Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Trump retweets video of armed couple menacing protesters

Page 8 of 9 [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

19 Jul 2020, 10:13 pm

cyberdad wrote:
So yet another legal investigation. This time if you can threaten trespassers on your place of residence with loaded semi-automatic weapons?

A few things to consider
- do they legally own the land they renovated the house on?
- does the status of the property mean that protestors arriving on the lawn constitutes trespass?
- If the first two points are valid then does threatening people with loaded weapons a criminal act?

Is this one of the states that practices a "stand your ground law"?


In the belief that the multiple reports of it being "their house" and they had been renovating it for many years, I would believe they likely do legally own it (I also seem to recall an earlier article which mentioned they had purchased the property 20+ years ago).

Quote:
Missouri Castle Doctrine

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.

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-self-defense-laws.html

Whether the "home" includes surrounds (front garden\lawn), I don't know, but from what was shown no "force" was used - merely the demonstration\warning that should the unruly mob proceed further, then it would be an option\possibility.

Cases with a single intruder would also be treated differently to one with a large number, so in this case, "deadly force" would likely be perceived as a reasonable option (one intruder is easier to "subdue"\elude without use of force than a mob would be).



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

20 Jul 2020, 2:12 am

Brictoria wrote:
Whether the "home" includes surrounds (front garden\lawn), I don't know, but from what was shown no "force" was used - merely the demonstration\warning that should the unruly mob proceed further, then it would be an option\possibility.
.


There are two articles I saw (but can't remember where I located them).

First said the video of the protesters shows they did not break the gate which the couple claim was the pretext for them arming themselves. There is some confusion how the gate was broken but the video at the time their weapons were drawn shows the gates unbroken and open. There is even an accusation the man may have vandalised the gate after his bad publicity to make the protestors look violent.

There is some doubt over their actual ownership of the land the protestors were standing on. If infact its public land then the reasons the couple used for drawing weapons may be flimsy.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

20 Jul 2020, 3:07 am

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Whether the "home" includes surrounds (front garden\lawn), I don't know, but from what was shown no "force" was used - merely the demonstration\warning that should the unruly mob proceed further, then it would be an option\possibility.
.


There are two articles I saw (but can't remember where I located them).

First said the video of the protesters shows they did not break the gate which the couple claim was the pretext for them arming themselves. There is some confusion how the gate was broken but the video at the time their weapons were drawn shows the gates unbroken and open. There is even an accusation the man may have vandalised the gate after his bad publicity to make the protestors look violent.

There is some doubt over their actual ownership of the land the protestors were standing on. If infact its public land then the reasons the couple used for drawing weapons may be flimsy.


Looking at this image, the person in the White top facing the protesters (waving them back?) could be considered to be on their propety, whilst the bearded male on the left would certainly appear to be part-way up their path. (this is later in the encounter, so people have likely moved back from their previous positions).

Image

Also, according to the following, it sounds like even on the private street, the mob were still "trespassing", and the lawyers would still have been acting legally.



As to the gate being broken: It's equally possible that the mob broke it down after the filmed section or when leaving...Not sure why you are so eager to see the house owners as being in the wrong.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

20 Jul 2020, 5:54 am

Brictoria wrote:
Not sure why you are so eager to see the house owners as being in the wrong.


I am eager to see how the law is interpreted.

Yes I do have an inclination to think drawing loaded guns is a tad barbaric but this is America after all where "jingoism" makes one feel entitled to own and use guns.

If a couple of mormons walked on my driveway despite telling them to go away 100 times before would I be entitled to take a gun and threaten them??



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

20 Jul 2020, 7:40 am

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Not sure why you are so eager to see the house owners as being in the wrong.


I am eager to see how the law is interpreted.

Yes I do have an inclination to think drawing loaded guns is a tad barbaric but this is America after all where "jingoism" makes one feel entitled to own and use guns.

If a couple of mormons walked on my driveway despite telling them to go away 100 times before would I be entitled to take a gun and threaten them??


There's a considerable difference between a "couple of Mormons" and the mob the couple were facing. I do wonder what sort of person would consider the mob from the video and a "couple of Mormons" of "equal status" with regards to that sort of comparisson...



