The gun debate got a bit re-kindled a few days ago when a wealthy St. Louis couple stood on the lawn outside their expansive palazzo in St. Louis and told a bunch of protesters – somewhere between a hundred and five hundred of ‘em; the estimates vary widely – to keep on going. One pundit immediately remarked, “The Roof Koreans have been joined by the Lawn Lawyers.”
Both husband and wife are attorneys who appear to specialize in personal injury law. I can see why they’re rich enough to own that palatial mansion: the husband was smart enough to go on TV, explain his actions and hers, and get at least somewhat ahead of the narrative.
The anti-gunners, of course, immediately called for their heads. The pro-gun side seemed to actually split: all agreed that their gun handling was egregious and their tactics could have been better. Some, however, said they were foolish to go outside with an AR15 and a pistol and point t hem at folks, while others for the most part took their side. See here:
…and here:
And why does someone who can afford to live in a multi-million dollar mansion buy for defense a pistol that looks as if it was cast from zinc? If the wolf was at my door and I gave my wife one of those and took an AR15 for myself, she’d consider it grounds for divorce.
Readers, what’s your take on the whole thing?
Addendum:
Mark McCloskey interviewed by Chris Cuomo:
or watch video here.
Mark McCloskey interviewed by Tucker Carlson:
or watch video here.
You dont go to war with the army you want. You go with what you have. I commend thier courage. Thier act likly not only protected thier home, but thier neighbors as well. Not one was accidently hurt by thier actions, i give them a pass and support them fully.
They did what was needed with what they had… The fact that the thug politics of the socialist state can be dissuaded if you take the initiative… Not the first person to grab their gun an run out bare foot against evil in the streets. Maybe it should be part of these tactical gun training programs Massad?
Here is my take:
1) Rich, white, Left-wing liberals usually let their private security guards deal with the riff-Raff. Maybe it was the guard’s day off or else they were too cheap to hire a good one? I expect that they have corrected that mistake (by now) and have since contracted with a reliable firm for enhanced security for their home.
2) Obviously, both are untrained in the handling of firearms. I guess that they were hoping that their firearms would magically protect them. Fortunately, for them, no one in the mob tried to really challenge them. Without proper training, who knows what would have happened if they had to actually use them? It could have been a bloody disaster. Nevertheless, lack-of-training or not, I support their 2nd Amendment Right to defend their property and their own lives. If they have supported firearms-prohibition laws, in the past, maybe this incident will force them to reconsider their views on the value of the 2nd Amendment.
3) I disagree that the pistol looks “as if it was cast from zinc”. The video quality is too poor to tell the actual model but it is not something like a Hi-Point. All we can tell is that it is a small, shiny, semi-automatic pistol. Probably nickel-plated. Given that these are rich folks, my best guess is that the pistol is something along the lines of a nickel-plated Walter PPK/S similar to the one used by the female terrorist, Katya, in the movie “Die Hard with a Vengeance”. See this link:
http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Die_Hard_with_a_Vengeance#Walther_PPK.2FS
Such a pistol is just what a rich man might buy for his wife’s personal use. Especially if it was dolled-up with nickel-plating and/or fancy grips.
I was thinking a stainless Walther PPK/S, but after a little googling decided that the cut for the extractor was too long. Still, something along those lines. Good quality or bad, who knows?
No spare magazines were apparent for either of them. Still, bottom line is that the crowd didn’t attack them. Like most cases where a gun is used to stop assailants…or potential assailants…the guns aren’t fired. All that was need here were two people with guns and the obvious willingness to use them.
They clearly need training. Gun handling was awful, especially hers. Still: they prevailed. Under the circumstances, I’d cut them slack and tell them to get trained.
Kahr 40, a gun Mas likes a lot, is the first thing I thougth of. Stainless, solid, pwerful, accruate, reliable, not that expensive. Or perhaps that dame version in nine. Brownign make High Power in nickel, and in hard chrome, but I think the one she had was smaller than that.
Confirmed it’s a Jimenez, about the cheapest burner .380 pistol you can get.
@ Sian – Bravo! I have been “racking my brain” trying to figure out what is the model of pistol that the woman is using. A Jimenez JA-380 never occurred to me. As someone who appreciates a fine handgun, I have never owned or shot a JA-380. Heck, I don’t think that I have ever even held one in my hand. That is why a JA-380 did not spring to mind for me.
However, after looking at pictures of them, on the web, and comparing it to an enlarged view of the pistol in the woman’s hand, I believe that you are correct. The trigger, extractor, sights and shape of the slide are all correct for a JA-380. What I mistook for an external hammer is actually the “Cocked Indicator” used on Jimenez pistol designs.
I assumed that the woman had small hands and, based upon this, I took the caliber as probably .32 ACP. However, if the woman has fairly good-sized mitts, then it could easily be a .380 ACP.
Mas’ “cast from zinc” observation is not far from the truth. I was clearly wrong to disagree with him about it. I should have known better then to dispute Mas on a subject related to firearms. Mas, please accept my apologies.
Isn’t it strange, though? These people are wealthy. They can obviously afford “Top Drawer” firearms. Yet, when a mob comes knocking on their gates, what do they arm themselves with? An “Old Style”, Retro AR and a Jimenez JA-380!
If their gun handling did not scream “amateur” then their choice of firearms surely did. Clearly, these are not “Gun People”. Not surprising since, to paraphrase the Good Book, it is easier for a Camel to go through the eye of a needle then for a White Liberal to become a “Gun Person”! 🙂
I wouldn’t volunteer to stand in front of one when it went off.
