MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jul 2, 2020 6:18:25 GMT -8
People who are very afraid don't make good decisions. I agree 100%. That truth also makes up a large part of the Democratic strategy for winning the November election. |
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Jul 2, 2020 7:03:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jul 2, 2020 8:00:55 GMT -8
Bick, the multilple quotes in posts are making it very hard to respond but here goes... I understand that you don't care what the media thinks but I was speaking about the couple in St' Louis who may not share your indifference. Would you be so cavalier about a police investigation if it found you committed a crime? The couple in St. Louis are personal injury lawyers, and this publicity has not helped their business. From NPR: Today, a spokesperson for the Missouri Bar Association said it received dozens of calls for the McCloskey’s licenses to be revoked. People also took to Facebook and posted thousands of negative comments on the couple’s law firm’s page. news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-louis-couple-points-guns-protesters-was-it-legal#stream/0Erring on the side of caution is good. This couple erred on the side of overreacting. They pointed loaded guns at people who were walking past their house because they were very afraid. People who are very afraid don't make good decisions. Interestingly the article also mentions the "private street" where these people live. As to your picture the answer is I don't know because I don't know what threat the gentlemen with rifles perceived, but according to the news the looting in Minneapolis was a lot worse than in St. Louis. You're trying to compare violence with non-violence and the reactions to it shouldn't be the same, nor does the law treat them the same. You're missing a huge point VP: that mob broke into their property. According to Black's Law Dictionary, a trespasser is "One who has committed trespass; one who unlawfully enters or intrudes upon another’s land, or unlawfully and forcibly takes another’s personal property." Clearly the mob entered their property without their permission as evidenced by pictures of the broken gate. Given the current climate, do you think its unusual that people would call the ABA or leave negative comments on the couple's firm's page? It takes a lot more than this to get someone punished or disbarred, trust me. I'm not missing the point because it didn't happen. The protesters walked through the gate they did not break it down. I've seen video of the protesters peacefully walking through the gate, there's no evidence of who broke the gate or when the gate was broken but it was intact when the protesters arrived. The 'private' street that they mention isn't private at all. It's not even clear from the videos we've seen that any of the protesters walked on these people's property in the least. When asked in interviews the couple cannot name any damage that they might have incurred, See the intact gate here: On the notion they lived on a "private" street: Banks, also a former St. Louis city counselor, said residents cannot control which people enter the neighborhood, despite erecting gates and hiring private security.
“That is a myth that private street residents frequently want to put forth,” he said. “But you cannot act with impunity, come out of your house with an automatic weapon and point it in the direction of the people coming down the street. It’s just beyond the pale.”news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-louis-couple-points-guns-protesters-was-it-legal#stream/0 |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jul 2, 2020 8:08:07 GMT -8
The whole passage from your article: Law professors differed over whether the McCloskeys were protected by Missouri’s castle doctrine.
Anders Walker, a professor at the St. Louis University School of Law, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the castle doctrine in the state allows the couple to defend their property on a private street.
“At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn,” Walker said. He described the castle doctrine as a “force field” that “indemnifies you, and you can even pull the trigger in Missouri.”
But Corey Rayburn Yung, a professor at the University of Kansas School of Law, said the castle doctrine in Missouri is expansive, but it doesn’t allow the use of deadly force in this situation, according to LawandCrime.com. He made his comments in a series of tweets.
“Whereas the large majority of jurisdictions limit the castle doctrine to the boundaries of the house, MO’s is more expansive,” Yung tweeted. “Some commenters are reading the statute to mean that you could lawfully shoot someone who stepped onto your lawn. Despite the availability of signs saying, ‘Trespassers will be shot,’ mere trespass has not historically been a basis for using deadly force. So, does MO’s statute represent a new trend, allowing expansive use of deadly force to protect private property? No.”
Yung said homeowners can use deadly force to repel an unlawful entry only if they reasonably think such force is needed to defend themselves from the imminent use of unlawful force.
The Missouri Bar Association has received dozens of calls from people who want the McCloskeys’ law licenses revoked, a spokesperson told St. Louis Public Radio.See, the whole passage doesn't support your view it supports mine. The couple overreacted and had no just cause to be pointing loaded weapons at anyone. |
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Jul 2, 2020 8:12:17 GMT -8
I’m confused... one professor says something so it automatically refuted the other?
