So if people break down a gate and walk through your land to see a neighbour of yours they arent trespassing???.
The road they were on was NOT a public highway FFS it was a private gated community with avenues, roads and driveways. It makes no difference if they are on his actual property, the residents of that community are the only ones with any legal right of access and egress. Anybody without a specific invite is a trespasser.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp, one wonders why you can't.
I find this quite condescending.
You are just highlighting how little you know.
Knowing one person that lives in America doesn't make you an expert, I have been to Vegas 4 times.
Firstly your reference to me knowing nothing about "American Law" is quite true because "American Law" does not exist.
In America laws differ from State to State.
I made no reference to the lawyers breaking the law, and accepted that the protesters did.
Although, I wouldnt accept that this breaking of the law warranted a firing squad.
This couple have previous.(see below)
The authorities are considering charging the couple with breaking the law, not the protesters.
Three dozen of their neighbours have published letters condemning their behaviour, and they have been heavily criticised in the media.
Reading the article below may make you better informed.
Court record shows St. Louis couple pulled gun before
O'FALLON, Mo. (AP) — The white St. Louis couple who became internationally famous for standing guard with guns outside their mansion during a protest have pulled a gun before in defense of their property, according to an affidavit in an ongoing case.
As demonstrators marched near the Renaissance palazzo-style home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey on Sunday, video posted online showed him wielding a long-barreled gun and her with a small handgun. No shots were fired.
The protesters, estimated at around 500 racially mixed people, were passing the house on the way to the nearby home of Mayor Lyda Krewson. The protest was among dozens in St. Louis since George Floyd's death in Minneapolis on May 25. The McCloskeys -- he’s 63 and she’s 61 -- are both personal injury lawyers and their home is on a private street called Portland Place in St. Louis’ well-to-do Central West End.
Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner said her office was working with police to investigate, saying she was alarmed because “peaceful protesters were met by guns and a violent assault.”
She obviously knows nothing about American Law either.
The McCloskeys and the trustees of Portland Place are involved in a three-year legal dispute over a small piece of property. The McCloskeys claim they own it, but the trustees say it belongs to the neighborhood.
A judge on Monday ruled against motions from both sides to end the case without a trial. Details about the legal case were first reported Thursday by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Mark McCloskey said in the affidavit that he and his wife purchased the home in 1988 and have taken several measures to improve the disputed piece of land.
The affidavit states they have “regularly prohibited all persons, including Portland Place residents, from crossing the Parcel including at least at one point, challenging a resident at gunpoint who refused to heed the McCloskeys’ warnings to stay off such property.”
In the earlier incident, Watkins said, Patricia McCloskey heard a noise at night and saw someone.
“She looked down, had a gun and screamed for the person to stay off her property,” Watkins said. It turned out to be a neighbor cutting through on the way home from a nearby business district.
Demonstrators on Sunday were angry at Krewson, a Democrat, for reading aloud the names and addresses of several residents who wrote letters
Krewson's home is just a few blocks from the McCloskeys' home.
Police said the McCloskeys heard a loud commotion in the street and saw a large group of people break an iron gate marked with “No Trespassing” and “Private Street” signs.
The video showed the protesters walking through the gate and it was unclear when it was damaged.
A letter released Wednesday by more than three dozen neighbors of the couple condemned "the behavior of anyone who uses threats of violence, especially through the brandishing of firearms, to disrupt peaceful protest, whether it be in this neighborhood or anywhere in the United States."
Obv the Kyle Walker example you gave is not racist, because Kyle Walker is legitimately rapid and it's one of the things that makes him so good.
However, this does exist in sports.
The most clear example of this in sports anywhere in the world is probably American Football quarterbacks, and I suspect any other NFL fans on here will have picked up on it. Black quarterback? The stereotype is that they'll bail out of the 'pocket' and run a lot more than a white quarterback, relying on their athleticism to outrun players or make them miss tackles, but they won't necessarily be as good throwing the ball. (It's the 'intelligent white player/athletic black player' stereotype)
When you hear the American sports media talk up a black quarterback draft prospect, it's always their athleticism and running ability that comes up, whereas white quarterbacks you'll hear a lot more praising of a player's ability to read coverage, work through his progressions, and other 'intelligence' traits for a quarterback.
You also get commentators saying things like "[white quarterback] will surprise you with how good he is when he takes off and runs with the ball" because, well, he's white. He's not supposed to do that and be good at it because that's the thing that the black quarterbacks are good at. You'd think after 10+ seasons in the NFL that the expert commentators would have stopped being surprised that Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers are quite good at running when they have needed to run, but nope.
Meanwhile, you have the exact same thing when black quarterback makes a good throw, because he's black so the stereotype is he's supposed to be good at running around, not reading the defense then making a pinpoint accurate throw to the receiver 40 yards away, putting the ball in the exact spot where the defender can't do anything about it.
Honestly, it's super noticeable in those cases.
Is it racist to make an assumption of a player's strengths/weaknesses are based on their skin colour, and to judge two players at the same position by a different set of attributes based on the playing style you expect from someone with their skin colour? Yes, absolutely.
The problem is that commentators fail to recognise a player's ability when they do something that doesn't fit the stereotype. Understandably, the focus is on racial stereotypes of a player's skillset since that is the most problematic. Coming back to your Kyle Walker example, highlighting his pace would only become a problem if the commentators weren't giving him any credit for other aspects of his game (in other words, if they were telling the viewer that he's a black guy who runs really fast but doesn't do much else).
Ok so trespassing is still correct, it’s private land? They have the right to defend their property but whether their property was under attack was unclear.
I don’t think whether other people complain is relevant.
Their names and addresses are now published on social media along with the outrage. Seems like a mob to me.
Mob rule.
All for protests, using megaphones within a gated private property when a couple likely worked very hard to get where they are in life is hard to get behind.
The protests are not useful at the moment, too much going on in the world just now. Could the BLM movement have a few 'bad eggs' in there causing a stir and pushing the boundaries too far?
This seems like a too far situation, if outside the gated entrance to estate or whatever then one would assume no law is broken. If inside then as others have said, it's trespassing and the couple has cause to feel threatened hence the brandishing of guns.
One issue with the mob pushing too far and too heavy is:-
There could be new stricter laws and heavier sentencing in the future for this kind of behaviour so in actual fact could well be doing their cause more harm than good. Can't rule out group infiltration at this point either.
It’s not unreasonable to fear for your life and property when a crowd enters private land and similar protests have witnessed graffiti, looting, burning. Whether waving a gun around is the best way to placate is debatable.
Not sure why they were protesting in this particular place, perhaps that also adds some context.
It’s all very strange the constant filming from the mob, or of any perceived racist encounters, just ready to upload and light the touch paper. Reminds me of the Black Mirror episode of the convict in captivity.
Was the episode White Bear?
Found Black Mirror quite dark and unfortunately has a bit of truth in it. Preferred the older episodes pre-Netflix time.
So if people break down a gate and walk through your land to see a neighbour of yours they arent trespassing???.
