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

[TheParser]

I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."

 

[LeftofLeft]

the BLACK prosecutor is a black RACIST --big time
..she's thinking about prosecuting the whites who did nothing wrong and not the BLACKS who went on private property/etc
...she also refuses to prosecute a lot of the cases the cops bring in
SHE needs to resign and/or be hung for fking up the US

..she is more proof blacks hate whites/cops/America

The couple is guilty of being white and legally owning guns. The media doesn’t like that, the DA doesn’t like that, and neither does the Left. Yet, put a bunch of guns in the hands of ANTIFA and BLM agents in Seattle to take over a couple of city blocks, no problem.

 

[22lcidw]

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.

Its about time the protestors/rioters started to move to meat and potatoes. I am not saying its right, but it took enough riots to go after those who may have some power. And I said "may". The couple still had their right to defend themselves. The protesters/rioters better understand that. Its been one way for them for many years. If you notice. Slowly but surely these people on the other side of the protests/riots are starting to defend themselves. Take note of this.

 

[kyzr]

I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."

The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

 

[Oldestyle]

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.

It's a private neighborhood with a gate and a sign stating that fact. As a "protester" you don't have the right to trespass on private property! Those "protesters" did. As to what their intentions were? I'm sorry but BLM has a terrible track record when it comes to conducting "peaceful" protests. Looting and burning follows far too many of these so called "peaceful protests" hence armed property owners standing on their front steps to confront them!

 

[TheParser]

I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."

The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

I, too, hope that the courts will step in if necessary.

But that AG would never be arrested or forced to resign, for the powers-that-be would be terrified that she would label them with the R-word.

 

[kyzr]

I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."

The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

I, too, hope that the courts will step in if necessary.

But that AG would never be arrested or forced to resign, for the powers-that-be would be terrified that she would label them with the R-word.

There you go again being "politically correct".
Trump doesn't care what the progs call him.
The "race card" only has power if you agree it does.
I prefer the Trump card over the race card.

 

[HaShev]

The trouble is, how you react to mobs, can blow up in your face, depending upon which state you are in. In the stand-your-ground law states, a mere threatening presence on your lawn is grounds to use lethal force. In states without that law, you have to wait until they bust through the door and enter in a threatening manner. Although, an exception can be made in instances where an arsonist is outside, trying to burn down your home. In Minnesota, a relative of mine heard a noise in the middle of the night, coming from downstairs, he grabbed his gun and saw two dark figures moving around and fired. He served eight years for killing two teenagers that while they had broken into his home, were not threatening him and were unarmed. The jury's decision sucked. But, that's the retarded leftist state of Minnesota for you.

But they not only broke into their property, they made death threats and along with context of previous victims of these mobs and threats to burn places down the couple had to take those threats serious as legit and knowing also police responses, any taking actions into their own hands would be valid even outside their house maybe even outside their gate too if that would have happened, because of the context of the threats.
That being said, the St Louis prosecuter siding with the lawless mob against the couple can be deemed racist and grounds for firing.
I reccommend everyone writting the city and state DA's office online or snail mail and request a review of the prosecuters comments
and possible dismissal.

 

[my2¢]

I'm unsure how to answer because I wonder how the stand-your-ground law would deal with the situation if in response to the homeowners pointing their guns at the trespassers, some of them would have pulled their own guns and killed one or both homeowners?

Until evidence is produced to show otherwise, the basis of my opinion are the photos and videos of the situation. From what I see the trespassers are the ones being physically threatened. I would have been totally on Fred and Ethel Rambo's side if they came out and stood holding their weapons at their side pointed towards the ground acting like responsible gun owners.

 

[BluesLegend]

Apparently we need to make claymore mines legal for home defense against Dem mobs of violent thugs.

 

[Fang]

These were rioters, pillagers, rapists, etc. Yes, of course I support the homeowner for defending his home against these parasites. These aren't peaceful protesters.

^^^ This.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."

I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I do too. Blacks are sooooo friggin scary.
LOL....
You "Alphas" are the biggest pussies on earth.

 

[Blues Man]

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's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car ans started chasing you.

LEt's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Its about time the protestors/rioters started to move to meat and potatoes. I am not saying its right, but it took enough riots to go after those who may have some power. And I said "may". The couple still had their right to defend themselves. The protesters/rioters better understand that. Its been one way for them for many years. If you notice. Slowly but surely these people on the other side of the protests/riots are starting to defend themselves. Take note of this.

No one disputes anyone's right to self defense.
Those morons overreacted bigly. They look like idiots.

What was damaged in the neighborhood?

 

[Oldestyle]

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.

Its about time the protestors/rioters started to move to meat and potatoes. I am not saying its right, but it took enough riots to go after those who may have some power. And I said "may". The couple still had their right to defend themselves. The protesters/rioters better understand that. Its been one way for them for many years. If you notice. Slowly but surely these people on the other side of the protests/riots are starting to defend themselves. Take note of this.

No one disputes anyone's right to self defense.
Those morons overreacted bigly. They look like idiots.

What was damaged in the neighborhood?

They broke the gate down to get into the neighborhood! When someone does THAT...is it really an overreaction to assume that they're there to do more damage? When a mob breaks something on your property and then advances towards your house why would you call anyone defending their home a moron? It's someone's HOME! Those BLM protesters have no right to damage someone's home!

 

[kyzr]

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's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

They broke the gate down to a private residence and were threatening to burn the guy's house down. Did you miss that part?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The moment that gate came down they had the right and should have shot the first person through it. Follow that with the second and third. The property was breached. Stack up the bodies at the choke point.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm unsure how to answer because I wonder how the stand-your-ground law would deal with the situation if in response to the homeowners pointing their guns at the trespassers, some of them would have pulled their own guns and killed one or both homeowners?

Until evidence is produced to show otherwise, the basis of my opinion are the photos and videos of the situation. From what I see the trespassers are the ones being physically threatened. I would have been totally on Fred and Ethel Rambo's side if they came out and stood holding their weapons at their side pointed towards the ground acting like responsible gun owners.

It would probably deal with it like this:

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-self-defense-laws.html
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri recognizes the "castle doctrine" and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your "castle." This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances.

Missouri's law is more extensive than the law in other states because it permits property owners to use the amount of force reasonably perceived as necessary, including deadly force.

 

[my2¢]

It would probably deal with it like this:

I had read that and to seem pertinent the trespassers would have had to make a threatening move towards the Rambo's home. At least that how I would interpret the law.

What I question is, if the stand-your-ground law could have been used by the trespassers themselves under an assumption there was evidence the trespasser who fired the shot and his group initially made no physical threats to the property owners nor their home? How does the law decide who should feel threatened? I wonder if it would have come down to, in this case, weighing a broken gate and trespassing versus having a gun pointed and/or waved at you?