St louis DA's Office Caught Altering Evidence Against McCloskeys

[Cecilie1200]

For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

A person has no duty to retreat:

• From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
• From their private property
• If the person is any other location where they have the right to be

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.

Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.

Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.

Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. Faun just arbitrarily decided that it SHOULD require that, therefore that is now magically the law in Missouri, because everyone knows that leftists make reality by wishing really hard.

Not to mention, the statutes I cited are not predicated on any of the bullshit Faun and his fairy dust just decided they are.

Let me repeat, and maybe THIS time Faun will get someone literate to read and explain it to him, since it's not written in Moronese.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

On to the direct quotes from the law itself:

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

As we can all see (well, except for Faun, who's too piss-stupid to be able to read), Missouri's castle doctrine does NOT require that the ass clowns in the mob use any physical force to trigger it, but only that they cause the McCloskeys to reasonably believe that they will, or that they will commit property crimes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And no actual physical force was used by the couple.

 

[Faun]

For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

A person has no duty to retreat:

• From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
• From their private property
• If the person is any other location where they have the right to be

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.

Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.

Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.

Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. Faun just arbitrarily decided that it SHOULD require that, therefore that is now magically the law in Missouri, because everyone knows that leftists make reality by wishing really hard.

Not to mention, the statutes I cited are not predicated on any of the bullshit Faun and his fairy dust just decided they are.

Let me repeat, and maybe THIS time Faun will get someone literate to read and explain it to him, since it's not written in Moronese.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

On to the direct quotes from the law itself:

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

As we can all see (well, except for Faun, who's too piss-stupid to be able to read), Missouri's castle doctrine does NOT require that the ass clowns in the mob use any physical force to trigger it, but only that they cause the McCloskeys to reasonably believe that they will, or that they will commit property crimes.

"Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. "

LOL

My, you're a fucking retard....

Those statutes legally allow someone to physically defend themselves... if they don't physically defend themselves, then those statutes are not applicable. Is English even your first language? You're actually claiming they were defending themselves without resorting to physical defense based on a law that allows people, who are not the initial aggressors, which Mark McCloskey was anyway, in which physical force is the main element allowed by the law you're citing.

 

[daveman]

What you believe is utterly immaterial.

Pretty sure that goes for all of us typing on our keyboards to post on internet message boards.

Are you suggesting that YOUR comments somehow ARE material?

roflmao

Nope, not at all. Just pointing out that what you want to believe isn't supported by what we know.

 

[daveman]

View attachment 366888

That happened after the protesters had already begun entering Portland Place. When they first entered, all they did was open the gate...

View attachment 367828

...and walk past the "Access Limited to Residents" sign.

View attachment 368023

Are you going to claim they're residents?

Never made any such claim.

Soooo...why are you okay with non-residents walking past "no non-residents" signs?

 

[Faun]

View attachment 366888

That happened after the protesters had already begun entering Portland Place. When they first entered, all they did was open the gate...

View attachment 367828

...and walk past the "Access Limited to Residents" sign.

View attachment 368023

Are you going to claim they're residents?

Never made any such claim.

Soooo...why are you okay with non-residents walking past "no non-residents" signs?

I'm not. The protesters should not have entered that property.

 

[daveman]

For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

A person has no duty to retreat:

• From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
• From their private property
• If the person is any other location where they have the right to be

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.

Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.

Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.

Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. Faun just arbitrarily decided that it SHOULD require that, therefore that is now magically the law in Missouri, because everyone knows that leftists make reality by wishing really hard.

Not to mention, the statutes I cited are not predicated on any of the bullshit Faun and his fairy dust just decided they are.

Let me repeat, and maybe THIS time Faun will get someone literate to read and explain it to him, since it's not written in Moronese.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

On to the direct quotes from the law itself:

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

As we can all see (well, except for Faun, who's too piss-stupid to be able to read), Missouri's castle doctrine does NOT require that the ass clowns in the mob use any physical force to trigger it, but only that they cause the McCloskeys to reasonably believe that they will, or that they will commit property crimes.

"Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. "

LOL

My, you're a fucking retard....

Those statutes legally allow someone to physically defend themselves... if they don't physically defend themselves, then those statutes are not applicable. Is English even your first language? You're actually claiming they were defending themselves without resorting to physical defense based on a law that allows people, who are not the initial aggressors, which Mark McCloskey was anyway, in which physical force is the main element allowed by the law you're citing.

Cecilie's right. You CAN'T read.

And you believe brandishing a weapon isn't a physical defense.

What a moron.

 

[daveman]

View attachment 366888

That happened after the protesters had already begun entering Portland Place. When they first entered, all they did was open the gate...

View attachment 367828

...and walk past the "Access Limited to Residents" sign.

View attachment 368023

Are you going to claim they're residents?

Never made any such claim.

Soooo...why are you okay with non-residents walking past "no non-residents" signs?

I'm not. The protesters should not have entered that property.

Did that hurt to type?

They walked past the sign that told them they weren't welcome on the private property that wasn't theirs, then the McCloskeys told them they weren't welcome on the private property the protesters had no business being on.

But remember, kids, the McCLOSKEYS are the bad guys here.

 

[Faun]

For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

A person has no duty to retreat:

• From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
• From their private property
• If the person is any other location where they have the right to be

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.

Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.

Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.

Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. Faun just arbitrarily decided that it SHOULD require that, therefore that is now magically the law in Missouri, because everyone knows that leftists make reality by wishing really hard.