The road they were on was NOT a public highway FFS it was a private gated community with avenues, roads and driveways. It makes no difference if they are on his actual property, the residents of that community are the only ones with any legal right of access and egress. Anybody without a specific invite is a trespasser.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp, one wonders why you can't.
2-0 to TheEdge949
I love Haysie however this time can't see a decent viewpoint from his side.
Ok so trespassing is still correct, it’s private land? They have the right to defend their property but whether their property was under attack was unclear.
I don’t think whether other people complain is relevant.
Their names and addresses are now published on social media along with the outrage. Seems like a mob to me.
Mob rule.
Or peaceful protesters that were absolutely unconcerned with the couple in question, and were merely making their way to the Mayors home which was fairly close to the incident. There is absolutely no evidence that the protesters had any intention or murdering the couple, killing their pets, or burning their house down. These are the reasons he gave in his interview to justify his actions.
All for protests, using megaphones within a gated private property when a couple likely worked very hard to get where they are in life is hard to get behind.
So protests are ok, but not anywhere near posh houses. Their intention was to protest to the Mayor, they had to walk past the couples house to get there.
The protests are not useful at the moment, too much going on in the world just now. Could the BLM movement have a few 'bad eggs' in there causing a stir and pushing the boundaries too far?
Many protests are sabotaged, and not just in the USA. Tell George Floyds family there is too much going on in the world to protest his murder.
This seems like a too far situation, if outside the gated entrance to estate or whatever then one would assume no law is broken. If inside then as others have said, it's trespassing and the couple has cause to feel threatened hence the brandishing of guns.
We don't even treat trespassing as a criminal offence in this country. Why did he feel threatened? Why did none of his neighbours feel threatened, and also brandish guns? Why are his neighbours condemning his actions, and supporting the protesters? Why are authorities considering prosecuting the couple, not the protesters? Should they be shooting neighbours for innocently trespassing on land that they don't actually own?
I think that they are a pair of publicity seeking Drama Queens that have come unstuck, as the majority of the publicity they have received has not been good.
One issue with the mob pushing too far and too heavy is:-
They were fairly peaceful, and quiet, and caused no damage. There was some damage caused to a gate, but it was not clear when this occurred. The couples actions certainly provoked the protesters, as expected.
There could be new stricter laws and heavier sentencing in the future for this kind of behaviour so in actual fact could well be doing their cause more harm than good. Can't rule out group infiltration at this point either.
Who would you charge? What would you charge them with? What sentence would you impose?
So if people break down a gate and walk through your land to see a neighbour of yours they arent trespassing???.
The road they were on was NOT a public highway FFS it was a private gated community with avenues, roads and driveways. It makes no difference if they are on his actual property, the residents of that community are the only ones with any legal right of access and egress. Anybody without a specific invite is a trespasser.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp, one wonders why you can't.
2-0 to TheEdge949
I love Haysie however this time can't see a decent viewpoint from his side.
So if people break down a gate and walk through your land to see a neighbour of yours they arent trespassing???.
The road they were on was NOT a public highway FFS it was a private gated community with avenues, roads and driveways. It makes no difference if they are on his actual property, the residents of that community are the only ones with any legal right of access and egress. Anybody without a specific invite is a trespasser.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp, one wonders why you can't.
2-0 to TheEdge949
I love Haysie however this time can't see a decent viewpoint from his side.
So if people break down a gate and walk through your land to see a neighbour of yours they arent trespassing???.
The road they were on was NOT a public highway FFS it was a private gated community with avenues, roads and driveways. It makes no difference if they are on his actual property, the residents of that community are the only ones with any legal right of access and egress. Anybody without a specific invite is a trespasser.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp, one wonders why you can't.
2-0 to TheEdge949
I love Haysie however this time can't see a decent viewpoint from his side.
Normally I can, not here.
Cammy
Really?
Really
Why do you think that many of his neighbours, and the authorities are both on my side of the argument? Have you ducked answering the other post?
Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner said her office was working with police to investigate, saying she was alarmed because “peaceful protesters were met by guns and a violent assault.”
A letter released Wednesday by more than three dozen neighbors of the couple condemned "the behavior of anyone who uses threats of violence, especially through the brandishing of firearms, to disrupt peaceful protest, whether it be in this neighborhood or anywhere in the United States."
The affidavit states they have “regularly prohibited all persons, including Portland Place residents, from crossing the Parcel including at least at one point, challenging a resident at gunpoint who refused to heed the McCloskeys’ warnings to stay off such property.” “She looked down, had a gun and screamed for the person to stay off her property,” Watkins said. It turned out to be a neighbor cutting through on the way home from a nearby business district.
Haysie says “Or peaceful protesters that were absolutely unconcerned with the couple in question, and were merely making their way to the Mayors home which was fairly close to the incident. There is absolutely no evidence that the protesters had any intention or murdering the couple, killing their pets, or burning their house down. These are the reasons he gave in his interview to justify his actions.”
They may have been more peaceful than portrayed. Can quite safely say I doubt anyone in this forum would have had first hand eye-witness account information to work with. Merely making the way to the Mayors home by walking past. Were they not “trespassing” If peaceful and they weren’t encroaching on private property or the land of another US resident then I stand corrected. Looking at the pictures and seeing megaphones and residents holding guns does not appear, from my view at least, that things were as peaceful as you make out.
Haysie “There is absolutely no evidence that the protesters had any intention or murdering the couple, killing their pets, or burning their house down.”
For goodness sake, Trespassing appears to be the main talking point here, not murder. The couple appeared threatened and reacted it appears. I doubt the couple themselves had murder in mind or for that matter the BLM protesters. Farmers in the UK have guns to hand and rarely use them. This couple, I believe, had absolutely no intention of using the weapons.
Haysie “So protests are ok, but not anywhere near posh houses. Their intention was to protest to the Mayor, they had to walk past the couples house to get there.”
Protests are ok, breaking into private property surely is not. Was there no other route? Who was the main organiser?
Haysie “Many protests are sabotaged, and not just in the USA. Tell George Floyds family there is too much going on in the world to protest his murder.”
Yes they are, protests can be quite positive and proactive as well if run with that intention. I fear that the BLM one has been getting more ‘ugly’ lately. The death of one innocent man who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. A tragedy and it was police brutality/murder.
I think George Floyd’s family deserve justice and a massive apology from the police and the State. The policeman should get a big sentence and this type of tragedy should never happen again to any human.
Haysie “We don't even treat trespassing as a criminal offence in this country. Why did he feel threatened? Why did none of his neighbours feel threatened, and also brandish guns? Why are his neighbours condemning his actions, and supporting the protesters? Why are authorities considering prosecuting the couple, not the protesters? Should they be shooting neighbours for innocently trespassing on land that they don't actually own?
I think that they are a pair of publicity seeking Drama Queens that have come unstuck, as the majority of the publicity they have received has not been good.” We don't even treat trespassing as a criminal offence in this country.
In our country the law will be different.
Why did he feel threatened?
