Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-18-2020, 08:08 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,919,895 times
Reputation: 3461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
The person I was quoting alleged that one of the protesters had a gun and linked a picture. The object in question in that picture IN NO WAY appears to be a firearm.
Ohhh ... I thought the weapon Patricia McCloskey was exhibiting in an angry threatening manner was being discussed.

Is the other person under investigation? Or charged?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-18-2020, 08:09 AM
 
10,706 posts, read 5,651,721 times
Reputation: 10844
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Based on what evidence? The parcel boundary lines seem to have never changed.

Current Parcel Map - stlouis-mo.gov
That map shows that the parcel on which the McCloskey house sits actually extends to include the portion of Portland Place road directly in front of the house. If this is accurate, and the McCloskey’s actually own the entire parcel on which their home sits, it would appear to clarify that the mob was indeed trespassing directly on the McCloskey property, and not just on communally owned property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2020, 08:12 AM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,353 posts, read 16,368,692 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
I just realized I should clarify my response here.

If the armed husband & wife are charged under this statute:

https://law.justia.com/codes/missour...710000030.html

It's the unlawful use of weapons charge, not whether it's private property, or self-defense.

2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.



In other words, it doesn't matter where they are, public or private property, all that is under consideration is whether or not one has ...

"Exhibited, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner."


Nope, read further down the statute - there is a self-defense exemption. The question is whether self-defense can be applied in this case and, if so, was the fear "reasonable".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2020, 08:13 AM
 
10,706 posts, read 5,651,721 times
Reputation: 10844
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
I just realized I should clarify my response here.

If the armed husband & wife are charged under this statute:

https://law.justia.com/codes/missour...710000030.html

It's the unlawful use of weapons charge, not whether it's private property, or self-defense.

2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.



In other words, it doesn't matter where they are, public or private property, all that is under consideration is whether or not one has ...

"Exhibited, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner."
That wouldn’t be all that that will be under consideration. It will need to be determined if one of the exceptions applies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2020, 08:13 AM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,353 posts, read 16,368,692 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Ohhh ... I thought the weapon Patricia McCloskey was exhibiting in an angry threatening manner was being discussed.

Is the other person under investigation? Or charged?
Not that I'm aware of. Probably because it's not a gun being pointed at the McCloskeys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2020, 08:16 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,780,079 times
Reputation: 13681
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
That map shows that the parcel on which the McCloskey house sits actually extends to include the portion of Portland Place road directly in front of the house. If this is accurate, and the McCloskey’s actually own the entire parcel on which their home sits, it would appear to clarify that the mob was indeed trespassing directly on the McCloskey property, and not just on communally owned property.
Correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2020, 08:19 AM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,353 posts, read 16,368,692 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
That map shows that the parcel on which the McCloskey house sits actually extends to include the portion of Portland Place road directly in front of the house. If this is accurate, and the McCloskey’s actually own the entire parcel on which their home sits, it would appear to clarify that the mob was indeed trespassing directly on the McCloskey property, and not just on communally owned property.
The plot map on my parent's lakefront parcel shows their lot lines as a pie shaped wedge that goes all the way to the center of the lake - you figure they can charge trespassing for people boating/swimming across "their" section of the lake?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2020, 08:21 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,919,895 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
Nope, read further down the statute - there is a self-defense exemption. The question is whether self-defense can be applied in this case and, if so, was the fear "reasonable".
You are right, I missed that exception. Although it still doesn't matter where the armed encounter takes place, or who owns the property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2020, 08:23 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,919,895 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
The plot map on my parent's lakefront parcel shows their lot lines as a pie shaped wedge that goes all the way to the center of the lake - you figure they can charge trespassing for people boating/swimming across "their" section of the lake?
Property laws are interesting. How far down do you suppose one owns the Earth upon which your property is situated?

(I always think about the 'Beverly Hillbillies' to remind me )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2020, 08:28 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,780,079 times
Reputation: 13681
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
The plot map on my parent's lakefront parcel shows their lot lines as a pie shaped wedge that goes all the way to the center of the lake - you figure they can charge trespassing for people boating/swimming across "their" section of the lake?
No, because Federal Law states that navigable waterways are public use. What the situation you described is most often used for is so that the property owner can build a private pier that extends into the navigable waterway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:08 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top