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jul 2, 2020 8:17:49 GMT -8
Bick, the multilple quotes in posts are making it very hard to respond but here goes... I understand that you don't care what the media thinks but I was speaking about the couple in St' Louis who may not share your indifference. Would you be so cavalier about a police investigation if it found you committed a crime? The couple in St. Louis are personal injury lawyers, and this publicity has not helped their business. From NPR: Today, a spokesperson for the Missouri Bar Association said it received dozens of calls for the McCloskey’s licenses to be revoked. People also took to Facebook and posted thousands of negative comments on the couple’s law firm’s page. news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-louis-couple-points-guns-protesters-was-it-legal#stream/0Erring on the side of caution is good. This couple erred on the side of overreacting. They pointed loaded guns at people who were walking past their house because they were very afraid. People who are very afraid don't make good decisions. Interestingly the article also mentions the "private street" where these people live. As to your picture the answer is I don't know because I don't know what threat the gentlemen with rifles perceived, but according to the news the looting in Minneapolis was a lot worse than in St. Louis. You're trying to compare violence with non-violence and the reactions to it shouldn't be the same, nor does the law treat them the same. The reason behind me asking you if you were a homeowner was to ascertain if you can truly relate to the concern one has in protecting his property and family. While I may come off cavalier, my feelings, and I believe those of other homeowners and family leaders, are grounded in Maslow's hierarchy of needs - safety being just above physiological. Under normal circumstances, a mob breaking into a gated community would be viewed as be dangerous. Today, the surprise would be if they DIDN'T cause any damage. We'll agree to disagree that was an overreaction under those circumstances they were faced with. Using similar counterfactual arguments presented by the governors shutting down the states as being necessary life-saving mandates, you could argue the armed couple being in front of their home was a successful deterrent to having their property damaged. The woke virtual mob can be just as damaging as the actual physical one, so what they're doing to that family is not at all surprising. |
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Jul 2, 2020 8:24:11 GMT -8
A defendant must prove the existence of four prerequisites in order for him to have been entitled to use force in self-defense. State v. Chambers, 671 S.W.2d 781, 783 (Mo. banc 1984); State v. Habermann, 93 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). Specifically, a defendant must present substantial evidence that, (1) he did not provoke or was not the aggressor; (2) he had reasonable grounds for believing he was faced with immediate danger of serious bodily harm; (3) he did not use more force than was reasonably necessary; and (4) he did everything in his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger. Habermann, 93 S.W.3d at 837; Seals, 487 S.W.3d at 23–24.
The use of deadly force9 is justified only when the defender reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to protect himself or another from immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm. State v. Crudup, 415 S.W.3d 170, 175–76 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). A reasonable belief is “a belief based on reasonable grounds, that is, grounds that could lead a reasonable person in the same situation to the same belief.” State v. Smith, 456 S.W.3d 849, 852 (Mo. banc 2015) (quoting MAI-CR 3d 306.06A[6] (effective January 1, 2009)).
State v. Whipple, 501 S.W.3d 507, 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)
Posting from my phone so excuse the formatting issues. The reply function in mobile mode is garbage.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jul 2, 2020 10:34:59 GMT -8
Bick, the multilple quotes in posts are making it very hard to respond but here goes... I understand that you don't care what the media thinks but I was speaking about the couple in St' Louis who may not share your indifference. Would you be so cavalier about a police investigation if it found you committed a crime? The couple in St. Louis are personal injury lawyers, and this publicity has not helped their business. From NPR: Today, a spokesperson for the Missouri Bar Association said it received dozens of calls for the McCloskey’s licenses to be revoked. People also took to Facebook and posted thousands of negative comments on the couple’s law firm’s page. news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-louis-couple-points-guns-protesters-was-it-legal#stream/0Erring on the side of caution is good. This couple erred on the side of overreacting. They pointed loaded guns at people who were walking past their house because they were very afraid. People who are very afraid don't make good decisions. Interestingly the article also mentions the "private street" where these people live. As to your picture the answer is I don't know because I don't know what threat the gentlemen with rifles perceived, but according to the news the looting in Minneapolis was a lot worse than in St. Louis. You're trying to compare violence with non-violence and the reactions to it shouldn't be the same, nor does the law treat them the same. The reason behind me asking you if you were a homeowner was to ascertain if you can truly relate to the concern one has in protecting his property and family. While I may come off cavalier, my feelings, and I believe those of other homeowners and family leaders, are grounded in Maslow's hierarchy of needs - safety being just above physiological. Under normal circumstances, a mob breaking into a gated community would be viewed as be dangerous. Today, the surprise would be if they DIDN'T cause any damage. We'll agree to disagree that was an overreaction under those circumstances they were faced with. Using similar counterfactual arguments presented by the governors shutting down the states as being necessary life-saving mandates, you could argue the armed couple being in front of their home was a successful deterrent to having their property damaged. The woke virtual mob can be just as damaging as the actual physical one, so what they're doing to that family is not at all surprising. We can disagree over whether or not this couple overreacted but what about all their neighbors who calmly remained in their homes and suffered no outrages at all from this alleged "angry mob' of "terrorists". Those are quotes from Mr. McCloskey btw. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jul 2, 2020 10:38:52 GMT -8
