On Thursday, the St. Louis couple who gained notoriety after pointing guns at social justice demonstrators has pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges.
Despite admitting to his wrongdoing, Mark McCloskey defiantly left, saying he would “do it again” if he faced the same situation. Instead, he pleaded guilty to a fourth-degree assault charge and was fined $750.
His wife, Patricia McCloskey, also plead guilty to the harassment charge and received a $2,000 fine.
Nationwide protests were sparked by the murder of George Floyd, a Black man killed by a white police officer. According to the indictment, on the day protesters marched past the couple’s home, Mark McCloskey came outside with an AR-15-style rifle, and Patricia McCloskey waved a semiautomatic pistol. Cellphone video captured the confrontation.
Both have agreed to hand over their weapons used during the incident.
In June of last year, several hundred protesters marched past the McCloskey’s home. The couple claims that protesters were trespassing and feared for their safety, which is why they brandished their firearms.
The husband and wife are both lawyers in their 60s. When asked by Judge David Mason during their hearing on Thursday if they acknowledged their actions put others at risk, the husband replied, “I sure did your honor.”
According to the Associated Press, Mark announced that he was running for a U.S. Senate seat in Missouri.
He also remained unapologetic following this week’s 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.”
Since the charges are misdemeanors, the couple will continue practicing law and maintain their rights to own guns.
As for the opposing side, prosecutor Richard Callahan felt the misdemeanor plea was reasonable since the couple called the police and no one got shot or hurt.
“But I think that their conduct was a little unreasonable in the end,” he said. “I don’t think people should view this case as some betrayal or assault on the Second Amendment. We still have the Second Amendment rights. It’s just that the Second Amendment does not permit unreasonable conduct.”
