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

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
65,421
Reaction score
9,158
Points
2,030
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,,,
Uninformed and ignorant are the same thing dumb ass.
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
16,894
Reaction score
4,066
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,,,
Uninformed and ignorant are the same thing dumb ass.
no its not dumbass,,,
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
65,421
Reaction score
9,158
Points
2,030
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,,,
Uninformed and ignorant are the same thing dumb ass.
no its not dumbass,,,
They are synonyms you goofy twat.
1593902495273.png
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
16,894
Reaction score
4,066
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,,,
Uninformed and ignorant are the same thing dumb ass.
no its not dumbass,,,
They are synonyms you goofy twat.
View attachment 359371
to a point they are interchangeable,,, but it her case its pure self imposed ignorance as it is with you most of the time,,,
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
65,421
Reaction score
9,158
Points
2,030
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,,,
Uninformed and ignorant are the same thing dumb ass.
no its not dumbass,,,
They are synonyms you goofy twat.
View attachment 359371
to a point they are interchangeable,,, but it her case its pure self imposed ignorance as it is with you most of the time,,,
I can't fault you for your ignornce. if you don't know, you just don't know. Your stupidity, however is your own fault.
 

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.
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,,,
Uninformed and ignorant are the same thing dumb ass.
no its not dumbass,,,
They are synonyms you goofy twat.
View attachment 359371
to a point they are interchangeable,,, but it her case its pure self imposed ignorance as it is with you most of the time,,,
I can't fault you for your ignornce. if you don't know, you just don't know. Your stupidity, however is your own fault.
That's pretty funny coming from a leftist.
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
1,935
Reaction score
1,863
Points
1,903
Location
Sunny Florida
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
So you're "afraid" of Americans who arm themselves to protect things...but you NOT afraid of the mobs of liberals who have burned and looted dozens of times over the past few weeks? Quite frankly, Dragonlady...your fear seems to be misplaced! Just sayin...
 

BS Filter

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
12,973
Reaction score
2,744
Points
290
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
So you're "afraid" of Americans who arm themselves to protect things...but you NOT afraid of the mobs of liberals who have burned and looted dozens of times over the past few weeks? Quite frankly, Dragonlady...your fear seems to be misplaced! Just sayin...
She's deranged.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
61,219
Reaction score
11,357
Points
2,140
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
So you're "afraid" of Americans who arm themselves to protect things...but you NOT afraid of the mobs of liberals who have burned and looted dozens of times over the past few weeks? Quite frankly, Dragonlady...your fear seems to be misplaced! Just sayin...
She doesn't live in this country so she has no idea that CCW holders are the most law abiding and safest to be around in our country.
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
70,262
Reaction score
6,133
Points
1,815
the whole story seems very trivial to me. That it made the news seems silly-----that the couple should be criminally charged is insane. Who is supposed to pay to have the gate fixed?
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,461
Reaction score
5,894
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
Just watched "The Outpost" about an indefensible outpost on the AFG/Pak border in the 2006-2009 time-frame.
I highly recommended the movie. Clint Eastwood's son is in it, and its based on a true story.

The movie is based on a book by CNN's Jake Tapper?! How did that happen? I didn't used to like Jake Tapper?!
"His book The Outpost: An Untold Story of American Valor debuted at number 10 in November 2012 on The New York Times Bestseller list for hardback non-fiction. Tapper's book and his reporting on the veterans and troops were cited when the Congressional Medal of Honor Society awarded him the "Tex" McCrary Award for Excellence in Journalism."
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
16,894
Reaction score
4,066
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,,,
Uninformed and ignorant are the same thing dumb ass.
no its not dumbass,,,
They are synonyms you goofy twat.
View attachment 359371
to a point they are interchangeable,,, but it her case its pure self imposed ignorance as it is with you most of the time,,,
I can't fault you for your ignornce. if you don't know, you just don't know. Your stupidity, however is your own fault.
she said something that was beyond provable,,,
she either lied or was an ignorant fool,,
which is it???
 

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.
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.
He told Hernandez to put his dick away and got punched for it. He put him down and held him there and Hernandez died from positional asphyxiation from the weight on his chest. An arm around a neck ain't necessarily a choke. The first jury found in his favor 11 to 1, IIRC. The DA went out shopping for a new jury that would do what she wanted.

Strickland's incident is on video. He was surrounded and being approached by a mob menacing enough that he drew and told them to get back while he retreated.
He was prosecuted because he had a history of writing embarrassing stories about the city government, why do you think part of his sentence included banning him from taking videos?
 

freyasman

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
3,667
Reaction score
1,959
Points
893
Location
Texas
Just watched "The Outpost" about an indefensible outpost on the AFG/Pak border in the 2006-2009 time-frame.
I highly recommended the movie. Clint Eastwood's son is in it, and its based on a true story.

The movie is based on a book by CNN's Jake Tapper?! How did that happen? I didn't used to like Jake Tapper?!
"His book The Outpost: An Untold Story of American Valor debuted at number 10 in November 2012 on The New York Times Bestseller list for hardback non-fiction. Tapper's book and his reporting on the veterans and troops were cited when the Congressional Medal of Honor Society awarded him the "Tex" McCrary Award for Excellence in Journalism."
I don't watch war movies anymore. They are either too unrealistic and piss me off or they are too accurate and they piss me off.