Actually, OpenSecrets lists two different Mark McCloskeys, who the Internet is confusing. This Mark M. was a Bush donor and Patricia wrote fat checks for Trump; the other guy in another state is the big D supporter.
” If the wolf was at my door and I gave my wife one of those and took an AR15 for myself, she’d consider it grounds for divorce.”
No, she would shoot you in the fleshy part of the butt and grab the AR while you patch the leak.
Or stab you in such butt…more het style. 😀
Handling was bad. High or low ready would have easily warded off most complaints.
Yelling was unhelpful. When pack confronts pack, reasoned articulation amounts to little more than barking. The silent wolf with fangs bared invokes greater fear.
That aside, they confronted the mob and the mob merely barked back and moved on. The protester who allegedly armed up was dissuaded from further show/act of force.
I contend this is why suburbs generally haven’t seen such protests/riots, and why the Atlanta riots were rather limited: populace tend to be armed, with less finesse (vs police) in application thereof.
It was not a MOB. dammit. It was a group of protestors walking peacefully past the house. When they came out with weapons they clearly were ill-trained to carry, they were the ones escalating the problem.
It was most definitely a MOB. When they breached that gate they entered private property unlawfully. Trespassing is against the law. Rioters outnumbered homeowners significantly. Movement towards them can easily be interpreted as intent to do harm.
Totally wrong. Peaceful left the building when they broke down the gate!!
Mob. They forced themselves onto private property by breaking down a fence.
They were told to leave by the couple and they continued on private property.
Some reports say the group had at least one armed member.
Given the poor behavior by “protesters” recently and the fact that they damaged private property and were on private property after being told to leave, they were a mob. The mob was lucky no one got hurt.
Gun handling sucked but otherwise the couple were well within their rights.
Herb, when you break down a man’s gate and invade his private property, you are not “peacefully” “walking” past a house. You are INVADING that man’s personal space and his private property,
Peaceful protesters don’t kick down security gates. Nor do they yell that “You’re next. We’re going to kill you and burn down your house.”
Note that this happened >before< McCloskey went inside and retrieved his rifle.
They may have been poorly trained, but that were, in fact, threatened.
Soo, the peaceful protesters that broke the gate of the private community and threatened to kill their dog and burn their home…. those peaceful protesters?
The protestors walked through the gates onto the property of the McCloskey’s. They were trespassing and threatening the property owners. The McCloskey’s were not protecting them selves from people passing on the sidewalk but from trespassers on their property who were threatening them.
Sorry Herbert, they broke into clearly marked private property, en masse. Definition of mob; 1: a large and disorderly crowd of people
especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action
2 informal : a large number of people
They were a mob. I would actually say that by preventing further incursion onto their property, they de-escalated the situation. You may not like their training, but their impact was pretty damn effective.
Well, the word is out that this 4th of July weekend Antifa IS going to take it to the suburbs.
Bruce A. Frank,
I heard the NYPD was going to go on strike July 4th, just to show New Yorkers what one day without police will be like. Something about the officers coming down with “blue flu.” Maybe it’s just a rumor.
I feel that Mr. McCloskey explained his actions logically in his interviews with Cuomo and Tucker. I consider the response to be reasonable, given the circumstances.
I’m curious about how long the stand-off lasted and how it ended? It must have been frightening facing down the agitated mob beating drums and chanting in front of his house.
As John Farnam once said,
“More than one, draw the gun.”
Hey Mas—
I believe Andrew Branca will be doing his Facebook show today on this very situation. I rarely miss an episode. Watching his stuff is well worth the time invested.
Check out his stuff on Facebook at Law of Self Defense
https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefense
First off, IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc., etc.
That said, I think the couple were completely within their rights and acted quite reasonably and appropriately, under the circumstances.
For those who criticize their gun handling: We don’t know how long they’ve owned those guns. It’s possible they were purchased during the Covid-19 rush and — given the “social distancing” lockdowns — they have not been able to acquire training yet. It’s also possible they’ve owned them for years and have not gotten training. We don’t know, and it’s inappropriate to criticize where we don’t have all the facts.
For those who criticize their tactics: See above. If they haven’t taken a basic firearm safety class (for whatever good or bad reason), it’s unreasonable for us to expect they’ll have taken home defense or small-unit tactics classes and act like a professional fire team.
For those who criticize their choice of weapons: That little pistol may be all she’s comfortable with, and if that’s the case it’s better to have something small than nothing at all. As for the AR, good on him for “bringing enough gun”. No, there’s no way one magazine holds enough rounds to put down every member of a mob numbering in the hundreds, but it was a big enough threat to get — and hold — the mob’s attention.
Now, for the legal parts (and again, IANAL), from what I’ve seen and read it went something like this:
1. Large mob breaks down a gate to enter private property. [Opportunity]
2. Residents observe some members of the mob are armed. [Ability]
3. Armed mob members make verbal threats against the residents. [Jeopardy]
4. Couple arms themselves and makes a show of force, and situation (eventually) ends with no shots fired.
AOJ triad met, the “Lawn Lawyers” were completely within their rights. Certainly enough for reasonable doubt if they end up being charged, but I don’t imagine they will be.
I’m also told Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state, but in my non-attorney opinion that only bolsters their already-solid argument; it’s not the lynch-pin their self-defense claim hangs on.
All things considered, though we can criticize some of the particulars, overall this was self- and home-defense done right, and as a bonus nobody got hurt in the process.
