- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Missouri State AG Schmitt requests McClosky charges be dropped.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:33 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:33 pm to AggieHank86
quote:When was deadly force used?
A mere trespass does NOT invoke the Castle Doctrine. It is invoked by "reasonable fear." A homeowner cannot use deadly force against just any trespass. ONLY if the trespass puts them in "reasonable fear."
quote:
Seriously, stop with the red herrings.
This post was edited on 7/22/20 at 12:34 pm
0
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:34 pm to ShortyRob
quote:No.
You just mixed questions. I'm no lawyer but I know when somebody is conflating. I can't use deadly force unless I have a reasonable fear of my life. So if he had started shooting them you would have a point
The Castle Doctrine is NOT limited to situations in which someone is shot, and "deadly force" is not so-limited either. In most cases, the definition INCLUDES threats of deadly force and actions which cause a reasonable belief that deadly force will be used. I am assuming that Missouri law is similar.
The McCloskeys are using the Castle Doctrine (which justifies "deadly force") as an affirmative defense in the face of the weapons charges which have been filed against them.
quote:Yes, you can.
But I can definitely pull out my gun and have it ready when they potential for a bad situation arises.
But AGAIN, the question comes back to "reasonable fear" and the fact that other evidence contradicts McCloskey's claims about the timeline with led to his purported "reasonable fear."
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:36 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:I have to assume that you just do not know much about criminal procedure.quote:No one believes you, because, you keep justifying the charges.
I have said REPEATEDLY that I don't think they should have been charged. Four times, I think.
EVERYTHING that I have written relates to the validity and credibility of the AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, not the underlying charges.
Those are two different animals.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:37 pm to ShortyRob
quote:No.quote:only needs 1
suspect that an urban St. Louis jury pool will not include a lot of folks who share your view of the world
On an affirmative defense under Missouri law, the burden of proof lies with the Defendant to ESTABLISH his defense, NOT upon the State to disprove it.
This DOES vary from State to State, so you may be thinking of another jurisdiction.
This post was edited on 7/22/20 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:38 pm to AggieHank86
Please explain your characterization of an AR-15 being an automatic weapon that you have referenced several times in this thread. This proves you don’t know shite and will gladly make false clams to support your narrative. You are scum. You are what is wrong with this country. Who gives a flying frick about truth and facts because “feelings”.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:38 pm to AggieHank86
The initial police summary:
The initial police assessment:
trespassing and assault by intimidation
quote:
Once through the gate, the victims advised the group that they were on a private street and trespassing and told them to leave. The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims. When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.
The initial police assessment:
trespassing and assault by intimidation
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:39 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I have to assume that you just do not know much about criminal procedure.
Sure. It's everyone else. quote:It's cute that you believe that.
EVERYTHING that I have written relates to the validity and credibility of the AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, not the underlying charges.
No one believes your schtick.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
But AGAIN, the question comes back to "reasonable fear" and the fact that other evidence contradicts McCloskey's claims about the timeline with led to his purported "reasonable fear."
You don’t need reasonable fear to have your weapon on your person with no threatening action.
Critical missing consideration in your authoritarian da fan fiction.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
But AGAIN, the question comes back to "reasonable fear" and the fact that other evidence contradicts McCloskey's claims about the timeline with led to his purported "reasonable fear."
No one with an IQ above room temperature doesn't know that it's reasonable to fear the black mob showing up in your neighborhood right now. Hell. One hundred percent of black people know that
Let's just call this what it is. The left is at War and the DA is part of it
They have turned loose their mobs and now now using their key positions to effectively take a position in the war. They are trying to criminalize perfectly normal reactions to a mob attacking you
This da and people like him need to be put Six Feet Under
That's where we are. It's what they want. They're telling us it's us or them. It needs to be them. Make no mistake this prosecutor is part of the mob. He might as well have been marching with him because they are under his command for lack of a better description
This post was edited on 7/22/20 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:43 pm to AggieHank86
quote:link?
waiving an automatic rifle
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:43 pm to the808bass
quote:Yes. That is a police officer summarizing what the McCloskeys told him.quote:The initial police assessment:
Once through the gate, the victims advised the group that they were on a private street and trespassing and told them to leave. The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims. When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.
trespassing and assault by intimidation
As to the timing of retrieving the McCloskey weapons, the video establishes that the statement was false.
This police report IS, however, the first place I have seen in which the McCloskeys assert that the protesters were armed. Interesting that they never say this in any of the media interviews.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:44 pm to jimbeam
Hell. Let’s start with spelling “wave” correctly.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:44 pm to Taxing Authority
Hanks silly schtick, “You must argue this under the terms I demand!”
Everyone: “no.”
Hank: “you won’t accept reason and facts!”
Everyone: “your facts are not in evidence, and your reason is critically flawed”
Hank: “trumpkin sycophants!”
Everyone: “no.”
Hank: “you won’t accept reason and facts!”
Everyone: “your facts are not in evidence, and your reason is critically flawed”
Hank: “trumpkin sycophants!”
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:44 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
This police report IS, however, the first place I have seen in which the McCloskeys assert that the protesters were armed. Interesting that they never say this in any of the media interviews.
They never said it? Or you haven’t heard it?
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:44 pm to AggieHank86
The bottom line is this. The message being sent isn't complicated
The left is telling us. We will encourage the mob against you. We will watch as they destroy your property. We will watch as they threaten you on the streets near your businesses and it near your homes. And if you behave like a normal human being and reacts to the Mob we will come after you while ignoring the mob.
This is not tenable. People are going to have to die
The left is telling us. We will encourage the mob against you. We will watch as they destroy your property. We will watch as they threaten you on the streets near your businesses and it near your homes. And if you behave like a normal human being and reacts to the Mob we will come after you while ignoring the mob.
This is not tenable. People are going to have to die
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:45 pm to the808bass
quote:
They never said it? Or you haven’t heard it?
Exactly because let's just all pretend of the media would highlight the mob being armed. LOL
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:45 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:Agreed.
You don’t need reasonable fear to have your weapon on your person with no threatening action.
But the DA has filed charges asserting that they DID engage in threatening action. Are we really going back into the circular argument that the DA should not have filed the charges? For Finagle's sake, I have already agreed with that proposition a dozen times.
But she did.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:46 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
If he had said "I heard the crowd approaching on the main street outside the neighborhood. I became concerned, so I retrieved my firearm.
Has anyone mentioned that prior to any of this, they called 911 but to no avail? Shouldn't this be considered in their actions also?
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:47 pm to Revelator
quote:
So it doesn’t matter if what they did wasn’t against the law, if it looked bad to liberals.
That D.A. is just the legitimate face of the mob. That's HER mob and it will be protected from anyone who resists.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:47 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
But she did.
She is a part of the leftist mob
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News