St. Louis couple defends their house from protestors, with guns. Do you support "stand your ground laws"?

[iceberg]

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!!!

Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.

‘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

So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?

So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?

I wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.

Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?

Well, that's you.

Sure is. I'm neither an idiot who is afraid of protesters or a pussy who needs to point guns at them.

You didn't quote my entire post, you coward. What are these scum protesting on the streets of innocent civilians?

You didn't quote my entire post, you coward.

So what? It's not required. I respond to what I think is important.
The protesters are innocent civilians, dope.

and what the fuck are the homeowners watching a crowd of people break down their gate, trespass on their property and threaten them and their dog?

you are just a fucking doosh-d-lux out of use fucknugget asshole.

 

[LuckyDuck]

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

codes.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.

Is that what happened there?

Give us a scenario where you believe self defense with (or the mere display of or "brandishing") firearms is justified.

"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.

Not true in most states. Here (and I'm sure in most places) the law allows us to use deadly force if we believe that we (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Serious bodily harm has no legal definition. Belief is something only the individual can testify to since it's impossible for a prosecutor to show what you believed at the time, unless you do something stupid like go on Facebook and tell people you killed some clown even though you knew you could beat the hell out of him and didn't really need a weapon for self-defense.

These laws apply to citizens and police officers alike.

The couple were justified in their concern for their safety. Missouri law professors say that the couple were clearly within their rights via the Castle Doctrine. Had the protesters stayed on public streets, they would have been within the law, but they "trespassed" onto private property, which was the private street that the couple shared with the Mayor. Once they trespassed onto private property, the couple's defense of the property, even the land, fell clearly in within purview of the Castle Doctrine. Check it out yourself with any law professor in Missouri. Denial isn't going to change the law.

 

[kyzr]

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

codes.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.

Is that what happened there?

Give us a scenario where you believe self defense with (or the mere display of or "brandishing") firearms is justified.

"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.

Not true in most states. Here (and I'm sure in most places) the law allows us to use deadly force if we believe that we (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Serious bodily harm has no legal definition. Belief is something only the individual can testify to since it's impossible for a prosecutor to show what you believed at the time, unless you do something stupid like go on Facebook and tell people you killed some clown even though you knew you could beat the hell out of him and didn't really need a weapon for self-defense.

These laws apply to citizens and police officers alike.

The couple were justified in their concern for their safety. Missouri law professors say that the couple were clearly within their rights via the Castle Doctrine. Had the protesters stayed on public streets, they would have been within the law, but they "trespassed" onto private property, which was the private street that the couple shared with the Mayor. Once they trespassed onto private property, the couple's defense of the property, even the land, fell clearly in within purview of the Castle Doctrine. Check it out yourself with any law professor in Missouri. Denial isn't going to change the law.

Totally agree, the McClosky's were within the Law. So why is DA Kim Gardner looking at filing charges against the homeowners, and not the angry mob that broke thru the gate and trespassed on private property?
Democrats like mobs and rioters, Republicans like cops, the 2nd Amendment, and "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" Laws.

 

[BS Filter]

Democrats love mayhem when a Republican occupies the White House.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

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 professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

You're free to show us all where any of those protesters were anything other than peacefully walking through the neighborhood.

Its about time the protestors/rioters started to move to meat and potatoes. I am not saying its right, but it took enough riots to go after those who may have some power. And I said "may". The couple still had their right to defend themselves. The protesters/rioters better understand that. Its been one way for them for many years. If you notice. Slowly but surely these people on the other side of the protests/riots are starting to defend themselves. Take note of this.

No one disputes anyone's right to self defense.
Those morons overreacted bigly. They look like idiots.

What was damaged in the neighborhood?

When you break someone's fence down he assumes you may break his walls down too to protest, riot, loot, and kill him. Then he correctly arms himself against what you may do next. Hopefully the threat of deadly force is enough to discourage the ANTIFA/BLM gestapo.

 

[flacaltenn]

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!!!

Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.

‘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

So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?

So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?

I wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.

Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?

Well, that's you.

