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

[DukeU]

They were walking down the street.

Fail

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Fail

Can you show me what property was destroyed in that neighborhood???

Did they break into their home and trash the place in the pursuit of "legitimate political discourse"??

 

[pknopp]

Does this include law enforcement?

I would hope so.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

"Law and Crime" is sleazy, two-bit web site started by Cenk Uygar of the disgraced Nazi propaganda site "The Young Turks."

Like TYT, Law and Crime is agenda driven, with the goal of promoting radical Marxist/Fascist view points. They expressly deny being a news or information site.

In this case, Cenk and his Nazi cohorts show the typical Goebbels level dishonesty they are so well known for.

Despite the lies of the OP and the leftist hate site, chasing down someone a block away is in no way protected by the Missouri bill.

When BLM rioters tore down a fence and menaced home owners in their own home, as democrat Brown Shirts did to the McCloskeys, their is the GOD GIVEN right to protect themselves.

The OP and the Nazi hate site are attempting to conflate this with what is at best vigilante actions by the McMichaels (and at worst flat out murder.)

But there is no connection and no similarity.

This is just democrat Nazis attacking fundamental civil rights, yet again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Can you show me what property was destroyed in that neighborhood???

Did they break into their home and trash the place in the pursuit of "legitimate political discourse"??

Can you lie?

Do you get a Soros treat from your Fuhrer when you do?

 

[pknopp]

Can you lie?

Do you get a Soros treat from your Fuhrer when you do?

View attachment 597387

Video shows gate was intact when St. Louis couple pointed guns at protesters

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

"Law and Crime" is sleazy, two-bit web site started by Cenk Uygar of the disgraced Nazi propaganda site "The Young Turks."

Like TYT, Law and Crime is agenda driven, with the goal of promoting radical Marxist/Fascist view points. They expressly deny being a news or information site.

In this case, Cenk and his Nazi cohorts show the typical Goebbels level dishonesty they are so well known for.

Despite the lies of the OP and the leftist hate site, chasing down someone a block away is in no way protected by the Missouri bill.

When BLM rioters tore down a fence and menaced home owners in their own home, as democrat Brown Shirts did to the McCloskeys, their is the GOD GIVEN right to protect themselves.

The OP and the Nazi hate site are attempting to conflate this with what is at best vigilante actions by the McMichaels (and at worst flat out murder.)

But there is no connection and no similarity.

This is just democrat Nazis attacking fundamental civil rights, yet again.

So again.....

You are saying you are ok with someone deciding to gun down someone if they are part of a "rowdy mob" -- as long as they feel threatened, correct??



Do you think "rowdy mobs" only come in black?? Because I never see you dic suckers keep that same energy for your Neo-Nazi bretheren

 

[DukeU]

Can you show me what property was destroyed in that neighborhood???

Armed St. Louis protesters broke iron gate, threatened ...​

They were trespassing just being there, it was private property.

 

[DukeU]

So again.....

You are saying you are ok with someone deciding to gun down someone if they are part of a "rowdy mob" -- as long as they feel threatened, correct??



Do you think "rowdy mobs" only come in black?? Because I never see you dic suckers keep that same energy for your Neo-Nazi bretheren

Any laws being broken in these pics? Any threats being made?

 

[White 6]

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 ?

No

 

[struth]

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.
View attachment 597342

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....

i’m all for it.

The State should have a tough job putting someone in prison, especially if that person harmed someone breaking into their home

 

[White 6]

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.

If you have no idea of someone's intentions, pointing a gun at them is a very bad idea and not within the law, nor should it be.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Video shows gate was intact when St. Louis couple pointed guns at protesters

Your cite is unconvincing. Even it doubts the report of a gate intact - since the gate is clearly torn down.

The BLM insurrectionists were menacing home owners while trespassing.

I don't give a FUCK about Nazi law, the McClouskys had every RIGHT to mow the mob down.

They showed amazing restraint.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you have no idea of someone's intentions, pointing a gun at them is a very bad idea and not within the law, nor should it be.

If a mob that has burnt half the city tears your gate down and is marching on your home, you've got a pretty good idea what their intent is.

The Brown Shirt Troops were a clear and present danger. Free people, no ALL people have the RIGHT to use deadly force to repel an assault on their home.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No

Because no one should have civil rights?

If criminals want to murder you, rape your wife and daughter, and burn your home, you are compelled to submit?

Want a real civil war?

Keep marching down that road.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Douchbag like you gonna be a bag of douche.

 

[White 6]

If a mob that has burnt half the city tears your gate down and is marching on your home, you've got a pretty good idea what their intent is.

The Brown Shirt Troops were a clear and present danger. Free people, no ALL people have the RIGHT to use deadly force to repel an assault on their home.

No assault on their house occurred. I have no problem with weapons. I have no problem with weapons at the ready or even in sight. I carry one, myself, though almost never in plain sight. Their mistake was overplaying their hand, pointing them at the people on the sidewalk and street. There is a difference between being protective and proactive in the defense of your home. I would not have pardoned them. The pardon was not in favor of a civil society. The jury of their peers was correct and they should have paid a fine for their overzealous lack of self-control. Not that they should lose their weapons rights. Weapons violations often carry that loss. In order to prevent that loss, I would have suspended that part of the punishment on a first offense. The complete pardon, though was negligent on the part of the Governor, and now has sparked legislation to make it more likely to happen again in the future, by codifying a right to point their weapon at people preemptively. Bottom line in weapons safety is you do not point your weapon at any person you are not preparing to shoot and shooting had not become necessary.

 

[White 6]

Because no one should have civil rights?

If criminals want to murder you, rape your wife and daughter, and burn your home, you are compelled to submit?

Want a real civil war?

Keep marching down that road.

Your questions are simple. No. Another No. A definite No. And, I reject your statement of destination.

 

[pknopp]

Your cite is unconvincing. Even it doubts the report of a gate intact - since the gate is clearly torn down.

The BLM insurrectionists were menacing home owners while trespassing.

I don't give a FUCK about Nazi law, the McClouskys had every RIGHT to mow the mob down.

They showed amazing restraint.

I posted a link to a news story. You posted a link to nothing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

No one wants to shoot anyone.

But no one wants to be the victim of violent mobs.

See, you of the Reich are victims rights advocates. You promote the idea that people have the right to be a victim, but no other rights.

Seig Heil.