue the conflict.

        Unfortunately, left-wing ideology is irrational. It is an “emotion-driven” ideology rather than an ideology driven by logic and reason. Let’s face it, given its long and continuous history of abject failure, no “rational” person can believe in left-wing ideology. The rational people, on the Left, merely use left-wing ideology to gain power and wealth. I am sure that, privately, they laugh and joke about the “Useful Idiots” who comprise the herd of “True-Believers”.

        I am reminded of the following quote which is often attributed to Winston Churchill:

        “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.”

        Therefore, given that so many on the Left are irrational and given that MAD is (ultimately) a rational response to conflict, I am doubtful that the common availability of firearms will stop the Left from provoking a shooting civil war. Especially since their firearms-prohibition strategy, which they have pushed for decades, has failed to disarm the American Public. While they would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to disarm all Americans before they strike, I doubt that they are willing to continue to wait for that to occur. The more emotion-driven among the radical Left are likely to say: “To hell with disarming the Deplorables, let’s strike NOW while we have momentum with us!”

        In other words, you may be engaging in “wistful thinking” there, Rodger.

      • Sorry, sorry, sorry for the typo in spelling your name (there at the end), Roger.

      • Agree with what TN_MAN says, with one clarification: an ideology is the love of an idea, generally some sort of all-encompassing, all-explaining, and all-inclusive idea that becomes the corner stone of one’s world view. There really are no ideologies based on logic. A position held based on the available facts and the best logic, subject to change should new facts come to light, or old ones be disproved, is not an ideology. One should not love ideas, but truth.

        Ideologies become articles of faith that can not be refuted–indeed, any attempts to refute them with facts and logic are taken as further evidence supporting them. They never refute the argument, rather they slander the person making the argument. Repeated failures when the ideology is put into practice always leads to doubling down.

        One of many problems with ideologies is that those who hold them tend not to be able to imagine that any reasonable person would not adopt the same ideology after being introduced to it. Anyone not climbing aboard the wagon are either stupid or evil, or a “hater”. And hate has no rights. Thus, the other side must be censored, marginalized, and otherwise disposed of.

      • @ Jacob Morgan – “There really are no ideologies based on logic.”

        This point could be debated. While I agree that most ideologies, especially political and religious ideologies, are based upon unproven (and often un-provable) beliefs, I think it would be possible to have a belief (an ideology, if you will) based upon logic and reason.

        For example, I could envision a scientist that develops such faith in the “Scientific Method” that it rises to the status of an ideological belief. This scientist’s attachment to the scientific method might be emotional in that it carries great confidence and even faith in the method. Yet, the underlying “Scientific Method” is certainly based on logic and reason.

        I could also point out a fictional example. In Star Trek, the Vulcans certainly had an ideology that was based upon logic. 🙂

        Your main point, however, is good. The human species is not yet fully rational and intelligent. Perhaps in another million years or so, if we survive, we may evolve to that point. Until we do, the vast majority of our beliefs still seem to be based upon emotional concepts. Many of them are nothing more than fantasy or superstition.

      • In days of old, I spent a lot of time reading the MAD literature. It really was a trip down the rabbit hole. In order for it to work you had to convince the adversary that you were totally rational and completely insane, at the same time. Clearly, something must have worked because there was no nuclear war but I am not convinced that it was MAD. Perhaps, it was the uncertainty. Our side was usually deliberately vague about what would happen and the Soviets were more like a cabal than a unitary executive. Even when the US produced a naive doofus like Carter, the Soviets were so cynical, they didn’t believe it. In the end, it was Reagan’s rejection of MAD with the SDI that finally broke the Soviets.

