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

[kyzr]

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

There is a video (post #189) showing the protesters walking thru the gate and noticing that the McClosky's were armed. Then that set off the protesters and the incident began. Didn't show them breaking thru the gate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Did they speak to the Governor? I'd be pretty amazed if they did.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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 in Texas. We don't tolerate that shit. You can use deadly force to prevent a felony or defend property. You can use the threat of deadly force (pull out a gun) to stop or prevent violence.

But, it is interesting how you a) tolerate, and even protect from deadly consequences, criminal behavior, and b) don't think a mob of potentially violent rioters approaching a home is deadly or potentially deadly.

You are fucking stupid.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

Because this walking indictment of affirmative action:

..is also a communist shit gun-grabbing ass wipe.

 

[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 in Texas. We don't tolerate that shit. You can use deadly force to prevent a felony or defend property. You can use the threat of deadly force (pull out a gun) to stop or prevent violence.

But, it is interesting how you a) tolerate, and even protect from deadly consequences, criminal behavior, and b) don't think a mob of potentially violent rioters approaching a home is deadly or potentially deadly.

You are fucking stupid.

From the poll results above it looks like most of us have no tolerance for lawless mobs.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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 in Texas. We don't tolerate that shit. You can use deadly force to prevent a felony or defend property. You can use the threat of deadly force (pull out a gun) to stop or prevent violence.

But, it is interesting how you a) tolerate, and even protect from deadly consequences, criminal behavior, and b) don't think a mob of potentially violent rioters approaching a home is deadly or potentially deadly.

You are fucking stupid.

From the poll results above it looks like most of us have no tolerance for lawless mobs.

The people who obviously have no tolerence for firearms and want them banned (in here arguing with us) either clearly don't believe their own bullshit or abstained.

 

[kyzr]

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?

Because this walking indictment of affirmative action:

..is also a communist shit gun-grabbing ass wipe.

So either she needs to be defeated, or law abiding folks need to move out of her jurisdiction.
The McClosky's are lawyers, so I wonder if there is any potential relief from the state to oppose unlawful indictments? The DA claims that the McCloskys "assaulted" the peaceful protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights?! Actually they were trespassers who broke thru a private gate and threatened the McCloskys and their dog.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

This is the problem. Our officials are pandering to the law breakers. This is why people must take arms like this couple to defend themselves.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Your portrayal of a peaceful protest march is laughable. They were neither aggressive, nor were they disregarding the law. In fact, they were marching in accordance with their First Amendment rights.

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!

Tell me, when the heavily armed Nazis and White Supremacists were protesting the shut downs in Michigan and stormed the state house, did you refer to them as a "mob"?

The language that conservatives use to refer to protestors is very telling. When white people took to the streets carrying semi-automatic weapons, screaming at police, threatening state legislators, did you consider them a "mob" too, or were these people protesting for their rights pursuant to the Constitution?

I find these people a LOT less threatening, that the people in the picture directly above. Somehow, the bicycle isn't nearly as scary as the semi-automatic weapons. That being said, if the right wing protestors were marching down the gun happy couple's street with their semi-automatic weapons, this couple would be perfectly correct in brandishing their weapons.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

This is how civil wars begin. The left (MSM) won't be satisfied until they get one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your portrayal of a peaceful protest march is laughable. They were neither aggressive, nor were they disregarding the law. In fact, they were marching in accordance with their First Amendment rights.

They entered private property against the will of the owner. That's against the law.

I find these people a LOT less threatening, that the people in the picture directly above. Somehow, the bicycle isn't nearly as scary as the semi-automatic weapons. That being said, if the right wing protestors were marching down the gun happy couple's street with their semi-automatic weapons, this couple would be perfectly correct in brandishing their weapons.

The difference is the couple didn't go to the protesters home with those guns, the protesters came to their home. Yes, if any group left or right trespassed onto private property threatening them and they drew guns, it's perfectly legal.

 

[freyasman]

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?

Because this walking indictment of affirmative action:

..is also a communist shit gun-grabbing ass wipe.

