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

[freyasman]

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

Does that include the crime of brandishing?

View attachment 359944

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

 

[freyasman]

There is such a thing as an affirmative defense.

You could look it up.

 

[zaangalewa]

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

Ha, here's another one who believes that the use of a firearm in self-defense is never justified.

Another who believes there is no individual right to possess firearms.

Fuck you. Get the fuck out of my country you piece of shit.

Fortunatelly I do not live in "your" country, sunshine.

 

[meaner gene]

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally

law.lis.virginia.gov

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They are not authorized to use deadly force against outdoor trespass, therefore there is no authorization to brandish a weapon they are prohibited from using.

 

[freyasman]

Well tell the DA that then.

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally

law.lis.virginia.gov

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They are not authorized to use deadly force against outdoor trespass, therefore there is no authorization to brandish a weapon they are prohibited from using.

It's not my problem.

 

[meaner gene]

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

§ 18.2-282.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm ... in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

It's not my problem.

I'm glad you aren't a lawyer, claiming he wasn't a crime.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

§ 18.2-282.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm ... in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

It's not my problem.

I'm glad you aren't a lawyer, claiming he wasn't a crime.

Private property is not a public place. Care to try again?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

SYG laws apply to those who are threatened, not to those who are threatening. The owners of this home expressed the mobs chants to burn their home down, kill their pets, and even them. SYG does not apply in that particular situation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

No, he or she has no need to feel threatened.

 

[Mac-7]

It wasn't a crime in that case.
They had a mob trespassing on their property.

Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally

law.lis.virginia.gov

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

They are not authorized to use deadly force against outdoor trespass, therefore there is no authorization to brandish a weapon they are prohibited from using.

You need a geography lesson

St Louis is not in virigina

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

The impact was not the amount of guns, the impact were those states who not only adopted CCW laws, but created legislation to protect those who do use deadly force.

In other words I would have no problem using my firearm for protection in my state. That's because along with CCW laws, our legislatures wrote laws that protect us from prosecution in the event we have to use it. However if we had reciprocity in New York city for example, I would not take my firearm with me. While they were forced by the courts to allow armed citizens, their laws do not give me the same protection in using deadly force that I have in Ohio. Having CCW licenses is only as good as the laws that protect them.

 

[meaner gene]

Private property is not a public place. Care to try again?

Let's cover the actually law of the state (since other states are not identical)

2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.

law.justia.com

2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.

571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;

 

[freyasman]

I couldn't be a lawyer, I'm an honest outlaw.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Wrong. In our state, they extended the Castle Doctrine to cover CCW holders in their car. Trying to break into my car is no different than trying to break into my house in our state. I have the right to kill a person who tries to unlawfully enter my vehicle.

 

[meaner gene]

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

SYG laws apply to those who are threatened, not to those who are threatening. The owners of this home expressed the mobs chants to burn their home down, kill their pets, and even them. SYG does not apply in that particular situation.

Someone in the crowd who is NOT chanting anything or threatening anything is not culpable to the actions of those around him.

When the homeowners pointed their loaded weapons into the crowd, any "innocent" person in the crowd could stand his ground and shoot first.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Private property is not a public place. Care to try again?

Let's cover the actually law of the state (since other states are not identical)

2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.

law.justia.com

2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.

571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;

They didn't express anger or threat, they expressed fear.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

SYG laws apply to those who are threatened, not to those who are threatening. The owners of this home expressed the mobs chants to burn their home down, kill their pets, and even them. SYG does not apply in that particular situation.

Someone in the crowd who is NOT chanting anything or threatening anything is not culpable to the actions of those around him.

When the homeowners pointed their loaded weapons into the crowd, any "innocent" person in the crowd could stand his ground and shoot first.

No they cannot because they were the aggressors. SYG does not cover aggression. SYG covers not having to withdraw from a threatening situation. They approached the home owners and their property. They were not threatened, they were threatening them. Furthermore, they returned Friday to advance that aggression.

 

[theHawk]

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

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

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

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

www.ksdk.com

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

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

That is a good way saying what my generation says....UP YOURS to antifia and the rest of the rioters.

If Dems win in 2020, they will do everything in their power to repeal all those stand your ground laws, and make it illegal to protect yourself or your property.

 

[meaner gene]

571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;

They didn't express anger or threat, they expressed fear.

Point a loaded gun at a person is a threat. PERIOD.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;

They didn't express anger or threat, they expressed fear.

Point a loaded gun at a person is a threat. PERIOD.

No. not period. If I'm sitting on my front porch and pointing a firearm at passing cars, that is a threat. If people are approaching and trespassing my property with threats of violence to me and my family, then pointing my firearm at them is in self-defense.