Not to mention, the statutes I cited are not predicated on any of the bullshit Faun and his fairy dust just decided they are.

Let me repeat, and maybe THIS time Faun will get someone literate to read and explain it to him, since it's not written in Moronese.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

On to the direct quotes from the law itself:

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

As we can all see (well, except for Faun, who's too piss-stupid to be able to read), Missouri's castle doctrine does NOT require that the ass clowns in the mob use any physical force to trigger it, but only that they cause the McCloskeys to reasonably believe that they will, or that they will commit property crimes.

"Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. "

LOL

My, you're a fucking retard....

Those statutes legally allow someone to physically defend themselves... if they don't physically defend themselves, then those statutes are not applicable. Is English even your first language? You're actually claiming they were defending themselves without resorting to physical defense based on a law that allows people, who are not the initial aggressors, which Mark McCloskey was anyway, in which physical force is the main element allowed by the law you're citing.

Cecilie's right. You CAN'T read.

And you believe brandishing a weapon isn't a physical defense.

What a moron.

It may be a "physical defense." That's not what the law cited by Cecilie1200 described. It mentions a "physical force," more specifically, the "use of a physical force."

I don't find an explicit definition in Missouri law for a "physical force," but I do find where it differentiates "use of physical force" from "threatens the use physical force"...

570.010. Chapter definitions

(13) "Forcibly steals", a person, in the course of stealing, uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:​

Self defense, stand your ground, and the castle doctrine are all based on allowing an individual the legal authority to "use physical force" to defend themselves. Nowhere in any of that code, does it allow one to threaten to use physical force. It allows them to "use" physical force to protect themselves or property. The word, "threaten," doesn't even exist in any of those relevant statutes in regard to someone defending themselves.

Even if you could get past that hurdle, then you potentially have the problem that they weren't actually threatening to use physical force as neither gun was functional at the time. They were merely props. Not only could they not use physical force with those guns (unless they threw them at the protesters), they knew they couldn't use them. So there's no way that amounts to self-defense according to Missouri law. It also questions their claims that they felt threatened since who would face a threat where they felt a gun was needed but actually confront it with a prop?

 

[Faun]

View attachment 366888

That happened after the protesters had already begun entering Portland Place. When they first entered, all they did was open the gate...

View attachment 367828

...and walk past the "Access Limited to Residents" sign.

View attachment 368023

Are you going to claim they're residents?

Never made any such claim.

Soooo...why are you okay with non-residents walking past "no non-residents" signs?

I'm not. The protesters should not have entered that property.

Did that hurt to type?

They walked past the sign that told them they weren't welcome on the private property that wasn't theirs, then the McCloskeys told them they weren't welcome on the private property the protesters had no business being on.

But remember, kids, the McCLOSKEYS are the bad guys here.

Didn't hurt at all as it's the truth. And had the McCloskey's merely told them they had no business being on that property, they'd be in no legal jeopardy now. Instead, they brandished firearms before they were threatened and thereby broke the law.

 

[Dick Foster]

2013 Missouri Revised Statutes :: TITLE XXXVIII CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS :: Chapter 575 Offenses Against the Administration of Justice :: Section 575.100 Tampering with physical evidence.

law.justia.com

.

Universal Citation: MO Rev Stat § 575.100 (2013)

Tampering with physical evidence.

575.100. 1. A person commits the crime of tampering with physical evidence if he:

(1) Alters, destroys, suppresses or conceals any record, document or thing with purpose to impair its verity, legibility or availability in any official proceeding or investigation; or

(2) Makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false with purpose to mislead a public servant who is or may be engaged in any official proceeding or investigation.

2. Tampering with physical evidence is a class D felony if the actor impairs or obstructs the prosecution or defense of a felony; otherwise, tampering with physical evidence is a class A misdemeanor.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)

Effective 1-1-79

They need to go to jail and lose their license to practice law.

But they didn’t tamper with evidence. Everything that was done with the firearm was documented and submitted to the court. Therefore it could not be considered false or misleading.

They had someone come in and change a nonfunctional firearm to a functional one, in order to file the charge, dumbass...

Which means they can also be sued for knowingly filing a bogus criminal charge...

It also brings in the possibility of a perjury charge if they said the firearm they picked up was functional in the criminal complaint!!!

The question is whether moving the spring is sufficient to count as readily functional. It’s a question for the court to decide.

The point is that all relevant facts are presented to the court so the idea that there’s some perjury here is stupid.

The point is that in the State of MO homeowners do have the right to defend their "castle".
The felony charges brought by the crooked DA (Kim Gardner) against the McClosky's are illegal.
Kim Gardner now adds falsifying evidence to add to the other charges against her.
I hope the State AG files charges against Kim Gardner soon, and disbars her.

Whether they were defending their property or not remains to be seen. The judge and jury will decide. There’s nothing illegal about the charges, that’s absurd.

As I’ve already pointed out, the evidence was not falsified.

You guys aren’t actually thinking here, just following a narrative.

There won't be a jury trial for the McCloskys' but there will be one for Kim Gardner.
The governor and State AG already said that the McClosky's did not commit any crime, period.

Missouri Gov. Parson to pardon McCloskeys 'without a doubt,' saying prosecutor's actions 'defy common sense'

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson told "Hannity" on Monday that "without a doubt," he will pardon Mark and Patricia McCloskey, hours after St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner filed felony charges against them.

www.foxnews.com

Whether they committed a crime is for the judge and jury to decide. Not the governor. He may pardon them but that doesn’t mean they’re law abiding.

