I warched the video. Did not see them leave their property ...  so the "advancing on people in the common area" was when/where? A "common area" in a gated HOA community does not mean it is public property or access.  It is community property owned by the community of which the couple were owners.
 Also, what was the overall context? What did protesters do in days preceding this incident?  What did these protesters do immediately prior to crashing the private property gate or afterward? Was there burning, looting or other property damage when the protest was on the public street that would lead someone to conclude "you are next" as they crashed the gate? (If it was a "peacefuI protest", I stand corrected.)  I heard reported there were firearms anong the protestors ... not sure if true. So in the context, was there reason to be fearful?
 The couple's actions made a statement.  They executed it stupidly as many posters have pointed out the gross mistakes and I agree. They paid the consequences of their actions with legal charges.
 But their place was not torched or vandalized with them in it. Who knows what the result would have been in the absence of action,  given the unlawful actions already taken by the crowd.
 The people were on the common area. I never stated that the McClusky's left their property. I guess that you could make the case that Mark McCloskey didn't advance, but it is pretty clear that Patricia McCloskey did. Both of them pointed the muzzle of the firearm in their possession at people who were in the common area. Patricia did so while advancing toward the people and with her finger on the trigger, Mark wasn't quite as stupid as his wife and remained within the curettage and did not have his finger on the trigger of the firearm (that I could determine).
 Your statement might be true, but probably not. In most cases common areas are owned by the HOA, almost always a separate legal entity from the homeowners. If you have some particular knowledge regarding Portland Place, please share.
 I don't know, and neither do you. More importantly, the McCloskey's didn't know at the time. Their actions, and if they were legal, has to be based on what the McClosky's knew at the time.
 As I stated before, the protestors didn't "crash" the gate to enter (if "crashing" means damaging/breaking down the gate to enter).
 The McCloskey's stated that there were firearms in the crowd. Although no one else claimed that there were; and the investigation did not indicate that anyone in the crowd had firearms.
 Yes, a statement of stupidity. So much so that the McCloskey's law licenses were suspended based on their poor judgement. Mark has been reinstated, however, Patricia is still under probation (as of 19 March 2023).
 Every indication is that the crowd was passing by their house, like they had passed several others, on their way to the mayor's house when the McCloskey's armed themselves and exited their home pointing the firearms at people in the crowd. Their (McCloskey's) actions can't be justified based on "what might have happened" only what would be reasonably believed to be immanent.
 The unlawful action(s) by the crowd was misdemeanor trespassing (not on the McCloskey's property). And every individual should (have been) cited and faced the consequences of the law.
I never said that the crowd/protestors were legally justified to do what they did, but neither were the McCloskey's. As Fred said, you don't generally get to point a firearm at someone for mere trespassing, much less trespassing on someone else's property, in MO.
I think we can agree that there was plenty of stupidity to go around in this incident.