5. Standing up in your own defence, priceless.
All states have Castle Doctrine but that only means you are not required to retreat when faced with a threat. The entire neighborhood is private property and the mob had to break through a gate to gain access. Missouri includes curtilage as part of the home. Does that make the mob, marching down a neighborhood street, equivalent to home invaders?
All states have some version of Castle Doctrine, but to varying degrees.
Oregon (my state), for example, has it such that a resident is not required to retreat within one’s own home (or temporary residence), and is immune from criminal penalties. However, a defending homeowner can still be sued in civil court by the attacker (if he survives) or attacker’s family (if he doesn’t). And no, not all civil court judges appreciate the right of self-defense, regardless of what the statutory law and the State and U.S. Constitutions say.
True Castle Doctrine, as is commonly understood, includes all three: 1. No requirement to retreat, 2. Immunity from criminal penalties, and 3. Immunity from civil lawsuits. It’s usually that third one that varies state-to-state.
And (again, IANAL) if the law includes a home’s curtilage (for those unfamiliar, curtilage refers to the land attached to and surrounding a structure — e.g. a yard or property around a home — and depending on state law may or may not include garages and out-buildings for the purposes of home-defense), then it’s part of the home and if the mob was showing indicators of violence while within the curtilage, they could be responded to as home invaders.
Just my opinion, though, worth every penny you’re paying for it. 😉
I used Andrew Branca’s definition of Castle Doctrine which limits it to the absence of a duty to retreat no matter what that duty might be in public. (Branca is the author of The Law of Self Defense.) He considers criminal and civil immunity and the presumption that a home invader poses a deadly threat to be separate issues.
At the bare minimum, Castle Doctrine applies within the four walls of your home. In states hostile to self defense, it may not apply even to an attached garage. In other states, it includes curtilage, which is parts of your property you use routinely. Examples would be a detached garage in the suburbs or your barn if you are a farmer. In some states, Castle Doctrine also includes the business you own, your place of employment or your automobile when you are inside.
Would multiple, physically capable people who are not armed be considered to have “ability”?
I would think so.
So if more than 2 people show up on private property, are acting in a way to suggest “jeopardy”, are close enough to demonstrate “opportunity”, are you justified in shooting?
I think AOJ is all there, even though they might be unarmed.
An unarmed person 30 feet away might have Ability — we’ve certainly seen enough stories of people killed or permanently disabled from a single punch — but from that distance does not have Opportunity.
Multiple unarmed people 30 feet away certainly have Ability, but also do not have Opportunity. They’d either have to close distance (the video in unclear how close they actually came, and McCloskey said the gate is 80[?] feet from the house), or indicate they have a weapon capable of rendering the distance irrelevant.
The hiccup is, how close is “close enough to demonstrate Opportunity” for multiple unarmed assailants? I don’t know of any established rules of thumb for that. The Tueller “21-foot rule” covers a single assailant armed with a knife or club, not multiple unarmed assailants. It might be similar or it might not.
If I were on a jury, I’d press to allow more distance for more assailants. It’s easy to say “21 feet” against a single attacker, but if three or five guys are rushing you, you’re going to have to put rounds on target, and then switch targets, reacquire sight picture, and put more rounds. Then repeat. All the while, your other attackers aren’t stopping or slowing down.
Personally, I think a quick formula like “21 feet, plus 7 more for each attacker beyond the first” might be reasonable, provided of course you stop if they stop. But with no established research it may not hold up in court.
(And that kind of practical thinking might be why I’m never selected for juries.)
Point of vue of a french guy in france.
Agree with them, the invaders are lucky, i think your castle doctrine applied here. Didnt see the videos, my ears not very accomodated with english but will give a try.
Don’t know what the lefts want but fight is not far, in every coyntries. They push the minorities against the majority, not a good strategy.
Regards
Vincent
Hello Vincent:
Good to hear from someone on the other side of the pond. I would like to say that most Americans are not as dumb as many folks around the world think. However, there are a great number of stupid people in the U.S.A. as you can see on the TV news and they are the liberals wanting to transform our nation into a Socialist country like Cuba or Venezuela. If you think things are bad in America now, wait until November. If Donald Trump loses to that evil senile Joe Biden, you will see the U.S.A. go down the toilet, but we good guys on this blog will go down fighting. Pray for us. Viva La France!
Please do say that most Americans are not as dumb as many folks around the world think!
Remember that the liberal media, when portraying conservatives and libertarians, will go out of their way to find the dumbest, craziest-sounding person available. The interview with the educated, reasonable-sounding person gets left on the editing room floor. This leaves viewers with the impression that conservatives are uneducated, class-less, and backward … which is no accident or coincidence; it’s exactly the image the media wants to send.
So please, when you’re seeing a news report from America, assume that they’re not interviewing the smart people, and on the whole Americans are much less dumb than how we’re portrayed.
Stay inside. Convey loud verbal commands from behind a locked door. Maximize your Fourth Amendment protections and domicile protections under state law. “Stop! Go away! You’re scaring me!” Yell it out the window while on the phone with 911. Get it recorded. You’d expect lawyers to be smarter than to go outside and risk the argument that they “forced the confrontation” or committed aggravated assault by pointing guns at people who didn’t appear to yet be an immediate threat. Not that easy to make these decisions, is it? But these same types of people expect cops to do it perfectly every single day.
You are quite naive to think the mob in their yard didn’t appear to be an immediate threat. It doesn’t take the mob long to start chucking rocks and bricks through the house windows and starting fires. When dozens or hundreds of the mob left the sidewalk and trespassed onto their property, smashed their property, and threatened the home owners, that’s a threat.