This is getting to be a pattern with right wing crime. Just claim the prosecution was politically motivated. Doesn’t matter what you did.

But back to the topic of the thread, no evidence was falsified. Y’all got that one wrong.

How the fuck do you know what is and isn't big mouth?

 

[daveman]

For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

A person has no duty to retreat:

• From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
• From their private property
• If the person is any other location where they have the right to be

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.

Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.

Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.

Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. Faun just arbitrarily decided that it SHOULD require that, therefore that is now magically the law in Missouri, because everyone knows that leftists make reality by wishing really hard.

Not to mention, the statutes I cited are not predicated on any of the bullshit Faun and his fairy dust just decided they are.

Let me repeat, and maybe THIS time Faun will get someone literate to read and explain it to him, since it's not written in Moronese.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

On to the direct quotes from the law itself:

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

As we can all see (well, except for Faun, who's too piss-stupid to be able to read), Missouri's castle doctrine does NOT require that the ass clowns in the mob use any physical force to trigger it, but only that they cause the McCloskeys to reasonably believe that they will, or that they will commit property crimes.

"Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. "

LOL

My, you're a fucking retard....

Those statutes legally allow someone to physically defend themselves... if they don't physically defend themselves, then those statutes are not applicable. Is English even your first language? You're actually claiming they were defending themselves without resorting to physical defense based on a law that allows people, who are not the initial aggressors, which Mark McCloskey was anyway, in which physical force is the main element allowed by the law you're citing.

Cecilie's right. You CAN'T read.

And you believe brandishing a weapon isn't a physical defense.

What a moron.

It may be a "physical defense." That's not what the law cited by Cecilie1200 described. It mentions a "physical force," more specifically, the "use of a physical force."

I don't find an explicit definition in Missouri law for a "physical force," but I do find where it differentiates "use of physical force" from "threatens the use physical force"...

570.010. Chapter definitions​

​

(13) "Forcibly steals", a person, in the course of stealing, uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:​

Self defense, stand your ground, and the castle doctrine are all based on allowing an individual the legal authority to "use physical force" to defend themselves. Nowhere in any of that code, does it allow one to threaten to use physical force. It allows them to "use" physical force to protect themselves or property. The word, "threaten," doesn't even exist in any of those relevant statutes in regard to someone defending themselves.

Even if you could get past that hurdle, then you potentially have the problem that they weren't actually threatening to use physical force as neither gun was functional at the time. They were merely props. Not only could they not use physical force with those guns (unless they threw them at the protesters), they knew they couldn't use them. So there's no way that amounts to self-defense according to Missouri law. It also questions their claims that they felt threatened since who would face a threat where they felt a gun was needed but actually confront it with a prop?

The rifle -- the scary black rifle -- was fully functional.

Besides...nobody knew the pistol was non-functional but the McCloskeys.

 

[daveman]

View attachment 366888

That happened after the protesters had already begun entering Portland Place. When they first entered, all they did was open the gate...

View attachment 367828

...and walk past the "Access Limited to Residents" sign.

View attachment 368023

Are you going to claim they're residents?

Never made any such claim.

Soooo...why are you okay with non-residents walking past "no non-residents" signs?

I'm not. The protesters should not have entered that property.

Did that hurt to type?

They walked past the sign that told them they weren't welcome on the private property that wasn't theirs, then the McCloskeys told them they weren't welcome on the private property the protesters had no business being on.

But remember, kids, the McCLOSKEYS are the bad guys here.

Didn't hurt at all as it's the truth. And had the McCloskey's merely told them they had no business being on that property, they'd be in no legal jeopardy now. Instead, they brandished firearms before they were threatened and thereby broke the law.

Yes, that's the Party line, isn't it?

The State AG thinks it's crap.

 

[Faun]

For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

A person has no duty to retreat:

• From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
• From their private property
• If the person is any other location where they have the right to be

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.

Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.

Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.

Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. Faun just arbitrarily decided that it SHOULD require that, therefore that is now magically the law in Missouri, because everyone knows that leftists make reality by wishing really hard.

Not to mention, the statutes I cited are not predicated on any of the bullshit Faun and his fairy dust just decided they are.

Let me repeat, and maybe THIS time Faun will get someone literate to read and explain it to him, since it's not written in Moronese.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

On to the direct quotes from the law itself:

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

As we can all see (well, except for Faun, who's too piss-stupid to be able to read), Missouri's castle doctrine does NOT require that the ass clowns in the mob use any physical force to trigger it, but only that they cause the McCloskeys to reasonably believe that they will, or that they will commit property crimes.

"Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. "

LOL

My, you're a fucking retard....

Those statutes legally allow someone to physically defend themselves... if they don't physically defend themselves, then those statutes are not applicable. Is English even your first language? You're actually claiming they were defending themselves without resorting to physical defense based on a law that allows people, who are not the initial aggressors, which Mark McCloskey was anyway, in which physical force is the main element allowed by the law you're citing.

Cecilie's right. You CAN'T read.

And you believe brandishing a weapon isn't a physical defense.

What a moron.

It may be a "physical defense." That's not what the law cited by Cecilie1200 described. It mentions a "physical force," more specifically, the "use of a physical force."

