Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Did you read the article where it says that 911 was indeed called?As far as lethal force is concerned, anyone that has taken any sort of gun safety or training will tell you 2 of the most important rules are: #1. Never point a gun at someone unless you are ready to shoot them & #2. You never shoot to warn or maim, you only shoot to kill.
As far as lethal force is concerned... You are a liar. You have not done any law studies. Or if you have, you didn't learn worth a shit. I repeat... You are a liar.
You have no training... Liar.I cannot help it that you cannot understand the difference between describing if a crime rises to the level of deserving of lethal force, or when lethal force occurs. I worked for a state prison for 5 years including 3 and a half on an SRT team where we were very well trained in use of force policy, and the legal ramifications of it. You however have no clue what you are even talking about, and can't grasp a simple concept.
Seeing a mob of BLM supporters coming for you, entering your private grounds, is not being threatened inHowever in an interview with News 4 Monday, McCloskey said he and his wife grabbed their weapons as the crowd was walking toward their home, not after being threatened."
They entered through an open gate...on that particular day?What violence did those protesters commit...?
They broke down a gate and swarmed onto private property
but on previous days during the same riot they looted and burned buildings just blocks away
Yes it's their private propertyPrivate "street." That street is not that home owner's property.The protesters were not on their property.ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*They may have committed a 4th degree assault...Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.
565.056 said:565.056 said:1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: (3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;
Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.
View attachment 362146
From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."
the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law
That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.
he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018
From your link...
However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."
You have no training... Liar.I cannot help it that you cannot understand the difference between describing if a crime rises to the level of deserving of lethal force, or when lethal force occurs. I worked for a state prison for 5 years including 3 and a half on an SRT team where we were very well trained in use of force policy, and the legal ramifications of it. You however have no clue what you are even talking about, and can't grasp a simple concept.
Edit: Thank you. In undergrad in my Constitutional law course and my other law course my professor William Nixon recommended me do it as well, but at my age I think I'm just going to finish my Master's degree and then have a tough decision of whether to get my doctorate or just teach high school or community college. At one point in life I really wanted to do contract law and then become a sports agent.
It's weird that you didn't say any of that. You fuck'n liar. Hypocrite. Bullshitter. I get off exposing people like you.
The hard thing to do with you are a liar.. Is remembering what you lied about...
The gate was open when the entered...They broke down the entrance gate and they trespassed on private propertyI asked for what property was destroyed by the protesters who were going to the mayor's house; and you idiotically post a burnt down building with zero evidence that any of those protesters were involved.View attachment 362156What property did they destroy?
Dumb fuck if you didn't see the big black guy on the left side open the gate you're blind as a bat
Who said I didn't see him holding the gate open? The video shows they didn't break the gate down to get in, as some here are ridiculously asserting.
NopeAND they were on the property of the homeowners (the McCloskeys)Nope, they were on the sidewalk and in the street.
Yes... I did look at the date of that. You're a liar.Did you look at the date of that? I've since not only completed my BS in Criminal Justice with a minor in Police Studies... I've finished grad school as well. At this point you are just embarrassing yourself.
Have you figured in Missouri's Castle doctrine stand your ground and anyone with law enforcement experience knows protest can get out of hand and turn Violent? The Husband and wife were threatened and had every right to defend themselves and their propertyYou have no training... Liar.I cannot help it that you cannot understand the difference between describing if a crime rises to the level of deserving of lethal force, or when lethal force occurs. I worked for a state prison for 5 years including 3 and a half on an SRT team where we were very well trained in use of force policy, and the legal ramifications of it. You however have no clue what you are even talking about, and can't grasp a simple concept.
Edit: Thank you. In undergrad in my Constitutional law course and my other law course my professor William Nixon recommended me do it as well, but at my age I think I'm just going to finish my Master's degree and then have a tough decision of whether to get my doctorate or just teach high school or community college. At one point in life I really wanted to do contract law and then become a sports agent.