A defendant must prove the existence of four prerequisites in order for him to have been entitled to use force in self-defense. State v. Chambers, 671 S.W.2d 781, 783 (Mo. banc 1984); State v. Habermann, 93 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). Specifically, a defendant must present substantial evidence that, (1) he did not provoke or was not the aggressor; (2) he had reasonable grounds for believing he was faced with immediate danger of serious bodily harm; (3) he did not use more force than was reasonably necessary; and (4) he did everything in his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger. Habermann, 93 S.W.3d at 837; Seals, 487 S.W.3d at 23–24. The use of deadly force9 is justified only when the defender reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to protect himself or another from immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm. State v. Crudup, 415 S.W.3d 170, 175–76 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). A reasonable belief is “a belief based on reasonable grounds, that is, grounds that could lead a reasonable person in the same situation to the same belief.” State v. Smith, 456 S.W.3d 849, 852 (Mo. banc 2015) (quoting MAI-CR 3d 306.06A[6] (effective January 1, 2009)). State v. Whipple, 501 S.W.3d 507, 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) Posting from my phone so excuse the formatting issues. The reply function in mobile mode is garbage. Thanks for the info, Frog. Just for the sake of argument I'd say that the couple will have trouble proving #2, #3, and they certainly failed on #4. Also none of these points mention property at all, it's all about personal safety. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jul 2, 2020 10:39:56 GMT -8
I’m confused... one professor says something so it automatically refuted the other? No, but when you only quote one professor you give the mistaken impression there's only one opinion on the matter. |
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Jul 2, 2020 10:42:30 GMT -8
I’m confused... one professor says something so it automatically refuted the other? No, but when you only quote one professor you give the mistaken impression there's only one opinion on the matter. You as well. We quote facts and opinions that are favorable to our positions. If I were representing a client, I don’t think citing an opposing case would be favorable to my client. Actually, it’s malpractice... |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jul 2, 2020 10:48:40 GMT -8
No, but when you only quote one professor you give the mistaken impression there's only one opinion on the matter. You as well. We quote facts and opinions that are favorable to our positions. If I were representing a client, I don’t think citing an opposing case would be favorable to my client. Actually, it’s malpractice... I didn't realize I was dealing with an attorney...well played. Given what you know about the couple in St. Louis, what do you think of their legal position? |
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Jul 2, 2020 10:59:20 GMT -8
I’ll try and do a more thoughtful analysis when i have access to my computer, but a cursory opinion is that he has a defense.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Jul 2, 2020 12:14:10 GMT -8
With all due respect, I'm afraid you guys are playing the VP shell game of getting dragged into the tarpit of splitting hairs on his terms.
Here's the bottom line question behind why I created the post in the first place--and which he studiously refuses to acknowledge in the affirmative: Do you have a natural/legal/moral right to take up arms to defend your life and your property?
If you cannot answer "yes," there lies the road to mob rule and tyranny that betrays a fundamental rejection of one of the core principles at the founding of the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jul 2, 2020 12:53:34 GMT -8
With all due respect, I'm afraid you guys are playing the VP shell game of getting dragged into the tarpit of splitting hairs on his terms. Here's the bottom line question behind why I created the post in the first place--and which he studiously refuses to acknowledge in the affirmative: Do you have a natural/legal/moral right to take up arms to defend your life and your property?If you cannot answer "yes," there lies the road to mob rule and tyranny that betrays a fundamental rejection of one of the core principles at the founding of the United States. With all due respect, your assumptions about me are stupid, as are your comments about shell games, tar pits, and splitting hairs. Join the discussion or not, but please don't sit on the sidelines and complain. The answer to your somewhat pointless question is...obviously we have legal rights to defend ourselves and our property but these laws are not simple or absolute. And of course that's what we're discussing...whether or not this couple followed the law when they went outside their home and threatened the protesters with guns. I assume that "law and order" is the "core principle" you mentioned? Lastly, you really should stop talking about "tyranny and mob rule" as if they're somehow the same thing. Both are unpleasant but you're unlikely to ever have both at the same time. |
|
