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

Do you support "stand your ground laws"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 54 91.5%
  • No

    Votes: 5 8.5%

  • Total voters
    59

BS Filter

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
12,973
Reaction score
2,744
Points
290
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.
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.
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?
Liar.
I've posted the video of marchers passing through a very intact gate while the gun nuts were threatening the marchers. Anything said to them was a result of being threatened with dogs and firearms.
i posted pics of a smashed gate.

was it or was it not private property they were going through?
has there or has there NOT been a shitton of violence in st louis?

you keep dismissing violent act after violent act and every protested busted for violence you say is simply misunderstood. so far in your eyes NO PROTEST HAS BEEN VIOLENT.

pray tell then sir fuckupsalot, who is being violent that we see so much of?

suck on your bullshit stick son.
He's a loser. Probably a queer.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
61,219
Reaction score
11,357
Points
2,140
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.
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.
No, you didn't respond because you can't. What are they protesting in that neighborhood? Those people haven't done anything. Idiot.
I didnt respond because it's retarded and irrelevant.
They were passing through the neighborhood enroute to the mayor's home, dope.
It was a 9 mile protest march.
Then why didn't they keep marching to his house? According to the victim, the Mayor doesn't even live in that community.
 

Mac-7

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
13,067
Reaction score
7,164
Points
995
Anyone who breaks into my home, where my children sleep, will be ventilated with prejudice. To hell with these looney-left laws.
Like the man said, its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,461
Reaction score
5,894
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
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.
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.
Good point. Just noticed that MO has reciprocity, but Kim Gardner has her own little fiefdom where she prosecutes whoever she wants to based on her "anti-gun" agenda. That coxucker Soros has his agenda and finances these ass-wipe DAs who give passes to criminals but prosecute law abiding citizens.
It's been going this way for a few years now. Look at what they did to Mike Strickland in Portland, and to Terry Thompson in Houston.
1. Terry Thompson used a choke-hold and killed a guy for urinating outside a Denny's. That caused riots for police brutality. Dumb cops should know better. There are too many guys killed by cops for minor offenses, that needs to stop. Thompson is doing 25-years.
2. Mike Strickland fucked-up pulling a gun at a BLM rally. He should not have been there looking for trouble.

3. This thread is about defending your "castle" and "stand your ground" when confronted by threats, not looking for trouble in an offensive manner. I still want to see a national/universal carry permit, good in one state/municipality, good in all states/municipalities.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
24,783
Reaction score
7,391
Points
290
Location
Niagara Escarpment
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.
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.
The left aren't the people who are bringing weapons to these protests. Those who have been arrested on weapons charges have been Boogaloo Bois, and right wing anarchists, trying to fulfill your wildest fantasies.

The rioters and looters, have largely been white suburban gangs and white supremacists, using the cover of the protests to loot high end stores in the case of the former, and attack and burn successful black businesses in the case of the latter.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
61,219
Reaction score
11,357
Points
2,140
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.
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.
The left aren't the people who are bringing weapons to these protests. Those who have been arrested on weapons charges have been Boogaloo Bois, and right wing anarchists, trying to fulfill your wildest fantasies.

The rioters and looters, have largely been white suburban gangs and white supremacists, using the cover of the protests to loot high end stores in the case of the former, and attack and burn successful black businesses in the case of the latter.
If it's one thing I've always said, it's the best part of being a Democrat means never having to say you were wrong. You mean those CHAZ guys or whatever you call them are not armed with AK's as they stood guard to keep their several blocks in Seattle? Yes, you had people with guns there. To say they were right-wing white supremacists in disguise without any evidence to support your phony claim is the joke of the week on USMB.
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
16,894
Reaction score
4,067
Points
290
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.
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.
The left aren't the people who are bringing weapons to these protests. Those who have been arrested on weapons charges have been Boogaloo Bois, and right wing anarchists, trying to fulfill your wildest fantasies.

The rioters and looters, have largely been white suburban gangs and white supremacists, using the cover of the protests to loot high end stores in the case of the former, and attack and burn successful black businesses in the case of the latter.
everytime you open your mouth you prove how ignorant you really are,,,

please continue,,,
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
24,783
Reaction score
7,391
Points
290
Location
Niagara Escarpment
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.
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.
The left aren't the people who are bringing weapons to these protests. Those who have been arrested on weapons charges have been Boogaloo Bois, and right wing anarchists, trying to fulfill your wildest fantasies.