It's weird that you didn't say any of that. You fuck'n liar. Hypocrite. Bullshitter. I get off exposing people like you.
The hard thing to do with you are a liar.. Is remembering what you lied about...
Did you look at the date of that? I've since not only completed my BS in Criminal Justice with a minor in Police Studies... I've finished grad school as well. At this point you are just embarrassing yourself.
yes they were on their propertyNopeAND they were on the property of the homeowners (the McCloskeys)Nope, they were on the sidewalk and in the street.
Yes it's their private propertyPrivate "street." That street is not that home owner's property.The protesters were not on their property.ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? *laughs*They may have committed a 4th degree assault...Negative... They threatened lethal force. They did not USE lethal force. They were trespassing. They are allowed to threaten anything they want. Get off their property.They kind of did. Pointing a gun right at someone is application of deadly force, which is why they might be in trouble.Considering THEY DIDN'T USE LETHAL FORCE.
565.056 said:565.056 said:1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if: (3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;
Oh wait... Are you talking about the "protesters" ... That makes sense.
View attachment 362146
From your link ... Andes Walker: "I think..."
the lawyer at the end of the video said the individuals withing the gate owned the property
St. Louis law
That lawyer is Andes Walker ... the one I quoted.
he also said they (the protesters) were on private property
Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual.Oct 10, 2018
Correct!!!! If there was a mob of more than 100 terrorists in front of my property shouting epithets, threattning my family including my dog, I would ceratinly have stood out there with a weapon. In my case it would have been a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4Buck.
.
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
Missouri recognizes the "castle doctrine" and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your "castle." This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances.
You would be as stupid and wrong as they were. It is a terrible tactical position. No cover, no ability to reach cover in any quick manner. You would be exposed, and bullets fly both ways mate. One of Murphy's Laws of Combat is to remember, if the enemy is in range, so are you.
Of course, it is cool to step out there and stare the crowd down. But in this case, they had more people facing them, then they had ammunition. Assuming three rounds per person, a low rate of hit to stop ratio, it is usually much much higher, but we'll give them every benefit of the doubt. They could have stopped perhaps twelve of the hundred. The crowd was also armed, which means they would be shooting back. No cover, not enough ammo, and exposed to possibility of criminal prosecution by waving the bang stick around.
They should be in the next edition of the movie dumb and dumber.
~~~~~~
That is why a shotgun in this case would have been the proper tool. Peole tend to run when one shot hits three or four at a time in a mob.
Depending on the state it is a crime and if you have a castle doctrine state you can use deadly force if you feel threatenedI posted: " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime that means a person can use LETHAL force. "
Why do you want moderation in here?? Stop paging us for comment or --
we'll just weigh in as members...
Trespassing is NOT enough.. You have to have been given a THREAT to your safety or life.. And according to statements given BY the homeowners -- in the presence of their lawyer -- those verbal threats including killing them, burning the home, killing their dog and "breaking on entering" a posted private drive...
Sufficient enough for me... And clear enough mortal threats...
YOU of all members should RECOGNIZE a "specific mortal threat" since you are always finding them in posts on USMB.. How COME you can't take THESE threats as seriously as some hot wind you saw on the InterWebs??? Can't understand that... And NOBODY (yet) was injured or killed....
Why page moderators to a thread? Because if the wrong moderator sees the report first, nothing gets done and the other moderators don't want to step on the toes of the one that made the decision and nothing gets done about the rule being broken. At least if I page 4 or 5 of you to an obvious rule being broken then I know all of you saw it and it wasn't just cleared by one mod and ignored by the rest.
The owners were caught in a lie. They said they came out with their guns because they heard all these threats towards them. No, they did not... they came out with the guns from the very start before anyone could even threaten them. It's common sense. Just because no one got hurt THIS time doesn't make it okay to point a LOADED gun with your finger on the trigger at UNARMED citizens who are not even close to you to be an immediate threat. That would be like saying it is okay to drive drunk as long as you make it home and no one got killed in an accident. I know you don't agree with me on pretty much anything anymore, and I think you have become nothing but a conspiracy theorist that has lost all touch of reality that a scientist is supposed to have, but you aren't stupid and you know better than to make comments like that.
