Rifle used by couple to stop democrat party terrorists confiscated....expect to see the protestors attack...

[Faun]

Irrelevant. They have zero legal authority to resort to lethal force to defend someone else's personal property. Doing so constitutes an assault.

That's not correct. They did not use lethal force. They threatened lethal force. Nothing wrong with that.

Edit: SPECIFICALLY and ESPECIALLY because they are on their own property.

I'm not saying they used lethal force, they threatened other people with lethal force. That alone can amount to an assault in Missouri.

 

[Faun]

the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

It does not matter who owns the gate except that it does not belong to rioters who tore it up

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

 

[irosie91]

Police had a great opportunity to arrest the ones threatening their lives but rather than calling for back up and do the right process, they allowed the protesters to continue their threats.

Guns should be given back to the owners of that house, and let them shoot as many of those protesters as they can in self defense.

Life of a person is a precious thing, but no one can be allowed to think he can impose his ideology and frustration on others. The one who wants to play "bully" must be removed from society one way or another. Main purpose is to keep peace and order, and this task, in many cases will require to hit aggressors as the primary target.

These protesters are getting desperate, they received some attention at the beginning, but people are ignoring them more and more each day. Never comply with their demands until the day they become civilized and say "please". Lol.

In Missouri, shooting protesters who are not on your own personal property is murder.

what does "personal property" mean in your depraved lexicon? Can you cite the specific law to which you imagine you refer?

Personal property, as is property owned by someone would be their personal property.

can you cite the actual LAW? ----If a person RENTS an apartment----and lives in it he does not OWN it. According to your PERSONAL reading of Missouri law--
a person has no right to self defense if a criminal INVADES the apartment that he rents

 

[Shelzin]

I'm not saying they used lethal force, they threatened other people with lethal force. That alone can amount to an assault in Missouri.

Not on their own property it doesn't. They can threaten anything, they can say anything, on their own property if they have asked, or told, you to leave. Because you are no longer supposed to be there.

 

[freyasman]

the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

It does not matter who owns the gate except that it does not belong to rioters who tore it up

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

You know you're in the wrong here, right?
And you realize that these endless attempts to bullshit your way into being believable are failing, and are going to keep failing right?

So my question is, how long are you going to keep this horseshit up?
Just curious.

 

[Faun]

Police had a great opportunity to arrest the ones threatening their lives but rather than calling for back up and do the right process, they allowed the protesters to continue their threats.

Guns should be given back to the owners of that house, and let them shoot as many of those protesters as they can in self defense.

Life of a person is a precious thing, but no one can be allowed to think he can impose his ideology and frustration on others. The one who wants to play "bully" must be removed from society one way or another. Main purpose is to keep peace and order, and this task, in many cases will require to hit aggressors as the primary target.

These protesters are getting desperate, they received some attention at the beginning, but people are ignoring them more and more each day. Never comply with their demands until the day they become civilized and say "please". Lol.

In Missouri, shooting protesters who are not on your own personal property is murder.

what does "personal property" mean in your depraved lexicon? Can you cite the specific law to which you imagine you refer?

Personal property, as is property owned by someone would be their personal property.

can you cite the actual LAW? ----If a person RENTS an apartment----and lives in it he does not OWN it. According to your PERSONAL reading of Missouri law--
a person has no right to self defense if a criminal INVADES the apartment that he rents

If you're speaking of the castle doctrine, it applies to "residents."

 

[Shelzin]

If you're speaking of the castle doctrine, it applies to "residents."

I believe that is accurate.

 

[Faun]

I'm not saying they used lethal force, they threatened other people with lethal force. That alone can amount to an assault in Missouri.

Not on their own property it doesn't. They can threaten anything, they can say anything, on their own property if they have asked, or told, you to leave. Because you are no longer supposed to be there.

Even on your own property, you cannot legally threaten someone's life by pointing a gun at them unless they pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

 

[Faun]

the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

It does not matter who owns the gate except that it does not belong to rioters who tore it up

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

You know you're in the wrong here, right?
And you realize that these endless attempts to bullshit your way into being believable are failing, and are going to keep failing right?

So my question is, how long are you going to keep this horseshit up?
Just curious.

LOL

You should contact the McCloskey's attorney and reassure him his clients are in no legal trouble.