Best coming from the horses mouth so to speak.
Why did none of his neighbours feel threatened, and also brandish guns?
No idea, it was a gated shared land area wasn’t it?
Why are his neighbours condemning his actions, and supporting the protesters?
Haven’t read anything about that yet, will do more than likely. May after I get a power walk and get some paracetamol down me
Why are authorities considering prosecuting the couple, not the protesters?
At a quick guess and quick thought, easier to ‘feel their collar" and appear to be doing something. Too many protesters and would be maybe human version of a game of whack a mole.
Should they be shooting neighbours for innocently trespassing on land that they don't actually own?
Absolutely not!
I think that they are a pair of publicity seeking Drama Queens that have come unstuck, as the majority of the publicity they have received has not been good.”
Haysie says “Or peaceful protesters that were absolutely unconcerned with the couple in question, and were merely making their way to the Mayors home which was fairly close to the incident. There is absolutely no evidence that the protesters had any intention or murdering the couple, killing their pets, or burning their house down. These are the reasons he gave in his interview to justify his actions.”
They may have been more peaceful than portrayed. Can quite safely say I doubt anyone in this forum would have had first hand eye-witness account information to work with. Merely making the way to the Mayors home by walking past. Were they not “trespassing” If peaceful and they weren’t encroaching on private property or the land of another US resident then I stand corrected. Looking at the pictures and seeing megaphones and residents holding guns does not appear, from my view at least, that things were as peaceful as you make out.
Haysie “There is absolutely no evidence that the protesters had any intention or murdering the couple, killing their pets, or burning their house down.”
For goodness sake, Trespassing appears to be the main talking point here, not murder. The couple appeared threatened and reacted it appears. I doubt the couple themselves had murder in mind or for that matter the BLM protesters. Farmers in the UK have guns to hand and rarely use them. This couple, I believe, had absolutely no intention of using the weapons.
Haysie “So protests are ok, but not anywhere near posh houses. Their intention was to protest to the Mayor, they had to walk past the couples house to get there.”
Protests are ok, breaking into private property surely is not. Was there no other route? Who was the main organiser?
Haysie “Many protests are sabotaged, and not just in the USA. Tell George Floyds family there is too much going on in the world to protest his murder.”
Yes they are, protests can be quite positive and proactive as well if run with that intention. I fear that the BLM one has been getting more ‘ugly’ lately. The death of one innocent man who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. A tragedy and it was police brutality/murder.
I think George Floyd’s family deserve justice and a massive apology from the police and the State. The policeman should get a big sentence and this type of tragedy should never happen again to any human.
Haysie “We don't even treat trespassing as a criminal offence in this country. Why did he feel threatened? Why did none of his neighbours feel threatened, and also brandish guns? Why are his neighbours condemning his actions, and supporting the protesters? Why are authorities considering prosecuting the couple, not the protesters? Should they be shooting neighbours for innocently trespassing on land that they don't actually own?
I think that they are a pair of publicity seeking Drama Queens that have come unstuck, as the majority of the publicity they have received has not been good.” We don't even treat trespassing as a criminal offence in this country.
In our country the law will be different.
Why did he feel threatened?
Best coming from the horses mouth so to speak.
Why did none of his neighbours feel threatened, and also brandish guns?
No idea, it was a gated shared land area wasn’t it?
Why are his neighbours condemning his actions, and supporting the protesters?
Haven’t read anything about that yet, will do more than likely. May after I get a power walk and get some paracetamol down me
Why are authorities considering prosecuting the couple, not the protesters?
At a quick guess and quick thought, easier to ‘feel their collar" and appear to be doing something. Too many protesters and would be maybe human version of a game of whack a mole.
Should they be shooting neighbours for innocently trespassing on land that they don't actually own?
Absolutely not!
I think that they are a pair of publicity seeking Drama Queens that have come unstuck, as the majority of the publicity they have received has not been good.”
They may very well be.
Cammy
There is a video available.
I don't think it is fair to conflate trespassing onto a private estate, and burglary.
Jaywalking is also a criminal offence, probably just as serious as trespassing on a private estate, I don't think that people should be shot in respect of either.
They did not encroach, watch the video.
This couple have got previous.
The very least you could do is watch the video that I posted earlier in the thread.
When he was interviewed immediately after the event, he clearly said he felt that they would immediately be murdered, his pets would be killed, and his house burned down. Those were his words, and his justification for his actions.
They have previously pulled a gun on one of their neighbours for trespassing, when he wasn't.
There is no evidence suggesting that the protesters broke the gate leading onto the estate, although it was likely. The majority of his neighbours supported the protest, and obviously didn't feel threatened. Nobody broke into a private property, although they may have broken a gate leading into a private estate. As the Mayor lived on this estate, I would assume that the Mayors home was not accessible without entering through the gate.
I think that to guess at the couples intentions is about as silly as him saying that the protesters intentions were to murder them. kill their pets, and burn their house down.
Many disasters in the US have resulted from acts of stupidity.
I have no idea who the organiser was. A number of people can be seen in the video ushering protesters past his gate, and avoiding confrontation.
There have been Many BLM protests, some have been sabotaged. You cant tar them all with the same brush.
This is not an end of the world issue for me, but I have watched a couple of short videos, and read a couple of articles regarding the incident. With all due respect, I think that had you done the same you might have a different opinion. I cant really see what on earth you are basing your comments on. The video that I posted is at the bottom of page 5 of this thread, and lasts for just over a minute, including his interview.
You cant conflate protesters trespassing onto a private estate and peacefully walking past his home, with armed intruders invading a home. That would be ridiculous.
Had the couple remained in their home the whole thing would have passed without incident. They made it into an incident.
Haysie says “Or peaceful protesters that were absolutely unconcerned with the couple in question, and were merely making their way to the Mayors home which was fairly close to the incident. There is absolutely no evidence that the protesters had any intention or murdering the couple, killing their pets, or burning their house down. These are the reasons he gave in his interview to justify his actions.”
They may have been more peaceful than portrayed. Can quite safely say I doubt anyone in this forum would have had first hand eye-witness account information to work with. Merely making the way to the Mayors home by walking past. Were they not “trespassing” If peaceful and they weren’t encroaching on private property or the land of another US resident then I stand corrected. Looking at the pictures and seeing megaphones and residents holding guns does not appear, from my view at least, that things were as peaceful as you make out.
Haysie “There is absolutely no evidence that the protesters had any intention or murdering the couple, killing their pets, or burning their house down.”
For goodness sake, Trespassing appears to be the main talking point here, not murder. The couple appeared threatened and reacted it appears. I doubt the couple themselves had murder in mind or for that matter the BLM protesters. Farmers in the UK have guns to hand and rarely use them. This couple, I believe, had absolutely no intention of using the weapons.
Haysie “So protests are ok, but not anywhere near posh houses. Their intention was to protest to the Mayor, they had to walk past the couples house to get there.”
Protests are ok, breaking into private property surely is not. Was there no other route? Who was the main organiser?