They did nothing wrong.,. Lane was CLEARLY posted as PRIVATE, not public... There's no "guard shack there", but at the ones I VISIT on private drives, the guards are armed... Can't fix stupid people from ignoring the privacy of others...
There WAS no use of "lethal force"..,. Producing a fire arm is not lethal force.. You just can't accept these RIGHTS as valid.. Which is YOUR problem, not mine..
If the lawyer/owner's last 10 civil rights cases were people of color and he;'s a HUGE lefty -- why were they so "triggered"??? Lots of questions you're not asking.. And lots of FACTS and THREATS that somehow you can just ignore..
YOU DONT KNOW what was yelled over the fences and hedges before the firearms appeared.. NO ONE (i believe) from the protest is PRESSING CHARGES of any kind.. And yet YOU are so SUPER agitated about this, that you can't give it up...
Go read about the 45 yr retired black St. Louis cop David Dorn, KILLED by rioters the week before this dust-up.. HE was a private citizen protecting a business in the same city... Did HE hesitate maybe TOO MUCH to do his job and protect his OWN LIFE??? Bigger tragedies to worry about here...
What is so hard for you to understand? There is a difference in CARRYING a gun for protection, and POINTING A LOADED gun at people with your finger on the trigger that are not an immediate threat of danger? Those are two different circumstances.
Then you will ignore the criminal trespassing on private property?
Trespassing is NOT a crime that justifies lethal force. The homeowners should have called the police, and even if they came outside with their guns, they should NOT be pointing them at the crowd of people with their finger on the trigger.
Is it me or is it a bad idea to defund the police and disarm law abiding citizens? Am I dreaming?
Have you figured in Missouri's Castle doctrine stand your ground and anyone with law enforcement experience knows protest can get out of hand and turn Violent? The Husband and wife were threatened and had every right to defend themselves and their propertyYou have no training... Liar.I cannot help it that you cannot understand the difference between describing if a crime rises to the level of deserving of lethal force, or when lethal force occurs. I worked for a state prison for 5 years including 3 and a half on an SRT team where we were very well trained in use of force policy, and the legal ramifications of it. You however have no clue what you are even talking about, and can't grasp a simple concept.
Edit: Thank you. In undergrad in my Constitutional law course and my other law course my professor William Nixon recommended me do it as well, but at my age I think I'm just going to finish my Master's degree and then have a tough decision of whether to get my doctorate or just teach high school or community college. At one point in life I really wanted to do contract law and then become a sports agent.
It's weird that you didn't say any of that. You fuck'n liar. Hypocrite. Bullshitter. I get off exposing people like you.
The hard thing to do with you are a liar.. Is remembering what you lied about...
Did you look at the date of that? I've since not only completed my BS in Criminal Justice with a minor in Police Studies... I've finished grad school as well. At this point you are just embarrassing yourself.
Depending on the state it is a crime and if you have a castle doctrine state you can use deadly force if you feel threatenedI posted: " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime that means a person can use LETHAL force. "
Why do you want moderation in here?? Stop paging us for comment or --
we'll just weigh in as members...
Trespassing is NOT enough.. You have to have been given a THREAT to your safety or life.. And according to statements given BY the homeowners -- in the presence of their lawyer -- those verbal threats including killing them, burning the home, killing their dog and "breaking on entering" a posted private drive...
Sufficient enough for me... And clear enough mortal threats...
YOU of all members should RECOGNIZE a "specific mortal threat" since you are always finding them in posts on USMB.. How COME you can't take THESE threats as seriously as some hot wind you saw on the InterWebs??? Can't understand that... And NOBODY (yet) was injured or killed....
