Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hutch Starskey, seems to disagree with my write up about the Castle Doctrine. I'm not exactly sure as to what part of the statement Starskey disagrees with but the following is fact and can easily be found.
1. Missouri is a Castle Doctrine/Castle Law, state.
2. The Castle Doctrine designates a person's abode or legally occupied place (home or car), has protections and immunities, permitting the person(s) in certain circumstances to use force, including, if deemed necessary, deadly force, to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.
3. The "mob" broke through the gate, trespassing onto private property and threatened to burn down the home.
4. The couple felt in fear for themselves and responded lawfully, per the Castle Doctrine and due to their personal restraint, no one was shot.
You're a liar and an idiot. None of the other neighbors saw a threat.3. The "mob" broke through the gate, trespassing onto private property and threatened to burn down the home.
Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.BULLDOG does not believe that humans have a right to self defense with the use of a a firearm.
This is why ALL OF YOU must NEVER take their word. They DO want ALL of your guns, PERIOD!!!
‘Horrific’: Dozens of Neighbors Sign Letter Calling Out St. Louis Gun Couple
“I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” one signatory said of the armed lawyer duo who won overnight infamy.www.thedailybeast.comI wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?
Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.BULLDOG does not believe that humans have a right to self defense with the use of a a firearm.
This is why ALL OF YOU must NEVER take their word. They DO want ALL of your guns, PERIOD!!!
‘Horrific’: Dozens of Neighbors Sign Letter Calling Out St. Louis Gun Couple
“I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” one signatory said of the armed lawyer duo who won overnight infamy.www.thedailybeast.comI wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?
Sure is. I'm neither an idiot who is afraid of protesters or a pussy who needs to point guns at them.Well, that's you.
You didn't quote my entire post, you coward. What are these scum protesting on the streets of innocent civilians?Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.BULLDOG does not believe that humans have a right to self defense with the use of a a firearm.
This is why ALL OF YOU must NEVER take their word. They DO want ALL of your guns, PERIOD!!!
‘Horrific’: Dozens of Neighbors Sign Letter Calling Out St. Louis Gun Couple
“I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” one signatory said of the armed lawyer duo who won overnight infamy.www.thedailybeast.comI wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Sure is. I'm neither an idiot who is afraid of protesters or a pussy who needs to point guns at them.Well, that's you.
Hutch Starskey, seems to disagree with my write up about the Castle Doctrine. I'm not exactly sure as to what part of the statement Starskey disagrees with but the following is fact and can easily be found.
1. Missouri is a Castle Doctrine/Castle Law, state.
2. The Castle Doctrine designates a person's abode or legally occupied place (home or car), has protections and immunities, permitting the person(s) in certain circumstances to use force, including, if deemed necessary, deadly force, to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.
3. The "mob" broke through the gate, trespassing onto private property and threatened to burn down the home.
4. The couple felt in fear for themselves and responded lawfully, per the Castle Doctrine and due to their personal restraint, no one was shot.
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 . . .
Deadly force:
- May be used when a person reasonably believes that the level of force is necessary for self-defense or defense of others (including unborn children) in response to an imminent threat.
A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLawcodes.findlaw.com
So if a couple guys walk into your home and start breaking valuables, you're going to grab a beer and sit back and watch, huh.Hutch Starskey, seems to disagree with my write up about the Castle Doctrine. I'm not exactly sure as to what part of the statement Starskey disagrees with but the following is fact and can easily be found.
1. Missouri is a Castle Doctrine/Castle Law, state.
2. The Castle Doctrine designates a person's abode or legally occupied place (home or car), has protections and immunities, permitting the person(s) in certain circumstances to use force, including, if deemed necessary, deadly force, to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.
3. The "mob" broke through the gate, trespassing onto private property and threatened to burn down the home.
4. The couple felt in fear for themselves and responded lawfully, per the Castle Doctrine and due to their personal restraint, no one was shot.
Hutch isn't the oly one who disagrees with your write up.
2. The Missouri "Castle Doctrine" law does not allow you to use deadly force only to protect propecty. (See links and quotes below.)
3. There is no evidence that anyone "broke through their gate", only that they gate was opened. Simply trespassing does not allow you to use deadly force ever. Only if your life is in imminent danger.
4 The couples' fear was unreasonable, and the threat they faced was WAY OUT OF LINE to their reaction, which means they're going to have to plead guilty.
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 . . .