Sure is. I'm neither an idiot who is afraid of protesters or a pussy who needs to point guns at them.

You didn't quote my entire post, you coward. What are these scum protesting on the streets of innocent civilians?

You didn't quote my entire post, you coward.

So what? It's not required. I respond to what I think is important.
The protesters are innocent civilians, dope.

No, you didn't respond because you can't. What are they protesting in that neighborhood? Those people haven't done anything. Idiot.

They THOUGHT they were marching on the Mayor's house.. But ironically enough, the high power lefty lawyer told the media --- "You cannot reach the Mayor's house thru the private drive"...

Seems like the organizers can't read a map or get Mapquest instructions from the web...

OR WORSE -- lied about marching on the Mayor's house and chose that neighborhood for other reasons...

The St. Louis lawyer who pulled a gun on protestors tells Chris Cuomo âmy life has been ruinedâ

Mark McCloskey called the viral incident ‘terrorism,’ claiming protestors threatened to kill his dog and burn down his house

www.marketwatch.com

Cuomo countered by calling terrorism “a strong word,” especially considering the McCloskeys were the ones who were armed. In response, McCloskey questioned the true intentions of the protestors, noting that the mayor doesn’t even live in his gated community. He accused the group of entering the neighborhood to be as disruptive as possible.

 

[hadit]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

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 professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.

Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.

1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the fucking race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.

What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours

"Police order"? Care to quote that order?

 

[hadit]

I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."

The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

The goal isn't to go to trial but to make the next people who are facing the mob have to hesitate before they use a gun to save themselves........even if it didn't go to trial, the cost for hiring a lawyer will be huge.......and if this asshole, george soros, AG wants, she can drag the case out and cost them a fortune......

The goal is intimidation against good people who own guns.... make normal gun owners afraid of the legal consequences of using a gun, make it massively expensive for the actual legal use of a gun, and you reduce the number of people who want to even try to use a gun in the first place. They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that are not representative of their neighborhood, a..

Remember, the democrats don't care about people who are raped, robbed or murdered by criminals...since those committing the rape, robbery and murder were likely released from prison by democrat party judges and prosecutors over and over again....the goal is to take guns away from normal people....

You do know that dozen's of Biff and Muffy's neighbors signed a letter to them condemning their behavior, don't you? They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that weren't representative of their neighborhood and that is not behavior they would expect fron their neighbors

That just means the next time the miscreants come into the community, the gun owners will send them on to their neighbor's houses, letting them know that no guns will meet them. Or at least, it would be kind of humorous if they did.

 

[hadit]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

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 professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

Stand Your Ground wasn't a factor in that case. Martin was the attacker in any case.

MArtin was standing his ground. If he was old enough to have a Carry permit he could have shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense via SYG.

Zimmerman was the aggressor

If a person was following you in a car for blocks then got out to chase you would you think your safety was in jeopardy?

I sure as hell would.

Zimmerman ignored a lawful order by the police

You can't instigate a situation then claim self defense.

No.....Martin was not standing his ground......he was free and clear of Zimmerman....as the girl in court stated.....from the phone conversation she said Martin said he lost the Homo cracker somewhere in the complex.........there was no Stand Your Ground issue...he circled back and attacked Zimmerman.

Because Zimmerman was obviously a threat as exhibited by his stalking.

Where I grew up if some asshole was tailing me in a car for blocks then got out and started chasing me Sure as fucking shit I would be fearing for my safety.

You don't have to be armed in order to stop what you perceive as a threat to your safety

And when you're a stranger in a neighborhood that has a watch, you can expect to be followed and possibly questioned. Stay in clear sight, walk slowly and be prepared to give polite answers to those empowered to find out who you are and what you're doing there.

 

[hadit]

The trespassers should have been shot when they broke through the gate.

Had they shot the rioters, they would be in jail.

When you find that your laws don't protect you from marauding vandals who will rape, rob, burn, assault, and murder you ; but protect the criminals from YOU, then you know your society is doomed.

What indications did those two gun nuts have that they were going to be raped, robbed, assaulted, or murdered?

