- Jun 3, 2014
- Reaction score
Uninformed and ignorant are the same thing dumb ass.uninformed is far from being an ignorant liar like you,,,Sure thing. Every time you post, you prove how spectacularly uninformed YOU are:everytime you open your mouth you prove how ignorant you really are,,,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.This is how civil wars begin. The left (MSM) won't be satisfied until they get one.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.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."Brandishing firearms" is a polite term for "threatening with a firearm".Give us a scenario where you believe self defense with (or the mere display of or "brandishing") firearms is justified.Is that what happened there?So if a couple guys walk into your home and start breaking valuables, you're going to grab a beer and sit back and watch, huh.Hutch isn't the oly one who disagrees with your write up.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.
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.
Exact statute says: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 . . .
- May be used when a person reasonably believes that the level of force is necessary for self-defense or defense of others (including unborn children) in response to an imminent threat.
A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLawMissouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLawcodes.findlaw.com
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.
These laws apply to citizens and police officers alike.
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.
A man with far-right links is accused of a shooting outside Oakland courthouse during BLM protests.www.bbc.com
3 self-proclaimed members of the far-right 'boogaloo' movement were arrested on domestic terrorism charges for trying to spark violence during protestsAccording to a June 2 filing, the men discussed "causing an incident to incite chaos and possibly a riot" in response to George Floyd's death.www.businessinsider.com
Peaceful protesters, both in-person and online, far outnumber any bad actors. But media reports, arrest records and expert analysis suggest some are also using the moment to spread their messages or incite violence.www.abc.net.au