    • This situation could go from threat to violence instantly, if not already violent. I am thinking that a PAINFULLY BRIGHT, temporarily blinding tactical light that is not gun-mounted could be deployed as a fairly universally acceptable defensive step below violence that could consistently degrade the effective violence potential of any number of belligerent individuals. A light of lumen exactly of what level I am not sure, but very bright, yet not a laser. If it appears that the light will fail to deter attacks, and a combat situation is at hand, combat tactics with cover, concealment, and supportive crossfire should be adopted. A home defender should not have to wait to be fired upon in order to be justified in applying lethal force. One question is, when is a crowd a gang? That is, what qualifies as a mass target?

  2. Not a good idea to go outside and point weapons at a large crowd for basically walking in their driveway/private road. Much better to have remained inside behind locked doors and called police (yeah, I know) and advised them that they were armed and felt threatened. Attempts to break into house would justify use of lethal force much more than breaking a gate. Elected officials are throwing cops to the wolves now and will likely toss private citizens even faster. VOTE in November.

    • Mark, disparity of force being what it is, the crowd had expressed desire to kill them, burn their house down and kill their dog as they descended into the perimeter and curtilage. The homeowners had every right to do what they did, and were successful in thwarting the intruders.

      The ‘crowd’ can turn into a violent ‘mob’ even if just one of their own amps it up. The followers will always follow. These crowds who are willing to be violent, in the absence of a deterrent, cannot be allowed to encroach. As Mas teaches, the bad guys are NOT afraid of your gun. They are afraid you will USE it.

  3. To these folks, three pieces of advice: Training, training, training. I am positive that these people are those Dem/Lib. lawyers who voted for gun control. That said, they do have their right to protect themselves from hundred(s) of people violating their homes and breaking down gates. They likely prevented a full scale riot, looting and destruction.

    Hopefully these people get training and start voting against “reasonable” gun control laws.

  4. One thing for sure: the actions of all these left-wing, nutjob/rioters/looters/anarchists have got a lot more people thinking that owning a gun is a good idea. The Firearms-Prohibition Movement is being dealt a hard blow and the 2nd Amendment is being exalted (Hallelujah)!

    Gun sales are going through the roof. Furthermore, the ratio of handguns to long-guns is increasing. In other words, people are buying handguns at a faster rate then rifles or shotguns. See this link (be sure to scroll down to the graphs at the bottom of the page):

    http://smallarmsanalytics.com/v1/pr/2020-07-01.pdf

    If even a fraction of these new gun owners decide to get training, it will also ultimately prove to be a godsend for the firearms training industry. Mas, you might have to look at scheduling extra classes next year! The demand may be there once this Covid-19 pandemic dies out. 🙂

    Boy, I hope that some of my mutual funds are invested in Ruger or S&W stock! 🙂

    • TN_MAN:

      This may sound weird to many, and all on the other side, but when I was working for the city and encountered someone who told me they had a gun within reach, usually during a traffic stop, I would thank them for letting me know. When the incident was over, a few told me their gun wasn’t loaded but the ammo was kept next to it. I shocked them by advising they should keep the firearm loaded and ready for immediate action and use the example of a flashlight without batteries to illustrate. A couple of drivers I met during traffic stops had told me they had just purchased their guns, a male who bought a pistol and a female who got a revolver, and asked me if there was someone who could teach them how to shoot. Both these traffic stops were at night on deserted streets and right there by the side of the road, I gave them a basic lesson on gun handling and with empty hands, demonstrated how to grip the firearm and the difference between the Weaver and other stances. Of course I mentioned the safety aspects and described the proper sight picture also. This would be considered blasphemous by my left leaning department which advocated against people using firearms to protect themselves and just call 911 if they needed assistance. The people I advised about guns were somewhat surprised by what I said and did, but everyone appreciated my efforts to help them out. Wouldn’t it be great if the police would actually help folks instead of just enforcing the laws? I believe this would foster good will between the PD/SO and the community.