Bet that worked wonders for business owners who were burned out.
You assume a mob thinks. It doesn’t, it is not a rational thing.
And they were on private property, having already damaged property.
As self-defense lawyer Andrew Branca likes to point out, there’s a big difference between what’s legal, and what’s smart.
While I agree that those folks were within their rights to do what they did— and understand why they felt compelled to do it— I suspect they may be wishing they’d stayed inside.
But what happens if they stayed inside, and the mob started to burn down the house? A molotov cocktail comes through the window. The house ignites. You round up the family, and head outside into an angry, rioting mob. They’re so close and so angry, they set upon the family, and assault or murder them.
That does not sound like smart tactics. Would it be better for them to take cover, and quietly monitor the mob with guns in hand?
The other problem is with only two people, the mob could easily flank them, and come around the other side of the house.
Without a team, the homeowners appear to be hosed.
> there’s a big difference between what’s legal, and what’s smart.
As far as I have been able to ascertain, the couple were within their rights under their local laws. And they were definitely being threatened.
The “correct” solution taught by some experts is to retreat and let the insurance cover the damage. (“personal protection” type experts like wealthy people might use, not “tactical operator” experts)
But I haven’t been able to find out if they had a place to retreat *to*. Climbing into the Prius or Humvee and plowing through the crowd might not have worked, and that would have left them worse off than they were already. And most policies have clauses covering things like “riot” or “insurrection” where they don’t have to pay out. Most places, they’re technically not riots… yet. Even if they could retreat, they might have been left with the clothes they were standing in, still owing payments on a house they no longer had.
“It’s only things and not worth your life” sounds all civilized and reasonable, but if it was *my* stuff, I’d laugh at that.
They don’t look like they’re very familiar with guns, and frankly, they look like they’re scared and blustering. In all honesty, in their place I might do no better.
I don’t know… for some reason a lot of the bits of this story don’t sit well with me. But the bad guys left, nobody got shot, and there was only minor property damage, and in my book that’s a solid win.
IMHO a proper defense under the circumstances, but a golden opportunity for the anti-gun crowd to celebrate. Unfortunate all the way around.
I do agree that they should have contracted with a professional security agency to handle the issue. Two against a mob is bad odds regardless of armament.
Our tact and execution will always leave something to be criticized by Monday morning quarterbacks and prosecution attorneys alike but in the end the best we can strive for is effectiveness so as it stands I salute the lawn lawyers.
An AK shows you mean business.
A 380 is seen as minimal.
A chainsaw may be more intimidating as well as more defendable in court.
Actually, I believe more jurors are repulsed by the use of a weapon that cuts, than one that shoots.
They were terrible gun handlers, and terrible tacticians. They exposed themselves unnecessarily. But in the end they kept the wolves moving along instead of moving in. An ugly win is still a win. I loved it.
I too feel that verbal communication with the protesters was uncalled for and luckily, it did not incite any reaction from the mob. Just standing there armed was all that was needed. Their muzzle control could have been better…..but they did what they needed to do as a deterrant and it worked. I would do the same (my muzzle control is better though!)
If it was me, I would have stayed inside and made a phone call to the police. Defending from inside the home is much safer and if someone had broken in, I would have a legal right to defend myself.
Seen on da InnerTube: a photoshop of the guy in a TIME magazine Person of the Year cover. My take:
Untrained. Barefoot. Taken by surprise. Wearing a pink polo shirt (with which I can identify). Don’t mess with him: The Porcupine.
With all the caveats and criticism of their gun handling, lack of a second AR, and lack of extra ammo: it was enough.
PS: now who says no one needs an AR with 20 and 30 round magazines?
I am very familiar with the area and I think the spirit was good but the tactics were pretty bad unless they also had some people backing them up inside we do not know about.Going out with no shoes on, no spare ammo,no sling on the rifle and exposing yourself to a mob who could swarm you is not very good tactics.Taking your wife out and using her for back up also is pretty thin.Better would have been to go up to the second floor and covered them unknown to the mob until they started to attack the home.
But having said that what they did was certainly within the law in Missouri so I do not see any legal issues for them although it may harm their business since it makes for potential bad publicity and runs counter to their preferred image. But just think how “Chrystal Night” in Germany in the 1930’s would have been better if the Nazi thugs would have been met by a Jewish guy with his stocked Broomhandle Mauser backed up by his wife with her Browning 32 rather than hiding from the thugs.Maybe no “Chrystal Night” and all that followed.
Same here with people realizing how important it is to have Castle Doctrine and firearms to protect themselves since you cannot expect the police to come and expecting private security to get hurt for you is likewise silly.
Tim, good points and that’s why Hitler instituted total gun control as soon as he gained control of Germany. The Nazis didn’t just disarm Jews, but every German not in the military and police, so those helpless people cannot oppose them. It’s the same reason Democrats want to disarm Americans, so they can impose their draconian will on the population and not fear armed resistance from their subjects.
the mob were tresspassing, had means, opportunity, intent, clearly shown. Missouri’s Castle Doctrine holds that this pair have no duty to retreat or stand down towait for the (not gonna make it in time) poice. Thise in St. Louis COunty most lieely would not even respond until there are reports of dead bodies for photographs, chalk outlines, picking up daisies, er, I mean shell casings…. and wrigint a twenty seven page “report” never mentioning what COULD have gone differently had they showed.
But, given the way this went down, I’m pretty certain not even St. Louis City of County will charge.
Well done, but sloppily.