The rioters and looters, have largely been white suburban gangs and white supremacists, using the cover of the protests to loot high end stores in the case of the former, and attack and burn successful black businesses in the case of the latter.
everytime you open your mouth you prove how ignorant you really are,,,

please continue,,,
Sure thing. Every time you post, you prove how spectacularly uninformed YOU are:




 

LuckyDuck

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
4,553
Reaction score
1,757
Points
290
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.
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.
The reason was simply that the DA is a Marxist that wants this nation to be torn down.
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
16,894
Reaction score
4,067
Points
290
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.
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.
The left aren't the people who are bringing weapons to these protests. Those who have been arrested on weapons charges have been Boogaloo Bois, and right wing anarchists, trying to fulfill your wildest fantasies.

The rioters and looters, have largely been white suburban gangs and white supremacists, using the cover of the protests to loot high end stores in the case of the former, and attack and burn successful black businesses in the case of the latter.
everytime you open your mouth you prove how ignorant you really are,,,

please continue,,,
Sure thing. Every time you post, you prove how spectacularly uninformed YOU are:




uninformed is far from being an ignorant liar like you,,,
 

LuckyDuck

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
4,553
Reaction score
1,757
Points
290
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.
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.
The left aren't the people who are bringing weapons to these protests. Those who have been arrested on weapons charges have been Boogaloo Bois, and right wing anarchists, trying to fulfill your wildest fantasies.

The rioters and looters, have largely been white suburban gangs and white supremacists, using the cover of the protests to loot high end stores in the case of the former, and attack and burn successful black businesses in the case of the latter.
everytime you open your mouth you prove how ignorant you really are,,,

please continue,,,
Sure thing. Every time you post, you prove how spectacularly uninformed YOU are:




Interesting that people like you say "white nationalists" as though it's a bad thing to believe in having a nation with borders AND that believing in such is only a white thing. I have yet to hear you and your low-life associates say.....Asian nationalists......Hispanic nationalists.....Black nationalists....Native American nationalists.
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
70,262
Reaction score
6,133
Points
1,815
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.
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.
The left aren't the people who are bringing weapons to these protests. Those who have been arrested on weapons charges have been Boogaloo Bois, and right wing anarchists, trying to fulfill your wildest fantasies.

The rioters and looters, have largely been white suburban gangs and white supremacists, using the cover of the protests to loot high end stores in the case of the former, and attack and burn successful black businesses in the case of the latter.
everytime you open your mouth you prove how ignorant you really are,,,

please continue,,,
Sure thing. Every time you post, you prove how spectacularly uninformed YOU are:




Interesting that people like you say "white nationalists" as though it's a bad thing to believe in having a nation with borders AND that believing in such is only a white thing. I have yet to hear you and your low-life associates say.....Asian nationalists......Hispanic nationalists.....Black nationalists....Native American nationalists.
good point-----for the mindless the issue hinges on an action by the HOLY BLM vs two householders who just happen to be <gasp> white. I AGREE----every crime committed by a PERSON OF COLOR in my town----just about all the street crime, should be DESCRIBED AS -------THE FILTH OF PERSON OF COLOR SUPREMACY
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
27,269
Reaction score
5,717
Points
290
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.
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.
The left aren't the people who are bringing weapons to these protests. Those who have been arrested on weapons charges have been Boogaloo Bois, and right wing anarchists, trying to fulfill your wildest fantasies.

The rioters and looters, have largely been white suburban gangs and white supremacists, using the cover of the protests to loot high end stores in the case of the former, and attack and burn successful black businesses in the case of the latter.
What a fuck nugget of denial.
 

freyasman

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
3,667
Reaction score
1,959
Points
893
Location
Texas
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.
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.
Good point. Just noticed that MO has reciprocity, but Kim Gardner has her own little fiefdom where she prosecutes whoever she wants to based on her "anti-gun" agenda. That coxucker Soros has his agenda and finances these ass-wipe DAs who give passes to criminals but prosecute law abiding citizens.
It's been going this way for a few years now. Look at what they did to Mike Strickland in Portland, and to Terry Thompson in Houston.
1. Terry Thompson used a choke-hold and killed a guy for urinating outside a Denny's. That caused riots for police brutality. Dumb cops should know better. There are too many guys killed by cops for minor offenses, that needs to stop. Thompson is doing 25-years.
2. Mike Strickland fucked-up pulling a gun at a BLM rally. He should not have been there looking for trouble.