  5. I suspect that AR has never been fired. He never even watched the online videos Mr. Ayoob has online. A few hundred bucks in training could have saved them tens of thousands in legal costs.
    Heck most PDs had where a Officer would walk around your house, give suggestions on cutting brush, removing ladder, wood screw in window, sliding door… if asked about defense with guns you don’t expect much. (Other then call the Police). But they might get “do not go outside waving guns. Stay inside and only shoot if your life is in danger”

  6. Mobs looting, burning, rioting? ✔

    Mob destroys private property to gain access to public official’s private residence.✔

    Police are called. ✔

    Police refuse to respond/do not respond. ✔

    Thin veneer of civilization removed.✔

    Been nice if they had more training. Been nice if they had better firearms. Been nice if he wasn’t a pink-polo-shirt-wearing, personal injury attorney, and hence more acceptable in the eyes of some. Maybe he should have cowered inside as the mob rampaged through his neighborhood – the only thing stopping that from happenning is the mercy of the mob, and maybe that’s as simple as they hadn’t yet thought of it. Maybe I would have done something different.That is all armchair quarterbacking.

    What happenned is that this man and his wife decided to avail themselves of their God-given right to self-defense in the absence of their Government honoring the pact between governed and government framed in our Constitution. This action took courage and determination, traits lacking in elected Officials who have sworn to support and abide by this pact between the government and governed, and through weakness, stupidity, or willfull subversion, shirk their responsibilities.

    I applaude the actions of that couple, their courage, and their determination, and I don’t care one whit about their lack of muzzle control, fingers on triggers, or threats to shoot.

    WE THE PEOPLE

    • You make a good point, Dave.

      Jeff Cooper noted that a person engaging in self-defense must solve two (2) problems:

      Problem #1 is to defeat the threat and to survive the incident with minimal harm done to oneself, to other innocent parties and with limited property damage (if possible).

      Problem #2 is explaining it to the “Legal System” (we appear to no longer have a “Justice System”) so as to escape incarceration and/or crippling legal fines and fees.

      The fact of the matter is that the McCloskeys solved Problem #1. They are both still alive and their home remains un-looted and un-burnt. While, as you note, one can pick nits about their tools and their methods, it is hard to argue with success.

      Now it remains to be seen if they can solve Problem #2. It appears that the local left-wing, political persecutor (not a prosecutor as I understand the Office) would like to make an “Example” out of them. So, solving Problem #2 will not be a “slam-dunk” like it ought to be. 🙁

      Still, when all is said-and-done, the McCloskeys are half-way home to completing a SUCCESSFUL self-defense incident. They do deserve congratulations and praise for getting this far.

      • @ Curtis – “Will they ever again be able to feel truly safe and secure in their home?”

        The best defense is a good offense. It does no good just to hide in your home and hope that the BLM protestors will get tired and go away. The McCloskeys should go on the legal offense. If I was in their shoes, I would consider doing the following:

        1) Apply to the courts for a Restraining Order against BLM. Their right to “protest” does not extend to violating private property. They should request that BLM, and any protestor marching under their banner, maintain a distance of at least 1,000 feet from the McCloskey property boundary.

        2) File suit against BLM for defamation of character, property damage and for mental anguish. Make it a big suit for at least 250 million dollars.

        You see the beauty of the above approach. If a Restraining Order is issued, then every time a protestor, carrying a BLM sign, comes closer than 1000 feet, it is a LEGAL VIOLATION. The protestors can be, legally, penalized. In addition, every new violation provide more and more evidence that can be added to the ongoing BLM lawsuit.

        In the end, it would not matter if they won the lawsuit or won a big judgment against BLM or not. It would threaten BLM. Indeed, even the Discovery Motions that the lawyers could bring against BLM would be painful. I am betting that BLM would not want to have its records and finances dug into. While the Anti-American media would gloss over anything bad dug up during discovery, the Conservative Media sites (Townhall, American Thinker, Redstate, etc.) would have a “Field Day” with the material.

        A good legal offense might make BLM “pull in its horns” and move on to new targets. It might make the McCloskeys too dangerous and/or costly of a target to keep trying to terrorize.