I AM very pleased to see the press covereage they have gotten so far, and I think its not over yet. This will encourage more “korenan Roof Warriors” and “Lawn Lawuers” to arm up and carry on. Which is a GOOD outcome.
ONLY when enough Amnericans rise up, take up, and stand up, against this present madness will those pressing it stand down.. for a while. The tide does indeed seem to be turning. Similar events ARE happening across the nation, but now even ainstream press are covereing it. When the mad minioins see usch TeeVee reports on how some Americans are standing up to their antics, perhaps some will make in informed decision, modify their behaviour to make it more likley they will get to go home every night.
It has been a long time since LFI 1, but I recall that something like 14 of 15 confrontations end when the first firearm is introduced. They may not have used the best tactics, but they did bring a gun to the fight.
I think its a lose/ lose for the couple in the media. Since they were clearly untrained they are regarded as dangerous, uncontrollable, cowboys or Vigilantes. If they were trained they would have been lambasted for supremicists prepared to kill whoever gets in their way
As a newly married man myself, I kinda snickered when you referred to EP being likely to divorce you if you handed her whatever gun this lady has, Mas. I once handed my own then gf, now wife, a rather, shall we say, basic, flashlight so she could do some regular kitchen task. Her icy reply was “really??” followed by a reminder that we have many hi tech ones in our home inventory. I haven’t made that faux pas since, let’s hope this guy won’t either! Oh btw today is the first day of full Constitutional Carry for all, resident or not, in our state.
I also commend them. What I find repugnant is that no one else tried to help them or themselves. As far as gun handling, I would venture to guess that over 90% of the folks that own firearms in this country have about the same handle on gun safety and tactics. Again, hats off to folks that spent 32 years of their lives restoring a broken down mansion and protected their property and their lives.
They should be applauded. They were well within their legal right to do what they did. They confronted a mob, while eating dinner, and within a moments notice, that broke down the gate to their private property and illegally trespassed onto their property.
When the Mr Mccloskey told the mob to leave, they threatened him, his wife, threatened to burn down the house and kill their dog. One antifa pointed a gun at them.
Now they have been doxxed.
Mrs is a 60 yr old female that never held a gun before. Mr. is 62 and needs training too. However, considering who they are and their limited firearms experience, they did great.
While we can sit and critique them all day long, and I was party to that too…..
they had the fucking balls to stop these fucks from looting and burning down their home or harming them. Many armchair quarterbacks on these forums will say what they would have done. Most wouldnt have had the balls to donthe same thing.
The AR15 did the talking here.
These people won. Nobody fucked with them. A flame was out ranked by a bigger fire here. The mob moved along and left them alone.
Are they trained properly? No. Are they competition shooters? No. Can they benefit from training? Of course…everybody can.
I would buy them a drink anywhere in the world.
I support the “lawn layers’” actions, and am shocked ? shocked I say, at the response of the idiotic St. Louis DA. Putting myself in their shoes, I’m home with 4 kids and a potentially violent mob outside the door; I can tell you I’d be a lot less concerned with the law than with the mob. I’d let them know that my kids are inside, and that I’ll do _anything_ to keep them safe. My family’s lives > all of them put together. Let’s be real, that would still be true if they were home minding the COVID-19 CDC guidance. But since they’re here to bring the riots to suburbia, their stock just crashed. I’ve wiped better things off my shoe than rioters & looters.
Thinking about this volume of potentially violent “protesters” I think perhaps I do not have enough AR mags loaded. I’ve only got 4 30s full of Hornady TAP.
To paraphrase Gary Larsen, she had a gun, and she was waving it around, but “brandishing” implies a level of skill I don’t think she had.
Good for them!! Easy to criticize when the mob’s not in your face. The home owners looked determined. At least some of crowd mob had enough sense to move on…,.
maybe next door neighbors not so inhospitable.
Mas,
You taught us well in MAG40 that it is with the black letter law that we should familiarize ourselves.
On that basis, whether the reason for the McCloskeys’ poor gun handling is a lack of opportunity (i.e., a COVID-19 panic purchase and no time to schedule lessons). or a lack of interest (i.e., owned the firearms for years but never bothered to take lessons), they are not absolved of their legal obligation to be responsible gun owners.
Mr. McCloskey’s flagging his wife is highly-regrettable. Mrs. McCloskey’s pointing of her weapon directly at the protesters is–in my jurisdiction–aggravated assault. Consequently, they have unfortunately left themselves vulnerable to prosecution by an individual with an agenda beyond justice.
That said, the protesters destroyed private property, trespassed, and assaulted the McCloskey’s with threats to their persons. I agree with Archer above that all elements of the AOJ triad were present, thereby justifying the McCloskeys decision to arm themselves and take up positions in front of their home.
Mindful that shouting at a mob is rarely productive, they might have been better served had they instead silently taken up their positions, demonstrating quiet resolve.
So while the McCloskey’s actions were not entirely laudible, in their totality they proved effective.
In closing, I submit that if St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner is wiser than her statements to date indicate, she will conclude that it is in the best interests of justice and the City of St. Louis to offer Mr. & Mrs. McCloskey a Non-Prosecution Agreement contingent upon both of them successfully completing MAG40 and MAG80.
Gun handling faux pas aside they did what they had to do, but I would have just open carried myself. Leave the gun in the holster or rifle slung over shoulder barrel down.
With no training they may not have has their ‘gut check’ even in a safe training environment. Would they have the will to actually fire? Unless that answer is a resounding YES displaying a weapon could be more disastrous than just staying inside and locking the door.
I fully agree that anyone intent on actually using a firearm for self defense should get training and they DID call the police and the neighborhood security. And the display of force was enough. Remember the mob verbally threatened their lives and the lives of their dog.