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,471
Location: Aux Arcs

20 Jul 2020, 8:16 am

They just keep getting more awful.
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/1 ... ic-a-holes


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

20 Jul 2020, 9:50 pm

Well the wheels of justice rolling now

The couple have been charged and are expecting to be indicted
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-21/ ... s/12476102



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

20 Jul 2020, 9:54 pm

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Not sure why you are so eager to see the house owners as being in the wrong.


I am eager to see how the law is interpreted.

Yes I do have an inclination to think drawing loaded guns is a tad barbaric but this is America after all where "jingoism" makes one feel entitled to own and use guns.

If a couple of mormons walked on my driveway despite telling them to go away 100 times before would I be entitled to take a gun and threaten them??


There's a considerable difference between a "couple of Mormons" and the mob the couple were facing. I do wonder what sort of person would consider the mob from the video and a "couple of Mormons" of "equal status" with regards to that sort of comparisson...


It's more the principle. I get hassled by Mormons all the time despite my telling them to not come back. I was posing the question if after the 100th incident would I be entitled under US law pertaining to trespass to draw a weapon and warn them that have ignored my earlier requests to not come on my property?



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

20 Jul 2020, 10:44 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Not sure why you are so eager to see the house owners as being in the wrong.


I am eager to see how the law is interpreted.

Yes I do have an inclination to think drawing loaded guns is a tad barbaric but this is America after all where "jingoism" makes one feel entitled to own and use guns.

If a couple of mormons walked on my driveway despite telling them to go away 100 times before would I be entitled to take a gun and threaten them??


There's a considerable difference between a "couple of Mormons" and the mob the couple were facing. I do wonder what sort of person would consider the mob from the video and a "couple of Mormons" of "equal status" with regards to that sort of comparisson...


It's more the principle. I get hassled by Mormons all the time despite my telling them to not come back. I was posing the question if after the 100th incident would I be entitled under US law pertaining to trespass to draw a weapon and warn them that have ignored my earlier requests to not come on my property?


I doubt you could in that case: There is no potential threat being presented by a couple of Mormons, as opposed to the mob the couple were facing. Similarly, I don't recall any incidents of Mormons rioting\looting\destroying property, whereas at the time of this incident there were numerous cases of similar "protests" doing so.

Additionally, can you confirm that it is the same Mormon members visiting each time? If they are different, then you would also lack standing to do so. (It's much simpler to place a sign near door indicating that you don't wish door-knockers for any reason, including religious).



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

20 Jul 2020, 10:49 pm

Brictoria wrote:
I doubt you could in that case: There is no potential threat being presented by a couple of Mormons, as opposed to the mob the couple were facing. Similarly, I don't recall any incidents of Mormons rioting\looting\destroying property, whereas at the time of this incident there were numerous cases of similar "protests" doing so.

Additionally, can you confirm that it is the same Mormon members visiting each time? If they are different, then you would also lack standing to do so. (It's much simpler to place a sign near door indicating that you don't wish door-knockers for any reason, including religious).


So the underlying difference here is the level of threat and not trespass. But the couple's claims that they were threatened by the protestors isn't supported by the video. The couple paint the protestors as an unruly mob throwing threats yet the couple seem to have come out guns blazing and drawn before coming in earshot of the group.

That seems to be the same thing if I came out of my house with an armed weapon before a group of people came to my house on the basis I did not know whom they were?

I'm guessing this is part of the reason why they are being charged....



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

20 Jul 2020, 11:24 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
I doubt you could in that case: There is no potential threat being presented by a couple of Mormons, as opposed to the mob the couple were facing. Similarly, I don't recall any incidents of Mormons rioting\looting\destroying property, whereas at the time of this incident there were numerous cases of similar "protests" doing so.

Additionally, can you confirm that it is the same Mormon members visiting each time? If they are different, then you would also lack standing to do so. (It's much simpler to place a sign near door indicating that you don't wish door-knockers for any reason, including religious).


So the underlying difference here is the level of threat and not trespass. But the couple's claims that they were threatened by the protestors isn't supported by the video. The couple paint the protestors as an unruly mob throwing threats yet the couple seem to have come out guns blazing and drawn before coming in earshot of the group.

That seems to be the same thing if I came out of my house with an armed weapon before a group of people came to my house on the basis I did not know whom they were?

I'm guessing this is part of the reason why they are being charged....


It's a combination: The trespassing (including method (breaking gate, passing "no tresspass signs)), coupled with the threat (or reasonably assumed threat) based on behaviour of similar mobs in the region around that time.