Haysie “Many protests are sabotaged, and not just in the USA. Tell George Floyds family there is too much going on in the world to protest his murder.”
Yes they are, protests can be quite positive and proactive as well if run with that intention. I fear that the BLM one has been getting more ‘ugly’ lately. The death of one innocent man who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. A tragedy and it was police brutality/murder.
I think George Floyd’s family deserve justice and a massive apology from the police and the State. The policeman should get a big sentence and this type of tragedy should never happen again to any human.
Haysie “We don't even treat trespassing as a criminal offence in this country. Why did he feel threatened? Why did none of his neighbours feel threatened, and also brandish guns? Why are his neighbours condemning his actions, and supporting the protesters? Why are authorities considering prosecuting the couple, not the protesters? Should they be shooting neighbours for innocently trespassing on land that they don't actually own?
I think that they are a pair of publicity seeking Drama Queens that have come unstuck, as the majority of the publicity they have received has not been good.” We don't even treat trespassing as a criminal offence in this country.
In our country the law will be different.
Why did he feel threatened?
Best coming from the horses mouth so to speak.
Why did none of his neighbours feel threatened, and also brandish guns?
No idea, it was a gated shared land area wasn’t it?
Why are his neighbours condemning his actions, and supporting the protesters?
Haven’t read anything about that yet, will do more than likely. May after I get a power walk and get some paracetamol down me
Why are authorities considering prosecuting the couple, not the protesters?
At a quick guess and quick thought, easier to ‘feel their collar" and appear to be doing something. Too many protesters and would be maybe human version of a game of whack a mole.
Should they be shooting neighbours for innocently trespassing on land that they don't actually own?
Absolutely not!
I think that they are a pair of publicity seeking Drama Queens that have come unstuck, as the majority of the publicity they have received has not been good.”
They may very well be.
Cammy
There is a video available.
I don't think it is fair to conflate trespassing onto a private estate, and burglary.
Jaywalking is also a criminal offence, probably just as serious as trespassing on a private estate, I don't think that people should be shot in respect of either.
They did not encroach, watch the video.
This couple have got previous.
The very least you could do is watch the video that I posted earlier in the thread.
When he was interviewed immediately after the event, he clearly said he felt that they would immediately be murdered, his pets would be killed, and his house burned down. Those were his words, and his justification for his actions.
They have previously pulled a gun on one of their neighbours for trespassing, when he wasn't.
There is no evidence suggesting that the protesters broke the gate leading onto the estate, although it was likely. The majority of his neighbours supported the protest, and obviously didn't feel threatened. Nobody broke into a private property, although they may have broken a gate leading into a private estate. As the Mayor lived on this estate, I would assume that the Mayors home was not accessible without entering through the gate.
I think that to guess at the couples intentions is about as silly as him saying that the protesters intentions were to murder them. kill their pets, and burn their house down.
Many disasters in the US have resulted from acts of stupidity.
I have no idea who the organiser was. A number of people can be seen in the video ushering protesters past his gate, and avoiding confrontation.
There have been Many BLM protests, some have been sabotaged. You cant tar them all with the same brush.
This is not an end of the world issue for me, but I have watched a couple of short videos, and read a couple of articles regarding the incident. With all due respect, I think that had you done the same you might have a different opinion. I cant really see what on earth you are basing your comments on. The video that I posted is at the bottom of page 5 of this thread, and lasts for just over a minute, including his interview.
You cant conflate protesters trespassing onto a private estate and peacefully walking past his home, with armed intruders invading a home. That would be ridiculous.
Had the couple remained in their home the whole thing would have passed without incident. They made it into an incident.
Assuming you watch the video, you will note that about halfway through his wife has pursued the protesters off the property and is seen shouting at them, and waving her gun around.
Hardly the actions of a terrified person, afraid for their life.
So if people break down a gate and walk through your land to see a neighbour of yours they arent trespassing???.
The road they were on was NOT a public highway FFS it was a private gated community with avenues, roads and driveways. It makes no difference if they are on his actual property, the residents of that community are the only ones with any legal right of access and egress. Anybody without a specific invite is a trespasser.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp, one wonders why you can't.
2-0 to TheEdge949
I love Haysie however this time can't see a decent viewpoint from his side.
Normally I can, not here.
Cammy
Did you just think that I just idiotically made up the bit about the couple immediately expecting to be murdered, their pets killed and their house burnt down, rather than merely quoting what the husband actually said?
Don't you sympathise with their neighbour who was quietly making his way home, minding his own business, only to be confronted by a complete nut, armed with a gun, screaming at him?
Obv the Kyle Walker example you gave is not racist, because Kyle Walker is legitimately rapid and it's one of the things that makes him so good.
So this is the thing, the study never mentioned whether any of the assignments were legitimate, just that they were disproportionate. Have to admit, I haven't looked at the study itself it just felt to me another example where someone is desperate to find racism. I cannot give you any examples of where a football commentator isn't talking about the relevant player attributes, but maybe I haven't been listening closely enough to find it. The article didn't give any real life examples that suggested the football commentators needed the unconscious bias training.
The most clear example of this in sports anywhere in the world is probably American Football quarterbacks
I can't go anywhere with you on this one as I don't watch it, but again it's curious that we define our own inherent biases in the UK by looking at examples from across the pond. If they're incorrectly discussing attributes of an individual that they've seen before then surely that's incompetence at a job that supposed to be analytical in nature?
The problem is that commentators fail to recognise a player's ability when they do something that doesn't fit the stereotype.
Do they? I don't know.
I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to subscribe to the "all commentators are racist" stereotype. Or worse, the "all white people are racist" mantra. Is that what you believe? I find it strange that if you're white and deny all whites are racist, you display 'white fragility' and are 'part of the problem'. Whereas if you're white and accept the assertion, admitting you are or have been racist but perhaps bend the knee or do some apologising, then you're more virtuous than the other! It's a no-win proposition. The virtuous can then join the band and push for all the tearing down of society that needs to happen to rebuild it all a bit more equally.
Doesn't sit well with me.
It's like the walking in the countryside thing, there are no barriers to black people taking a walk in the countryside. None at all. To do so, then have the main thing you're noticing be colour of other people's skin... doesn't that suggest you're spending too much time thinking about skin colour, and less about the nature around you? If the other person is surprised to see a person of your skin colour, isn't that because it's atypical? Wouldn't the best thing to do be to go and take more walks and encourage everyone else from all backgrounds colours and creeds to do the same?
Undoubtedly there are racist types that live in this country, and in the country. As in every country, racists of all colours in fact. I just don't think it is the vast majority as we're being led to believe by the 'diversity and inclusion' people, who have made it their job to sit and think about all the different ways they can classify people into their group identities.
So if people break down a gate and walk through your land to see a neighbour of yours they arent trespassing???.
The road they were on was NOT a public highway FFS it was a private gated community with avenues, roads and driveways. It makes no difference if they are on his actual property, the residents of that community are the only ones with any legal right of access and egress. Anybody without a specific invite is a trespasser.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp, one wonders why you can't.