 

[irosie91]

Police had a great opportunity to arrest the ones threatening their lives but rather than calling for back up and do the right process, they allowed the protesters to continue their threats.

Guns should be given back to the owners of that house, and let them shoot as many of those protesters as they can in self defense.

Life of a person is a precious thing, but no one can be allowed to think he can impose his ideology and frustration on others. The one who wants to play "bully" must be removed from society one way or another. Main purpose is to keep peace and order, and this task, in many cases will require to hit aggressors as the primary target.

These protesters are getting desperate, they received some attention at the beginning, but people are ignoring them more and more each day. Never comply with their demands until the day they become civilized and say "please". Lol.

In Missouri, shooting protesters who are not on your own personal property is murder.

what does "personal property" mean in your depraved lexicon? Can you cite the specific law to which you imagine you refer?

Personal property, as is property owned by someone would be their personal property.

can you cite the actual LAW? ----If a person RENTS an apartment----and lives in it he does not OWN it. According to your PERSONAL reading of Missouri law--
a person has no right to self defense if a criminal INVADES the apartment that he rents

If you're speaking of the castle doctrine, it applies to "residents."

I don't live in Missouri. I am not sure that it is a "doctrine" ----I was a biology major----if someone invades my "place" -----I can tell him to leave----and if he threatens me ---I can shoot him

 

[Shelzin]

Even on your own property, you cannot legally threaten someone's life by pointing a gun at them unless they pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

Yes. You can. You are incorrect on that in the situation we are talking about here.

 

[irosie91]

the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

It does not matter who owns the gate except that it does not belong to rioters who tore it up

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

You know you're in the wrong here, right?
And you realize that these endless attempts to bullshit your way into being believable are failing, and are going to keep failing right?

So my question is, how long are you going to keep this horseshit up?
Just curious.

LOL

You should contact the McCloskey's attorney and reassure him his clients are in no legal trouble.

but they ARE in legal trouble-----it is a POLITICAL
issue. Black crime doesn't count

 

[Calypso Jones]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.

he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018

From your link...

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."​

Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state
Look up Missouri's Castle Doctrine law
GAME SET AND MATCH
You lose

LOL

Dumbfuck, I quoted YOUR source.

Dear dumbfuck Stand your ground no obligation to retreat That is what the castle Doctrine is
Meaning in Missouri you have the right to defend your property and any other place you are at.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, stand your ground beyond your property requires one to be facing an imminent threat of "death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony." Not only wasn't that mob threatening them until they themselves were threatened -- you can't be the initial aggressor and then claim a stand your ground defense. Mark McCloskey was the initial aggressor when he brandished an AR-15 at a crowd of people before they threatened him.

§563.031​

​

A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:​

​

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor;  except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:​

Every time you post, you say something stupid.

There was an imminent threat the rioters who were trespassing you dumbfuck

Trespassing is a misdemeanor and not an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. Even worse for you retards -- Mark McCloskey confessed he pulled his gun before he even felt threatened.

I'd like to see the link for that because i've watched him numerous times and NEVER heard him say that.

 

[Faun]

Even on your own property, you cannot legally threaten someone's life by pointing a gun at them unless they pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

Yes. You can. You are incorrect on that in the situation we are talking about here.

Don't think I am. The McCloskey's were already subjected to a search warrant ... they had to turn in the AR-15 Mark McCloskey brandished that day. Now they have to turn in the hand gun Patricia McCloskey pointed at people with her finger on the trigger. They had to lawyer up and assault charges could be forthcoming.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.

he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018

From your link...

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."​

Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state
Look up Missouri's Castle Doctrine law
GAME SET AND MATCH
You lose

LOL

Dumbfuck, I quoted YOUR source.

Dear dumbfuck Stand your ground no obligation to retreat That is what the castle Doctrine is
Meaning in Missouri you have the right to defend your property and any other place you are at.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, stand your ground beyond your property requires one to be facing an imminent threat of "death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony." Not only wasn't that mob threatening them until they themselves were threatened -- you can't be the initial aggressor and then claim a stand your ground defense. Mark McCloskey was the initial aggressor when he brandished an AR-15 at a crowd of people before they threatened him.

§563.031​

​

A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:​

​

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor;  except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:​

Every time you post, you say something stupid.