Whilst the protests may start as "peaceful", a large number (including in that area) had descended into rioting\looting\violence. This being the case, whether they had intended to remain peaceful, had the couple not warned them off, is not able to be ascertained, although their actions in entering an area signposted as not being public would rule against them being a "law abiding" protest, and so legitimately lead to the "peaceful" intentions being in question.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

20 Jul 2020, 11:49 pm

Karamazov wrote:
Steve1963 wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Laws are way different in the USA and people are allowed to shoot people who try to break into their homes.
Isn't being able to shoot people who are trying to break into your home a good thing though? When seconds count the police are just minutes away.

P.S. I do not own any guns.


Yeah, that does make Canadian law sound more restrictive to the owners of the property in question than even UK law.

(Over here, assuming you have a gun license & firearm, you have to make the criminal aware that you are armed and willing to fire if they don’t desist from their activity first.
If they continue to threaten your life/family then you can shoot and it’s no crime, if they flee the scene and you shoot after them you’re liable for prosecution for any bodily harm or death resulting)



In the state of Washington, if you shoot at someone and they were unarmed, you are in trouble with the law. It doesn't matter if they were in your house or on your property. I do find this troublesome because how do you know they won't hurt you because you caught them? I guess you are to stay hidden and call the police and let them rob your place. I wonder if pointing your firearm at them when you catch them would be legal even if you don't pull the trigger? At least they would flee the scene.

In 2004, some man in Missoula woke up and caught a teen trying to steel the stereo out of his car. He shouted at him and the kid fled. The man grab his gun and shot at him and got him in the back. He ended up going to prison. Because he was fleeing, the judge said he had no reason to shoot at him and his life was not threatened.

Here in the US, it's very easy to get fire arm. Anyone can just walk into the gun store and buy one when they are 18.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/gun-control-facts

And apparently you need a license to carry a concealed weapon.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

21 Jul 2020, 12:02 am

League_Girl wrote:
Here in the US, it's very easy to get fire arm. Anyone can just walk into the gun store and buy one when they are 18.


I'm not so sure that was the findings of a reporter testing the theory in August last year:
https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-gun-buying-review-virginia-store-2019-8?nojs=1&r=US&IR=T



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,657
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

04 Sep 2020, 9:11 pm

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Not sure why you are so eager to see the house owners as being in the wrong.


I am eager to see how the law is interpreted.

Yes I do have an inclination to think drawing loaded guns is a tad barbaric but this is America after all where "jingoism" makes one feel entitled to own and use guns.

If a couple of mormons walked on my driveway despite telling them to go away 100 times before would I be entitled to take a gun and threaten them??


There's a considerable difference between a "couple of Mormons" and the mob the couple were facing. I do wonder what sort of person would consider the mob from the video and a "couple of Mormons" of "equal status" with regards to that sort of comparisson...


Facing a mob? That twist makes it sound like those in the protest were confronting them. The real truth is that they were walking by the couple's house. The couple was never in any danger from the protesters and the protesters never entered the couple's property.

I hate protests with a passion -- from my point of view, there is little difference between a protest and a riot. But that couple had absolutely no legitimate excuse for the way they were threatening others.

If you stood in front of your house and threatened people and pointed handguns at people while yelling at them as they walked by, how long do you think it would take the police to show up and place you under arrest?

If the protesters were actually threatening the couple, the situation would be much different.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

11 Sep 2020, 9:33 pm

Quote:
O'FALLON, Mo. -- Nine protesters have been issued trespassing summonses for marching onto a private St. Louis street in June, a demonstration that prompted a couple to emerge from their home with guns to confront the demonstrators.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey were both charged in July with unlawful use of a weapon in a polarizing case that landed them a spot at the Republican National Convention last month. Police spokeswoman Evita Caldwell on Friday confirmed that nine protesters have been issued summonses but said the St. Louis City Counselor's office is still deciding whether to issue charges on the citations.

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/citations-people-demonstrated-mccloskey-home-72956509?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

11 Sep 2020, 10:07 pm

I wouldn't get too excited Bric...

It wasn't clear why just nine of the estimated 300 protesters were issued summonses. Police declined comment beyond a brief statement acknowledging the summonses. A phone message left with the city counselor's office was not immediately returned.

Police spokeswoman Evita Caldwell on Friday confirmed that nine protesters have been issued summonses but said the St. Louis City Counselor's office is still deciding whether to issue charges on the citations.