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
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,464
Reaction score
5,897
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
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?
1. Your question makes no sense: How can "trespassers" use the "stand your ground" law? Criminals can't shoot cops in "self-defense" can they? Read the "castle doctrine" again.
2. How does the law decide who feels threatened? Read the "castle doctrine" again.
3. Trespassers/criminals have no legal defense to injure homeowners or cops while committing crimes.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,921
Reaction score
1,567
Points
195
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

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
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.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
 
Last edited:

LeftofLeft

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
11,763
Reaction score
3,186
Points
280
I’d like to hear the side of the couple. What were the protestors saying to them? How can you be a “peaceful protesting group” when you break a gate onto private property? What justification do you have?
 

my2¢

So it goes
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
9,390
Reaction score
1,581
Points
290
Location
State 48
1. Your question makes no sense: How can "trespassers" use the "stand your ground" law? Criminals can't shoot cops in "self-defense" can they? Read the "castle doctrine" again.
2. How does the law decide who feels threatened? Read the "castle doctrine" again.
3. Trespassers/criminals have no legal defense to injure homeowners or cops while committing crimes.
Did you even take the time to read the link you referred to?
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 to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."
1593694952406.png


I have no problems with the couple being out there with guns. But from what I've seen their handling of the weapons was totally irresponsible.


 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,464
Reaction score
5,897
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

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
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.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,921
Reaction score
1,567
Points
195
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

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
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.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.
Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
24,729
Reaction score
3,434
Points
280
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

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?
Sounds like good reason for the trespassers to leave quietly and not cause any more trouble.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
46,806
Reaction score
11,353
Points
2,410
Location
Trump's Army
If a mob of thugs breaks onto my property and threatens me they will be staring down the barrel of a gun. Where do these lawless animals get off thinking the law doesn't apply to them?
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,464
Reaction score
5,897
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

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
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.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.
Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.
1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny how the burglaries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the fucking race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.
 
Last edited:

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,921
Reaction score
1,567
Points
195
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

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
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.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.
Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.
1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the fucking race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.
What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,464
Reaction score
5,897
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

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
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.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.
Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.
1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the fucking race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.
What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours
1. The stolen loot is "relevant", proper search warrant or not.
2. The crime he committed was to attack a neighborhood watchman.
3. Not calling you a criminal, just pissed about the riots and high city crime rates.
4. Your net worth could be higher, but I'm very happy with my life not near cities.
 

LeftofLeft

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
11,763
Reaction score
3,186
Points
280
I read this St. Louis couples’ donation to a Democrat candidate is being returned. they could have been typical wealthy elites leaning Left living in an enclave owning guns while favoring gun restrictions for the masses. Funny what seeing a mob break through a security gate with some wearing body armor and brandishing pistols will change your views.

The district attorney thinking of going after the couple for gun law violations probably enjoys the protection of firearms as well.
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,464
Reaction score
5,897
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
I read this St. Louis couples’ donation to a Democrat candidate is being returned. they could have been typical wealthy elites leaning Left living in an enclave owning guns while favoring gun restrictions for the masses. Funny what seeing a mob break through a security gate with some wearing body armor and brandishing pistols will change your views.

The district attorney thinking of going after the couple for gun law violations probably enjoys the protection of firearms as well.
I'm actually surprised that democrat lawyers had the good sense to buy guns?! Lucky hypocrites.
Wonder who they will vote for in November? (I'm an NRA member, they should join and get lots of support)
Especially if the democrat DA goes after them, but for what??
The DA Kim Gardner called the McClosky's defense of their "castle" a "violent assault". Fucking lying commie.

If this case goes up the MO court system it gets thrown out.
It would have been more interesting if they shot one or two armed intruders on their private property.
 

Bush92

GHBush1992
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
32,226
Reaction score
7,517
Points
1,130
George Soros has spent most of his political capital on getting prosecutors elected of his persuasion
It's obviously beginning to pay off.
Secretary's of State as well in order to steal elections.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
24,174
Reaction score
7,036
Points
290
Location
Tejas
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?
We are talking about the presumption that the trespasser were there to do harm and duty to retreat (Castle Doctrine/stand your ground). The trespassers don't have to threaten by any particular action or violence. It's presumed:

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.

Even without that presumption, the fact that they broke down the private gate would likely be enough to justify force, if not deadly force, with no duty to retreat. Threat of deadly force is not actual deadly force. Given the size of the crowd, a reasonable jury could find that the threat of deadly force was reasonable, under the circumstances and the foreseeable opposing threat.