I don't find an explicit definition in Missouri law for a "physical force," but I do find where it differentiates "use of physical force" from "threatens the use physical force"...

570.010. Chapter definitions​

​

(13) "Forcibly steals", a person, in the course of stealing, uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:​

Self defense, stand your ground, and the castle doctrine are all based on allowing an individual the legal authority to "use physical force" to defend themselves. Nowhere in any of that code, does it allow one to threaten to use physical force. It allows them to "use" physical force to protect themselves or property. The word, "threaten," doesn't even exist in any of those relevant statutes in regard to someone defending themselves.

Even if you could get past that hurdle, then you potentially have the problem that they weren't actually threatening to use physical force as neither gun was functional at the time. They were merely props. Not only could they not use physical force with those guns (unless they threw them at the protesters), they knew they couldn't use them. So there's no way that amounts to self-defense according to Missouri law. It also questions their claims that they felt threatened since who would face a threat where they felt a gun was needed but actually confront it with a prop?

The rifle -- the scary black rifle -- was fully functional.

Besides...nobody knew the pistol was non-functional but the McCloskeys.

How is an AR-15 that has no ammo, "fully functional??" What was it going to fire if he pulled the trigger?

 

[daveman]

For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

A person has no duty to retreat:

• From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
• From their private property
• If the person is any other location where they have the right to be

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.

Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.

Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.

Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. Faun just arbitrarily decided that it SHOULD require that, therefore that is now magically the law in Missouri, because everyone knows that leftists make reality by wishing really hard.

Not to mention, the statutes I cited are not predicated on any of the bullshit Faun and his fairy dust just decided they are.

Let me repeat, and maybe THIS time Faun will get someone literate to read and explain it to him, since it's not written in Moronese.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

On to the direct quotes from the law itself:

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

As we can all see (well, except for Faun, who's too piss-stupid to be able to read), Missouri's castle doctrine does NOT require that the ass clowns in the mob use any physical force to trigger it, but only that they cause the McCloskeys to reasonably believe that they will, or that they will commit property crimes.

"Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. "

LOL

My, you're a fucking retard....

Those statutes legally allow someone to physically defend themselves... if they don't physically defend themselves, then those statutes are not applicable. Is English even your first language? You're actually claiming they were defending themselves without resorting to physical defense based on a law that allows people, who are not the initial aggressors, which Mark McCloskey was anyway, in which physical force is the main element allowed by the law you're citing.

Cecilie's right. You CAN'T read.

And you believe brandishing a weapon isn't a physical defense.

What a moron.

It may be a "physical defense." That's not what the law cited by Cecilie1200 described. It mentions a "physical force," more specifically, the "use of a physical force."

I don't find an explicit definition in Missouri law for a "physical force," but I do find where it differentiates "use of physical force" from "threatens the use physical force"...

570.010. Chapter definitions​

​

(13) "Forcibly steals", a person, in the course of stealing, uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:​

Self defense, stand your ground, and the castle doctrine are all based on allowing an individual the legal authority to "use physical force" to defend themselves. Nowhere in any of that code, does it allow one to threaten to use physical force. It allows them to "use" physical force to protect themselves or property. The word, "threaten," doesn't even exist in any of those relevant statutes in regard to someone defending themselves.

Even if you could get past that hurdle, then you potentially have the problem that they weren't actually threatening to use physical force as neither gun was functional at the time. They were merely props. Not only could they not use physical force with those guns (unless they threw them at the protesters), they knew they couldn't use them. So there's no way that amounts to self-defense according to Missouri law. It also questions their claims that they felt threatened since who would face a threat where they felt a gun was needed but actually confront it with a prop?

The rifle -- the scary black rifle -- was fully functional.

Besides...nobody knew the pistol was non-functional but the McCloskeys.

How is an AR-15 that has no ammo, "fully functional??" What was it going to fire if he pulled the trigger?

How do you know it had no ammo? First I've heard of this, and an internet search shows no such claim.

And if a weapon that can't fire is so dangerous, why did the DA order the crime lab to reassemble the pistol to operable condition?

 

[Faun]

For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

A person has no duty to retreat:

• From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
• From their private property
• If the person is any other location where they have the right to be

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.

Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.

Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.

Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. Faun just arbitrarily decided that it SHOULD require that, therefore that is now magically the law in Missouri, because everyone knows that leftists make reality by wishing really hard.

Not to mention, the statutes I cited are not predicated on any of the bullshit Faun and his fairy dust just decided they are.

Let me repeat, and maybe THIS time Faun will get someone literate to read and explain it to him, since it's not written in Moronese.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

On to the direct quotes from the law itself:

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

As we can all see (well, except for Faun, who's too piss-stupid to be able to read), Missouri's castle doctrine does NOT require that the ass clowns in the mob use any physical force to trigger it, but only that they cause the McCloskeys to reasonably believe that they will, or that they will commit property crimes.

"Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. "

LOL

My, you're a fucking retard....

Those statutes legally allow someone to physically defend themselves... if they don't physically defend themselves, then those statutes are not applicable. Is English even your first language? You're actually claiming they were defending themselves without resorting to physical defense based on a law that allows people, who are not the initial aggressors, which Mark McCloskey was anyway, in which physical force is the main element allowed by the law you're citing.

Cecilie's right. You CAN'T read.

And you believe brandishing a weapon isn't a physical defense.

What a moron.

It may be a "physical defense." That's not what the law cited by Cecilie1200 described. It mentions a "physical force," more specifically, the "use of a physical force."