Deadly force:
- May be used when a person reasonably believes that the level of force is necessary for self-defense or defense of others (including unborn children) in response to an imminent threat.
Exact statute says:
A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw
So if a couple guys walk into your home and start breaking valuables, you're going to grab a beer and sit back and watch, huh.Hutch Starskey, seems to disagree with my write up about the Castle Doctrine. I'm not exactly sure as to what part of the statement Starskey disagrees with but the following is fact and can easily be found.
1. Missouri is a Castle Doctrine/Castle Law, state.
2. The Castle Doctrine designates a person's abode or legally occupied place (home or car), has protections and immunities, permitting the person(s) in certain circumstances to use force, including, if deemed necessary, deadly force, to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.
3. The "mob" broke through the gate, trespassing onto private property and threatened to burn down the home.
4. The couple felt in fear for themselves and responded lawfully, per the Castle Doctrine and due to their personal restraint, no one was shot.
Hutch isn't the oly one who disagrees with your write up.
2. The Missouri "Castle Doctrine" law does not allow you to use deadly force only to protect propecty. (See links and quotes below.)
3. There is no evidence that anyone "broke through their gate", only that they gate was opened. Simply trespassing does not allow you to use deadly force ever. Only if your life is in imminent danger.
4 The couples' fear was unreasonable, and the threat they faced was WAY OUT OF LINE to their reaction, which means they're going to have to plead guilty.
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 . . .
Deadly force:
- May be used when a person reasonably believes that the level of force is necessary for self-defense or defense of others (including unborn children) in response to an imminent threat.
Exact statute says:
A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw
Who cares? They are the idiots.Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.BULLDOG does not believe that humans have a right to self defense with the use of a a firearm.
This is why ALL OF YOU must NEVER take their word. They DO want ALL of your guns, PERIOD!!!
‘Horrific’: Dozens of Neighbors Sign Letter Calling Out St. Louis Gun Couple
“I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” one signatory said of the armed lawyer duo who won overnight infamy.www.thedailybeast.com
Then give me a scenario where you believe the use of firearms in self defense is justified.BULLDOG does not believe that humans have a right to self defense with the use of a a firearm.
This is why ALL OF YOU must NEVER take their word. They DO want ALL of your guns, PERIOD!!!
And Booty is as full of shit as a Christmas Turkey.
Give us a scenario where you believe self defense with (or the mere display of or "brandishing") firearms is justified.So if a couple guys walk into your home and start breaking valuables, you're going to grab a beer and sit back and watch, huh.Hutch Starskey, seems to disagree with my write up about the Castle Doctrine. I'm not exactly sure as to what part of the statement Starskey disagrees with but the following is fact and can easily be found.
1. Missouri is a Castle Doctrine/Castle Law, state.
2. The Castle Doctrine designates a person's abode or legally occupied place (home or car), has protections and immunities, permitting the person(s) in certain circumstances to use force, including, if deemed necessary, deadly force, to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.
3. The "mob" broke through the gate, trespassing onto private property and threatened to burn down the home.
4. The couple felt in fear for themselves and responded lawfully, per the Castle Doctrine and due to their personal restraint, no one was shot.
Hutch isn't the oly one who disagrees with your write up.
2. The Missouri "Castle Doctrine" law does not allow you to use deadly force only to protect propecty. (See links and quotes below.)
3. There is no evidence that anyone "broke through their gate", only that they gate was opened. Simply trespassing does not allow you to use deadly force ever. Only if your life is in imminent danger.
4 The couples' fear was unreasonable, and the threat they faced was WAY OUT OF LINE to their reaction, which means they're going to have to plead guilty.
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 . . .
Deadly force:
- May be used when a person reasonably believes that the level of force is necessary for self-defense or defense of others (including unborn children) in response to an imminent threat.
Exact statute says:
A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw
Is that what happened there?
Then give me a scenario where you believe the use of firearms in self defense is justified.BULLDOG does not believe that humans have a right to self defense with the use of a a firearm.
This is why ALL OF YOU must NEVER take their word. They DO want ALL of your guns, PERIOD!!!
And Booty is as full of shit as a Christmas Turkey.
The defense rests....Then give me a scenario where you believe the use of firearms in self defense is justified.BULLDOG does not believe that humans have a right to self defense with the use of a a firearm.
This is why ALL OF YOU must NEVER take their word. They DO want ALL of your guns, PERIOD!!!
And Booty is as full of shit as a Christmas Turkey.
I have no desire to play your idiot game.
