McCloskeys Plead Guilty

@dood111 said
Did any of the rioters that broke down the gate and trespassed on private property have to stand up in court and admit to their crimes?

There was no "riot".

I don't think anyone was charged and I have my doubts any would stand given the Mayor's house was in that community - 1st Amendment and all.

@no1marauder said
There was no "riot".

I don't think anyone was charged and I have my doubts any would stand given the Mayor's house was in that community - 1st Amendment and all.

1st Amendment gives people the right to tresspass on private property?
They can talk to the mayor at his office, breaking into a gated community because he lives there is hardly a 1st Amendment right.
If you really are a lawyer you must be a crummy one to say such a thing.

@dood111 said
1st Amendment gives people the right to tresspass on private property?
They can talk to the mayor at his office, breaking into a gated community because he lives there is hardly a 1st Amendment right.
If you really are a lawyer you must be a crummy one to say such a thing.

How many times do I have to cite to the video showing no one "broke into" the community? The gate was undamaged when the protesters walked through right before the Mccloskeys confronted them with guns.

I stand by my analysis though it was not tested in this case. There's nothing in the First Amendment saying public officials can escape the People's right to petition them by declaring a street "private property."

@no1marauder said
I stand by my analysis though it was not tested in this case. There's nothing in the First Amendment saying public officials can escape the People's right to petition them by declaring a street "private property."

It's a gated community, not a public street.
You can't possibly have any sort of legal background.

@dood111 said
It's a gated community, not a public street.
You can't possibly have any sort of legal background.

Study this case while you're working on your law degree: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501

The whole town was privately owned in Marsh v. Alabama yet the SCOTUS ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses had a 1st Amendment right to distribute their materials in it and could not be prosecuted for trespassing for doing so.

@no1marauder said
Study this case while you're working on your law degree: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501

The whole town was privately owned in Marsh v. Alabama yet the SCOTUS ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses had a 1st Amendment right to distribute their materials in it and could not be prosecuted for trespassing for doing so.

I read the case.
Now I KNOW you are a self-taught legal expert.
The case was about a "company town" where all the stores/streets were on company property. People HAD to go downtown to shop, etc.
The McCloskey case involved a PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY where only property owners were allowed or people that had a reason to be there by invitation.
Two entirely different things.

@dood111 said
I read the case.
Now I KNOW you are a self-taught legal expert.
The case was about a "company town" where all the stores/streets were on company property. People HAD to go downtown to shop, etc.
The McCloskey case involved a PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY where only property owners were allowed or people that had a reason to be there by invitation.
Two entirely different things.

That's a distinction without a difference; in both cases the private property owners wished to prevent outsiders from exercising their 1st Amendment rights on the private property. What is the difference if in one it was one corporation and in the other an organization of individual owners one of whom was the Mayor of the city? None.

@no1marauder said
Study this case while you're working on your law degree: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501

The whole town was privately owned in Marsh v. Alabama yet the SCOTUS ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses had a 1st Amendment right to distribute their materials in it and could not be prosecuted for trespassing for doing so.

the town was open to the public

@no1marauder said
That's a distinction without a difference; in both cases the private property owners wished to prevent outsiders from exercising their 1st Amendment rights on the private property. What is the difference if in one it was one corporation and in the other an organization of individual owners one of whom was the Mayor of the city? None.

So if someone wants to come on my property and "Exercise their 1st Amendment rights" I can't tell them to GTFO my property?
You are NOT a lawyer.

@dood111 said
So if someone wants to come on my property and "Exercise their 1st Amendment rights" I can't tell them to GTFO my property?
You are NOT a lawyer.

Normally you can, but you're not the Mayor.

Tell me, how many of those protesting outside the Mayor's house on private property were arrested?

@no1marauder said
Normally you can, but you're not the Mayor.

Tell me, how many of those protesting outside the Mayor's house on private property were arrested?

So being the mayor means people can come on your property and harass you?
Don't think so.
Once again, you ARE NOT a lawyer as you claim.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/st-louis-couple-touts-new-ar-15

@dood111 said
So being the mayor means people can come on your property and harass you?
Don't think so.
Once again, you ARE NOT a lawyer as you claim.

Here's an article with lots of pictures of the protesters in front of the Mayor's house in the gated community. https://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/pictures/photos-protesters-march-to-mayor-krewsons-home/collection_cab79d8a-2742-5449-a43f-941071e2152c.html#10

They did it again a week later: https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/protesters-march-chant-and-shut-down-parts-of-i-64-friday-night/63-e7f3cf33-f6e3-415a-9d7d-bc767ea4b1b2

The reason they went to the Mayor's house and not City Hall:

" She publicly revealed the names and addresses of anti-police protesters"

https://apnews.com/article/shootings-police-carjacking-us-news-mo-state-wire-99d3ac1bc28aa6aed31689c851e75e46

Sauce for the goose.