And I was in the Korengal valley in 2006. Killed a lot of people there.
 
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.
He told Hernandez to put his dick away and got punched for it. He put him down and held him there and Hernandez died from positional asphyxiation from the weight on his chest. An arm around a neck ain't necessarily a choke. The first jury found in his favor 11 to 1, IIRC. The DA went out shopping for a new jury that would do what she wanted.

Strickland's incident is on video. He was surrounded and being approached by a mob menacing enough that he drew and told them to get back while he retreated.
He was prosecuted because he had a history of writing embarrassing stories about the city government, why do you think part of his sentence included banning him from taking videos?
1. Thompson gets 25-years for killing a guy he should have left alone, just called 911, and taken his wife home.
2. Strickland should never invade unfriendly spaces alone. He should had had backup, or not gone. His penalties aren't that bad. That's what he gets for living in a blue state.
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,461
Reaction score
5,894
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
Just watched "The Outpost" about an indefensible outpost on the AFG/Pak border in the 2006-2009 time-frame.
I highly recommended the movie. Clint Eastwood's son is in it, and its based on a true story.

The movie is based on a book by CNN's Jake Tapper?! How did that happen? I didn't used to like Jake Tapper?!
"His book The Outpost: An Untold Story of American Valor debuted at number 10 in November 2012 on The New York Times Bestseller list for hardback non-fiction. Tapper's book and his reporting on the veterans and troops were cited when the Congressional Medal of Honor Society awarded him the "Tex" McCrary Award for Excellence in Journalism."
I don't watch war movies anymore. They are either too unrealistic and piss me off or they are too accurate and they piss me off.

And I was in the Korengal valley in 2006. Killed a lot of people there.
It looks accurate to me. Incredibly brave men given an impossible mission.
 

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.
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.
He told Hernandez to put his dick away and got punched for it. He put him down and held him there and Hernandez died from positional asphyxiation from the weight on his chest. An arm around a neck ain't necessarily a choke. The first jury found in his favor 11 to 1, IIRC. The DA went out shopping for a new jury that would do what she wanted.

Strickland's incident is on video. He was surrounded and being approached by a mob menacing enough that he drew and told them to get back while he retreated.
He was prosecuted because he had a history of writing embarrassing stories about the city government, why do you think part of his sentence included banning him from taking videos?
1. Thompson gets 25-years for killing a guy he should have left alone, just called 911, and taken his wife home.
2. Strickland should never invade unfriendly spaces alone. He should had had backup, or not gone. His penalties aren't that bad. That's what he gets for living in a blue state.
We could argue all day but the point is, the DAs are often biased and will prosecute based on those biases.
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,461
Reaction score
5,894
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
Just watched "The Outpost" about an indefensible outpost on the AFG/Pak border in the 2006-2009 time-frame.
I highly recommended the movie. Clint Eastwood's son is in it, and its based on a true story.

The movie is based on a book by CNN's Jake Tapper?! How did that happen? I didn't used to like Jake Tapper?!
"His book The Outpost: An Untold Story of American Valor debuted at number 10 in November 2012 on The New York Times Bestseller list for hardback non-fiction. Tapper's book and his reporting on the veterans and troops were cited when the Congressional Medal of Honor Society awarded him the "Tex" McCrary Award for Excellence in Journalism."
I don't watch war movies anymore. They are either too unrealistic and piss me off or they are too accurate and they piss me off.

And I was in the Korengal valley in 2006. Killed a lot of people there.
I'm not a great map reader, but it looks to me that Kamdesh is very close to the Korengal Valley.
Thanks.
I think I'm saying don't fight city hall when its controlled by democrats, its safer to just move to a GOP state.
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
65,421
Reaction score
9,158
Points
2,030
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,,,
Uninformed and ignorant are the same thing dumb ass.
no its not dumbass,,,
They are synonyms you goofy twat.
View attachment 359371
to a point they are interchangeable,,, but it her case its pure self imposed ignorance as it is with you most of the time,,,
I can't fault you for your ignornce. if you don't know, you just don't know. Your stupidity, however is your own fault.
she said something that was beyond provable,,,
she either lied or was an ignorant fool,,
which is it???
Beond provable? That;s just goofy. A simple check of arrest records will show who was arrested on wepons charges. Are you so ignorant till you didn't know that?
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
58,496
Reaction score
13,080
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Liar.
Anything said by the protesters was in response to the homeowner's actions. No one told them to let their dogs out to intimidate marchers.
Had they remained indoors, the crowd would have passed without incident. Just as it had for the rest of the 9 mile march.
Wasn't a lie.. He's a famous lawyer.. AND a huge lefty.. THAT is his PUBLIC STATEMENT.. The threats I heard were very detailed.

I didn't see any dogs attacking anyone..

THey MIGHT have passed by... And MAYBE they wouldn't... That's WHY it's good to make SURE they move on.. They already disrespected a GATE and a sign CLEARLY marking the road as PRIVATE...

And according to McCloskey, one guy took 2 pistol clips out of his backpack, tapped them together WHILE MAKING a threat to kill the dog, the family, burn the house...

I saw a couple organizers TRYING to keep the marchers moving.. But obviously, some couldn't pass up an opportunity for some good verbal confrontation...
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List