Given that the trespassers had no right to be there, they do NOT get the same presumption and DO have a duty to retreat.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,921
Reaction score
1,567
Points
195
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

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
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.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.
Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.
1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the fucking race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.
What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours
1. The stolen loot is "relevant", proper search warrant or not.
2. The crime he committed was to attack a neighborhood watchman.
3. Not calling you a criminal, just pissed about the riots and high city crime rates.
4. Your net worth could be higher, but I'm very happy with my life not near cities.
The stolen merchandise is completely irrelevant to the shooting incident. When Zimmerman stalked Martin he had committed no crime. He had no stolen property on him. He was just walking to someone's house where he was a guest.

And Zimmerman never identified himself and neighborhood watch or not he had no authority to do anything. And he disobeyed the cop who told him not to get out of his car and chase Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor and instigated the entire circumstance.

And you assume I live in a city?

Wrong again Bubba.
I grew up on the shitty side of a city but now I live on 12 acres of beautiful farmland surrounded on 3 sides by state conservation land so I have a couple hundred acres of land right in my back yard.

Run along with your assumptions now Bubba.
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,464
Reaction score
5,897
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
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?
We are talking about the presumption that the trespasser were there to do harm and duty to retreat (Castle Doctrine/stand your ground). The trespassers don't have to threaten by any particular action or violence. It's presumed:

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.

Even without that presumption, the fact that they broke down the private gate would likely be enough to justify force, if not deadly force, with no duty to retreat. Threat of deadly force is not actual deadly force. Given the size of the crowd, a reasonable jury could find that the threat of deadly force was reasonable, under the circumstances and the foreseeable opposing threat.

Given that the trespassers had no right to be there, they do NOT get the same presumption and DO have a duty to retreat.
That seems so obvious to me, but what about these circumstances:
1. Trespassers throw rocks, can the McClosky's shoot?
2. Trespassers encircle the house and damage property, can the McClosky's shoot?
 

LeftofLeft

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
11,763
Reaction score
3,186
Points
280
I read this St. Louis couples’ donation to a Democrat candidate is being returned. they could have been typical wealthy elites leaning Left living in an enclave owning guns while favoring gun restrictions for the masses. Funny what seeing a mob break through a security gate with some wearing body armor and brandishing pistols will change your views.

The district attorney thinking of going after the couple for gun law violations probably enjoys the protection of firearms as well.
I'm actually surprised that democrat lawyers had the good sense to buy guns?! Lucky hypocrites.
Wonder who they will vote for in November? (I'm an NRA member, they should join and get lots of support)
Especially if the democrat DA goes after them, but for what??
The DA Kim Gardner called the McClosky's defense of their "castle" a "violent assault". Fucking lying commie.

If this case goes up the MO court system it gets thrown out.
It would have been more interesting if they shot one or two armed intruders on their private property.
Guarantee you if white guys busted through a gated community’s gate where the DA herself is living, she will gladly pull a firearm herself or have a proxy do it for her where a white guy is brandishing a pistol in front of her house.
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
1,953
Reaction score
1,887
Points
1,903
Location
Sunny Florida
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

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
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.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.
Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.
You don't really know much about the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case...do you? First of all, Zimmerman didn't "stalk" anyone! He's on the phone with the Police reporting to them about a stranger he doesn't know walking around in the gated community where he was part of the neighborhood watch. As he's talking to the Police, Trayvon does a circle around the SUV that Zimmerman is sitting in. When the Police ask Zimmerman what direction Martin has gone in Zimmerman took that as a request to get out of his vehicle to try and spot Martin. He's still on the phone while this is happening. Zimmerman can't find Martin though because Trayvon is all the way over where his dad's girlfriend's condo is...hundreds of yards away! We know this because Martin was having a conversation with his friend and she says that he told her he was at the condo! By this time Zimmerman has been told by the Police dispatcher not to try and follow the suspicious person but instead to meet the Police back by the front gate...instructions that he follows! As Zimmerman is walking back to his SUV he's attacked by Martin...who has left the condo he was staying at and walked all the way back to find Zimmerman! THE ONLY WAY THAT MARTIN AND ZIMMERMAN HAVE AN ALTERCATION THAT NIGHT IS IF TRAYVON MARTIN GOES BACK TO INITIATE IT!

Get your facts straight!
 

ninja007

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
6,385
Reaction score
1,077
Points
255
Location
Living rent free in libs heads
THE HOME OWNERS are liberals you blm idiots- also the man supposedly is in law or politics/banking and his job for decades is helping minorities.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top