You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Indicted.
St Louis couple indicted for waving guns at BLM protesters
A grand jury has indicted the St Louis couple who displayed guns while hundreds of racial injustice protesters marched on their private street.
Al Watkins, an attorney for the couple, confirmed the indictments against Mark McCloskey, 63, and his wife, Patricia McCloskey, 61.
But Ms Gardner, a Democrat, charged the couple with felony unlawful use of a weapon. She said the display of guns risked bloodshed at what she called an otherwise peaceful protest.
Mr Watkins said that addition to the weapons charge, the grand jury indictment includes a tampering with evidence charge. It was not clear what led to that additional count, he said.
A police probable cause statement said protesters feared “being injured due to Patricia McCloskey’s finger being on the trigger, coupled with her excited demeanour.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/st-louis-couple-indicted-for-waving-guns-at-blm-protesters/ar-BB19Lw3F?ocid=msedgntp
A grand jury has indicted the St Louis couple who displayed guns while hundreds of racial injustice protesters marched on their private street.
Al Watkins, an attorney for the couple, confirmed the indictments against Mark McCloskey, 63, and his wife, Patricia McCloskey, 61.
But Ms Gardner, a Democrat, charged the couple with felony unlawful use of a weapon. She said the display of guns risked bloodshed at what she called an otherwise peaceful protest.
Mr Watkins said that addition to the weapons charge, the grand jury indictment includes a tampering with evidence charge. It was not clear what led to that additional count, he said.
A police probable cause statement said protesters feared “being injured due to Patricia McCloskey’s finger being on the trigger, coupled with her excited demeanour.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/st-louis-couple-indicted-for-waving-guns-at-blm-protesters/ar-BB19Lw3F?ocid=msedgntp
Comments
No, I'm not racist and I'm against any form of prejudice merely making the example that you can make a narrative fit any side of a story you wish to portray.
It features from page 5 of the Racism thread.
This topic is now about halfway down page 2 of the forum.
I used to deal with lots of disputes during my working life.
I always found there to be three perspectives.
In this case there will be the McCloskeys perspective, the protesters perspective, and the truth.
The truth will usually be found somewhere between the other two perspectives.
They will mount a defence, but I am not sure what it will be.
What strikes me about this incident is as follows.
They clearly provoked protesters, by pointing guns at them, during what was a fairly peaceful protest.
Mrs McCloskey can be seen in the video chasing after the protesters, when they had passed their property, to continue the confrontation.
None of their neighbours followed their example, obviously didnt see the threat in the same way, and would have had a much better experience of the whole thing.
The McCloskeys have previous, where they have tried to claim ownership of land they dont own, pulled a gun on one of their neighbours, and accused him of trespassing.
Not all the protesters were black.
I have to admit that I know nothing of the couple's previous run ins with law enforcement and from what you say, on face value they do seem like a right piece of work. Unfortunately it is people like that who give everyone a bad name no matter their background.
Much like people turning up at a protest intent on causing unrest and civil disobedience on both sides of the very inflamatory argument regarding race relations in the USA.
One thing I've always had difficulty with is any form of identity politics. I find it ironic that in arguing for diversity and inclusion those practicing this form of politics seem more intent on pointing out differences rather than focusing on shared difficulties and experiences. They seem to thrive on stoking percieved fear and intolerence and any form of debate or discussion with a view contrary to the one they hold gets you automatically branded with whatever their label of the day is.
I feel I should add that the far right does exactly the same. Unfortunately because of the actions of extremists at either end of this issue we seem as a society to be being pulled further apart rather than coming together.
Their actions can surely only be seen as provocative.
The protesters walked past their property peacefully, there was no trespassing.
There was a bit of shouting, but this probably had much to do with them being in their garden flouting weapons.
Had they remained in the house the protest would probably been quieter, and more peaceful.
The protesters didn't appear to trespass onto anyones property.
How on earth could any intelligent person claim that the intention of the protesters was to murder them, kill their pets, and burn their house down.
This is the reason they were armed.
There are no reports of any murders of armed or unarmed people, no murdered pets, or any houses being set on fire.
However the couple did make the news, which might have been the purpose of their actions.
Lawyer or not the man is an idiot.
If he could be prosecuted for being a fool he would definitely be found guilty.