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.
Further your blabbering about "circumstantial evidence" is irrelevant. Quoting your entire post, bolding the last sentence and still replying with:
That's exactly what many of us have been saying from the beginning.
There is also a question about whether they can claim self-defense if they were the initial aggressors. The MO statute has language around that, as well.
Does not substantively change the exchange in any way. Now, quit bellyaching about how I quoted your post and respond to the content of reply.
There is no evidence that the gate was damaged in any way in order for them to gain entry to the neighborhood or before the confrontation with the McCloskeys. There is evidence that the gate was apparently undamaged as they were coming through.
That they were trespassing is not being argued.
You can legally shoot trespassers if you fear for your life.
Further your blabbering about "circumstantial evidence" is irrelevant. Quoting your entire post, bolding the last sentence and still replying with:
That's exactly what many of us have been saying from the beginning.
There is also a question about whether they can claim self-defense if they were the initial aggressors. The MO statute has language around that, as well.
Does not substantively change the exchange in any way. Now, quit bellyaching about how I quoted your post and respond to the content of reply.
The McCloskeys are not above the law.
They called 911, LE arrived & made a report, an investigation was launched, their weapons were confiscated, they were charged.
I believe they were also offered the opportunity to have the charges dismissed; they refused.
Sometimes it sounds like they want 'their day in court'; other times it sounds like they consider themselves 'above the law'.
Agree with what you've said about the MO statute.
Quote:
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.
The MO statute has language specifying 'imminent use of unlawful force'.
Granted, the burden is on the state to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt ...'.
Further your blabbering about "circumstantial evidence" is irrelevant. Quoting your entire post, bolding the last sentence and still replying with:
That's exactly what many of us have been saying from the beginning.
There is also a question about whether they can claim self-defense if they were the initial aggressors. The MO statute has language around that, as well.
Does not substantively change the exchange in any way. Now, quit bellyaching about how I quoted your post and respond to the content of reply.
" if they were the initial aggressors."
For the thousandth time, when they entered PRIVATE property, which the ENTIRE neighborhood is, THEY ARE the aggressors.
For the thousandth time, when they entered PRIVATE property, which the ENTIRE neighborhood is, THEY ARE the aggressors.
Nope. The McCloskey's do not appear to control the road. Still have not seen any write up that got fully into its ownership and control. So the right of the McCloskey's to claim ownership has clearly been turned down by the DA with the filing of charges. So the experts say the McCloskeys did not have a right to point arms at the protesters.
I would also point out that no protesters have been charged with trespass. So the experts apparently do not agree that it was trespass.
Nope. The McCloskey's do not appear to control the road. Still have not seen any write up that got fully into its ownership and control. So the right of the McCloskey's to claim ownership has clearly been turned down by the DA with the filing of charges. So the experts say the McCloskeys did not have a right to point arms at the protesters.
I would also point out that no protesters have been charged with trespass. So the experts apparently do not agree that it was trespass.
Ownership of the road, beyond the fact that it is private, is not at issue.
The “experts” aren’t “agreeing” to anything that you’re claiming. Charges being filed against the McCloskeys (and not against the trespassers) in this situation is nothing more than political.
It has been clearly established that the mob was trespassing. There is no question about it, given Missouri’s trespass law. That you continue to claim otherwise is baffling, and nonsensical.
Ownership of the road, beyond the fact that it is private, is not at issue.
The “experts” aren’t “agreeing” to anything that you’re claiming. Charges being filed against the McCloskeys (and not against the trespassers) in this situation is nothing more than political.
It has been clearly established that the mob was trespassing. There is no question about it, given Missouri’s trespass law. That you continue to claim otherwise is baffling, and nonsensical.
Private does not mean trespassing on the McCloskeys. I know of no finding they have any control over the road. In fact the wife was removed from the controlling body a ways back.
And the presence of the protesters on the road is well evident in the various videos. So it is clear the authorities know they were there but have not found it to be criminal. I know you are not into facts but they have been made clear in this case. So back into the tax codes. Maybe you have some skill there.
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.