THREAD re: McCloskey firearm prosecution and Missouri's Castle Doctrine
1) I earlier showed how all the protesters trespassed onto the McCloskey's private property. The castle doctrine mandates dismissal of the McCloskeys' criminal case.
2) Mark and Patricia McCloskey are charged with unlawful use of weapons under Mo. Rev. Stat. 571.030, a Class E felony. ImageImage
3) Under Section 571.030.1(4), a "person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons...if he or she knowingly...Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner...." ImageImage
4) But the above Sectrion 571.030.1(4) "shall NOT apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031." Section 571.030.5 (emphasis added). Section 563.030 contains the Castle Doctrine. ImageImageImageImage
5) Below are the relevant portions of Section 563.030. Subsections 1, 2(2), 2(3), and 3 are the castle doctrine. The McCloskeys' actions fall within Subsections 1, 2(3), and Section 3. ImageImage
6) Under subsection 1, a "person may...use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself...from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force..." ImageImage
7) Subsection 2(3) provides that deadly force may be used in the above circumstances if it "is used against a person who unlawfully enters...private property that is an individual...." ImageImage
7) Subsection 3(2), in turn, provides that the person using force has no duty to retreat from private property he or she owns. ImageImage
8) Note what subsection 1 does NOT say: It does NOT say that the defender can only use physical force against someone who specifically intends to harm him. Rather, it says that the defender can use physical force if he or she REASONABLY BELIEVES the person intends harm. ImageImage
9) In other words, the subjective intentions of the alleged aggressors are irrelevant. All that matters is whether someone in the position of the McCloskeys could reasonably believe, based on the actions of the protesters, that they posed an imminent harm to them. ImageImage
10) I challenge anyone to look at the below photos and video and argue that the McCloskeys could not, seeing such actions, reasonably conclude they were in imminent danger of physical harm. They were eating on their porch when this began.
11) Again, it is irrelevant whether any of the protesters actually intended to harm the McCloskeys. All that matters is whether the McCloskeys could reasonably conclude, based on the protesters' actions, that they were in danger of physical harm.
12) Use common sense here. Any reasonable person in the McCloskey's situation would have concluded they were in imminent danger of physical harm.
13) And thanks to the great research of @MattAHay , we know that the McCloskeys' private property includes the sidewalk and actual street where the protesters walked. Thus, it is indisputable that the protesters "unlawfully enter[ed]...private property."
14) Consequently, this situation falls squarely within Section 563.031.2(3). Missouri courts have long held that pointing a weapon at someone constitutes "deadly force." This means that the McCloskeys were well within their rights to point their guns at the protesters. ImageImage
15) The prosecution against the McCloskeys is baseless, and should be dismissed. A situation like this is exactly why the Missouri General Assembly enacted the castle doctrine in the first place.
P.S. My apologies for posting this a day late.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with John M. Reeves

John M. Reeves Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @reeveslawstl

15 Sep
1) THIS. 👇 Per @MattAHay , the McCloskey's ACTUAL PROPERTY includes the part of Portland Place into which the protesters walked.
2) Below is a link to the City of St. Louis's website showing the GIS survey boundaries for the McCloskey's residence.…
3) As the McCloskys' residential boundaries extend through and beyond Portland Pl. itself, there is no question that, under the Castle Doctrine, the protesters "unlawfully enter[ed]...private property that is an individual...." See Mo. Rev. Stat. 563.031.2(3).
Read 4 tweets
14 Sep
THREAD re: McCloskey firearm prosecution in St. Louis.
1) The prosecution of Mark and Patricia McCloskey in St. Louis City for unlawful use of a firearm has no legal basis and should be dismissed. This thread will discuss the factual background to the case.
2) While I am a former Assistant Missouri Attorney General, and while @Eric_Schmitt has moved to dismiss the prosecution, all of my thoughts on this matter are made in my personal capacity. I do NOT speak on behalf of the Missouri Attorney General's Office.
3) On the day of the incident, a group of protesters headed north on Kingshighway towards the residence of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson ("A" in the below map). The green line on the map shows the route the protesters presumably intended to take to remain on public streets.
Read 18 tweets
12 Sep
THREAD (preliminary) re McCloskey procesution
1) I will soon be doing an in-depth thread on the St. Louis criminal prosecution against the McCloskeys for displaying guns against protestors who trespassed onto their private street.…
2) The thread will discuss both why the prosecution against the McCloskeys is unjust, as well as why Mo. Atty. Gen. @Eric_Schmitt is right in seeking to file an amicus brief in this matter arguing for dismissal.…
3) The McCloskey prosecution hits particularly close to home for me not only bc I live in St. Louis, but also because I served as an Assistant Missouri Attorney General for over 6 years, 3.5 of which was in the office's criminal appellate division.…
Read 5 tweets
12 Sep
THREAD (belated) re: Flynn en banc ruling
1) I'm a bit late to the game on this (my apologies), but in terms of the practical impact of the Flynn en banc ruling, I fully agree with @McAdooGordon that it is a Pyrrhic victory at best for Judge Sullivan.
2) Practically speaking, it does not give Judge Sullivan much room to do anything other than hold a (non-evidentiary hearing) and then issue a ruling dismissing the case.
3) In addition, the DC Circuit's opinion makes very clear that it expects Judge Sullivan NOT to conduct an evidentiary hearing in which Judge Gleeson (as appointed amicus) could present evidence outside of what DOJ or Flynn are arguing.
Read 14 tweets
31 Aug
1) Walker (Griffith's replacement) is not yet on the court. He will be officially appointed on Tuesday. (cont)
2) While the Senate CONFIRMED Walker in July, the President still has to officially APPOINT Walker to the Court, which will happen on Tues. Marbury v. Madison actually talks abt this very issue. (cont).
3) Walker is still a fed district judge in Ky. until Tues. (cont)
Read 6 tweets
29 Aug
THREAD re: Michael Flynn en banc mandamus

1) It is VERY likely that the DC Circuit will issue its en banc judgment and opinion on the Flynn mandamus case this upcoming Monday, August 31, due to Judge Thomas Griffith being set to leave the court effective Sept. 1.
2) There are two types of federal appellate judges: active duty and senior status. A judge who takes senior status takes a kind of semi-retirement whereby he or she can still fully work as a judge, but it opens a slot for a new appointment to the court.
3) Judge Griffith is NOT taking senior status. Rather, this upcoming Tuesday, September 1, he is leaving the bench entirely.
Read 19 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!