So either she needs to be defeated, or law abiding folks need to move out of her jurisdiction.
The McClosky's are lawyers, so I wonder if there is any potential relief from the state to oppose unlawful indictments? The DA claims that the McCloskys "assaulted" the peaceful protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights?! Actually they were trespassers who broke thru a private gate and threatened the McCloskys and their dog.

This brings up a point I want to address; you're most likely to get into a conflict like this in a city, and that city is much more likely to have some SJW holding the DA's office. They have been making a serious push to grab as many of those positions across the country as they can.
People who are willing and able to defend themselves with force when they have to venture into these areas, need to be aware that they will also have to defend themselves in court, as well. And maybe in a county lock-up for awhile before you make bail.

These people are evil, corrupt, agenda-driven, and they fucking hate you..... plan accordingly.

 

[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

There is a video (post #189) showing the protesters walking thru the gate and noticing that the McClosky's were armed. Then that set off the protesters and the incident began. Didn't show them breaking thru the gate.

Talking about Zimmerman and Martin

 

[freyasman]

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.

Your portrayal of a peaceful protest march is laughable. They were neither aggressive, nor were they disregarding the law. In fact, they were marching in accordance with their First Amendment rights.

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!

Tell me, when the heavily armed were protesting the shut downs in Michigan and stormed the state house, did you refer to them as a "mob"?

The language that conservatives use to refer to protestors is very telling. When white people took to the streets carrying semi-automatic weapons, screaming at police, threatening state legislators, did you consider them a "mob" too, or were these people protesting for their rights pursuant to the Constitution?

View attachment 359123View attachment 359125

I find these people a LOT less threatening, that the people in the picture directly above. Somehow, the bicycle isn't nearly as scary as the semi-automatic weapons. That being said, if the right wing protestors were marching down the gun happy couple's street with their semi-automatic weapons, this couple would be perfectly correct in brandishing their weapons.

View attachment 359130

They broke the law by entering property that wasn't their's. They continued to advance after being told to exit said property.
That's illegal. It's also an excellent way to get shot, and deservedly so.

"The language that conservatives use to refer to protestors is very telling."

Says the person who is attempting to direct the narrative by calling legally armed Americans who are on public property, paid for with their tax dollars, seeking redress from their government officials, "Nazis and White Supremacists".

You are a liar, and you are full of shit, and nobody worth a shit would listen to any of the crap you say.

 

[Uncensored2008]

McCloskeys lied about the gate being broken down.
(Of course they lie, they're ambulance chasers!)
Protesters went through the entrance on the left.

Meet the McCloskeys: How Private Places Act as a Form of Spatial Anti-Blackness in St. Louis — Streetsblog USA

Two white homeowners threatened the lives of Black Lives Mater protesters in on a private street in St. Louis on Sunday, raising new questions about anti-Black racism in pseudo-public space.

usa.streetsblog.org

The trash had no business being there.

So you're an avowed racist.
Write "The trash had no business being in front of McCloskey's house" on a sign and put it in your front yard, ya fucking bigot.
I dare you.

You'd be singing a different tune if it had been a black couple on the porch with guns.
You know it, don't you?
You'd be calling them "thugs pointing guns at unarmed crowd".
Thanks for outing yourself, lolololol.

Hey lying fuck, you understand that over half of the BLM Klansman that you promote are white, right you lying sack of puss?

Look at that gate that was torn down and now held up by chains...

You sure are a lying little fuck bucket.

 

[kyzr]

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?

Because this walking indictment of affirmative action:

..is also a communist shit gun-grabbing ass wipe.

So either she needs to be defeated, or law abiding folks need to move out of her jurisdiction.
The McClosky's are lawyers, so I wonder if there is any potential relief from the state to oppose unlawful indictments? The DA claims that the McCloskys "assaulted" the peaceful protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights?! Actually they were trespassers who broke thru a private gate and threatened the McCloskys and their dog.

This brings up a point I want to address; you're most likely to get into a conflict like this in a city, and that city is much more likely to have some SJW holding the DA's office. They have been making a serious push to grab as many of those positions across the country as they can.
People who are willing and able to defend themselves with force when they have to venture into these areas, need to be aware that they will also have to defend themselves in court, as well. And maybe in a county lock-up for awhile before you make bail.

