Missouri governor defends gun-toting St. Louis couple, says Trump may get involved

[ansible]

https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/da97d15/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1000x563+0+0/resize/1280x720!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewscripps.brightspotcdn.com%2Fc1%2F96%2F0f76c93d428091b913990571b91d%2Fparsonstlcouple.png

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Missouri Gov. Mike Parson launched into an impassioned and unprompted defense of the St. Louis couple seen waving guns at Black Lives Matter protesters last month and later suggested that President Donald Trump has taken an interest in the situation.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey were seen on video June 28, brandishing an AR-15 rifle and a handgun while confronting protesters marching through the Portland Place neighborhood, where the McCloskeys live.

Police in St. Louis executed a search warrant at the McCloskey home Friday at the behest of St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s office. The couple’s lawyer said police seized an AR-15 from the house and that the couple had previously surrendered the handgun.

On Tuesday, after introducing a new grant program for small businesses during a press conference, Parson told reporters that he wanted “to address the McCloskey situation in St. Louis.”

Parson said the McCloskeys were using the Castle Doctrine to protect their property from protesters, “which they had every right to do.”

During his time as a state legislator, Parson helped expand the Castle Doctrine in Missouri — a stand-your-ground law that permits property owners to use any means deemed necessary, including deadly force, to protect themselves and their property when threatened.

Parson said police weren’t notified of the situation before reiterating “that couple had every right to protect their property."

He then slammed the District Attorney's office, without directly naming Gardner, for reportedly considering an indictment in the case.

“What they should not go through is a prosecutor attempting to take their constitutional rights away by filing charges against them for protecting their property,” Parson said.

He then said it was very difficult to remove an elected official — like Gardner — from office, calling it “one of the things we need to address in future sessions.”

It was at that point Parson invoked the White House.

“I just got off the phone with the president of the United States before I walked out here today,” Parson said. “He understands the situation in Missouri. He understands the situation in St. Louis — and how out of control it is for a prosecutor to let violent criminals off and not do their job and try to attack law-abiding citizens.”

Parson said Trump promised to do “everything he could within his powers to help with this situation and that he would be taking action to do that.”

“I’m thankful that he’s getting involved in the situation,” Parson said "... I’m thankful that he’s going to stand up for people and their legal rights.”

After opening up to questions, Parson acknowledged that “all I know is what I’ve heard” about the McCloskey case and that “I don’t know all the details of it,” but that “it’s quite evident they are standing on their property.”

“I think the president and the attorney general of the United States (William Barr) are going to take a look at it,” Parson said.

He later added, “The president doesn’t like what he’s seeing and the way these people are being treated. I know the attorney general was represented on that phone call today, so I think you’ll see some sort of actions. I think they’re going to look into things.”

Parson plans to have follow-up conversations with Trump after expressing his concern over the limited power the Missouri governor has to remove other elected officials, among other things.

https://www.kxxv.com/news/america-in-crisis/missouri-governor-defends-gun-toting-st-louis-couple-says-trump-may-get-involved

[Iliyah]

1. Oh gawd, these motherfuckers want a race war . ...

The video shows that it was a peaceful protest. Damn.

What say you republicans in the senate . .

[Beaverhausen]

2. Doesn't someone actually have to be on your property for that castle doctrine to take effect?

as far as I know none of the protesters were on their property.

[Archae]

3. From what I've read...

The protestors broke down an iron gate.
Is this true?

There is also a story about past bad encounters with the couple, and neighbors.
Is any of this true?

[mr_lebowski]

4. There is some question as to whether the protesters damaged (not broke down) a gate to the community

It was not these specific people's gate, and it is definitely in question as to when the damage happened.

IOW, their 'response' was almost surely not made with the knowledge that a gate had already been damaged.

In any case, pretty sure it's illegal to brandish firearms at people just passing by on your street.

If the protesters got onto their property, then that probably legally changes the situation (given it's MO) and I suspect that no charges will be filed if the couple can prove that protesters did so.

Potentially if this is a gated community, such that all of it is private property and the community owns the roads, that's also a potential 'out' for the McCloskeys.

It's pretty unlikely they'll suffer any legal consequences IMHO.

[missingfink]

7. Couldn't get the link to work

Sorry.