And where did you get these statutes?
In the vast majority of stand your ground states you can be in fear of your life in a parking lot.

 

[freyasman]

the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

It does not matter who owns the gate except that it does not belong to rioters who tore it up

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

You know you're in the wrong here, right?
And you realize that these endless attempts to bullshit your way into being believable are failing, and are going to keep failing right?

So my question is, how long are you going to keep this horseshit up?
Just curious.

LOL

You should contact the McCloskey's attorney and reassure him his clients are in no legal trouble.

Why?
I don't think he's worried about anything but how to spend his cut of the lawsuit settlement.
Sit back and watch.... we'll see who walks out of the gun smoke when it's over.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.

he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018

From your link...

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."​

Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state
Look up Missouri's Castle Doctrine law
GAME SET AND MATCH
You lose

LOL

Dumbfuck, I quoted YOUR source.

Dear dumbfuck Stand your ground no obligation to retreat That is what the castle Doctrine is
Meaning in Missouri you have the right to defend your property and any other place you are at.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, stand your ground beyond your property requires one to be facing an imminent threat of "death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony." Not only wasn't that mob threatening them until they themselves were threatened -- you can't be the initial aggressor and then claim a stand your ground defense. Mark McCloskey was the initial aggressor when he brandished an AR-15 at a crowd of people before they threatened him.

§563.031​

​

A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:​

​

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor;  except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:​

Every time you post, you say something stupid.

There was an imminent threat the rioters who were trespassing you dumbfuck

Trespassing is a misdemeanor and not an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. Even worse for you retards -- Mark McCloskey confessed he pulled his gun before he even felt threatened.

Hogwash.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

It does not matter who owns the gate except that it does not belong to rioters who tore it up

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

You know you're in the wrong here, right?
And you realize that these endless attempts to bullshit your way into being believable are failing, and are going to keep failing right?

So my question is, how long are you going to keep this horseshit up?
Just curious.

LOL

You should contact the McCloskey's attorney and reassure him his clients are in no legal trouble.

LOL....they werent charged with anything ya chucklehead.

 

[Faun]

Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.

They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.

Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.

They may have committed a 4th degree assault...

​

Assault in the fourth degree.

​

1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: ​

​

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;​

​

​

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*

Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.

The protesters were not on their property.

View attachment 362146

Private "street." That street is not that home owner's property.

Yes it's their private property

From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."

the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law

That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.

he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018

From your link...

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."​

Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state
Look up Missouri's Castle Doctrine law
GAME SET AND MATCH
You lose

LOL

Dumbfuck, I quoted YOUR source.

Dear dumbfuck Stand your ground no obligation to retreat That is what the castle Doctrine is
Meaning in Missouri you have the right to defend your property and any other place you are at.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, stand your ground beyond your property requires one to be facing an imminent threat of "death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony." Not only wasn't that mob threatening them until they themselves were threatened -- you can't be the initial aggressor and then claim a stand your ground defense. Mark McCloskey was the initial aggressor when he brandished an AR-15 at a crowd of people before they threatened him.

§563.031​

​

A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:​

​

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor;  except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:​

Every time you post, you say something stupid.

And where did you get these statutes?
In the vast majority of stand your ground states you can be in fear of your life in a parking lot.

We're talking about Missouri, not a vast majority of states. And despite you're own reading comprehension issues, I already pointed out the law supports stand your ground defense when it's to counter an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. This event was not that. Mark McCloskey pulled out his gun before he was was even threatened.

 

[Faun]

the question was whether or not the gate is the McCloskey's private property.

It does not matter who owns the gate except that it does not belong to rioters who tore it up

It matters to those who are trying to justify threatening people with lethal force for breaking a gate that is not on their personal property.

You know you're in the wrong here, right?
And you realize that these endless attempts to bullshit your way into being believable are failing, and are going to keep failing right?

So my question is, how long are you going to keep this horseshit up?
Just curious.

LOL

You should contact the McCloskey's attorney and reassure him his clients are in no legal trouble.

Why?
I don't think he's worried about anything but how to spend his cut of the lawsuit settlement.
Sit back and watch.... we'll see who walks out of the gun smoke when it's over.

LOL

Oh? What settlement? Who are they suing?