I don't find an explicit definition in Missouri law for a "physical force," but I do find where it differentiates "use of physical force" from "threatens the use physical force"...

570.010. Chapter definitions​

​

(13) "Forcibly steals", a person, in the course of stealing, uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:​

Self defense, stand your ground, and the castle doctrine are all based on allowing an individual the legal authority to "use physical force" to defend themselves. Nowhere in any of that code, does it allow one to threaten to use physical force. It allows them to "use" physical force to protect themselves or property. The word, "threaten," doesn't even exist in any of those relevant statutes in regard to someone defending themselves.

Even if you could get past that hurdle, then you potentially have the problem that they weren't actually threatening to use physical force as neither gun was functional at the time. They were merely props. Not only could they not use physical force with those guns (unless they threw them at the protesters), they knew they couldn't use them. So there's no way that amounts to self-defense according to Missouri law. It also questions their claims that they felt threatened since who would face a threat where they felt a gun was needed but actually confront it with a prop?

The rifle -- the scary black rifle -- was fully functional.

Besides...nobody knew the pistol was non-functional but the McCloskeys.

How is an AR-15 that has no ammo, "fully functional??" What was it going to fire if he pulled the trigger?

How do you know it had no ammo? First I've heard of this, and an internet search shows no such claim.

And if a weapon that can't fire is so dangerous, why did the DA order the crime lab to reassemble the pistol to operable condition?

Uh-Oh, Prosecutors in Missouri Might have Tampered with Gun Evidence in McCloskey Case - Informed American

The couple with weapons who stood on their lawn in St. Louis as a mob passed by is back in the news. As earlier reported, the McCloskeys have been charged with brandishing (or exhibiting) a weapon, but that requires that the weapons in question be operable and capable of harm. The McCloskeys...

www.informedamerican.com

The couple with weapons who stood on their lawn in St. Louis as a mob passed by is back in the news. As earlier reported, the McCloskeys have been charged with brandishing (or exhibiting) a weapon, but that requires that the weapons in question be operable and capable of harm. The McCloskeys claim the AR-15 rifle was not loaded and the pistol held by Mrs. McCloskey didn’t work.​

 

[Obiwan]

For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

A person has no duty to retreat:

• From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
• From their private property
• If the person is any other location where they have the right to be

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.

Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.

Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.

Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. Faun just arbitrarily decided that it SHOULD require that, therefore that is now magically the law in Missouri, because everyone knows that leftists make reality by wishing really hard.

Not to mention, the statutes I cited are not predicated on any of the bullshit Faun and his fairy dust just decided they are.

Let me repeat, and maybe THIS time Faun will get someone literate to read and explain it to him, since it's not written in Moronese.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

On to the direct quotes from the law itself:

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

As we can all see (well, except for Faun, who's too piss-stupid to be able to read), Missouri's castle doctrine does NOT require that the ass clowns in the mob use any physical force to trigger it, but only that they cause the McCloskeys to reasonably believe that they will, or that they will commit property crimes.

"Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. "

LOL

My, you're a fucking retard....

Those statutes legally allow someone to physically defend themselves... if they don't physically defend themselves, then those statutes are not applicable. Is English even your first language? You're actually claiming they were defending themselves without resorting to physical defense based on a law that allows people, who are not the initial aggressors, which Mark McCloskey was anyway, in which physical force is the main element allowed by the law you're citing.

Cecilie's right. You CAN'T read.

And you believe brandishing a weapon isn't a physical defense.

What a moron.

It may be a "physical defense." That's not what the law cited by Cecilie1200 described. It mentions a "physical force," more specifically, the "use of a physical force."

I don't find an explicit definition in Missouri law for a "physical force," but I do find where it differentiates "use of physical force" from "threatens the use physical force"...

570.010. Chapter definitions​

​

(13) "Forcibly steals", a person, in the course of stealing, uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:​

Self defense, stand your ground, and the castle doctrine are all based on allowing an individual the legal authority to "use physical force" to defend themselves. Nowhere in any of that code, does it allow one to threaten to use physical force. It allows them to "use" physical force to protect themselves or property. The word, "threaten," doesn't even exist in any of those relevant statutes in regard to someone defending themselves.

Even if you could get past that hurdle, then you potentially have the problem that they weren't actually threatening to use physical force as neither gun was functional at the time. They were merely props. Not only could they not use physical force with those guns (unless they threw them at the protesters), they knew they couldn't use them. So there's no way that amounts to self-defense according to Missouri law. It also questions their claims that they felt threatened since who would face a threat where they felt a gun was needed but actually confront it with a prop?

The rifle -- the scary black rifle -- was fully functional.

Besides...nobody knew the pistol was non-functional but the McCloskeys.

How is an AR-15 that has no ammo, "fully functional??" What was it going to fire if he pulled the trigger?

How do you know it had no ammo? First I've heard of this, and an internet search shows no such claim.

And if a weapon that can't fire is so dangerous, why did the DA order the crime lab to reassemble the pistol to operable condition?