Why page moderators to a thread? Because if the wrong moderator sees the report first, nothing gets done and the other moderators don't want to step on the toes of the one that made the decision and nothing gets done about the rule being broken. At least if I page 4 or 5 of you to an obvious rule being broken then I know all of you saw it and it wasn't just cleared by one mod and ignored by the rest.
The owners were caught in a lie. They said they came out with their guns because they heard all these threats towards them. No, they did not... they came out with the guns from the very start before anyone could even threaten them. It's common sense. Just because no one got hurt THIS time doesn't make it okay to point a LOADED gun with your finger on the trigger at UNARMED citizens who are not even close to you to be an immediate threat. That would be like saying it is okay to drive drunk as long as you make it home and no one got killed in an accident. I know you don't agree with me on pretty much anything anymore, and I think you have become nothing but a conspiracy theorist that has lost all touch of reality that a scientist is supposed to have, but you aren't stupid and you know better than to make comments like that.
They did nothing wrong.,. Lane was CLEARLY posted as PRIVATE, not public... There's no "guard shack there", but at the ones I VISIT on private drives, the guards are armed... Can't fix stupid people from ignoring the privacy of others...
There WAS no use of "lethal force"..,. Producing a fire arm is not lethal force.. You just can't accept these RIGHTS as valid.. Which is YOUR problem, not mine..
If the lawyer/owner's last 10 civil rights cases were people of color and he;'s a HUGE lefty -- why were they so "triggered"??? Lots of questions you're not asking.. And lots of FACTS and THREATS that somehow you can just ignore..
YOU DONT KNOW what was yelled over the fences and hedges before the firearms appeared.. NO ONE (i believe) from the protest is PRESSING CHARGES of any kind.. And yet YOU are so SUPER agitated about this, that you can't give it up...
Go read about the 45 yr retired black St. Louis cop David Dorn, KILLED by rioters the week before this dust-up.. HE was a private citizen protecting a business in the same city... Did HE hesitate maybe TOO MUCH to do his job and protect his OWN LIFE??? Bigger tragedies to worry about here...
What is so hard for you to understand? There is a difference in CARRYING a gun for protection, and POINTING A LOADED gun at people with your finger on the trigger that are not an immediate threat of danger? Those are two different circumstances.
Then you will ignore the criminal trespassing on private property?
Trespassing is NOT a crime that justifies lethal force. The homeowners should have called the police, and even if they came outside with their guns, they should NOT be pointing them at the crowd of people with their finger on the trigger.
Trespassing in North Carolina can be defined as simply entering the private property of a landowner or a legally permissible occupant, without their permission or by violating clearly posted signage stating no trespassing. ... Trespassing is classified as a Class 2 misdemeanor under N.C.G.S. 14-159.12.
§ 14-159.11. Definition. As used in this Article, "building" means any structure or part of a structure, other than a conveyance, enclosed so as to permit reasonable entry only through a door and roofed to protect it from the elements. (1987, c. 700, s. 1.) § 14-159.12. First degree trespass. (a) Offense. – A person commits the offense of first degree trespass if, without authorization, he enters or remains: (1) On premises of another so enclosed or secured as to demonstrate clearly an intent to keep out intruders; (2) In a building of another; or (3) On the lands of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians after the person has been excluded by a resolution passed by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian Tribal Council. (b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), (d), or (f) of this section, first degree trespass is a Class 2 misdemeanor. (c) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) of this section, a violation of subsection (a) of this section is a Class A1 misdemeanor if all of the following circumstances exist: (1) The offense is committed on the premises of any of the following: a. A facility that is owned or operated by an electric power supplier as defined in G.S. 62-133.8(a)(3) and that is either an electric generation facility, a transmission substation, a transmission switching station, a transmission switching structure, or a control center used to manage transmission operations or electrical power generating at multiple plant locations. b. Any facility used or available for use in the collection, treatment, testing, storing, pumping, or distribution of water for a public water system. c. Any facility, including any liquefied natural gas storage facility or propane air facility, that is owned or operated by a natural gas local distribution company, natural gas pipeline carrier operating under a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Utilities Commission, municipal corporation operating a municipally owned gas distribution system, or regional natural gas district organized and operated pursuant to Article 28 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes used for transmission, distribution, measurement, testing, regulating, compression, control, or storage of natural gas. d. Any facility used or operated for agricultural activities, as that term is defined in G.S. 106-581.1. (2) The person actually entered a building, or it was necessary for the person to climb over, go under, or otherwise surmount a fence or other barrier to reach the facility
Me next! Me next! I hate liars.They were caught lying. They said in an interview that they got their guns BEFORE they were threatened, thus making them the aggressors. In fact if you watch the videos of the incident, the woman with the hand gun pointed at the protesters does not stand her grown to defend her property... she advances TOWARD the crowd while her husband retreats closer to the house.
