St Louis Lawyers Have Firearm Seized

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Gatoragn, Jul 11, 2020.

  1. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,086
    4,350
    113
    bluez likes this.
  2. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,086
    4,350
    113
    There is a video where one of the mob clearly threatens multiple times that " I'm going to take that away from you:." To the wifem

    Referring to the handgun she is holding

    That is a threat that could legally resulted in lethal force as ability opportunity were present and intent repeatedly declared to forcibly disarm her resulting in a fear for her life.

    That is at minimum one threat on video
     
    bluez and G66enigma like this.

  3. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    12,906
    2,512
    113
    Only if it’s legal in MO to point a firearm at someone for running his big mouth from a safe distance. We’ll know soon. I don’t pretend to know Missouri law even after reading some of it on the Internet.
     
    Chainfire, W.T. Sherman and alsaqr like this.
  4. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    12,906
    2,512
    113
    Good point, and yet in any case words are immaterial. American law traditionally does not recognize fighting words or gestures. Nor does it penalize for standing on the porch with a gun. Pointing the gun was a game changer.
     
    W.T. Sherman likes this.
  5. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,856
    1,617
    113
    The "peaceful protestors" tore down a gate and entered the private community.
    That is trespassing. The second the broke down the gate they broke the law.
    You have the right to protect your property and to tell others to stay off of it.
    This "peaceful mob" told them that they would be killed and their home burned down if they didn't get in their house.
    So what exactly would YOU do? March with them?
     
    bluez and Ghost1958 like this.
  6. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    12,906
    2,512
    113
    Probably watch them, keep a firearm handy, maybe call 911. One thing for sure I would not point a gun if they keep the distance and keep on walking.

    Understand, they won already by dragging the couple into this. High fives.
     
  7. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,856
    1,617
    113
    Unfortunately you are correct.
    Plus the fact that the left is always telling us that guns are evil, not people.
     
  8. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,086
    4,350
    113
    They didnt keep walking, they were on private property , the threat to take the gun wasnt made from a safe distance, no gov official including the MO attorney general agrees with this witch hunt.
    Which should tell folks something as the MO Attorney general DOES know mo SD law and publically stated the couple had ever legal right to do what they did.

    Never understand why some gun owner/carriers are so eager to toss fellow gun owners under the bus when they do what the obviously have every right to do.
     
    elfmdl and bluez like this.
  9. freefall

    freefall Well-Known Member

    4,981
    4,106
    113
    What exactly do you know about U S law, subject of a queen?
     
    Oldoutlaw and Ghost1958 like this.
  10. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,086
    4,350
    113
    Where did that come from?
    Almost always the ability, mob had that, opportunity, mob obviously had that, and a indicated threat or verbal threat, in this case a threat to disarm a woman facing a 300 person hostile mob is clearly a threat to put anyone in fear of great bodily harm or death.

    The fact that wasnt even needed for the couple to do what they did in MO, legally is obvious .
     
    bluez likes this.
  11. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    923
    1,310
    93
    That's what I said.

    In every U.S. state I've seen, it's explicitly stated in the statutes on use-of-force that one cannot be the initiating aggressor, and that one cannot be a "willing participant" in violence (ie, two people agreeing to fight one another, which then gets out of hand).

    Timing isn't so relevant, here, I'd think. Fact is, given the ugly climate, documented history in recent weeks of many violent acts by "mobs" ranging through towns, that alone should be sufficient for someone to be highly concerned over possible risk of violence to their properties or themselves. They were on their own property and remained there, it looked like.

    Let's take a simple hypothetical example: Mobs have been gathering frequently; mobs have been reported causing violent damage to properties and people in many to most cases; then, one sees a gathering having the look and feel of the types of "protesting" mobs that have been reported; and one knows for a fact one's living in a gated community that's private property.

    ^ Even without concrete death threats (yet) from this particular mob, in most states one is fully authorized to be carrying arms on their own properties (again, so long as they themselves don't initiate assault [via aiming, verbal threats of battery, etc] against others [which mere carrying isn't]). Indeed, so long as one isn't initiating threats, merely carrying is commonplace. I, myself, for example, carry absolutely everywhere. That's issuing threats to nobody. Even if I were to be concerned over gatherings and then decide to arm-up, even if I were to see a mob approaching and then decide to arm-up, I've still got every right to be armed on my property.