Uh-Oh, Prosecutors in Missouri Might have Tampered with Gun Evidence in McCloskey Case - Informed American

The couple with weapons who stood on their lawn in St. Louis as a mob passed by is back in the news. As earlier reported, the McCloskeys have been charged with brandishing (or exhibiting) a weapon, but that requires that the weapons in question be operable and capable of harm. The McCloskeys...

www.informedamerican.com

​

The couple with weapons who stood on their lawn in St. Louis as a mob passed by is back in the news. As earlier reported, the McCloskeys have been charged with brandishing (or exhibiting) a weapon, but that requires that the weapons in question be operable and capable of harm. The McCloskeys claim the AR-15 rifle was not loaded and the pistol held by Mrs. McCloskey didn’t work.​

Well, they ARE Democrats, so it's all definitely believable...

 

[Faun]

For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

A person has no duty to retreat:

• From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
• From their private property
• If the person is any other location where they have the right to be

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.

Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.

Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.

Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. Faun just arbitrarily decided that it SHOULD require that, therefore that is now magically the law in Missouri, because everyone knows that leftists make reality by wishing really hard.

Not to mention, the statutes I cited are not predicated on any of the bullshit Faun and his fairy dust just decided they are.

Let me repeat, and maybe THIS time Faun will get someone literate to read and explain it to him, since it's not written in Moronese.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

On to the direct quotes from the law itself:

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

As we can all see (well, except for Faun, who's too piss-stupid to be able to read), Missouri's castle doctrine does NOT require that the ass clowns in the mob use any physical force to trigger it, but only that they cause the McCloskeys to reasonably believe that they will, or that they will commit property crimes.

"Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. "

LOL

My, you're a fucking retard....

Those statutes legally allow someone to physically defend themselves... if they don't physically defend themselves, then those statutes are not applicable. Is English even your first language? You're actually claiming they were defending themselves without resorting to physical defense based on a law that allows people, who are not the initial aggressors, which Mark McCloskey was anyway, in which physical force is the main element allowed by the law you're citing.

Cecilie's right. You CAN'T read.

And you believe brandishing a weapon isn't a physical defense.

What a moron.

It may be a "physical defense." That's not what the law cited by Cecilie1200 described. It mentions a "physical force," more specifically, the "use of a physical force."

I don't find an explicit definition in Missouri law for a "physical force," but I do find where it differentiates "use of physical force" from "threatens the use physical force"...

570.010. Chapter definitions​

​

(13) "Forcibly steals", a person, in the course of stealing, uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:​

Self defense, stand your ground, and the castle doctrine are all based on allowing an individual the legal authority to "use physical force" to defend themselves. Nowhere in any of that code, does it allow one to threaten to use physical force. It allows them to "use" physical force to protect themselves or property. The word, "threaten," doesn't even exist in any of those relevant statutes in regard to someone defending themselves.

Even if you could get past that hurdle, then you potentially have the problem that they weren't actually threatening to use physical force as neither gun was functional at the time. They were merely props. Not only could they not use physical force with those guns (unless they threw them at the protesters), they knew they couldn't use them. So there's no way that amounts to self-defense according to Missouri law. It also questions their claims that they felt threatened since who would face a threat where they felt a gun was needed but actually confront it with a prop?

The rifle -- the scary black rifle -- was fully functional.

Besides...nobody knew the pistol was non-functional but the McCloskeys.

How is an AR-15 that has no ammo, "fully functional??" What was it going to fire if he pulled the trigger?

How do you know it had no ammo? First I've heard of this, and an internet search shows no such claim.

And if a weapon that can't fire is so dangerous, why did the DA order the crime lab to reassemble the pistol to operable condition?

Uh-Oh, Prosecutors in Missouri Might have Tampered with Gun Evidence in McCloskey Case - Informed American

The couple with weapons who stood on their lawn in St. Louis as a mob passed by is back in the news. As earlier reported, the McCloskeys have been charged with brandishing (or exhibiting) a weapon, but that requires that the weapons in question be operable and capable of harm. The McCloskeys...

www.informedamerican.com

​

The couple with weapons who stood on their lawn in St. Louis as a mob passed by is back in the news. As earlier reported, the McCloskeys have been charged with brandishing (or exhibiting) a weapon, but that requires that the weapons in question be operable and capable of harm. The McCloskeys claim the AR-15 rifle was not loaded and the pistol held by Mrs. McCloskey didn’t work.​

Well, they ARE Democrats, so it's all definitely believable...

Who's Democrat? The McCloskey's??

Browse Individual contributions - FEC.gov

Explore current and historic federal campaign finance data on the new fec.gov. Look at totals and trends, and see how candidates and committees raise and spend money. When you find what you need, export results and save custom links.