When the filthy low-life mob broke through the gate. It was gun nuts that founded this country that you claim to love. Enjoy your holiday brought to you by those gun nuts. Idiot.

The gate wasn't on their property dumb ass. You'll note none of the other home owners had a problem. Biff and Muffy had just been watching too much Fox, and their imagination ran away with them.

And the next time a mob breaks through the gate, they should wave them on to their neighbors' houses, explaining that, while the mob could be ventilated if they went after this house, the inhabitants of the other houses are not armed.

 

[hadit]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

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 professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

These two white elitist ambulance chasers buy a historic, downtown home 500 feet away from a largely Black/Hispanic neighborhood and along with an interior decorator they bring guns and an AR-15. What's wrong with that picture?

If the are so fearful of inner-city St. Louis they should have bought a house in the suburbs.

The McCloskeys confronted the protesters, not the other way arround. The McCloskeys were on the OFFENSIVE.
They should have stayed inside and called the police if they felt their property was being trespassed. (Sidewalk and street!)
But they've obviously been jonesing to use their toys for a long fucking time.

False. Call the police and wait for them to show up with mops to do cleanup duty. They notified the mob that they were armed and if anyone wanted to assault them, there would be further issue. Sounds like a good reason for the vandalous mob to turn around and leave.

 

[hadit]

It was a neighborhood, dope. They were marching to the mayor's home. There was no violence to condone.

Tearing down an iron fence and an iron gate isn't violence?

View attachment 358685

You Marxist scum are fucking retards.

They're mentally deficient. A few of their power cords aren't plugged in.

You can't argue with unreason.

This is an Alinsky tactic, by being stupid and unreasonable, the radical Marxists are unassailable and seek to frustrate their enemy.

Reason has no impact on the Marxists, only superior strength. Buy guns, buy ammo. It is the ONLY argument the democrats grasp.

Those witless Karens were never in danger.
We know than any gathering of blacks scares you to death, pussy.

BTW....guns are useless when all you do is bitch online, loser "Alpha boi".

I agree, they weren't in danger because they showed the trash their guns. So you want me to swallow your propaganda and ignore the FACT that people have been assaulted and their property burned and looted. Idiot.

Won't ignore it at all.
The biggest offender is Trump himself.
He had peaceful protesters shot with rubber bullets, flash-bangs and tear gas so he could walk across the street for a photo op.
Then he had a helicopter come in and hover directly over the crowd, violating city ordinances for aircraft.
He's the trash you're talking about.

Fucking liar.

{

The Secret Service asserted Thursday that “no agency personnel” used tear gas or capsicum spray during the clearing of Lafayette Park earlier this week before President Trump visited St. John’s Church.

“The Secret Service has determined that no agency personnel used tear gas or capsicum spray during its efforts to secure the area near Lafayette Park on Monday, June 1st, 2020,” a Secret Service spokesperson said.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Park Police (USPP) denied using tear gas to clear away protesters in the park, after reports that they used tear gas and rubber bullets to clear mostly peaceful protesters.

In a statement released Tuesday by the USPP, the law enforcement agency said “no tear gas was used” when clearing a large group of protestors from the area. The USPP said it took the steps “to curtail the violence that was underway,” pushing back against claims that the protest was entirely peaceful.

}

Secret Service says it did not use tear gas when Lafayette Park was cleared before Trump church visit

The Secret Service asserted Thursday that “no agency personnel” used tear gas or capsicum spray during the clearing of Lafayette Park earlier this week before President Trump visited St. John’s Church.

www.foxnews.com

Not trying to reason with you or convince you of anything, you're an unthinking drone.

Just pointing out that you're a fucking liar.

Now, now, you know that once the narrative is set, there can be no deviating from it.

 

[hadit]

The trespassers should have been shot when they broke through the gate.

Had they shot the rioters, they would be in jail.

When you find that your laws don't protect you from marauding vandals who will rape, rob, burn, assault, and murder you ; but protect the criminals from YOU, then you know your society is doomed.

What indications did those two gun nuts have that they were going to be raped, robbed, assaulted, or murdered?