    Again, it'll be interesting to see what actually comes out in a trial, if the DA charges and it comes to that. He-said, she-said doesn't go very far. And, of course, a trespassing mob of people believing its "protest" authorizes it to go any damned place is capable of what violence we read of in the papers every day. Add to that knowing for a fact they're already trespassing ... And, if it occurred, add to that hearing threats of death or arson or "killing the dog" or whatever ... that pretty much seals the manifest imminent threat standard that normally is specified in the states' statutes.
     
    Ghost1958 and bluez like this.
  12. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    923
    1,310
    93
    Didn't see that one.

    That's sufficient threat, right there.

    So long as they themselves were not the initiating aggressors ... beyond the normal, customary and completely lawful demands to trespassers to cease and leave of course (which isn't initiation of aggression; it's merely the right of every property holder, armed or not).
     
    Ghost1958 and bluez like this.
  13. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,895
    3,372
    113
    More than you, obviously. :rolleyes: then again that would not be difficult.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2020
    Chainfire and W.T. Sherman like this.
  14. freefall

    freefall Well-Known Member

    4,981
    4,106
    113
    Aha! A biting retort!
    "My mental capacity is twice what yours is, you pea brain!" Disney studios
     
  15. sheriffjohn

    sheriffjohn Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,759
    3,227
    113
    I am familiar with Missori Law, sat on the Governor's Committee to draft our first CCW Law, taught it for over 25 years, etc. Regardless of statutes, the law is only as powerful as those who enforce it. In Missouri, it is the prosecuting attorney (in this case the "Circuit Attorney") who files charges, not the cops. 114 counties and the City of St. Louis each have their own, elected prosecutor - each with their own way of doing things and interpretation of the law.

    The present St. Louis City Circuit Attorney has a history of being soft on criminals of her choosing and publicly critical of police. In response to recent attention to the upswing in urban violence, Governor Parsons just signed a new criminal law which includes a "get tough on gangs" section targetting gang violence which goes into effect on August 28th. Enhanced penalties for violent offenders, etc. will eventually remove some evil people from polite society. Already, the new law has been criticized because if used, some say it will result in more minorities being incarcerated. Well ..duh...with few exceptions our gangs are mostly young ethnicly undiversely populated preying on their own people for the most part.

    My point is this ...the citizens through our elected representatives have provided sufficient power to prosecutors to make our state safe. When they fail to hold criminals accountable situations such as the McCloskeys' are going to happen. Criminals do what they do "Because they CAN".
     
  16. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,856
    1,617
    113
    Walking out on your own property carrying a legally owned firearm isn't described as brandishing unless you are nut case liberal who thinks that guns cause crimes, not people.
    If he was a body builder who had walked out shirtless would showing his muscles to the mob be considered threatening? He walked out holding an AR...didn't point it at anyone just made them aware that he had one. And whatever his wife was doing with her "accessory pistol" didn't resemble anything but a nervous twitch. Their actions were more laughable than threatening. And now they are disarmed. I hope that none of these cretin protestors come back to their home because of that.
     
    Gatoragn likes this.
  17. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,895
    3,372
    113
    If she was pointing a gun like that at me with her finger on the trigger, i would feel threatened. More so than him, holding a firearm.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2020
    W.T. Sherman likes this.
  18. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,086
    4,350
    113
    Then if you were the goon she's pointing it directly at, you shouldn't have threatened to disarm her.
     
    Oldoutlaw likes this.
  19. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,895
    3,372
    113
    How do you know he threatened to disarm her.
     
  20. Bona Voluntate

    Bona Voluntate Member

    31
    70
    18
    The street association (possibly a 501(c)(3)) or a LLC would give the members a possessory interest in and easement to the street and sidewalks. In other words, trespassing on the street and sidewalks is the same as trespassing on their own property.

    And I'm sure their lawyers know this.