2-0 to TheEdge949
I love Haysie however this time can't see a decent viewpoint from his side.
You could read the article below in full, watch the 1 minute video, then review the scores.
Neighbors From H ell? The Insane Drama Behind the Gun-Toting St. Louis Lawyer Couple
Before they were photographed brandishing guns during a Black Lives Matter protest, Mark and Patricia McCloskey had made a name for themselves in their St. Louis neighborhood, suing and writing angry letters to community groups, and even accusing a neighborhood association of trespassing for taking a picture of their house. The McCloskeys, a pair of lawyers, won internet fame this week after they were filmed pointing guns at racial justice protesters outside their mansion in a gated community. The McCloskeys said the protesters were trespassing on their private street, and that they feared for their lives. But the couple has, for decades, been wrapped up in conflict in the area, sometimes in cases that foreshadowed their now-infamous confrontation with Black Lives Matter activists. Footage of the McCloskeys went viral on Sunday after activists walked on their St. Louis street en route to a protest outside the mayor’s home nearby. Standing outside their palatial home, the couple—Mark wearing a pink polo and carrying a rifle and Patricia with her finger on the trigger of a pistol—looked like a portrait of weaponized white wealth.
In interviews after the confrontation, the McCloskeys said they went outside with guns because they felt terrorized and worried that the marchers were going to murder them. The couple pointed to damage to a nearby gate as proof that the protest was intent on destroying property. That story has since come under some dispute, after the release of a video that showed the gate intact when the McCloskeys first drew guns on the protesters. The gate was photographed damaged later on Sunday. Nevertheless, the presence of the gated community in the middle of St. Louis highlighted the potentially divisive role of private streets, an urban phenomenon with which the McCloskeys have long been intimately acquainted. Portland Place is a gated street full of large and historic homes, like the one the McCloskeys currently occupy. But the McCloskeys filed their first lawsuit against the community before they even lived there.
“A lawyer in St. Louis has filed suit against a bank and a group of lawyers and real estate agents, accusing them of cheating him out of a chance to buy a unique mansion in the Central West End,” the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported in 1987. “Another party bought the mansion for less money than McCloskey had offered, the suit says.” McCloskey asked the court to give him the mansion or pay him damages. He won the suit and the couple bought the mansion in 1988. They became involved with the Portland Place homeowners association, but soon were embroiled in group politics. According to a Post-Dispatch report from 1992, Patricia spearheaded an effort to enforce an obscure state law banning unmarried couples from living together. Fellow members of the homeowners association accused her of using the provision as an excuse to stop gay couples from moving in, which Patricia denied.
“This is insanity,” she told the paper. “It isn’t about gay-bashing. I want to enforce certain restrictions.” She cited a nearby doctor, whom she accused of running a business out of his home. (The McCloskeys had previously opened their home to a photoshoot of designer clothes, like a $300 paisley silk Neiman-Marcus robe, which ran in the Post-Dispatch.) The doctor said her complaint was bogus. “I have not officially seen a patient since 1984,” he told the Post-Dispatch, adding critically that the McCloskeys “are trying to preserve the exclusivity of the neighborhood.” Patricia was ousted from the homeowners association the following year over disagreements about the neighborhood rules. Reached by phone, Mark McCloskey declined to comment immediately, and Patricia could not be reached. The couple’s lawyer, Albert Watkins, said he was unfamiliar with the unmarried couples dispute. But that he knew the couple had lobbied to remove anti-Black language (which had already been ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable) from the neighborhood charter. Since the video of them went viral, the couple have claimed to support Black Lives Matter. Patricia McCloskey’s booting seems to have begun a decades-long stretch of hostile relations with the association, which the couple have since battled in court four times, in three cases as plaintiffs—most recently over the group’s alleged failure to maintain the private sewer system. That matter remains in litigation, but suits the two brought in 1995 and 2017 wound up dismissed without prejudice. A lawyer who represents the association and multiple individual members either declined to comment or could not be reached prior to publication. In 1996, after relations with the Portland Place homeowners association had apparently soured, Mark McCloskey took issue with the Central West End Association when the group included a picture of their stately home—alongside 25 others—in a poster of the neighborhood.
“I do not necessarily support the Central West End Association, I am not a member,” McCloskey wrote in a letter published in part by the Post-Dispatch that year. “The Association certainly has no right to use a photograph of my home for its personal profit … it could only have resulted from a trespass upon this private place … I feel compelled to request that you forward to me, at a minimum, one-25th of the gross receipts recovered by the Central West End Association from the sale of such poster.” An Association spokesperson told the Post-Dispatch that the poster revenue “may reach $33.” McCloskey apparently doesn’t mind fighting over small change. When a lawyer fined him $1,800 for frivolous filings in a 2000 case, McCloskey made the payment with 18,000 dimes in a box, delivered to his opponent’s office.
He has also been an opinionated author of letters to the editor of the Post-Dispatch over the years. In 1993, he wrote one such letter, upset that the paper had disparaged “yuppies” like him. “Why live where your life is at risk, where you are affronted by thugs, bums, drug addicts and punks when you can afford not to?” he wrote.
In 1999, he wrote a long letter complaining about airport security. “On March 14, I had an encounter with airport security, which I think sends a frightening message about the state of our ‘free’ country,” he wrote, describing a security agent who asked. “‘May I inspect your bag?’ I responded, ‘Not unless you can tell me some legal reason why you have the right to.’ That response caused all the security agents to burst out laughing.”
When confronted at gunpoint, the marchers in Portland Place noted that they were on the street or the sidewalk, not the McCloskeys’ private property.
Mark McCloskey countered in the media that the entire gated neighborhood was technically private—and he was technically correct, thanks to an old St. Louis zoning code that walled off some of the city’s most elite neighborhoods.
Even so, pointing guns on the protesters remains of dubious legality. A Circuit Court attorney representing St. Louis said she was launching an investigation into the incident, noting that “we must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation or threat of deadly force will not be tolerated.”
Watkins, the McCloskeys’ lawyer, told The Daily Beast that he’d lived on Portland Place in the early 2000s, and that the street had its own armed security force at the time. “It didn’t bother me at first blush, except that in practice what happened was that every one of my friends and guests of color inevitably would show up at my door kind of traumatized,” he said. “They’d been stopped by a cop with his hand ready on a gun asking them what they were doing there.”
So if people break down a gate and walk through your land to see a neighbour of yours they arent trespassing???.
The road they were on was NOT a public highway FFS it was a private gated community with avenues, roads and driveways. It makes no difference if they are on his actual property, the residents of that community are the only ones with any legal right of access and egress. Anybody without a specific invite is a trespasser.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp, one wonders why you can't.
2-0 to TheEdge949
I love Haysie however this time can't see a decent viewpoint from his side.
Normally I can, not here.
Cammy
Did you just think that I just idiotically made up the bit about the couple immediately expecting to be murdered, their pets killed and their house burnt down, rather than merely quoting what the husband actually said?