When the filthy low-life mob broke through the gate. It was gun nuts that founded this country that you claim to love. Enjoy your holiday brought to you by those gun nuts. Idiot.

The gate wasn't on their property dumb ass. You'll note none of the other home owners had a problem. Biff and Muffy had just been watching too much Fox, and their imagination ran away with them.

Who broke the law, the mob or the home owners?

Brandishing a weapon is illegal. Nobody bothered to file charges on any of the protestors.

Can you cite the specific law that makes their actions illegal on their own property?

 

[hadit]

The trespassers should have been shot when they broke through the gate.

Had they shot the rioters, they would be in jail.

When you find that your laws don't protect you from marauding vandals who will rape, rob, burn, assault, and murder you ; but protect the criminals from YOU, then you know your society is doomed.

What indications did those two gun nuts have that they were going to be raped, robbed, assaulted, or murdered?

When the filthy low-life mob broke through the gate. It was gun nuts that founded this country that you claim to love. Enjoy your holiday brought to you by those gun nuts. Idiot.

The gate wasn't on their property dumb ass. You'll note none of the other home owners had a problem. Biff and Muffy had just been watching too much Fox, and their imagination ran away with them.

The gate WAS their property! It was also marked rather clearly on a sign ON said gate that it was Private Property! The other property owners are most likely liberal pussies who are scared the mob will return! When you cower in front of Black Lives Matter protesters they are emboldened. "Biff and Muffy" probably saved their neighbors from having their property damaged which makes them especially cowardly! They SHOULD have been out standing shoulder to shoulder with the only people with courage in that neighborhood!

That's just childishly dumb.

it's childish to protect your home? since when? it's one of the oldest human instincts

How was their home threatened?

YEAH, EXACTLY!!! How was their home threatened by an angry mob who just destroyed a gate to gain access.

No reasonable person would EVER feel threatened, would they?


(this is dripping with sarcasm, if you can't tell)

We're just going to have to agree to disagree, because in your mind, NO CIRCUMSTANCE justifies the use of a firearm in self defense.

You don't believe in the right of self defense.

But, if I am wrong, please describe for me a scenario where you believe the use of a firearm in self defense is justified.

I noticed you took the usual right wing crazy rout of accusing me of stuff that just isn't true. I suspect you just can't help yourself.
There are cases where the use of a gun for self defense is justified. That wasn't one of those cases.

And this is another case of defensive gun use in which no one was injured. You know, one of the millions that happen every year.

 

[hadit]

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.

3. The "mob" broke through the gate, trespassing onto private property and threatened to burn down the home.

You're a liar and an idiot. None of the other neighbors saw a threat.

‘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 the next mob should be notified upon breaking into the community that this house has armed residents while the others are unprotected.

 

[whitehall]

Put yourself in their place. Innocent Americans are threatened by a mob. They call 911 but nobody answers. The (republican) governor ignores them. The only advice from officials is to flee their home and leave their possessions at the whim of a mob. How could this happen in America?

 

[Oldestyle]

Put yourself in their place. Innocent Americans are threatened by a mob. They call 911 but nobody answers. The (republican) governor ignores them. The only advice from officials is to flee their home and leave their possessions at the whim of a mob. How could this happen in America?

When the Main Stream Media protects the mob by ignoring what they do...spineless politicians back down from doing the jobs they've taken an oath to perform because they're petrified of being labeled as "racists"! THAT is how this is happening in America!

 

[BS Filter]

Put yourself in their place. Innocent Americans are threatened by a mob. They call 911 but nobody answers. The (republican) governor ignores them. The only advice from officials is to flee their home and leave their possessions at the whim of a mob. How could this happen in America?

When the Main Stream Media protects the mob by ignoring what they do...spineless politicians back down from doing the jobs they've taken an oath to perform because they're petrified of being labeled as "racists"! THAT is how this is happening in America!

Bullseye.

 

[Blues Man]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

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 professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.

Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.

1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the fucking race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.