But to my point, we currently have some 16 or 17 states that have passed what is being called “Constitutional Carry!” This is making it legal to buy, keep and bear arms. No overly intrusive background checks, though there are BC. The most interesting phenomenon is that violent crime is not increasing, but continues to decrease. Accidents are not up and in most of the states concealed carry is also sanctioned with no additional permit!
This takes me back to when Dade county Florida made it MUCH easier for law abiding citizens to obtain concealed carry permits. The wild speculation from the Left was that Dodge City shoots outs in the streets would become the rule of the day. Didn’t happen. Unfortunately for those rabid anti-gunners, violent crime dropped dramatically. And so goes it with Constitutional carry.
I would hope that a responsible training group, like the NRA or USCCA, would offer this couple complimentary training! And make promotional ads of their welcoming to the free Americans side of the street.
A real shame it had to come to this. Agree with some others who commented that it took courage to get out there and do what they did. That said, bare feet, no cover, odd grip on the gun by the Mrs.,the back-and-forth banter, all had me uneasy when I first viewed the video, hoping that no shots from within the mob rang out in their direction. Had that happened, it would no doubt have been ruled as justified defense. AR aside, the two just didn’t appear intimidating enough, but evidently were convincing enough from the POV of those individuals in that particular crowd, on that particular day. There were so many ways that so many things could have gone wrong, but thankfully, they did not. Agree about the wisdom of his going on TV–“lawyered up”–to present their side of events, and couldn’t help but noticing his hammering home their fearing for their lives, a key point, and one which I am in no way disputing, by the way. Could imagine the wheels turning within the head of the McCloskey’s attorney, and thought he was going to intervene at one particular point, choosing instead to allow his client to continue his account, in full. Assuming they escape any legal consequences preventing them from continuing to possess their firearms, my unsolicited recommendation would be to get the Mrs. her own AR (Something in pink, perhaps? Sorry ladies, I remain an “old school” male chauvinist pig, struggling to improve, yet the ladies tend to love me anyway–and leave me, come to think of it. In truth,I have the utmost respect for females, firearms, and all combinations of the two.) Finally, the McCloskeys appear to be in need of some competent training. (Ironically, that lack of training–or the lack of any execution reflecting it–may work in their favor as the ramifications of this event play out moving forward.) I recommend they contact the Massad Ayoob Group, much sooner than later. Best wishes to all.
Bottom line – they won!! No damage done except the front gate.
Question: Being that the protesters were trespassing and some had some type of weapon – could they be guilty of “armed trespass”?
Wolves at the door were persuaded to move on by armed homeowners. Poor gun handling aside this is what America is coming to. Perhaps Martial Law is in order to quell the masses nationwide??
Mas,
The pictures are incredibly small, but the gun she is waving about looks a lot like the SIG P230 SL, stainless steel judging by the way the frame slopes down from the barrel to the trigger guard.
The only thing I’ll add, gun-handling related, is that the lady shouldn’t hold a semi-automatic in such a loosy-goosy way. If she had fired I don’t know that the slide would have cycled properly.
But there is the additional important lesson to us all: standing up to the thugs works. Those rioters don’t have the stones to take on someone who will fight back, unless they have odds very heavy in their favor (e.g. victim is elderly or they outnumber the victim at least 20-1).
Considering the makeup of the unruly mob threatening the homeowners, those lawyers would have gotten more respect if they had held their firearms horizontally. Now, that’s good gun handling, the way it’s properly done in the movies by experts 🙂
LOL at first I didn’t know what you meant by “horizontally” but I thought about the movies and realized you are talking about the way urban toughs in movies hold their pistols sideways. The marksmanship technique they employ is, I think, called “spray and pray”.
I have been up close and personal with the “Evil Princess” while she was hammering a target with a hand gun, from my vantage point, no need for the AR!
I found a good picture, on the web, that enabled me to zoom in and view the firearms used by this couple. The AR appears to be one of those “Retro” style AR’s that are on the market. It has the tall, fixed front-sight, the carry-handle and fixed-stock typical of the retro guns. It looks rather like a Stag 15 Retro Rifle.
The small automatic pistol resembles a Walter but there are some differences regarding the extractor design. It looks a lot like a little, chrome or nickel-plated Galesi pistol. These were some little Italian pistols that were imported before the Gun Control Act of 1968 killed them off. This looks to be one of the larger 7.65 mm (.32 acp) pistols rather than the common little .25 acp version. Even so, a Galesi .32 auto is not what I would select to face a Mob!
I salute this woman’s courage but doubt her wisdom! 🙂
Here is a YouTube Review of the Galesi design:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJDoA9IoCD8
TN_MAN:
James Bond would disagree with you on the choice of using a .32 ACP for defense. According to Q, the .32 hits “like as brick through a plate glass window”. In the Bond flicks I’ve watched, the only villain his .32 didn’t do too well on was Jaws.
Fortunately for me, my wife Bertha is nearly as tall as Jaws, but heavier and much stronger so I have no need for guns with her around. The mere sight of Bertha filling the front doorway of our house would send a violent mob running off in sheer terror.
@ Tom606 – It is all relative. Bond started out using a Beretta .25 ACP as his carry gun. However, when it “let him down” and he spent 6-months in the hospital as a result, his boss “M” demanded that he must step up to something with more punch. Compared to the .25 ACP round, a .32 ACP is, indeed, a “step-up”.