Don't you sympathise with their neighbour who was quietly making his way home, minding his own business, only to be confronted by a complete nut, armed with a gun, screaming at him?
I think there are bigger things to concern with on the BLM movement than this protest and a couple holding guns with very likely no intention of using them for harm.
This is not good for the movement despite how stories can be spun in the media. The movement needs to play smarter than this.
Comments
You are just highlighting how little you know.
Knowing one person that lives in America doesn't make you an expert, I have been to Vegas 4 times.
Firstly your reference to me knowing nothing about "American Law" is quite true because "American Law" does not exist.
In America laws differ from State to State.
I made no reference to the lawyers breaking the law, and accepted that the protesters did.
Although, I wouldnt accept that this breaking of the law warranted a firing squad.
This couple have previous.(see below)
The authorities are considering charging the couple with breaking the law, not the protesters.
Three dozen of their neighbours have published letters condemning their behaviour, and they have been heavily criticised in the media.
Reading the article below may make you better informed.
Court record shows St. Louis couple pulled gun before
O'FALLON, Mo. (AP) — The white St. Louis couple who became internationally famous for standing guard with guns outside their mansion during a protest have pulled a gun before in defense of their property, according to an affidavit in an ongoing case.
As demonstrators marched near the Renaissance palazzo-style home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey on Sunday, video posted online showed him wielding a long-barreled gun and her with a small handgun. No shots were fired.
The protesters, estimated at around 500 racially mixed people, were passing the house on the way to the nearby home of Mayor Lyda Krewson. The protest was among dozens in St. Louis since George Floyd's death in Minneapolis on May 25.
The McCloskeys -- he’s 63 and she’s 61 -- are both personal injury lawyers and their home is on a private street called Portland Place in St. Louis’ well-to-do Central West End.
Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner said her office was working with police to investigate, saying she was alarmed because “peaceful protesters were met by guns and a violent assault.”
She obviously knows nothing about American Law either.
The McCloskeys and the trustees of Portland Place are involved in a three-year legal dispute over a small piece of property. The McCloskeys claim they own it, but the trustees say it belongs to the neighborhood.
A judge on Monday ruled against motions from both sides to end the case without a trial. Details about the legal case were first reported Thursday by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Mark McCloskey said in the affidavit that he and his wife purchased the home in 1988 and have taken several measures to improve the disputed piece of land.
The affidavit states they have “regularly prohibited all persons, including Portland Place residents, from crossing the Parcel including at least at one point, challenging a resident at gunpoint who refused to heed the McCloskeys’ warnings to stay off such property.”
In the earlier incident, Watkins said, Patricia McCloskey heard a noise at night and saw someone.
“She looked down, had a gun and screamed for the person to stay off her property,” Watkins said. It turned out to be a neighbor cutting through on the way home from a nearby business district.
Demonstrators on Sunday were angry at Krewson, a Democrat, for reading aloud the names and addresses of several residents who wrote letters
Krewson's home is just a few blocks from the McCloskeys' home.
Police said the McCloskeys heard a loud commotion in the street and saw a large group of people break an iron gate marked with “No Trespassing” and “Private Street” signs.
The video showed the protesters walking through the gate and it was unclear when it was damaged.
A letter released Wednesday by more than three dozen neighbors of the couple condemned "the behavior of anyone who uses threats of violence, especially through the brandishing of firearms, to disrupt peaceful protest, whether it be in this neighborhood or anywhere in the United States."
https://news.yahoo.com/court-record-shows-st-louis-184427701.html
However, this does exist in sports.
The most clear example of this in sports anywhere in the world is probably American Football quarterbacks, and I suspect any other NFL fans on here will have picked up on it. Black quarterback? The stereotype is that they'll bail out of the 'pocket' and run a lot more than a white quarterback, relying on their athleticism to outrun players or make them miss tackles, but they won't necessarily be as good throwing the ball. (It's the 'intelligent white player/athletic black player' stereotype)
When you hear the American sports media talk up a black quarterback draft prospect, it's always their athleticism and running ability that comes up, whereas white quarterbacks you'll hear a lot more praising of a player's ability to read coverage, work through his progressions, and other 'intelligence' traits for a quarterback.
You also get commentators saying things like "[white quarterback] will surprise you with how good he is when he takes off and runs with the ball" because, well, he's white. He's not supposed to do that and be good at it because that's the thing that the black quarterbacks are good at. You'd think after 10+ seasons in the NFL that the expert commentators would have stopped being surprised that Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers are quite good at running when they have needed to run, but nope.
Meanwhile, you have the exact same thing when black quarterback makes a good throw, because he's black so the stereotype is he's supposed to be good at running around, not reading the defense then making a pinpoint accurate throw to the receiver 40 yards away, putting the ball in the exact spot where the defender can't do anything about it.
Honestly, it's super noticeable in those cases.
Is it racist to make an assumption of a player's strengths/weaknesses are based on their skin colour, and to judge two players at the same position by a different set of attributes based on the playing style you expect from someone with their skin colour? Yes, absolutely.
The problem is that commentators fail to recognise a player's ability when they do something that doesn't fit the stereotype. Understandably, the focus is on racial stereotypes of a player's skillset since that is the most problematic. Coming back to your Kyle Walker example, highlighting his pace would only become a problem if the commentators weren't giving him any credit for other aspects of his game (in other words, if they were telling the viewer that he's a black guy who runs really fast but doesn't do much else).
All for protests, using megaphones within a gated private property when a couple likely worked very hard to get where they are in life is hard to get behind.
The protests are not useful at the moment, too much going on in the world just now. Could the BLM movement have a few 'bad eggs' in there causing a stir and pushing the boundaries too far?
This seems like a too far situation, if outside the gated entrance to estate or whatever then one would assume no law is broken. If inside then as others have said, it's trespassing and the couple has cause to feel threatened hence the brandishing of guns.
One issue with the mob pushing too far and too heavy is:-
There could be new stricter laws and heavier sentencing in the future for this kind of behaviour so in actual fact could well be doing their cause more harm than good. Can't rule out group infiltration at this point either.
Cammy
Found Black Mirror quite dark and unfortunately has a bit of truth in it. Preferred the older episodes pre-Netflix time.
Cammy
The media are being quite unhelpful as per normal with the language used and the like.
This whole thing stinks!
Cammy
I love Haysie however this time can't see a decent viewpoint from his side.
Normally I can, not here.
Cammy
Have you ducked answering the other post?
Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner said her office was working with police to investigate, saying she was alarmed because “peaceful protesters were met by guns and a violent assault.”
A letter released Wednesday by more than three dozen neighbors of the couple condemned "the behavior of anyone who uses threats of violence, especially through the brandishing of firearms, to disrupt peaceful protest, whether it be in this neighborhood or anywhere in the United States."
The affidavit states they have “regularly prohibited all persons, including Portland Place residents, from crossing the Parcel including at least at one point, challenging a resident at gunpoint who refused to heed the McCloskeys’ warnings to stay off such property.”
