Should the McCloskeys Have Waited for the Police?
American Spectator,
by
Joyce Lee Malcolm
Original Article
Posted By: MissMolly,
10/24/2020 4:23:18 AM
The film immediately went viral. On June 28, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, a St. Louis couple, were confronted in the growing dark by hundreds of angry protesters bursting through a gate onto their front yard. “Private property!” Mark shouted, but as dozens more poured onto their property, he and Patricia got their guns and, standing in front of their house, ordered the mob to leave. The scene was a perfect storm of tensions felt through the nation over the Covid-19 pandemic; lockdown in March 2020; release of convicted offenders; protests against the police morphing into weeks of violence and calls to defund them; and a presidential candidate
Reply 1 - Posted by:
watashiyo 10/24/2020 4:45:26 AM (No. 582387)
Why?
24 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
mifla 10/24/2020 4:55:45 AM (No. 582390)
If so, they would still be waiting.
37 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
KatieJo 10/24/2020 5:05:30 AM (No. 582396)
Be sure to cite "Warren v. District of Columbia" next time someone tells you that you should not be armed for self defense. They will tell you to call the police. Apparently the police do NOT have a duty to protect you and choose not to in many instances. We are all familiar with the saying that when seconds count, the police are minutes--and in some cases hours--away. It is the height of foolishness to rely on anyone other than yourself for self protection. Even with the best intentions and quick response times, it is impossible for a police force to protect every citizen, virtually impossible.
29 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
ussjimmycarter 10/24/2020 5:46:00 AM (No. 582402)
I support them, however...they needed firearms training! One NEVER points a gun at anything they aren’t willing to destroy! Stand your ground, keep your weapons safe and pointed at the ground until it’s time to rock and roll! Then and only then, bring your barrel up and pointed at the evil doer!
23 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 10/24/2020 6:30:48 AM (No. 582413)
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a SPECIFIC DUTY to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
In a 4–3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts' dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that "the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists". The Court thus adopted the trial court's determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.
(Source) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
". . . the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, . . ."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
A damn good "Class Action" case can be made that the St. Louis Police failed to meet the "public at large" duty because they were in a general (wide area) stand down. "Standing" will be an issue.**
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29
12 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 10/24/2020 7:01:37 AM (No. 582433)
The only victims were the homeowners. They had a gate destroyed by the MOB. Had they not come out with guns drawn surely more vandalism would have occurred. No one was physically hurt.This DA needs to be sacked by the State AG.
34 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Anaverageguy 10/24/2020 8:03:57 AM (No. 582482)
When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away...
13 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
rytwng 10/24/2020 8:06:05 AM (No. 582487)
The only thing they did wrong was not blowing one of them away.
8 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Strike3 10/24/2020 10:45:02 AM (No. 582653)
FTA: Fortunately, no shot was fired, no one was hurt.
Was it fortunate or would dropping a few of the rioting riff-raff on their front lawn have demonstrated to the rest of the country that your home and family is sacred and you have the right to kill to protect it? Missouri law enforcement failed. Are you supposed to stand there and let the mob violate you? Hell no. Picture this same scenario a hundred years ago, the mob would have been driven off by gunfire and the two homeowners would be praised.
4 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
DVC 10/24/2020 10:59:15 AM (No. 582672)
Be sure to read this story, if for no other reason than to start to learn that there is NO requirement for the police to protect any individual person, and no matter how horrifically they may fail or ignore their 'duty', nothing whatsoever can be done to them for failing to protect someone.
This is the partial quote, the whole thing is pretty long to repeat here, but very worth reading if you imagine that the police "have to" protect you if you call them. They do NOT, very much settled law. I recommend this article for this, and there is more good info, too.
FTA:
"Do the police have a duty to protect you when called? The law says otherwise. In Warren v. District of Columbia three women sued the District of Columbia and members of the police department for their failure to provide police services."
2 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
DVC 10/24/2020 11:09:38 AM (No. 582688)
For the ones saying "shoulda shot a few" that may sound good when you post it on a forum, but is extremely foolish advice unless you are under a credible physical threat. Defining what that is, exactly, is sometimes quite murky. Think hard on this one.
The standard of law that you will be held to by our legal system is basically "would a reasonable person be justified in using deadly force to defend themselves or another from serious bodily injury or death?" given the circumstances.
From state to state, the words are slightly different, and there is a legal MANDATE to retreat, if possible, in the face of a deadly threat, in some states, certainly not all. But all require the "reasonable person" benchmark, and frequently that actually works out to "a reasonable person, calmly sitting in a court room with no actual danger to them", unfortunately.