These people are evil, corrupt, agenda-driven, and they fucking hate you..... plan accordingly.

EXACTLY!! Before I go anywhere I ALWAYS check to see if they have "reciprocity" for gun carry permits. If not, they can pound sand.

Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps (Updated April 2024)

Our Concealed Carry Reciprocity Maps are the most up-to-date CCW maps available. View which states accept your concealed carry permits. Great for traveling.

www.usacarry.com

 

[Uncensored2008]

McCloskeys lied about the gate being broken down.
(Of course they lie, they're ambulance chasers!)
Protesters went through the entrance on the left.

Meet the McCloskeys: How Private Places Act as a Form of Spatial Anti-Blackness in St. Louis — Streetsblog USA

Two white homeowners threatened the lives of Black Lives Mater protesters in on a private street in St. Louis on Sunday, raising new questions about anti-Black racism in pseudo-public space.

usa.streetsblog.org

Nope, you're lying.

Fuck off now. No one believes you.

Pictures don't lie.
But Pieces of shit like you, do.
They used the entrance on the left.
McCloskeys lied.

No, but you sure lie, fuckbucket.

Well gawdamn ya lying little fuck, the gate is held up by chains, because your Brown Shirts tore it down during the Kristalnacht you sent them on.

 

[freyasman]

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?

Because this walking indictment of affirmative action:

..is also a communist shit gun-grabbing ass wipe.

So either she needs to be defeated, or law abiding folks need to move out of her jurisdiction.
The McClosky's are lawyers, so I wonder if there is any potential relief from the state to oppose unlawful indictments? The DA claims that the McCloskys "assaulted" the peaceful protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights?! Actually they were trespassers who broke thru a private gate and threatened the McCloskys and their dog.

This brings up a point I want to address; you're most likely to get into a conflict like this in a city, and that city is much more likely to have some SJW holding the DA's office. They have been making a serious push to grab as many of those positions across the country as they can.
People who are willing and able to defend themselves with force when they have to venture into these areas, need to be aware that they will also have to defend themselves in court, as well. And maybe in a county lock-up for awhile before you make bail.

These people are evil, corrupt, agenda-driven, and they fucking hate you..... plan accordingly.

EXACTLY!! Before I go anywhere I ALWAYS check to see if they have "reciprocity" for gun carry permits. If not, they can pound sand.

Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps (Updated April 2024)

Our Concealed Carry Reciprocity Maps are the most up-to-date CCW maps available. View which states accept your concealed carry permits. Great for traveling.

www.usacarry.com

View attachment 359162

That's good but dig deeper....... you need to know not just the laws, but the agendas and politics of the people who will be applying those laws to you, if you get into something.
You also need a bondsman and a lawyer on retainer, because county sucks..... bad.

 

[iceberg]

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.

Bullshit. You come at me I'm not letting you choose how I defend myself.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Your portrayal of a peaceful protest march is laughable. They were neither aggressive, nor were they disregarding the law. In fact, they were marching in accordance with their First Amendment rights.

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!

Tell me, when the heavily armed Nazis and White Supremacists were protesting the shut downs in Michigan and stormed the state house, did you refer to them as a "mob"?

The language that conservatives use to refer to protestors is very telling. When white people took to the streets carrying semi-automatic weapons, screaming at police, threatening state legislators, did you consider them a "mob" too, or were these people protesting for their rights pursuant to the Constitution?

View attachment 359123View attachment 359125

I find these people a LOT less threatening, that the people in the picture directly above. Somehow, the bicycle isn't nearly as scary as the semi-automatic weapons. That being said, if the right wing protestors were marching down the gun happy couple's street with their semi-automatic weapons, this couple would be perfectly correct in brandishing their weapons.

View attachment 359130

We have guns.

We will ALWAYS have guns.

WE WILL GET MORE GUNS!!!

Cry, bitch.

We WILL make use of those guns against those who try to stop us.