daveman
Diamond Member
We've discussed this. What you believe has no bearing on reality.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.Oh, so NOW you believe them. Just coincidence, I'm sure.How do you know it had no ammo? First I've heard of this, and an internet search shows no such claim.How is an AR-15 that has no ammo, "fully functional??" What was it going to fire if he pulled the trigger?The rifle -- the scary black rifle -- was fully functional.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."Cecilie's right. You CAN'T read."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. "Wrong the crowd said they were gonna burn down his house after looting it.There was no physical force used. This is not a stand your ground case.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:
A person has no duty to retreat:
- 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.
- 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
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.
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.
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:
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.
On to the direct quotes from the law itself:
- May be used when individuals believe that the force is reasonably necessary to prevent another person from stealing, causing property damage, or tampering.
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.
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.
And you believe brandishing a weapon isn't a physical defense.
What a moron.
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"...
(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?
Besides...nobody knew the pistol was non-functional but the McCloskeys.
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.
And, hey, the DA thought they were dangerous enough. Well, not quite dangerous enough. She ordered the crime lab to falsify evidence.