The legal exception for self-defense in a homicide are narrow and specific. If you ever contemplate using any weapon for self-defense, you owe it to yourself to understand your state's legal requirements for the self-defense exception.
An excellent starting point is to search for "jury instructions on self-defense case" for your state. This is usually a specific set of words that the judge reads to the jurors and they are instructed to use it as the basis for their deliberations, along with the facts developed in the courtroom.
Y'all be safe out there.
1 person likes this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
preciosodrogas 10/24/2020 11:17:14 AM (No. 582696)
I think that was their point, #4. They were pointing their guns at something they were prepared to destroy.
I also see another lesson in this. They called for police aid - for 1/2 an hour - with no response. Don't think the police will not carryout orders if Biden wins - Hey, don't blame me, I'm just doing my job, same as you. Of course, not all of them but the good ones will retire, claim disability, and move on rather than carryout orders that are unconstitutional, leaving behind those whose pensions are worth more than the freedom of this country. Hey, we will be given 'due process' and can take it up with the judge.
0 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
HotRod 10/24/2020 11:20:24 AM (No. 582700)
I think the wife scared the beejesus out of the thugs! Waving that gun around and ranting at them convinced the thugs that these people were not going to stand still and be assaulted!
The McCloskeys remained on their property, did not shoot anyone, did not even fire any warning shots. The police, had they been interested, would have already been there to handle the thugs, but they were held back.
I applaud the McCloskeys for protecting their lives and property. Those who want to criticize them for how the firearms were handled should realize that there are times when that becomes secondary. This was not a day at the firing range!
4 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Chuzzles 10/24/2020 11:38:03 AM (No. 582719)
I suspect the persecution pretending to be prosecution is because this couple has chosen to take on police brutality cases, and the DA and maybe police are getting some payback here. I suspect the LE folks have poked a big nasty bear, and they will regret their actions.
2 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
whyyeseyec 10/24/2020 12:01:05 PM (No. 582739)
When a mass of people break on to your property, it is safe to assume bodily harm may soon follow - especially since there were many many nights of previous violence in cities across the country. So no, waiting for the police could have been a death sentence. Our 2nd Amendment saved that day - as it was designed to do.
4 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
JHHolliday 10/24/2020 12:56:00 PM (No. 582799)
Re #11. Several states, including my state of GA, have "Stand Your Ground" Laws that basically says you have no duty to retreat if your life is threatened. You are correct in making very sure that you are extremely careful before using deadly force. Most of us do have a tipping point though....if someone comes into my yard and throws a molotov cocktail against my house, he is going to get shot.
0 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
DVC 10/24/2020 3:14:49 PM (No. 582928)
#16, you would be clearly within your self-defense if a fire bomb was threatened or actually deployed against you. I totally agree with what you say. It is just dismaying to see people getting angry and saying irresponsible things that, if acted upon, could get them in jail for serious crimes.
And yes, many states have such "Stand your ground" laws. "Stand your ground" only applies outside your home/property, if you read the typical laws passed, because you were already protected on your property/in your home in most states. The laws were written to address previous laws which often REQUIRED you to back down and run away when threatened, not defend yourself - or were extremely vague, and left good people in jeopardy for reasonable behavior with some prosecutors and some juries.. The laws permit you to, in a public place, 'stand your ground' when clearly attacked with violence, and if
reasonable, use force to defend yourself.
For most at-home situations, the operative laws are called "Castle Doctrine" which is based on the old saying "a man's home is his castle". There are differing conditions, and you are typically permitted to use force against intruders with somewhat looser rules of engagement if they break into your home with force. You have a right to expect that someone kicking down your door has nothing good in store for you.
However, shooting the paper boy on the doorstep asking to be paid.....wouldn't qualify, pretty obviously. But some dingbats have shot trick or treaters, thinking that some petty Halloween harassment prank gave them license under 'Castle Doctrine'.
1 person likes this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
DVC 10/24/2020 3:18:42 PM (No. 582936)
#16, here is the Georgia jury instruction on self defense. Fairly clear, and sensible, IMO. But whatever our opinion may be, it IS what we will be held to. Note that deadly force is only OK if deadly force is threatened against you. "Reasonable man" theory is in there, too.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/ga-3-02-10-justification-use-of-force-in-defense-of-self-or-others/
1 person likes this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
doctorfixit 10/25/2020 1:54:38 AM (No. 583397)
Only if they wanted to be murdered. The record is clear - police will not respond to terrorist attacks against individuals, single homes, or single businesses. They will only respond when there is a critical mass of looters and arsonists terrorizing a significant area of the city. Law enforcement's attitude is - you're on your own, but we'll arrest you if you avail yourself of the Constitutional right to self-defense.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "MissMolly"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)