You didn't quote my entire post, you coward. What are these scum protesting on the streets of innocent civilians?Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.BULLDOG does not believe that humans have a right to self defense with the use of a a firearm.
This is why ALL OF YOU must NEVER take their word. They DO want ALL of your guns, PERIOD!!!
‘Horrific’: Dozens of Neighbors Sign Letter Calling Out St. Louis Gun Couple
“I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” one signatory said of the armed lawyer duo who won overnight infamy.www.thedailybeast.comI wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Sure is. I'm neither an idiot who is afraid of protesters or a pussy who needs to point guns at them.Well, that's you.
So what? It's not required. I respond to what I think is important.You didn't quote my entire post, you coward.
Give us a scenario where you believe self defense with (or the mere display of or "brandishing") firearms is justified.So if a couple guys walk into your home and start breaking valuables, you're going to grab a beer and sit back and watch, huh.Hutch Starskey, seems to disagree with my write up about the Castle Doctrine. I'm not exactly sure as to what part of the statement Starskey disagrees with but the following is fact and can easily be found.
1. Missouri is a Castle Doctrine/Castle Law, state.
2. The Castle Doctrine designates a person's abode or legally occupied place (home or car), has protections and immunities, permitting the person(s) in certain circumstances to use force, including, if deemed necessary, deadly force, to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.
3. The "mob" broke through the gate, trespassing onto private property and threatened to burn down the home.
4. The couple felt in fear for themselves and responded lawfully, per the Castle Doctrine and due to their personal restraint, no one was shot.
Hutch isn't the oly one who disagrees with your write up.
2. The Missouri "Castle Doctrine" law does not allow you to use deadly force only to protect propecty. (See links and quotes below.)
3. There is no evidence that anyone "broke through their gate", only that they gate was opened. Simply trespassing does not allow you to use deadly force ever. Only if your life is in imminent danger.
4 The couples' fear was unreasonable, and the threat they faced was WAY OUT OF LINE to their reaction, which means they're going to have to plead guilty.
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 . . .
Deadly force:
- May be used when a person reasonably believes that the level of force is necessary for self-defense or defense of others (including unborn children) in response to an imminent threat.
Exact statute says:
A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw
Is that what happened there?
That's not accurate; there is something called "disparity of force" and a large group of people approaching aggressively and disregarding the law while doing so, certainly meets the standard.Give us a scenario where you believe self defense with (or the mere display of or "brandishing") firearms is justified.So if a couple guys walk into your home and start breaking valuables, you're going to grab a beer and sit back and watch, huh.Hutch Starskey, seems to disagree with my write up about the Castle Doctrine. I'm not exactly sure as to what part of the statement Starskey disagrees with but the following is fact and can easily be found.
1. Missouri is a Castle Doctrine/Castle Law, state.
2. The Castle Doctrine designates a person's abode or legally occupied place (home or car), has protections and immunities, permitting the person(s) in certain circumstances to use force, including, if deemed necessary, deadly force, to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.
3. The "mob" broke through the gate, trespassing onto private property and threatened to burn down the home.
4. The couple felt in fear for themselves and responded lawfully, per the Castle Doctrine and due to their personal restraint, no one was shot.
Hutch isn't the oly one who disagrees with your write up.
2. The Missouri "Castle Doctrine" law does not allow you to use deadly force only to protect propecty. (See links and quotes below.)
3. There is no evidence that anyone "broke through their gate", only that they gate was opened. Simply trespassing does not allow you to use deadly force ever. Only if your life is in imminent danger.
4 The couples' fear was unreasonable, and the threat they faced was WAY OUT OF LINE to their reaction, which means they're going to have to plead guilty.
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 . . .
Deadly force:
- May be used when a person reasonably believes that the level of force is necessary for self-defense or defense of others (including unborn children) in response to an imminent threat.
Exact statute says:
A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw
Is that what happened there?
"Brandishing firearms" is a polite term for "threatening with a firearm".
In answer to your question: Since you can't defend yourself with deadly force, unless threatened with deadly force, unless you see a verifiably see a gun or other deadly weapon, you cannot use or threaten deadly force. You cannot use deadly force to defend your property, only your life, or someone else's.
that wasn't a neighborhood. it was private property. if you have zero respect for others property and accomplishments then don't expect for anyone to respect anything of yours.You're free to show us all where any of those protesters were anything other than peacefully walking through the neighborhood.Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.
Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says
Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professorwww.ksdk.com
Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
now you're free to explain why you are condoning the violence going on right now.that wasn't a neighborhood. it was private property. if you have zero respect for others property and accomplishments then don't expect for anyone to respect anything of yours.
now you're free to explain why you are condoning the violence going on right now.
It was a neighborhood, dope. They were marching to the mayor's home. There was no violence to condone.
Give us a scenario where you believe self defense with (or the mere display of or "brandishing") firearms is justified.So if a couple guys walk into your home and start breaking valuables, you're going to grab a beer and sit back and watch, huh.Hutch Starskey, seems to disagree with my write up about the Castle Doctrine. I'm not exactly sure as to what part of the statement Starskey disagrees with but the following is fact and can easily be found.
1. Missouri is a Castle Doctrine/Castle Law, state.
2. The Castle Doctrine designates a person's abode or legally occupied place (home or car), has protections and immunities, permitting the person(s) in certain circumstances to use force, including, if deemed necessary, deadly force, to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.
3. The "mob" broke through the gate, trespassing onto private property and threatened to burn down the home.
4. The couple felt in fear for themselves and responded lawfully, per the Castle Doctrine and due to their personal restraint, no one was shot.
Hutch isn't the oly one who disagrees with your write up.
2. The Missouri "Castle Doctrine" law does not allow you to use deadly force only to protect propecty. (See links and quotes below.)
3. There is no evidence that anyone "broke through their gate", only that they gate was opened. Simply trespassing does not allow you to use deadly force ever. Only if your life is in imminent danger.
4 The couples' fear was unreasonable, and the threat they faced was WAY OUT OF LINE to their reaction, which means they're going to have to plead guilty.
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 . . .
Deadly force:
- May be used when a person reasonably believes that the level of force is necessary for self-defense or defense of others (including unborn children) in response to an imminent threat.
Exact statute says:
A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw
Is that what happened there?
"Brandishing firearms" is a polite term for "threatening with a firearm".
In answer to your question: Since you can't defend yourself with deadly force, unless threatened with deadly force, unless you see a verifiably see a gun or other deadly weapon, you cannot use or threaten deadly force. You cannot use deadly force to defend your property, only your life, or someone else's.
What in the hell are these trash doing marching around this neighborhood?So if a couple guys walk into your home and start breaking valuables, you're going to grab a beer and sit back and watch, huh.Hutch Starskey, seems to disagree with my write up about the Castle Doctrine. I'm not exactly sure as to what part of the statement Starskey disagrees with but the following is fact and can easily be found.
1. Missouri is a Castle Doctrine/Castle Law, state.
2. The Castle Doctrine designates a person's abode or legally occupied place (home or car), has protections and immunities, permitting the person(s) in certain circumstances to use force, including, if deemed necessary, deadly force, to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.
3. The "mob" broke through the gate, trespassing onto private property and threatened to burn down the home.
4. The couple felt in fear for themselves and responded lawfully, per the Castle Doctrine and due to their personal restraint, no one was shot.
Hutch isn't the oly one who disagrees with your write up.
2. The Missouri "Castle Doctrine" law does not allow you to use deadly force only to protect propecty. (See links and quotes below.)
3. There is no evidence that anyone "broke through their gate", only that they gate was opened. Simply trespassing does not allow you to use deadly force ever. Only if your life is in imminent danger.
4 The couples' fear was unreasonable, and the threat they faced was WAY OUT OF LINE to their reaction, which means they're going to have to plead guilty.
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 . . .
Deadly force:
- May be used when a person reasonably believes that the level of force is necessary for self-defense or defense of others (including unborn children) in response to an imminent threat.
Exact statute says:
A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw
Is that what happened there?
No, you didn't respond because you can't. What are they protesting in that neighborhood? Those people haven't done anything. Idiot.You didn't quote my entire post, you coward. What are these scum protesting on the streets of innocent civilians?Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.BULLDOG does not believe that humans have a right to self defense with the use of a a firearm.
This is why ALL OF YOU must NEVER take their word. They DO want ALL of your guns, PERIOD!!!
‘Horrific’: Dozens of Neighbors Sign Letter Calling Out St. Louis Gun Couple
“I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” one signatory said of the armed lawyer duo who won overnight infamy.www.thedailybeast.comI wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Sure is. I'm neither an idiot who is afraid of protesters or a pussy who needs to point guns at them.Well, that's you.So what? It's not required. I respond to what I think is important.You didn't quote my entire post, you coward.
The protesters are innocent civilians, dope.
