Posted on 09/12/2020 9:52:09 PM PDT by lowbridge
Fox News reports nine of the roughly 300 BLM activists who were captured on video protesting on a St. Louis couple’s property have been cited for trespassing. One of them tweeted her bemusement at being held accountable.
Ohun Ashe
@Ohun_Ashe
I was just sent a summons to appear in court for “trespassing on private property” on Portland Pl aka the street Patricia and Mark McCloskey live on. I had a gun waved in my face by them but trespassing is what matters?
Ashe should look up Missouri’s castle law. It’s broad for property owners who feel threatened by anyone who is not legally on their property. None of the 300 or so protesters had the right to be on the McCloskeys’ property that day. They didn’t have the right to break the security gate leading into the neighborhood.
People do have the right, enshrined in the Second Amendment, to own firearms, and Missouri’s law recognizes the natural right of self-defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Yeah.... you dummy. People tend to get a bit nervous when you come crashing through their gate in a highly threatening manner. Man.... these people are stupid.
Tha’s no way to talk to a bootiful Af’can P’incess.
Misourri has both castle doctrine type law and stand your ground type law, plus reaffirmation of guarantee of 2a rights in the state constitution.
I was just sent a summons to appear in court for “trespassing on private property” on Portland Pl aka the street Patricia and Mark McCloskey live on. I had a gun waved in my face by them but trespassing is what matters?
Good thing it wasn’t my place cause she be gin jiggy wif it.
“They didn’t have the right to break the security gate leading into the neighborhood.”
At that point, they went from being protesters to being rioters.
Words matter.
Ohun Ashe, when sentenced for various crimes, will be changing her name to “ Oh my ass”, and that will be in a women’s prison. Her nickname will be “Sweet cheeks”.
Don’t think she’ll such a “smart ass” in the future.
I am getting tired of these thugs having a voice on social media after they blatantly break the law. We are a nation gone asunder.
Through the cloud of rhetoric, most of you can see that a mob threatening and terrifying otherwise peaceful residents is a bad thing, especially on private property legally occupied by those residents. The McCloskeys probably could have handled the situation better, but I don’t blame them.
Self Defense Law in Missouri
Missouri expanded its so-called “stand your ground” law to include anywhere a person has the legal right to be. In other words, you do not have a duty to retreat from conflict even if you are outside your home or car. However, this does not mean self-defense is always an appropriate defense to homicide. You still cannot be the “initiator” of conflict, for example. But do these qualifiers also apply to Missouri’s castle doctrine?
Missouri’s Castle Doctrine
Just because Missouri has enacted a castle doctrine does not necessarily mean that a homeowner is justified in using deadly force against trespassers in all cases. Section 563.041 says that the use of deadly force is lawful when protecting against a reasonable fear of property damage or tampering “only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.”
This refers to section 563.031.2, which states: “A person shall not use deadly force upon another person . . . unless such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person.”
That would appear to say homeowners can use deadly force against any trespassers.
First off, the McCloskey’s did not use deadly force. But, it seems pretty clear that ONE of the justified uses is if the trespasser is INSIDE a place - and I'm not positive but a “residence” means a home.
10pm at night and a stranger is standing at the foot of your bed is a lot different than one standing or walking on your lawn.
I have no idea why it would be unlawful to have a gun visible as you warn people that are on private property to not come any closer and to “leave us alone”. Pointing guns at people without being ready to shoot them is lousy etiquette and poor safety measures though.
I'd sentence them to a few days of a refresher course on gun laws, safety, and then toss in some free range time.
Once again, the attackers are treated with kid gloves and the victims (defenders) are charged with a felony and must spend millions to defend themselves from a criminal government.
JoMa
The McCloskeys probably could have handled the situation betterThat's a mindless comment from someone not in the "situation".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.