“She looked down, had a gun and screamed for the person to stay off her property,” Watkins said. It turned out to be a neighbor cutting through on the way home from a nearby business district.
There is absolutely no evidence that the protesters had any intention or murdering the couple, killing their pets, or burning their house down.
These are the reasons he gave in his interview to justify his actions.”
They may have been more peaceful than portrayed. Can quite safely say I doubt anyone in this forum would have had first hand eye-witness account information to work with.
Merely making the way to the Mayors home by walking past. Were they not “trespassing”
If peaceful and they weren’t encroaching on private property or the land of another US resident then I stand corrected. Looking at the pictures and seeing megaphones and residents holding guns does not appear, from my view at least, that things were as peaceful as you make out.
Haysie “There is absolutely no evidence that the protesters had any intention or murdering the couple, killing their pets, or burning their house down.”
For goodness sake,
Trespassing appears to be the main talking point here, not murder. The couple appeared threatened and reacted it appears. I doubt the couple themselves had murder in mind or for that matter the BLM protesters.
Farmers in the UK have guns to hand and rarely use them. This couple, I believe, had absolutely no intention of using the weapons.
Haysie “So protests are ok, but not anywhere near posh houses.
Their intention was to protest to the Mayor, they had to walk past the couples house to get there.”
Protests are ok, breaking into private property surely is not. Was there no other route? Who was the main organiser?
Haysie “Many protests are sabotaged, and not just in the USA.
Tell George Floyds family there is too much going on in the world to protest his murder.”
Yes they are, protests can be quite positive and proactive as well if run with that intention. I fear that the BLM one has been getting more ‘ugly’ lately. The death of one innocent man who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. A tragedy and it was police brutality/murder.
I think George Floyd’s family deserve justice and a massive apology from the police and the State. The policeman should get a big sentence and this type of tragedy should never happen again to any human.
Haysie “We don't even treat trespassing as a criminal offence in this country.
Why did he feel threatened?
Why did none of his neighbours feel threatened, and also brandish guns?
Why are his neighbours condemning his actions, and supporting the protesters?
Why are authorities considering prosecuting the couple, not the protesters?
Should they be shooting neighbours for innocently trespassing on land that they don't actually own?
I think that they are a pair of publicity seeking Drama Queens that have come unstuck, as the majority of the publicity they have received has not been good.”
We don't even treat trespassing as a criminal offence in this country.
In our country the law will be different.
Why did he feel threatened?
Best coming from the horses mouth so to speak.
Why did none of his neighbours feel threatened, and also brandish guns?
No idea, it was a gated shared land area wasn’t it?
Why are his neighbours condemning his actions, and supporting the protesters?
Haven’t read anything about that yet, will do more than likely. May after I get a power walk and get some paracetamol down me
Why are authorities considering prosecuting the couple, not the protesters?
At a quick guess and quick thought, easier to ‘feel their collar" and appear to be doing something. Too many protesters and would be maybe human version of a game of whack a mole.
Should they be shooting neighbours for innocently trespassing on land that they don't actually own?
Absolutely not!
I think that they are a pair of publicity seeking Drama Queens that have come unstuck, as the majority of the publicity they have received has not been good.”
They may very well be.
Cammy
I don't think it is fair to conflate trespassing onto a private estate, and burglary.
Jaywalking is also a criminal offence, probably just as serious as trespassing on a private estate, I don't think that people should be shot in respect of either.
They did not encroach, watch the video.
This couple have got previous.
The very least you could do is watch the video that I posted earlier in the thread.
When he was interviewed immediately after the event, he clearly said he felt that they would immediately be murdered, his pets would be killed, and his house burned down.
Those were his words, and his justification for his actions.
They have previously pulled a gun on one of their neighbours for trespassing, when he wasn't.
There is no evidence suggesting that the protesters broke the gate leading onto the estate, although it was likely.
The majority of his neighbours supported the protest, and obviously didn't feel threatened.
Nobody broke into a private property, although they may have broken a gate leading into a private estate.
As the Mayor lived on this estate, I would assume that the Mayors home was not accessible without entering through the gate.
I think that to guess at the couples intentions is about as silly as him saying that the protesters intentions were to murder them. kill their pets, and burn their house down.
Many disasters in the US have resulted from acts of stupidity.
I have no idea who the organiser was. A number of people can be seen in the video ushering protesters past his gate, and avoiding confrontation.
There have been Many BLM protests, some have been sabotaged. You cant tar them all with the same brush.
This is not an end of the world issue for me, but I have watched a couple of short videos, and read a couple of articles regarding the incident.
With all due respect, I think that had you done the same you might have a different opinion.
I cant really see what on earth you are basing your comments on.
The video that I posted is at the bottom of page 5 of this thread, and lasts for just over a minute, including his interview.
You cant conflate protesters trespassing onto a private estate and peacefully walking past his home, with armed intruders invading a home.
That would be ridiculous.
Had the couple remained in their home the whole thing would have passed without incident.
They made it into an incident.
Hardly the actions of a terrified person, afraid for their life.
Why would she chase after them?
Don't you sympathise with their neighbour who was quietly making his way home, minding his own business, only to be confronted by a complete nut, armed with a gun, screaming at him?
@EvilPingu So this is the thing, the study never mentioned whether any of the assignments were legitimate, just that they were disproportionate. Have to admit, I haven't looked at the study itself it just felt to me another example where someone is desperate to find racism. I cannot give you any examples of where a football commentator isn't talking about the relevant player attributes, but maybe I haven't been listening closely enough to find it. The article didn't give any real life examples that suggested the football commentators needed the unconscious bias training. I can't go anywhere with you on this one as I don't watch it, but again it's curious that we define our own inherent biases in the UK by looking at examples from across the pond. If they're incorrectly discussing attributes of an individual that they've seen before then surely that's incompetence at a job that supposed to be analytical in nature? Do they? I don't know.
I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to subscribe to the "all commentators are racist" stereotype. Or worse, the "all white people are racist" mantra. Is that what you believe? I find it strange that if you're white and deny all whites are racist, you display 'white fragility' and are 'part of the problem'. Whereas if you're white and accept the assertion, admitting you are or have been racist but perhaps bend the knee or do some apologising, then you're more virtuous than the other! It's a no-win proposition. The virtuous can then join the band and push for all the tearing down of society that needs to happen to rebuild it all a bit more equally.
Doesn't sit well with me.
It's like the walking in the countryside thing, there are no barriers to black people taking a walk in the countryside. None at all. To do so, then have the main thing you're noticing be colour of other people's skin... doesn't that suggest you're spending too much time thinking about skin colour, and less about the nature around you? If the other person is surprised to see a person of your skin colour, isn't that because it's atypical? Wouldn't the best thing to do be to go and take more walks and encourage everyone else from all backgrounds colours and creeds to do the same?
Undoubtedly there are racist types that live in this country, and in the country. As in every country, racists of all colours in fact. I just don't think it is the vast majority as we're being led to believe by the 'diversity and inclusion' people, who have made it their job to sit and think about all the different ways they can classify people into their group identities.
