Ashlii Babbitt Thread

[Marener]

*563.031. Use of force in defense of persons. — 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat:

(1) From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;

(2) From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or

(3) If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.

4. 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.

5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

--------
(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41, A.L. 2010 H.B. 1692, et al. merged with H.B. 2081, A.L. 2016 S.B. 656)
*Effective 10-14-16, see § 21.250. S.B. 656 was vetoed June 27, 2016. The veto was overridden on September 14, 2016.



Tell me what you think doesn't apply and why. (this is where you show your partisan ass)

The McCloskeys had no reasonable belief that they were in imminent danger.

How pathetic.



2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

Mind you, ON TOP of the ass kicking above, this is the ACTUAL USE of deadly force, not the mere THREAT of deadly force.

I win.

Suck it.

The mob was not a threat to a reasonable person. The McCloskeys don’t own the sidewalk.

You lose.

 

[Faun]

Who cares?

LOLOLOL

Well Kimberly M. Gardner for one, I would guess, since her name's not CA Gardner.

 

[bripat9643]

The McCloskeys had no reasonable belief that they were in imminent danger.

The mob was not a threat to a reasonable person. The McCloskeys don’t own the sidewalk.

You lose.

The community owns them, and they are part owners of the community, so yes they do own them.

 

[Faun]

He could hear the violent BLM mob coming for miles.

Unless you're arguing that he just happened to be walking around on his front porch with a rifle for no reason.

What is it you're saying?

They weren't threatening him. There isn't even any evidence they saw him until they got through the gate. Nor were they threatening anyone. They had a 1st Amendment right to protest.

 

[bripat9643]

LOLOLOL

Well Kimberly M. Gardner for one, I would guess, since her name's not CA Gardner.

That's what the article I read said her name was.

It really doesn't matter since it isn't germane to the discussion.

 

[Marener]

The community owns them, and they are part owners of the community, so yes they do own them.

That is false. They cannot claim ownership of the sidewalk.

 

[bripat9643]

That is false. They cannot claim ownership of the sidewalk.

Sure they can. The city sure doesn't own it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The McCloskeys had no reasonable belief that they were in imminent danger.

And THERE IT IS!!!



I KNEW you fools would make your partisan judgment call and YOU DID IT!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They weren't threatening him. There isn't even any evidence they saw him until they got through the gate.

What makes you think he was threatening them? He was on his own property. They came to HIM. Not the other way around.

HE FUCKING LIVES THERE.

 

[Faun]

That's what the article I read said her name was.

It really doesn't matter since it isn't germane to the discussion.

LOLOLOLOL

So I was 200% right, you don't know who the DA was. You had to hunt for it and grabbed the wrong name because you don't know who it was.

 

[Faun]

What makes you think he was threatening them? He was on his own property. They came to HIM. Not the other way around.

HE FUCKING LIVES THERE.

He pulled the gun before they passed through the gate. That's illegal.

They knew it was illegal which is why after threatening to fight it, they backed down and took a plea to a lesser charge.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I guess the KKK can march around in black neighborhoods banging drums and carrying torches and the minute a home owner, on his own property, walks out the front door with a shotgun, BOOM, unlawful use of a firearm.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

He pulled the gun before they passed through the gate. That's illegal.

They knew it was illegal which is why after threatening to fight it, they backed down and took a plea to a lesser charge.

He's on his own property. SHOW ME THE LAW that make it illegal to hold a firearm.

 

[Faun]

And THERE IT IS!!!



I KNEW you fools would make your partisan judgment call and YOU DID IT!!!

It's not partisan. Those people were peacefully protesting down a public street when he drew his gun. He admitted even. He said he heard them coming down the street, went and got his gun, then took it onto his patio.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's not partisan. Those people were peacefully protesting down a public street when he drew his gun. He admitted even. He said he heard them coming down the street, went and got his gun, then took it onto his patio.

So, he has to wait until they are ALREADY in his house before he can go get his gun ON HIS OWN PROPERTY????



Godddammmit, you are so fucking stupid.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the Klan really wanted to screw with Black people, they could go to St. Louis and march around in Black neighborhoods and wait for one of the Black folks to walk outside with a gun....

 

[Faun]

I guess the KKK can march around in black neighborhoods banging drums and carrying torches and the minute a home owner, on his own property, walks out the front door with a shotgun, BOOM, unlawful use of a firearm.

Retard, you can't pull a gun on protesters who aren't threatening you even if you're on your own property.

Police arrest man accused of pointing a shotgun at protesters outside his home

A man was arrested twice in two days, after allegedly threatening someone with a chainsaw and later pointing a gun at Black Lives Matter protesters.

www.jsonline.com

A 56-year-old Milwaukee man was arrested twice in two days after allegedly threatening someone with a chainsaw on Monday and pointing a shotgun at a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters on Tuesday.

 

[chesswarsnow]

What did Ashlii do that was threatening?

You can't have it both ways.

Either the mob was the threat or the individual was the threat.

Sorry bout that,

1. Libtards will say, "She had a real mean snarl on he face."
2. Spooky even, with snarling toofers!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Faun]

So, he has to wait until they are ALREADY in his house before he can go get his gun ON HIS OWN PROPERTY????



Godddammmit, you are so fucking stupid.

No, they have to threaten him before he pulls out a fire arm.

 

[Faun]

He's on his own property. SHOW ME THE LAW that make it illegal to hold a firearm.

I already did.


571.030. Unlawful use of weapons, offense of — exceptions — violation, penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:

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