Florida173
SOF Support
Agreed, they had no duty to retreat. However, they were not in danger of great bodily harm at that time, and they came out of their home to engage these people.
How could you possibly know this?
Agreed, they had no duty to retreat. However, they were not in danger of great bodily harm at that time, and they came out of their home to engage these people.
I missed the memo that said tresspassing is a reasonable reason to fear for your life in the middle of an afternoon. Again, they left their house to engage these people....they were looking for trouble; of course they were charged.How could you possibly know this?
I missed the memo that said tresspassing is a reasonable reason to fear for your life in the middle of an afternoon.
Antagonizing vs defending, I get what you are saying. By all means arm up but you don't need to escalate a situation before anything happens directly to you.Agreed, they had no duty to retreat. However, they were not in danger of great bodily harm at that time, and they came out of their home to engage these people.
LOL. 100%You're kidding, right?
They live in a gated community. The streets and the gates are communal private property, owned by all of the homeowners in the community. Tearing down the gates to get on the private street is going through the outer defense perimeter of their property. At what point can they defend it?Had this group of protesters started banging on their windows or tried to enter their home, sure....engage.
and some kind of charges are warranted, perhaps only against the wife, for something assault-related. Given the circumstances, maybe all of it could be handled via community service.
Even if the gun had been previously rendered inoperable for previous court proceedings? Either way, charge her with a misdemeanor and let them get in with their lives.
Even if the gun had been previously rendered inoperable for previous court proceedings? Either way, charge her with a misdemeanor and let them get in with their lives.
If she'd been shot it would be self defense even though it was inop because they could claim "fear for their lives". How could anyone tell it didn't work? It is still a real firearm, just like one that jams is.Even if the gun had been previously rendered inoperable for previous court proceedings? Either way, charge her with a misdemeanor and let them get in with their lives.
I'm not sure that waving around an inoperable firearm is any different (legally) than waving around a working one.
Well plenty different legally. Difference between a felony and a misdemeanor. Doesn't matter really. Will probably get thrown out because of police mishandling, and if not, pardon by the governor as he's already suggested.
Missouri law requires the firearm to be functional. See the video that @Florida173 posted.For a number of states, the weapon being functional or not does not change the status of charged crime; robbery with a fake weapon can still carry the same punishment as robbery with a real one, for example.
I'm not sure if Missouri differentiates or not. Also, since the charge is assault(IIRC) the weapon's status may play more of a role than if it was a "menacing/threatening" charge.
Must have missed him posting the video; thanks for the clarification.Missouri law requires the firearm to be functional. See the video that @Florida173 posted.