Given you mentioned NFL, do you think it would be progressive for American race relations to have one anthem for the blacks to sing, and another for the whites?
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2020/07/02/nfl-play-black-national-anthem-lift-every-voice-sing-openers/5368762002/
2-0 to TheEdge949
Cammy
You could read the article below in full, watch the 1 minute video, then review the scores.
Neighbors From H ell? The Insane Drama Behind the Gun-Toting St. Louis Lawyer Couple
Before they were photographed brandishing guns during a Black Lives Matter protest, Mark and Patricia McCloskey had made a name for themselves in their St. Louis neighborhood, suing and writing angry letters to community groups, and even accusing a neighborhood association of trespassing for taking a picture of their house.
The McCloskeys, a pair of lawyers, won internet fame this week after they were filmed pointing guns at racial justice protesters outside their mansion in a gated community. The McCloskeys said the protesters were trespassing on their private street, and that they feared for their lives. But the couple has, for decades, been wrapped up in conflict in the area, sometimes in cases that foreshadowed their now-infamous confrontation with Black Lives Matter activists.
Footage of the McCloskeys went viral on Sunday after activists walked on their St. Louis street en route to a protest outside the mayor’s home nearby. Standing outside their palatial home, the couple—Mark wearing a pink polo and carrying a rifle and Patricia with her finger on the trigger of a pistol—looked like a portrait of weaponized white wealth.
In interviews after the confrontation, the McCloskeys said they went outside with guns because they felt terrorized and worried that the marchers were going to murder them. The couple pointed to damage to a nearby gate as proof that the protest was intent on destroying property. That story has since come under some dispute, after the release of a video that showed the gate intact when the McCloskeys first drew guns on the protesters. The gate was photographed damaged later on Sunday.
Nevertheless, the presence of the gated community in the middle of St. Louis highlighted the potentially divisive role of private streets, an urban phenomenon with which the McCloskeys have long been intimately acquainted.
Portland Place is a gated street full of large and historic homes, like the one the McCloskeys currently occupy. But the McCloskeys filed their first lawsuit against the community before they even lived there.
“A lawyer in St. Louis has filed suit against a bank and a group of lawyers and real estate agents, accusing them of cheating him out of a chance to buy a unique mansion in the Central West End,” the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported in 1987. “Another party bought the mansion for less money than McCloskey had offered, the suit says.”
McCloskey asked the court to give him the mansion or pay him damages. He won the suit and the couple bought the mansion in 1988.
They became involved with the Portland Place homeowners association, but soon were embroiled in group politics. According to a Post-Dispatch report from 1992, Patricia spearheaded an effort to enforce an obscure state law banning unmarried couples from living together. Fellow members of the homeowners association accused her of using the provision as an excuse to stop gay couples from moving in, which Patricia denied.
“This is insanity,” she told the paper. “It isn’t about gay-bashing. I want to enforce certain restrictions.” She cited a nearby doctor, whom she accused of running a business out of his home. (The McCloskeys had previously opened their home to a photoshoot of designer clothes, like a $300 paisley silk Neiman-Marcus robe, which ran in the Post-Dispatch.)
The doctor said her complaint was bogus. “I have not officially seen a patient since 1984,” he told the Post-Dispatch, adding critically that the McCloskeys “are trying to preserve the exclusivity of the neighborhood.”
Patricia was ousted from the homeowners association the following year over disagreements about the neighborhood rules.
Reached by phone, Mark McCloskey declined to comment immediately, and Patricia could not be reached. The couple’s lawyer, Albert Watkins, said he was unfamiliar with the unmarried couples dispute. But that he knew the couple had lobbied to remove anti-Black language (which had already been ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable) from the neighborhood charter. Since the video of them went viral, the couple have claimed to support Black Lives Matter.
Patricia McCloskey’s booting seems to have begun a decades-long stretch of hostile relations with the association, which the couple have since battled in court four times, in three cases as plaintiffs—most recently over the group’s alleged failure to maintain the private sewer system. That matter remains in litigation, but suits the two brought in 1995 and 2017 wound up dismissed without prejudice.
A lawyer who represents the association and multiple individual members either declined to comment or could not be reached prior to publication.
In 1996, after relations with the Portland Place homeowners association had apparently soured, Mark McCloskey took issue with the Central West End Association when the group included a picture of their stately home—alongside 25 others—in a poster of the neighborhood.
“I do not necessarily support the Central West End Association, I am not a member,” McCloskey wrote in a letter published in part by the Post-Dispatch that year. “The Association certainly has no right to use a photograph of my home for its personal profit … it could only have resulted from a trespass upon this private place … I feel compelled to request that you forward to me, at a minimum, one-25th of the gross receipts recovered by the Central West End Association from the sale of such poster.”
An Association spokesperson told the Post-Dispatch that the poster revenue “may reach $33.”
McCloskey apparently doesn’t mind fighting over small change. When a lawyer fined him $1,800 for frivolous filings in a 2000 case, McCloskey made the payment with 18,000 dimes in a box, delivered to his opponent’s office.
He has also been an opinionated author of letters to the editor of the Post-Dispatch over the years. In 1993, he wrote one such letter, upset that the paper had disparaged “yuppies” like him. “Why live where your life is at risk, where you are affronted by thugs, bums, drug addicts and punks when you can afford not to?” he wrote.
In 1999, he wrote a long letter complaining about airport security.
“On March 14, I had an encounter with airport security, which I think sends a frightening message about the state of our ‘free’ country,” he wrote, describing a security agent who asked. “‘May I inspect your bag?’ I responded, ‘Not unless you can tell me some legal reason why you have the right to.’ That response caused all the security agents to burst out laughing.”
When confronted at gunpoint, the marchers in Portland Place noted that they were on the street or the sidewalk, not the McCloskeys’ private property.
Even so, pointing guns on the protesters remains of dubious legality. A Circuit Court attorney representing St. Louis said she was launching an investigation into the incident, noting that “we must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation or threat of deadly force will not be tolerated.”
Watkins, the McCloskeys’ lawyer, told The Daily Beast that he’d lived on Portland Place in the early 2000s, and that the street had its own armed security force at the time.
“It didn’t bother me at first blush, except that in practice what happened was that every one of my friends and guests of color inevitably would show up at my door kind of traumatized,” he said. “They’d been stopped by a cop with his hand ready on a gun asking them what they were doing there.”
https://news.yahoo.com/neighbors-****-insane-drama-behind-212830221.html
We should put ourselves in this couple shoes.
Would you be happy to have protesters with megaphones on your front lawn and people debating with you about a subject you maybe aren't interested in?
I type this without knowledge on any back stories to this. Assuming the protesters were
passing by on the way to the Mayor's office/building.
Was this couple deserving of this and had protesters created a bit of a ruckus for a reason?
Cammy
This is not good for the movement despite how stories can be spun in the media. The movement needs to play smarter than this.
Cammy