Dozens of residents of a St. Louis neighborhood have signed a letter condemning the actions of the couple who brandished guns at Black Lives Matter marchers on Sunday.Mark and Patricia McCloskey, a pair of personal injury attorneys, made headlines this week after they were filmed waving weapons at Black Lives Matter activists who walked in their gated neighborhood en route to a protest at the mayor’s home nearby. Residents of an adjoining gated neighborhood say the couple doesn’t represent the area.The nearly three-dozen signers live on Westmoreland Place. That street and the adjoining Portland Place, where the McCloskeys live, make up a historic gated district in St. Louis’s Central West End.“From many walks of life, people choose to make this neighborhood home for many reasons, including the sincerity, empathy, and neighborliness exhibited by the vast majority of those who live here,” the open letter reads.Neighbors From Hell? The Insane Drama Behind the Gun-Toting St. Louis Lawyer Couple“Some of us choose to speak up following the horrific event that transpired on Sunday evening near our homes. As the undersigned, we condemn the behavior of anyone who uses threats of violence, especially through the brandishing of firearms to disrupt peaceful protest, whether it be in this neighborhood or anywhere in the United States.”Tim Noonan, a Westmoreland Place resident and a signer of the letter, told The Daily Beast he was shocked by Sunday’s confrontation. “I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” he said. “It didn’t speak to the types of values and the approach to building a civil society that we believe in, even from a common-sense view.”The McCloskeys could not immediately be reached for comment. In a a statement to The Daily Beast, the couple's lawyer Al Watkins called the neighbors' letter "disingenuous," citing the gated enclave's private security.Noonan said the community was close-knit, and that after the incident, neighbors began to sound off on the email networks that are more typically used for communicating about trash pickup and Halloween parties.“Peaceful protest should not be met with threat of violence,” Noonan said. “From what we can discern-and of course there are many more facts that need to be put on the table-it was a protest. Even in conditions of civil disobedience, it shouldn’t be met with violence.”The McCloskeys contend that they came outside with guns because they feared the marchers would kill them and their dog and set their mansion on fire. (Footage of the protest shows activists encouraging the crowd to move along, away from the armed couple.) The McCloskeys also noted that the protesters were trespassing on the gated street. Although marchers in the video contested that fact, shouting that they were walking on public sidewalks, the Portland Place couple was correct that local law designates the street as private.Nevertheless, Noonan said, trespassing is not necessarily grounds to draw a gun.“We don’t condone trespassing,” he said, noting that the neighborhood bylaws had specific language about unauthorized entries. “But if that happens in the form of civil disobedience, it cannot ever be met by threat of violence.”This story was updated to include comment from the McCloskeys' lawyer.Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

"I have a one month old child, and I don’t know where she is," O'Toole wrote on Instagram

The legal fight over a tell-all by President Donald Trump’s niece took another turn on Thursday when her lawyers filed papers to remove a temporary restraining order, arguing that the confidentiality agreement she signed 19 years ago was an unenforceable fraud.In an affidavit, Mary Trump said that when she inked the agreement, ending a dispute over her grandfather’s will, she believed the asset amounts in it were accurate, but learned they were bogus from a New York Times expose.In addition, she said that she did not believe the agreement would have barred her from telling her “life story”-which just happens to include details of “the conduct and character of my uncle, the sitting President of the United States.”And, she noted, President Trump “has spoken out about our family and the will dispute on numerous occasions”-suggesting that would have rendered any secrecy agreement void.“None of the parties to the Settlement Agreement, including my uncles Donald Trump and Robert Trump, or my aunt Maryanne Trump, has ever sought my permission to speak publicly about our family or their personal relationships with me, my brother Fred, or among each other,” she wrote.How Mary Trump Found Herself in the Hot Mess of a Faulkner NovelIn their petition to the New York Supreme Court, Mary Trump’s lawyers wrote that it’s clear the president and his family “do not want the American public to hear” their client’s story.“But the First Amendment, ordinary rules of contract law, and bedrock equitable principles defeat Plaintiff’s extraordinary and unwarranted request for injunctive relief,” they wrote.The Daily Beast was the first to report Mary Trump had written a “harrowing and salacious” tell-all in which she will “out” herself as the primary source for the Times’ Pulitzer-winning Trump tax investigation revealing the president received more than $400 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire and had been involved in “fraudulent” tax schemes.President Trump’s brother Robert, fresh out of a neurosurgery ICU, filed court papers last month to stop publication of the book, Too Much And Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man, which is due to hit shelves July 28 and is already No. 1 on Amazon’s best-sellers list. Robert Trump secured a temporary restraining order against Simon & Schuster and Mary Trump. This week, an appeals court tossed the order against the publishing company-and now Mary is arguing hers should be lifted, too.Her lawyers wrote that Robert Trump “cannot succeed on the merits of his contractual claims because the confidentiality provision in the decades-old Settlement Agreement of financial disputes that Plaintiff invokes is unenforceable and inapplicable.”Robert Trump’s celebrity attorney, Charles Harder, did not respond to a request for comment.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

Family members say Tommy Macias, 51, took social distancing measures in the months leading up to his death but assumed the COVID-19 threat was easing.

So *that's* what a wig-free Kylie looks like

"When I read that Chrissy Teigen recently had her breast implants removed, I was inspired to google images of my own tits."