www.fec.gov

Contributor name	Recipient	State	Employer	Receipt date	Amount
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA N. MRS.	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLASHEY PC	12/30/2019	$11.25	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA N. MRS.	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	SELF-EMPLOYED	06/07/2019	$100.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA N. MRS.	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	SELF-EMPLOYED	04/08/2019	$200.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA MS.	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/18/2018	$200.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA MS.	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/17/2018	$50.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA MS.	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	09/11/2018	$25.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	02/15/2018	$8.75	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	02/06/2017	-$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	02/06/2017	-$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	02/06/2017	-$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	02/06/2017	-$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA	TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	11/14/2016	-$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	11/03/2016	$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK MR.	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	SELF EMPLOYED	11/03/2016	-$100.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	11/03/2016	$100.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/27/2016	$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/27/2016	$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/27/2016	$400.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK MR.	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	SELF EMPLOYED	10/27/2016	-$100.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/27/2016	$100.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/23/2016	-$400.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/23/2016	$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/23/2016	$400.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK MR.	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	SELF EMPLOYED	10/23/2016	-$100.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/23/2016	$100.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA	DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/20/2016	-$400.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA	TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/20/2016	$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA	DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/20/2016	$400.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA	DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/13/2016	$400.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA	DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/13/2016	$400.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/13/2016	$400.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/13/2016	$400.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK MR.	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	SELF EMPLOYED	10/13/2016	-$100.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA	TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/13/2016	$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/13/2016	$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/13/2016	$100.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/01/2016	$400.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/01/2016	$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	10/01/2016	$100.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	RUSS CARNAHAN FOR CONGRESS	MO	MCCLOSKEY, P.C.	07/31/2012	$1,000.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK T	MCCASKILL FOR MISSOURI	MO	MCCLOSKEY PC	05/14/2012	$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	ROBIN CARNAHAN FOR SENATE	MO	MCCLOSKEY, P.C.	08/20/2010	$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	RUSS CARNAHAN IN CONGRESS COMMITTEE	MO	MCCLOSKEY P.C.	12/31/2009	$1,000.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	ROBIN CARNAHAN FOR SENATE	MO	MCCLOSKEY, P.C.	09/30/2009	$100.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	ROBIN CARNAHAN FOR SENATE	MO	MCCLOSKEY, P.C.	09/30/2009	$2,400.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF ILLINOIS	MO	MARK TO. MCCLOSKEY PC	06/04/2004	$4,000.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK T. MR.	BUSH-CHENEY 2000 COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE INC	MO	SELF/ATTORNEY	11/01/2000	$2,000.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	FRIENDS OF GIULIANI EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE	MO	ATTORNEY	04/18/2000	$1,000.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK	FRIENDS OF GIULIANI EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE	MO	ATTORNEY	04/18/2000	$1,000.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK T	BILL PHELPS FOR CONGRESS	MO	M T MCCLOSKEY PC	10/14/1996	$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK T	NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE CONTRIBUTIONS	MO	ATTORNEY	04/11/1996	$1,000.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, MARK T	BUSH - QUAYLE '92 PRIMARY COMMITTEE INC	MO	LAKIN LAW FIRM	03/24/1992	$1,000.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA	HEARNE FOR CONGRESS	MO	GUIL FOIL PETZALL	10/26/1988	$500.00	Toggle details
MCCLOSKEY, PATRICIA N	PRESIDENT'S DINNER/AKA 1988 REPUB SENATE-HOUSE DINNER CMTE	MO	GUILFOIL PETZALL & SHOEMAKE	05/10/1988	$750.00	Toggle details

 

[daveman]

For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

A person has no duty to retreat:

• From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
• From their private property
• If the person is any other location where they have the right to be

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.

Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.

Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.

Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. Faun just arbitrarily decided that it SHOULD require that, therefore that is now magically the law in Missouri, because everyone knows that leftists make reality by wishing really hard.

Not to mention, the statutes I cited are not predicated on any of the bullshit Faun and his fairy dust just decided they are.

Let me repeat, and maybe THIS time Faun will get someone literate to read and explain it to him, since it's not written in Moronese.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

On to the direct quotes from the law itself:

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

As we can all see (well, except for Faun, who's too piss-stupid to be able to read), Missouri's castle doctrine does NOT require that the ass clowns in the mob use any physical force to trigger it, but only that they cause the McCloskeys to reasonably believe that they will, or that they will commit property crimes.

"Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. "

LOL

My, you're a fucking retard....

Those statutes legally allow someone to physically defend themselves... if they don't physically defend themselves, then those statutes are not applicable. Is English even your first language? You're actually claiming they were defending themselves without resorting to physical defense based on a law that allows people, who are not the initial aggressors, which Mark McCloskey was anyway, in which physical force is the main element allowed by the law you're citing.

Cecilie's right. You CAN'T read.

And you believe brandishing a weapon isn't a physical defense.

What a moron.

It may be a "physical defense." That's not what the law cited by Cecilie1200 described. It mentions a "physical force," more specifically, the "use of a physical force."

I don't find an explicit definition in Missouri law for a "physical force," but I do find where it differentiates "use of physical force" from "threatens the use physical force"...

570.010. Chapter definitions​

​

(13) "Forcibly steals", a person, in the course of stealing, uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:​

Self defense, stand your ground, and the castle doctrine are all based on allowing an individual the legal authority to "use physical force" to defend themselves. Nowhere in any of that code, does it allow one to threaten to use physical force. It allows them to "use" physical force to protect themselves or property. The word, "threaten," doesn't even exist in any of those relevant statutes in regard to someone defending themselves.

Even if you could get past that hurdle, then you potentially have the problem that they weren't actually threatening to use physical force as neither gun was functional at the time. They were merely props. Not only could they not use physical force with those guns (unless they threw them at the protesters), they knew they couldn't use them. So there's no way that amounts to self-defense according to Missouri law. It also questions their claims that they felt threatened since who would face a threat where they felt a gun was needed but actually confront it with a prop?

The rifle -- the scary black rifle -- was fully functional.

Besides...nobody knew the pistol was non-functional but the McCloskeys.

How is an AR-15 that has no ammo, "fully functional??" What was it going to fire if he pulled the trigger?

How do you know it had no ammo? First I've heard of this, and an internet search shows no such claim.

And if a weapon that can't fire is so dangerous, why did the DA order the crime lab to reassemble the pistol to operable condition?