I posted: " Even IF the protesters were trespassing, trespassing is not a crime that means a person can use LETHAL force. "
Why do you want moderation in here?? Stop paging us for comment or --
we'll just weigh in as members...
Trespassing is NOT enough.. You have to have been given a THREAT to your safety or life.. And according to statements given BY the homeowners -- in the presence of their lawyer -- those verbal threats including killing them, burning the home, killing their dog and "breaking on entering" a posted private drive...
Sufficient enough for me... And clear enough mortal threats...
YOU of all members should RECOGNIZE a "specific mortal threat" since you are always finding them in posts on USMB.. How COME you can't take THESE threats as seriously as some hot wind you saw on the InterWebs??? Can't understand that... And NOBODY (yet) was injured or killed....
Why page moderators to a thread? Because if the wrong moderator sees the report first, nothing gets done and the other moderators don't want to step on the toes of the one that made the decision and nothing gets done about the rule being broken. At least if I page 4 or 5 of you to an obvious rule being broken then I know all of you saw it and it wasn't just cleared by one mod and ignored by the rest.
The owners were caught in a lie. They said they came out with their guns because they heard all these threats towards them. No, they did not... they came out with the guns from the very start before anyone could even threaten them. It's common sense. Just because no one got hurt THIS time doesn't make it okay to point a LOADED gun with your finger on the trigger at UNARMED citizens who are not even close to you to be an immediate threat. That would be like saying it is okay to drive drunk as long as you make it home and no one got killed in an accident. I know you don't agree with me on pretty much anything anymore, and I think you have become nothing but a conspiracy theorist that has lost all touch of reality that a scientist is supposed to have, but you aren't stupid and you know better than to make comments like that.
They did nothing wrong.,. Lane was CLEARLY posted as PRIVATE, not public... There's no "guard shack there", but at the ones I VISIT on private drives, the guards are armed... Can't fix stupid people from ignoring the privacy of others...
There WAS no use of "lethal force"..,. Producing a fire arm is not lethal force.. You just can't accept these RIGHTS as valid.. Which is YOUR problem, not mine..
If the lawyer/owner's last 10 civil rights cases were people of color and he;'s a HUGE lefty -- why were they so "triggered"??? Lots of questions you're not asking.. And lots of FACTS and THREATS that somehow you can just ignore..
YOU DONT KNOW what was yelled over the fences and hedges before the firearms appeared.. NO ONE (i believe) from the protest is PRESSING CHARGES of any kind.. And yet YOU are so SUPER agitated about this, that you can't give it up...
Go read about the 45 yr retired black St. Louis cop David Dorn, KILLED by rioters the week before this dust-up.. HE was a private citizen protecting a business in the same city... Did HE hesitate maybe TOO MUCH to do his job and protect his OWN LIFE??? Bigger tragedies to worry about here...
What is so hard for you to understand? There is a difference in CARRYING a gun for protection, and POINTING A LOADED gun at people with your finger on the trigger that are not an immediate threat of danger? Those are two different circumstances.