3. This thread is about defending your "castle" and "stand your ground" when confronted by threats, not looking for trouble in an offensive manner. I still want to see a national/universal carry permit, good in one state/municipality, good in all states/municipalities.
Terry Thompson was not a cop. Strickland was a journalist covering a story.
Both of these guys should not have been prosecuted.
 

freyasman

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
3,667
Reaction score
1,959
Points
893
Location
Texas
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.
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.
The left aren't the people who are bringing weapons to these protests. Those who have been arrested on weapons charges have been Boogaloo Bois, and right wing anarchists, trying to fulfill your wildest fantasies.

The rioters and looters, have largely been white suburban gangs and white supremacists, using the cover of the protests to loot high end stores in the case of the former, and attack and burn successful black businesses in the case of the latter.
False.

Why are you lying?
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
16,894
Reaction score
4,067
Points
290
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.
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.
The left aren't the people who are bringing weapons to these protests. Those who have been arrested on weapons charges have been Boogaloo Bois, and right wing anarchists, trying to fulfill your wildest fantasies.

The rioters and looters, have largely been white suburban gangs and white supremacists, using the cover of the protests to loot high end stores in the case of the former, and attack and burn successful black businesses in the case of the latter.
False.

Why are you lying?
its just what she does,,,
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,461
Reaction score
5,894
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
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.
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.
The left aren't the people who are bringing weapons to these protests. Those who have been arrested on weapons charges have been Boogaloo Bois, and right wing anarchists, trying to fulfill your wildest fantasies.

The rioters and looters, have largely been white suburban gangs and white supremacists, using the cover of the protests to loot high end stores in the case of the former, and attack and burn successful black businesses in the case of the latter.
everytime you open your mouth you prove how ignorant you really are,,,

please continue,,,
Sure thing. Every time you post, you prove how spectacularly uninformed YOU are:




All your links show is that the "boogaloo" boys are on the same side as BLM wanting the police defunded.
What do you think the links showed?
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
16,894
Reaction score
4,067
Points
290
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.
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.
The left aren't the people who are bringing weapons to these protests. Those who have been arrested on weapons charges have been Boogaloo Bois, and right wing anarchists, trying to fulfill your wildest fantasies.

The rioters and looters, have largely been white suburban gangs and white supremacists, using the cover of the protests to loot high end stores in the case of the former, and attack and burn successful black businesses in the case of the latter.
everytime you open your mouth you prove how ignorant you really are,,,

please continue,,,
Sure thing. Every time you post, you prove how spectacularly uninformed YOU are:




All your links show is that the "boogaloo" boys are on the same side as BLM wanting the police defunded.
What do you think the links showed?
shes never been very bright,,,
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,461
Reaction score
5,894
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
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.
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.
Good point. Just noticed that MO has reciprocity, but Kim Gardner has her own little fiefdom where she prosecutes whoever she wants to based on her "anti-gun" agenda. That coxucker Soros has his agenda and finances these ass-wipe DAs who give passes to criminals but prosecute law abiding citizens.
It's been going this way for a few years now. Look at what they did to Mike Strickland in Portland, and to Terry Thompson in Houston.
1. Terry Thompson used a choke-hold and killed a guy for urinating outside a Denny's. That caused riots for police brutality. Dumb cops should know better. There are too many guys killed by cops for minor offenses, that needs to stop. Thompson is doing 25-years.
2. Mike Strickland fucked-up pulling a gun at a BLM rally. He should not have been there looking for trouble.

3. This thread is about defending your "castle" and "stand your ground" when confronted by threats, not looking for trouble in an offensive manner. I still want to see a national/universal carry permit, good in one state/municipality, good in all states/municipalities.
Terry Thompson was not a cop. Strickland was a journalist covering a story.
Both of these guys should not have been prosecuted.
1. If Thompson wasn't a cop he had no authority to choke out and kill anyone. Dial 911 & report it, then be on your way.
2. From the written stories, Strickland brandished weapons when he was not threatened. He should have had a cell phone video, or better yet, a mini-body cam to prove he was threatened.
 

BS Filter

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
12,973
Reaction score
2,744
Points
290
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.
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.
The left aren't the people who are bringing weapons to these protests. Those who have been arrested on weapons charges have been Boogaloo Bois, and right wing anarchists, trying to fulfill your wildest fantasies.

The rioters and looters, have largely been white suburban gangs and white supremacists, using the cover of the protests to loot high end stores in the case of the former, and attack and burn successful black businesses in the case of the latter.
Antifa are white supremacists? Gee, who knew?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List