        The legal fees might cost the McCloskeys some money but Mr. MCCloskey is a lawyer himself and has other lawyers who are his friends. He knows how to play the legal game. If it cost him a 5-figure legal fee, it might well be worth it to chase BLM off with its tail between its legs and to save his property.

  7. The American Left sees “racism” every place they look. If a leftist happens to be born with a white skin, then he or she even sees it when looking into a mirror. In which case, they then prostrate themselves in repentance, self-hatred and self-loathing.

    In my view, an ideology that requires you to hate yourself is so, so, so sick. This current flavor of left-wing, identity-politics is so destructive to the self-esteem of people of the white race and to men (in general), that I simply don’t understand why so many fools seem to lap it up. I certainly would not subscribe to an ideology that taught me, as a basic premise, that I was nothing more than a POS and was beyond redemption no matter what actions I took in mitigation.

    As a result, their ENTIRE WORLDVIEW is shaped by “racism”. They find “Racists” behind every tree and bush. They can’t even turn over a rock with finding a racist hiding underneath it! They see racists even in the faces of black policemen.

    Naturally, this incident with the McCloskeys is viewed through this racist lens. See this link for an example of the single-mindedness (and narrow-mindedness) of Leftist thought in American today:

    https://www.motherjones.com/anti-racism-police-protest/2020/07/the-st-louis-gun-couple-can-stand-their-ground-on-a-racist-legal-doctrine/

    As you can see, they cannot even view old English Common Law principles without first putting on their racist-colored glasses.

    The school teachers, collage professors and media people who have taught our young people to engage in such self-hatred and self-loathing are criminals and traitors to America in the First Degree. I pray daily that the biblical promise of justice (Galatians 6:7) will be fulfilled upon these criminals.

    “Galatians 6:7 – Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

    • TN_MAN:

      Maybe American liberals who suffer from self-loathing will follow the Iranian example and march in the streets beating themselves on the back with chains. If they’re too wimpy to do so, I will gladly flog them with chains and do it with mucho gusto, for a reasonable fee of course, to be paid in advance and in cash.

  8. Just read that the couple in question was revisited by the mob. Calling the police and private security services produced no help. According to the report I read one private security company representative advised the couple to abandon the property and let it burn.

  9. Mas-This post has received far more commentary than most. I think we’d all benefit from knowing your take on the Lawn Lawyer’s (love that BTW) actions.

    • We need to know more. We’ve seen cell phone video from the protesters’ perspective; we need to see what (if any) is available from the McCloskeys’ security cameras to show their perspective of what they faced.

      • True. When I first saw this I was immediately reminded of past cases you’ve covered which boiled down to the law and juries generally frowning upon people going outside their homes with firearms, as if they went looking for trouble. Upon further information on this case (i.e. Missouri law regarding Castle Doctrine extending to curtilage, and threats made by possibly or perceived armed people), my thoughts changed towards the homeowners being in the right, legally anyway. Be interesting to see where it goes.

    • Chuck,

      Thanks for sharing that. So I guess someone in the legal system believes a white couple in their 60s, who have used those guns without firing a shot, to defend themselves on two occasions, need to be disarmed. But, mobs of white and black youths who spend more than a month burning and looting buildings need to be left alone.

      Except for technology, we have entered a new Dark Age. If this continues, either a physical separation or a civil war will be in the future for those on the Left and the Right.

    • I haven’t yet seen an article which cites the grounds for seizing the rifle. At the risk of seeming cynical I might suspect the authorities are deliberately disarming the McCloskeys in prep for a return visit by the mob.

  10. The TV was on the other night and I saw a story on the local DA filing charges and allegedly moving to seize the AR. The segment also featured video of the incident from the “protesters” point of view. Unfortunately, there was at least one very obvious case of the man muzzling the crowd. Don’t know the law in that state, but he might have a legitimate problem.