Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lets just say with the discipline they displayed in that video, sweeping each other with the barrels of their guns multiple times, it is not surprising to me they do not know how to properly maintain them.
I wonder how the wife's gun was assembled so it wouldn't fire. Maybe had the recoil spring in backwards? Must have been an older model piece. Looked like a Walther PPK. These days most semi-autos are practically idiot proof for incorrect re-assembly after take down.
Castle Doctrine simply excuses you from the obligation to retreat. The other bar(s) for physical or deadly force in self-defense still apply. Namely this couple has to demonstrate a reasonable fear that:
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(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or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;
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.
Missouri's law is more extensive than the law in other states because it permits property owners to use the amount of force reasonably perceived as necessary, including deadly force.
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.
Missouri's law is more extensive than the law in other states because it permits property owners to use the amount of force reasonably perceived as necessary, including deadly force.
There has to be a reasonable perceived threat of bodily harm can't shoot someone for trespassing. You probably can get away with pointing a gun at them as we seen with this case can be charged. If your well connected have deep pockets nothing will happen, but working class guy could end differently. Different in every state why good idea to know your laws, and always take the most Conservative route. If you see someone breaking into a parked car call the police don't go running out there with your AR-15 any number of bad outcomes could end up from that.
There has to be a reasonable perceived threat of bodily harm can't shoot someone for trespassing. You probably can get away with pointing a gun at them as we seen with this case can be charged. If your well connected have deep pockets nothing will happen, but working class guy could end differently. Different in every state why good idea to know your laws, and always take the most Conservative route. If you see someone breaking into a parked car call the police don't go running out there with your AR-15 any number of bad outcomes could end up from that.
No one was shot. The couple was merely ready to protect themselves by using deadly force, if necessary. If the criminal mob was uncomfortable with encountering prepared homeowners, they shouldn't have committed criminal trespass.
No one was shot. The couple was merely ready to protect themselves by using deadly force, if necessary. If the criminal mob was uncomfortable with encountering prepared homeowners, they shouldn't have committed criminal trespass.
You keep saying that but they were charged with a crime because they are wealthy and can afford a defense the Governor has said he will pardon them nothing will become of it other then used for political propose.
If your like lot of people who make less then 50k a year can't afford 1000's of dollars in legal fees have no connection to the Governor for a pardon doing what they did is not a good idea.
It's a better idea to just leave the gun in a holster, or sling rifle over the back in front then you won't be charged with any crime spend 1000's on legal fees fighting in court.
You keep saying that but they were charged with a crime because they are wealthy and can afford a defense the Governor has said he will pardon them nothing will become of it other then used for political propose.
If your like lot of people who make less then 50k a year can't afford 1000's of dollars in legal fees have no connection to the Governor for a pardon doing what they did is not a good idea.
It's a better idea to just leave the gun in a holster, or sling rifle over the back in front then you won't be charged with any crime spend 1000's on legal fees fighting in court.
"Brandishing" is illegal in MO. Period.
Was it justified due to a reasonable threat? Maybe. Is it null because the pistol was inoperable? Maybe.
Was it justified due to a reasonable threat? Maybe. Is it null because the pistol was inoperable? Maybe.
That's why there is a legal system.
Speaking of our legal system:
Over 65 Prosecutor Leaders Rally in Support of Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner and Use of Prosecutorial Discretion
Statement calls out personal attacks and attempts by federal and Missouri state officials to inappropriately influence decisions in local criminal case
Quote:
... These attacks stem from the charges filed against the McCloskeys on July 20, after a thorough investigation by local police. The defendants were each charged with one felony count of unlawful use of a weapon. Consistent with CA Gardner’s policy of reducing incarceration for low-level offenses, they were issued summonses and offered the opportunity to complete a diversion program which would have enabled the charges to be dismissed; that offer was refused. ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
