Missouri Bill State 666 Is A Game Changer For Self-Defense

[Biff_Poindexter]

St. Louis Lawyer Who Pointed Gun at Black Lives Matter Protesters Endorses Missouri Senate Bill 666, Dubbed the 'Make Murder Legal Act'

Mark McCloskey, an attorney and pardonee-turned-Senate candidate, is leveraging his gun-hero status to support a Missouri bill nicknamed the "Make Murder Legal Act" by its opponents. The legislation, which happens to be numbered S.B. 666, is a Republican-driven effort to upend one of the most...

lawandcrime.com

"Mark McCloskey, an attorney and pardonee-turned-Senate candidate, is leveraging his gun-hero status to support a Missouri bill nicknamed the “Make Murder Legal Act” by its opponents. The legislation, which happens to be numbered S.B. 666, is a Republican-driven effort to upend one of the most standard procedures in criminal law and to expand Missouri’s “Castle Doctrine.” S.B. 666 changes the burden of proof for self defense. “Under current law, the defendant has the burden to prove he or she reasonably believed physical or deadly force was necessary to protect him or herself or a third person.” This is about as standard as it gets. And not just for self defense, either.

Supporters of S.B. 666, however, seeks to alter those longstanding rules as follows: it “provides that there shall be a presumption of reasonableness that the defendant believed such force was necessary to defend him or herself or a third person.” A “presumption of reasonableness” means a switching of roles: an accused murderer, for example, would be automatically presumed to have acted in reasonable self defense. The law essentially adds entirely new elements to crimes and thus lengthens the list of what prosecutors must prove."

This is a great move by Republicans in Missouri and hopefully it will be modeled nationwide..Unfortunately, this law came too late for people like the McMicheals and others who failed to prove their stand-your-ground defense...if this law was in effect in Georgia, the McMicheals would not only be free, they would be celebrated as heroes and possibly running for Senate -- very much like Mr. McCloskey himself.


Another added bonus to SB:666 is that it prevents police from even arresting certain offenders. Now when police come to a scene of shooting; they must presume that the shooting was self defense; if they decide to arrest the shooter without being able to really show that the shooter didn't act in self-defense; they leave themselves open to wrongful arrest. This also would have worked out great for not just the McMicheals but also for the prosecutor who got in legal trouble for convincing the cops to not arrest them...with this new law, it would had been the cops in legal trouble for arresting the McMicheals....

 

[Polishprince]

In the case of the McMichaels, there was a rowdy mob coming down their private street. The reaction they have, to pick up their weapons and defend their turf were more than reasonable.

 

[pknopp]

"We shot them because they were walking in front of our house, it was self defense".

 

[DukeU]

"We shot them because they were walking in front of our house, it was self defense"

No shots were fired.

 

[rightwinger]

Shoot first, ask questions later defense

I was afraid of black people in my neighborhood

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

In the case of the McMichaels, there was a rowdy mob coming down their private street. The reaction they have, to pick up their weapons and defend their turf were more than reasonable.

You mean the McCloskeys......

As for rowdy mobs -- are you saying as long as they are on a "private street" -- its cool to aim guns at them and possibly shoot them if you are afraid enough??



Cool

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

No shots were fired.

Under SB 666, they could have shot them and claimed self defense.....

And seeing as giddy as McCloskey was to endorse this bill -- that is exactly what he wished he could do

The question is......is it a good bill ?

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Under SB 666, they could have shot them and claimed self defense.....

And seeing as giddy as McCloskey was to endorse this bill -- that is exactly what he wished he could do

The question is......is it a good bill ?

A Republican in Missouri is only going to win with a bill like that. They know what their followers want to hear.

I'm curious to see if it becomes law.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

A Republican in Missouri is only going to win with a bill like that. They know what their followers want to hear.

I'm curious to see if it becomes law.

Well, isn't it a good bill??

Who hasn't wanted to shoot someone and claim self defense if they knew it would be much much easier to get away with it than before

 

[DukeU]

Under SB 666, they could have shot them and claimed self defense.....

And seeing as giddy as McCloskey was to endorse this bill -- that is exactly what he wished he could do

The question is......is it a good bill ?

Additionally, a law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force, but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless the agency determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.


You need to read it again.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Additionally, a law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force, but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless the agency determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.


You need to read it again.

I read it....and if the police can't prove the force wasn't lawful -- they are making a wrongful arrest....

Why would a cop want to put him or herself in position of making a wrongful arrest against a shooter who was rightfully killing someone in fear of their safety...

Are you telling me you would arrest this woman for protecting herself against a thug darkie??

 

[pknopp]

Additionally, a law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force, but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless the agency determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.


You need to read it again.

Yes basically the law is just more political bloviating. What it calls for is what is done now. If the police are investigating a murder and there is a dead guy laying there with a gun in his hand they are going to lean towards believing it was self defense now.

Arrests generally aren't made until a full investigation is made in those circumstance.

 

[Polishprince]

I read it....and if the police can't prove the force wasn't lawful -- they are making a wrongful arrest....

Why would a cop want to put him or herself in position of making a wrongful arrest against a shooter who was rightfully killing someone in fear of their safety...

Are you telling me you would arrest this woman for protecting herself against a thug darkie??
View attachment 597367

The police shouldn't make an arrest if they can't prove their case. That's the way its been for a while with young black guys who are America's official Sacred Cows. Other folks are just now asking for the same consideration.

 

[DukeU]

I read it....and if the police can't prove the force wasn't lawful -- they are making a wrongful arrest....

Why would a cop want to put him or herself in position of making a wrongful arrest against a shooter who was rightfully killing someone in fear of their safety...

Are you telling me you would arrest this woman for protecting herself against a thug darkie??

If the police CAN'T prove the force was UNLAWFUL why would there need to be an arrest?

These people were arrested for nothing more than standing on their property brandishing legal weapons.

 

[Likkmee]

In the case of the McMichaels, there was a rowdy mob coming down their private street. The reaction they have, to pick up their weapons and defend their turf were more than reasonable.

Bill 777 allows launching them from a helicopter into a live volcano...I have one handy

 

[pknopp]

If the police CAN'T prove the force was UNLAWFUL why would there need to be an arrest?

These people were arrested for nothing more than standing on their property brandishing legal weapons.

It is and will remain illegal to point a loaded gun at someone not doing a thing to you.

 

[DukeU]

It is and will remain illegal to point a loaded gun at someone not doing a thing to you.

Don't start nothing and there won't be nothing. The mob was destroying property, and that couple had no idea what their motive and intentions were.

 

[pknopp]

Don't start nothing and there won't be nothing. The mob was destroying property, and that couple had no idea what their motive and intentions were.

They were walking down the street.

 

[DukeU]

It is and will remain illegal to point a loaded gun at someone not doing a thing to you.

Does this include law enforcement?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The police shouldn't make an arrest if they can't prove their case. That's the way its been for a while with young black guys who are America's official Sacred Cows. Other folks are just now asking for the same consideration.

Yea, young black folks are usually not arrested and giving a benefit of a doubt in most situations like these.....

Most other racist morons believe this too -- which is why the authors of this bill knew exactly how well this will play with their target audience...

Other fragile insecure cucks like yourself