However, when all is said and done, it is still on the small side. Stepping up from a “mouse gun” to a “rat gun” is still a marginal move. No doubt, 007 counted upon his exceptional shooting skills to make these small caliber pistols work for him.
However, for us lesser mortals, who do not have the exceptional skills and training of a MI6 operative, I still think that something with a bit more punch is needed. For myself, I usually carry a .380 ACP as an absolute minimum. More commonly, I carry a .38 Special revolver or a small 9mm automatic. On occasion, I have even been known to carry a small .40 S&W pistol.
The .40 S&W is about my upper limit for carry. While I have .45 ACP pistols, they are full size models normally used for range shooting or home defense, not for carry.
However, if i was facing a mob, I would probably have a 7.62X39 caliber AK with multiple banana magazines on hand. I rather agree with Samuel L. Jackson’s views regarding the AK. See this clip from the movie ‘Jackie Brown’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDyXbcu2RXg
TN_MAN:
Bond has one big advantage over us lower beings, besides his uncanny ability to get all the gorgeous women he wants, and that is he has a license to kill. If I had one of those licenses, I would need to buy ammunition in bulk as there are so many insidious evildoers that needs terminating nowadays.
Scratch the identification as a Galesi. The Galesi used tiny sights hidden in a groove on top of the slide. This pistol has distinct front and back sights. Furthermore, it appears to have an external hammer which the Galesi does not (striker fired).
Frankly, even after looking long and hard at the pistol, I am having a hard time identifying it. The overall slide and extractor are similar to a FN Model of 1910. However, it has that external hammer.
It appears to have a single-action trigger (which rules out the Walter PPK, PPK/s, etc.) or its various clones. I thought, for a moment, that it might be a Zastava M70 pistol but the shape of the front of the slide/frame is wrong.
Someone suggested a Sig design but the extractor and single-action trigger are wrong for that too.
Frankly, I am not sure what it is. However, judging by the size of the bore (in relation to the size of the woman’s fingers), it is of small caliber. I would think no larger than a 32 acp.
Whatever it is, it is still not the tool that I would pick to face down a mob. Her husband was more “on target” (excuse the pun) in that regard!
When I saw them I thought, “how strange, these must be one of the only upper middle class couples to own firearms.” I also hoped, for their sakes, that their state allows them to own normal capacity magazines. New Jersey 10-round magazines would be used up fast and furious against a mob. Think of all the opportunities to fumble during mag changes.
Mark McCloskey made a very wise wardrobe choice. By appearing in white pants and a pink shirt, he takes away the opportunity for the prosecutor to accuse him of being a wannabe Rambo. Also, if there are suburban white women on the jury, he will appear to them as “Mr. Nice Guy,” not “Mr. Macho the Brute.” I’m going to put white pants and a pink shirt on my shopping list.
While that wicked black rifle may have been just what Mark McCloskey needed to intimidate the mob, in order to not frighten those suburban white women on the jury, a lever-action rifle may have been a better choice. Oh, you think he needs a semi-auto with a 30-round magazine for this scenario? Well, then he should consider getting his AR-15 painted in a winter camo, or pink camo motif.
Seriously, this couple stood strong against a mob, preserving both their property and their lives without anyone getting hurt. Jeff Cooper would be pleased. HURRAY FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!! Now think about how many countries in the world allow their citizens to defend themselves with firearms. Definitely a minority. Let’s hang on, to what we’ve got!
Roger, add a nice purple or bright yellow silk scarf to your wardrobe shopping list and maybe a pair of Birkenstock sandals, and no one will accuse you of being a Lone Wolf McQuade or Rambo wannabe. A more politically correct lever action rifle would have been a good alternative to an AR-15 type rifle, but now that John Wayne has been declared a racist by the other side, lever action guns are viewed as equally evil as AR-15s.
I see a lot of people criticizing them for going out on the lawn. Having watched a lot of videos of these rioters throwing Malatov cocktails and burning everything around the country, I can’t really blame them. Yes they need training, but under the same situation with an entire mob of rioters, I can understand why they went out instead of waiting to be burned to death in their own home.
The couple needs training and a pair of M60s.
A good opportunity to apply things Mas has written and taught over the years. It seems today the chances of needed to defend self, family, property (home, car) are more real than ever.
Homeowner could have stayed inside, but then, I personally think it may have been worse, since the mob would have attacked the house. Given how these mobs have been rioting, burning, looting, he opted to prevent a very likely home attack and invasion. It sure appears they were clearly on neighborhood private property and his own property. I’d sure be afraid of a mob, and a home attack. Cowering inside hoping they’d go by, only one of many things he could do. Given the mob mentality, heading them off at the proverbial pass worked. Here’s my gun, you’re on my land, I am legal, you are not. I’m afraid, Go away!
Gun handling: 1) carry spare magazines, even at home, esp with a mob. Wife needs practice on gun handling. limp wristing the pistol will create misfeeds, malfunctions. Plan a path of retreat into the house. You can’t shoot a rushing mob fast enough to not be overrun. Then you are really toast.
I did not see the husband directly point the weapon at the invaders. Finger was off the trigger. Not bad. Essentially port arms
Consider how you’d react if suddenly a mob tore into your neighborhood and marched across your front yard. If you say you’d mow em down or blast em, you need more training from Mas than Mr Legal Beagle does. Haha, Joe BIden’s double barrel 12 gauge would NOT be the gun for this encounter.
Going out front was bold. But in this case, very very likely was a better approach. Backed off a mob, that given an inch, could have gone into the house, or caused damage, fire. The media has given enough of that video so a homeowner would have a lot of fear and uncertainty. Especially if you are not sure if the police will even respond. The mob had already breached the gate and property line for the housing development. What more were they going to do, or if mob
We can hope we don’t have to do what this couple did at our homes, streets or town.