What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours

1. The stolen loot is "relevant", proper search warrant or not.
2. The crime he committed was to attack a neighborhood watchman.
3. Not calling you a criminal, just pissed about the riots and high city crime rates.
4. Your net worth could be higher, but I'm very happy with my life not near cities.

The stolen merchandise is completely irrelevant to the shooting incident. When Zimmerman stalked Martin he had committed no crime. He had no stolen property on him. He was just walking to someone's house where he was a guest.

And Zimmerman never identified himself and neighborhood watch or not he had no authority to do anything. And he disobeyed the cop who told him not to get out of his car and chase Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor and instigated the entire circumstance.

And you assume I live in a city?

Wrong again Bubba.
I grew up on the shitty side of a city but now I live on 12 acres of beautiful farmland surrounded on 3 sides by state conservation land so I have a couple hundred acres of land right in my back yard.

Run along with your assumptions now Bubba.

Wow.... you didn't actually follow the case...

No, no cop told Martin anything...the 911 operator informed Zimmerman that he didn't have to follow the guy.....the 911 operator couldn't "order" Zimmerman to do anything.

Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost Martin inside the complex and that he was going back to meet the cops at his car......as he was going back to his car, Martin circled around and attacked him.

Martin was the aggressor, not Zimmerman.

There was no stolen anything involved in the encounter......Martin was living with his father because his mother couldn't control him, and his locker in school had stolen items and a screw driver, implying he had broken into lockers at the school...one of the reasons the mother sent him to live with his father.

What was in his locker is 100% irrelevant to the situation Zimmerman instigated.

1. The loot in his locker was what he stole from Zimmerman's neighbors, very relevant
2. That the neighborhood burglaries stopped when Treyvon died proves he was the burglarAnd no one saw the beginning of the altercation


3. Treyvon didn't like the little fat dude stopping his criminal enterprise and that's why he attacked him.

No it isn't.

The little fat dude had a cop fantasy. And it turns out Zimmerman is a real piece of shit wife abusing drunk driving asshole who is by all metrics a fucking loser who was playing cop to make himself feel like a tough guy

And that, too, has zero to do with what happened that night.

He was a loser with a cop fantasy.
And no one witnessed the beginning of the altercation

New Trayvon Martin Evidence: 10 Things You Should Know | TIME.com

The most relevant new pieces of information in the trial of George Zimmerman from the the Florida special prosecutor's new 183-page report.

newsfeed.time.com

There are so far no witnesses to the beginning of the confrontation.

Police canvassed the neighborhood to find people who could tell them what they saw, and every eyewitness told police they saw Martin and Zimmerman fighting but that they didn’t know how it started

He was back at the entrance to the complex near the parking lot, you doofus......and the girl who gave testimony stated Martin was clear of Zimmerman.........they were not even near each other you doofus.

The police found no witnesses that saw the start of the altercation.

 

[Blues Man]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

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 professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

Stand Your Ground wasn't a factor in that case. Martin was the attacker in any case.

MArtin was standing his ground. If he was old enough to have a Carry permit he could have shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense via SYG.

Zimmerman was the aggressor

If a person was following you in a car for blocks then got out to chase you would you think your safety was in jeopardy?

I sure as hell would.

Zimmerman ignored a lawful order by the police

You can't instigate a situation then claim self defense.

No.....Martin was not standing his ground......he was free and clear of Zimmerman....as the girl in court stated.....from the phone conversation she said Martin said he lost the Homo cracker somewhere in the complex.........there was no Stand Your Ground issue...he circled back and attacked Zimmerman.

Because Zimmerman was obviously a threat as exhibited by his stalking.

Where I grew up if some asshole was tailing me in a car for blocks then got out and started chasing me Sure as fucking shit I would be fearing for my safety.

You don't have to be armed in order to stop what you perceive as a threat to your safety

You dumb shit.......Martin told the girl on the phone he lost the guy in the complex....she testified to that under oath....the prosecution put her on the stand, not the defense.....so he could have simply walked the short distance to his father's home and been done with it...

He circled back and attacked Zimmerman.....

Yeah I'm not going to believe hearsay.

And no one saw the beginning of the altercation