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

[kyzr]

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

Arrest both lawyers and throw them into prison. No one has any right to threaten others with guns, who use their right of free opinion

1. The Law and 2nd Amendment says that the homeowners have every right to defend their home and property, read the links on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine".
2. The protesters broke into private property, were trespassing, and threatened the homeowners.
3. You're wrong, this is the US, not the EU.

Arrest both criminals - except they acted on reason of self-defense, what I doubt. I think they demonstrated with weapons in their hands for the own opinion and against the opinion of others. That's no way to discuss. That's criminal.

Stop posting if you have no clue what you're posting about.
Read post #323 again, including the links.
Unqualified or stupid/wrong "opinions" really don't deserve a reply.
I'll try one more time.
1. protesters do have free speech rights, but do NOT have the right to trespass or destroy someone else's property.
2. Homeowners do have the right to arm themselves via the 2nd Amendment
3. Homeowners do have the right to protect themselves via the "castle doctrine"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Arrest both lawyers and throw them into prison. No one has any right to threaten others with guns, who use their right of free opinion

1. The Law and 2nd Amendment says that the homeowners have every right to defend their home and property, read the links on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine".
2. The protesters broke into private property, were trespassing, and threatened the homeowners.
3. You're wrong, this is the US, not the EU.

Arrest both criminals - except they acted on reason of self-defense, what I doubt. I think they demonstrated with weapons in their hands for the own opinion and against the opinion of others. That's no way to discuss. That's criminal.

What crime did they commit? Maybe in your country it's a crime, but over here it's a right.

 

[Dragonlady]

According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.

You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.

A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,

Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.

What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.

They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.

As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=blr

 

[kyzr]

According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.

You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.

A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,

Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.

What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.

They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.

As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=blr

Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows

The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...

fee.org

• Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.

www.forbes.com

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.

You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.

A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,

Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.

What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.

They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.

As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=blr

Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason violent crimes did go down (since the 90's) is because we are armed? Look at our history in this country. Most of the mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. Lunatics pick those areas because it's less likely citizens will be armed to defend themselves.

Statistics show that CCW holders are the most law abiding people in our country, even more so than police officers. That doesn't make every single one a saint, but a very small percentage end up getting in trouble for using a firearm in self-defense. This nonsense spewed by the left that they feel endangered because of armed citizens is simply a fallacy. The odds of you getting shot or killed here by a CCW holder is higher than the odds of hitting the lottery.

If you want to avoid getting shot or killed by a CCW holder who concluded you were a threat to them, the solution is simple: don't give them any reason to believe that.

 

[meaner gene]

I'll try one more time.
1. protesters do have free speech rights, but do NOT have the right to trespass or destroy someone else's property.
2. Homeowners do have the right to arm themselves via the 2nd Amendment
3. Homeowners do have the right to protect themselves via the "castle doctrine"

You notice it's called the "castle doctrine". A mans home is his castle, not his car or his lawn.

 

[skye]

Yeah, I do, but the part I disagree with is calling them protesters. The story I heard is they tore down the gate and entered a private road to get to their house. So they were criminals.

Exactly! well said!

 

[skye]

Yes, I totally support stand your ground laws.

 

[miketx]

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

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

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

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

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

Wow, lying pos lies really good!

 

[meaner gene]

Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason violent crimes did go down (since the 90's) is because we are armed?

The country before the 90's had an estimated 300 million firearms.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated 2018 sales at 13.1 million firearms.

Additional firearms represented just a small fraction of those already in peoples hands, hence their impact wouldn't account for the drop in crime.

 

[meaner gene]

If you want to avoid getting shot or killed by a CCW holder who concluded you were a threat to them, the solution is simple: don't give them any reason to believe that.

And if one CCW holder sees another CCW holder with a gun, should he feel threatened?

 

[meaner gene]

Yes, I totally support stand your ground laws.

Can an armed protester take that stand when he's not committing any crime, and a homeowner points a gun at them?

 

[freyasman]

Ye

Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason violent crimes did go down (since the 90's) is because we are armed?

The country before the 90's had an estimated 300 million firearms.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated 2018 sales at 13.1 million firearms.

Additional firearms represented just a small fraction of those already in peoples hands, hence their impact wouldn't account for the drop in crime.

Yeah but it wasn't legal to carry in most states.

 

[freyasman]

If you want to avoid getting shot or killed by a CCW holder who concluded you were a threat to them, the solution is simple: don't give them any reason to believe that.

And if one CCW holder sees another CCW holder with a gun, should he feel threatened?

Why would he?

 

[freyasman]

Yes, I totally support stand your ground laws.

Can an armed protester take that stand when he's not committing any crime, and a homeowner points a gun at them?

If he not committing any crimes, then yes of course.

 

[meaner gene]

And if one CCW holder sees another CCW holder with a gun, should he feel threatened?

Why would he?

You can't tell a CCW with a gun, from a criminal with a gun.

 

[freyasman]

And if one CCW holder sees another CCW holder with a gun, should he feel threatened?

Why would he?

You can't tell a CCW with a gun, from a criminal with a gun.
[/QUOTE]
Sure you can, the criminal is the one committing a crime.

 

[meaner gene]

Can an armed protester take that stand when he's not committing any crime, and a homeowner points a gun at them?

If he not committing any crimes, then yes of course.

 

[meaner gene]

Sure you can, the criminal is the one committing a crime.

Does that include the crime of brandishing?

 

[freyasman]

Can an armed protester take that stand when he's not committing any crime, and a homeowner points a gun at them?

If he not committing any crimes, then yes of course.

View attachment 359941

And?
So what?