The only issue I have is their gun safety. The woman clearly had her finger on the trigger and both consistently muzzled each other. They need some training.
Now that us amateurs have opined, it would be valuable to get an expert’s expert critique (hint, hint).
My take: Eventually, one of these incidents will end with shots fired. Suppose McClosky saw the guy who was armed, saw the muzzle looking about 5 times bigger than reality when it was pointed at him, became mortally afraid for his life, and stopped it the hard way. The police encounter a dead body with weapon by it and no mob, for they are long dispersed. McCloskey would be in for the time of his life, but more significant for the rest of the country would be how future mobs, and future armed innocents, would behave.
My guess would be fewer, more polite crowds-not-mobs, no more suburban intrusions, and emboldened good guys making sure it stays that way.
I would love to see Mas dissect the situation, and offer suggestions on what he would have done.
Problem is, one of the mob would grab Dead BG’s gun and try to hide the evidence. “Our buddy did nothing wrong, unarmed peaceful protest and this triggerhappy maniac shot him unprovoked!”
Remember, lying is what these people do, it comes to them as naturally as breathing.
“why does someone who can afford to live in a multi-million dollar mansion buy for defense a pistol that looks as if it was cast from zinc?”
Your eyes may be better than mine, but just seeing the front part of the slide I guessed that it was a Walther PPK. High quality manufacture, but of obsolete design and certainly not ideal for this mission.
I assumed they were liberals who bought their guns in one of the latest panics, and maybe she thought it was pretty and didn’t know any better. (The Walther PPK in stainless steel _is_ pretty.)
Frank, I don’t think the slide shape, muzzle shape, extractor shape or trigger configuration are consistent with a PPK, from the admittedly crappy enlargements I’ve seen.
Thought about the tactics here after reading the comments. How about he goes out but stays behind cover. Molotov defense. Not sure what those pillars are made of but they or the railings on the porch might do. She stays inside with her pistol and a phone. Not sure how overstretched the SL police are now but “mob threatening to burn down the house and my husband is trying to repel them with a rifle” ought to get a response. At least, it creates a record that they tried to get the authorities in.
And like everyone else, I think they need training, shoes and a plan before the mob shows up.
Given that we don’t know how we will respond to a situation, although past behavior and training can be a good indication, I would like to think my response would’ve been different but I can’t fault them for what they did.
Their response was well articulated post event. I see this as a “testing of the waters” by the other side. There will come a point where mere display of a weapon will not be enough. These are just skirmishes before the declared war where the resolve of both sides is being tested.
Made both lawyers and gun folk alike look worse, not better. And I’m both. Neither my profession nor my right look better in light of the couples’ goofy overreaction. While they were certainly within their rights, and it was good he went on TV to manage the fallout, cooler heads should have prevailed. But, that’s easy for me to say, as the saying goes. Thank you, always, for the post.
Jonah Smith,
We know the mob was going to the mayor’s house, so they were just passing by the McCloskey’s house. But did the McCloskey’s know where the mob was going? I don’t think omniscience is required, only that they acted “reasonably.”
While their firearm handling skills definitely leave something to be desired, you have to ask where was law enforcement? If the local government did its job, these people wouldn’t have to stand on their lawn with a weapon in their hands to protect themselves and their property.
Someone up above mentioned “intent”. While some do phrase the requirements to apply force in that manner, I cringe at it. Not being psychic or lacking a reliable crystal ball, all we can deal with is implied intent. This is generally referred to as jeopardy and requires an act “indicative of applying the power”. No act, no jeopardy, no justification. A mob making threats does make it prudent to prepare for the threatened action.
I’ve only seen a couple of stills and the firearms handling appeared pathetic. Some places I’ve been would have interpreted their actions as crippled prey. A more aggressive posture might have helped. I won’t get more specific.
I’m not sure I’d have ventured outside. I would have stayed on the phone with police dispatch inside or outside. Good idea to have all the threats on record as well as any narration from the home owner. Wonder if the gated community will be ponying up for their own police force like some have long had?
State laws on arson of an occupied dwelling can be weird. I was surprised to discover (moved) it’s not automatically a heinous felony. Best to check your state code or get advice from an attorney or prosecutors office.
Mas:
My question of the day…
WHERE WERE THE POLICE?
These people were literally abandoned. That is the question that needs to be asked. And why gun sales are out of sight.
Pat,
Where were the police when Antifa was burning down the businesses of owners who pay taxes in cities? They paid their taxes, but didn’t get protection. I hope law-abiding citizens are making plans to abandon American, Democrat-run cities.
The Founding Fathers thought voting would prevent bad rulers from remaining in positions of power. These city people voted for these politicians. Defund the government of the lobotimized Left.
John Farnam says, “We are on our own, and we always have been.”
For a couple who spends most of their time behind a desk or in front of a judge I think they handled themselves very well. Is there room for improvement…most definitely. I’ve seen video of “well trained” police officers who have handled their weapon just as recklessly I.e. Las Vegas female officer assisting in taking a man into custody and having a negligent discharge.
These two people, like most of Americans who own guns, don’t have the training to properly handle their weapons. That is just life and this situation will not change a thing on how Americans are going to behave if they are ever confronted with a similar situation.
For those who criticize more than likely have never been placed in a life or death situation like these two people. I wonder how you would handle it. Hopefully you will never find out.
Comments are closed.