Uh-Oh, Prosecutors in Missouri Might have Tampered with Gun Evidence in McCloskey Case - Informed American

The couple with weapons who stood on their lawn in St. Louis as a mob passed by is back in the news. As earlier reported, the McCloskeys have been charged with brandishing (or exhibiting) a weapon, but that requires that the weapons in question be operable and capable of harm. The McCloskeys...

www.informedamerican.com

​

The couple with weapons who stood on their lawn in St. Louis as a mob passed by is back in the news. As earlier reported, the McCloskeys have been charged with brandishing (or exhibiting) a weapon, but that requires that the weapons in question be operable and capable of harm. The McCloskeys claim the AR-15 rifle was not loaded and the pistol held by Mrs. McCloskey didn’t work.​

Oh, so NOW you believe them. Just coincidence, I'm sure.

 

[Faun]

For those who keep trying to pretend that laws that don't fit their agenda simply don't exist:

Missouri Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Missouri Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and related topics, see FindLaw's section on Missouri Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.
• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

A person has no duty to retreat:

• From their dwelling, residence, or vehicle
• From their private property
• If the person is any other location where they have the right to be

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041 | FindLaw

Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders Section 563.041. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.

Not to mention, the statutes you cite are predicated upon a) 'defense of others,' does not apply to those who are the initial aggressor, which Mark McCloskey confessed when he said he pulled out his gun before there was a threat; and b) 'defense of property,' which requires the reasonable belief of a "commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage," which wasn't the case when he pulled out his gun.

Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.

Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. Faun just arbitrarily decided that it SHOULD require that, therefore that is now magically the law in Missouri, because everyone knows that leftists make reality by wishing really hard.

Not to mention, the statutes I cited are not predicated on any of the bullshit Faun and his fairy dust just decided they are.

Let me repeat, and maybe THIS time Faun will get someone literate to read and explain it to him, since it's not written in Moronese.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals reasonably believe that the physical force used is necessary for the defense of themselves (or others) from an imminent attack of unlawful force from another person.

Physical force:

• May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.

On to the direct quotes from the law itself:

1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

As we can all see (well, except for Faun, who's too piss-stupid to be able to read), Missouri's castle doctrine does NOT require that the ass clowns in the mob use any physical force to trigger it, but only that they cause the McCloskeys to reasonably believe that they will, or that they will commit property crimes.

"Faun just proved he can't read. Nowhere in the law I cited does it say that "stand your ground" requires physical force to be applicable. "

LOL

My, you're a fucking retard....

Those statutes legally allow someone to physically defend themselves... if they don't physically defend themselves, then those statutes are not applicable. Is English even your first language? You're actually claiming they were defending themselves without resorting to physical defense based on a law that allows people, who are not the initial aggressors, which Mark McCloskey was anyway, in which physical force is the main element allowed by the law you're citing.

Cecilie's right. You CAN'T read.

And you believe brandishing a weapon isn't a physical defense.

What a moron.

It may be a "physical defense." That's not what the law cited by Cecilie1200 described. It mentions a "physical force," more specifically, the "use of a physical force."

I don't find an explicit definition in Missouri law for a "physical force," but I do find where it differentiates "use of physical force" from "threatens the use physical force"...

570.010. Chapter definitions​

​

(13) "Forcibly steals", a person, in the course of stealing, uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:​

Self defense, stand your ground, and the castle doctrine are all based on allowing an individual the legal authority to "use physical force" to defend themselves. Nowhere in any of that code, does it allow one to threaten to use physical force. It allows them to "use" physical force to protect themselves or property. The word, "threaten," doesn't even exist in any of those relevant statutes in regard to someone defending themselves.

Even if you could get past that hurdle, then you potentially have the problem that they weren't actually threatening to use physical force as neither gun was functional at the time. They were merely props. Not only could they not use physical force with those guns (unless they threw them at the protesters), they knew they couldn't use them. So there's no way that amounts to self-defense according to Missouri law. It also questions their claims that they felt threatened since who would face a threat where they felt a gun was needed but actually confront it with a prop?

The rifle -- the scary black rifle -- was fully functional.

Besides...nobody knew the pistol was non-functional but the McCloskeys.

How is an AR-15 that has no ammo, "fully functional??" What was it going to fire if he pulled the trigger?

How do you know it had no ammo? First I've heard of this, and an internet search shows no such claim.

And if a weapon that can't fire is so dangerous, why did the DA order the crime lab to reassemble the pistol to operable condition?

Uh-Oh, Prosecutors in Missouri Might have Tampered with Gun Evidence in McCloskey Case - Informed American

The couple with weapons who stood on their lawn in St. Louis as a mob passed by is back in the news. As earlier reported, the McCloskeys have been charged with brandishing (or exhibiting) a weapon, but that requires that the weapons in question be operable and capable of harm. The McCloskeys...

www.informedamerican.com

​

The couple with weapons who stood on their lawn in St. Louis as a mob passed by is back in the news. As earlier reported, the McCloskeys have been charged with brandishing (or exhibiting) a weapon, but that requires that the weapons in question be operable and capable of harm. The McCloskeys claim the AR-15 rifle was not loaded and the pistol held by Mrs. McCloskey didn’t work.​

Oh, so NOW you believe them. Just coincidence, I'm sure.

The only thing they've said I don't believe is that they were in fear for their lives. People don't confront threats with guns that can't fire. That's just asking to get shot.