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.
Under Section 571.030(4) of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, it is a crime when a person “[e]xhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.” Such a person “commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons,” which is defined as a class E felony. Such felonies carry up to four years in prison, one year in jail, and/or a $10,000 fine–but are subject to probation.
The McCloskeys, their defense attorneys, & the prosecution are all aware of previous case law analogous to the current case.
State v. Lutjen was decided by the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District & has been relied upon by the Missouri Supreme Court:
Quote:
... “To hold that it is incumbent upon the state to prove affirmatively that a pistol…which is exhibited in a rude, angry, and threatening manner, is loaded, as a condition precedent to a conviction, would be practically to render the statute unenforceable. This is not only the view which this court has already taken [citations], but it is the view held in all other jurisdictions…”
The [Missouri Jury Instructions and Charges] definition of readily capable of lethal use to mean readily capable of causing death does not impede our conclusion that a loaded gun need not be proven. Common equivalents of the word readily are easily or speedily. A gun is easily transformed into a lethal weapon by the insertion of bullets. The statute does not contemplate that the gun be already lethal [loaded], but only that the weapon can readily become lethal [by loading].
The state does not have to prove that a weapon was operable during a criminal incident in order to satisfy the “readily capable of lethal use” language in the statute.
Brandishing weapons in an angry threatening manner could have reasonably put the protesters in fear for their safety ~ how were they to know that one of the weapons brandished was inoperable at the time.
The state does not have to prove that a weapon was operable during a criminal incident in order to satisfy the “readily capable of lethal use” language in the statute.
Brandishing weapons in an angry threatening manner could have reasonably put the protesters in fear for their safety ~ how were they to know that one of the weapons brandished was inoperable at the time.
They weren't protestors. They were criminal trespassers, the aggressors in this incident. The couple was legally engaging in self-defense of their lives and property as MO law clearly permits.
Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner's statement said she’s willing to recommend the couple participate in a diversion program designed to reduce unnecessary involvement with the Courts; she said this would be a fair resolution to this matter.
They probably had it working and then disassembled it before it was taken, for their case. They knew what was going to happen.
Maybe, but then that is for the prosecution to prove. As it is the gun wasn't functional when it was taken into police custody. Meaning it was no more dangerous than a replica. So can you be charged anyway? Because the protestors didn't know that the gun wasn't functional so it had the same effect. Oh but wait, does that mean that the 2 gun owners were also justified in feeling threatened? I mean violence and mayhem do seem to follow those BLM protests on a fairly regular basis. Yeah if I was on the jury I would have to say NOT GUILTY.
The state does not have to prove that a weapon was operable during a criminal incident in order to satisfy the “readily capable of lethal use” language in the statute.
Brandishing weapons in an angry threatening manner could have reasonably put the protesters in fear for their safety ~ how were they to know that one of the weapons brandished was inoperable at the time.
"Fear" doesn't matter. It's not an "assault" statute. Being operable and being loaded are two different things, as your own case points out. We know for a fact that the gun wasn't operable. There is no crime.
Maybe, but then that is for the prosecution to prove. As it is the gun wasn't functional when it was taken into police custody. Meaning it was no more dangerous than a replica. So can you be charged anyway? Because the protestors didn't know that the gun wasn't functional so it had the same effect. Oh but wait, does that mean that the 2 gun owners were also justified in feeling threatened? I mean violence and mayhem do seem to follow those BLM protests on a fairly regular basis. Yeah if I was on the jury I would have to say NOT GUILTY.
"Our law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property." [Katko v. Briney 183 N.W.2d 657]
Good. It's about time. It was a bogus charge to begin with.
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.
Yeah if I was on the jury I would have to say NOT GUILTY.
