Yes, the couple that garnered the internet title of ‘Cul-de-sac Commandos’ plead guilty to a couple misdemeanors. Harassment in the case of Patricia, and fourth degree assault in Mark’s case. The pair also agreed to forfeit the firearms that they used in the event.
From the LA Times:
ST. LOUIS —
A St. Louis couple who gained notoriety for pointing guns at social justice demonstrators pleaded guilty Thursday to misdemeanor charges, but the man left the courthouse defiantly pledging to “do it again” if faced with the same circumstances.
Patricia McCloskey pleaded guilty to misdemeanor harassment and was fined $2,000. Her husband, Mark, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor fourth-degree assault and was fined $750. They also agreed to give up the weapons they used during the confrontation.
When several hundred demonstrators marched past their home in June 2020, the couple waved weapons at them. They claimed that the protesters were trespassing and that they feared for their safety.
The McCloskeys, both of them lawyers in their 60s, wore blue blazers and spoke calmly in answering questions from Judge David Mason during Thursday’s hearing. Mason asked Mark McCloskey if he acknowledged that his actions put people at risk of personal injury. He replied, “I sure did, your honor.”
Mark McCloskey, who announced in May that he was running for a U.S. Senate seat in Missouri, was unapologetic after the hearing.
“I’d do it again,” he said from the courthouse steps in downtown St. Louis. “Any time the mob approaches me, I’ll do what I can to put them in imminent threat of physical injury because that’s what kept them from destroying my house and my family.”
Now, some speculation has been circulating around the web that the two are now ‘prohibited persons’ and their 2nd Amendment rights are now closed. This is error, the two minor convictions the pair of lawyers caught are not prohibitive. Only misdemeanor domestic assault, not simple assaults, would federally disqualify Mark and a misdemeanor harassment charge won’t prohibit Patricia either.
With the events surrounding the Social/Racial justice movements in other cities, including the literal annexation of a part of Seattle and several deaths, it is a simple thing to see why McCloskey’s prepared for the worst. The nature of the convictions vindicates the McCloskey’s concerns while implying that they perhaps could have gone about it in a more prudent manner.
The march was heading toward the mayor’s residence, with whom the group did have grievance, but the destruction of the community’s gate and the violence that spawned at other protests and marches would be enough to give pause. Ultimately, a tense situation resulted in nobody shot.
McCloskey was made to acknowledge that his actions put the marchers in some danger of personal injury, to which he responded, “I sure did, your honor.” That was the point. Deterrence was the point.
Could it have been done differently? Arguably. But it was done how it was done. The McCloskey’s are out of court, fines will be paid, and Mark McCloskey is running for office. It’s arguable he has a cleaner record than many in the swamp.