Defensive Carry banner

41 - 60 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
972 Posts
Note to self: Take the Mini-14 when facing the unruly mob. Don't get the good stuff confiscated by a lefty prosecutor who has no criminal case...
And if one has left the stock alone it doesn't look as "evil" as an AR to many. And with the original 5 rd mag looks down right tame! With a 20 rd backup, just in case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
Funny statement since nothing I said indicates that. I was commenting on one thing only: the trustworthiness of two lawyers. Nothing indicates I am OK with the situation in St Louis. But assume what ya want. I can make up outrageous claims as much as the other guy, but I prefer not to make stupid assumptions. But that is just me.
I’m not taking their word for it. There is plenty of video, pictures and other documentary information.

With respect to trespassing, it was established by police that the mob was uninvited. They broke through a chain locked heavy iron gate to enter the private community area.


According to the private community bylaws the mob was trespassing. According to Missouri law the mob was trespassing. https://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/vmqmp/docs/chpt-05-intro-safety-and-trespass-1-13.pdf

I’m not defending the couple per se and I’m not saying you are incorrect with your overall opinion. It is evident that an uninvited mob destroyed a marked barrier and advanced toward the couples homestead with no forewarning.

Add to that the many, many incidents of looting, burning, rioting and assaults against bystanders in recent weeks i don’t need to rely on the couple’s testimony to conclude they had reason to worry.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,694 Posts
Funny statement since nothing I said indicates that. I was commenting on one thing only: the trustworthiness of two lawyers. Nothing indicates I am OK with the situation in St Louis. But assume what ya want. I can make up outrageous claims as much as the other guy, but I prefer not to make stupid assumptions. But that is just me.
Made no assumptions. Watched the video, listened to the interviews, and made a call.

As to your assertion: "I guess I am supposed to believe two lawyers (who happen to be the accused) and take their word as gospel? Is that the vibe I am getting here LOL. "

What does being a lawyer have to do with taking their word as gospel? Most of the time there isn't documentary evidence to support a claim. Here, there is. One should believe an accused lawyer as much as an accused mechanic or an accused accountant. I just didn't get a vibe that these two being lawyers had anything to do with them being truthful. In fact, it seems that people on here have considered them to be less truthful because they are lawyers (see the other thread).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
Made no assumptions. Watched the video, listened to the interviews, and made a call.

As to your assertion: "I guess I am supposed to believe two lawyers (who happen to be the accused) and take their word as gospel? Is that the vibe I am getting here LOL. "

What does being a lawyer have to do with taking their word as gospel? Most of the time there isn't documentary evidence to support a claim. Here, there is. One should believe an accused lawyer as much as an accused mechanic or an accused accountant. I just didn't get a vibe that these two being lawyers had anything to do with them being truthful. In fact, it seems that people on here have considered them to be less truthful because they are lawyers (see the other thread).
LOL, OK. You totally skirted my post and what I was talking about. In case you forgot, I replied to this part only to you:

"But hey, if you're fine with that way things are in St. Louis, that's totally cool. "

You still have not shown where I said I am fine with things in St Louis. That is cool. We can go on with our lives without you addressing that. I got better things in my life to do :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,141 Posts
Funny statement since nothing I said indicates that. I was commenting on one thing only: the trustworthiness of two lawyers. Nothing indicates I am OK with the situation in St Louis. But assume what ya want. I can make up outrageous claims as much as the other guy, but I prefer not to make stupid assumptions. But that is just me.
Stupidity isn't always limited to assumptions...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Oh the drama!
Did the protesters set foot on the property of the couple that stood in their yard with guns in hand?
Sure, the sign said it was private property. But that street belongs to the entire community. The street in front of my house is private property also. But there are 724 other houses in my community. That street belongs to all of us. Any single resident can give the world permission to walk on that street and there is nothing I can do about it.

Has it been determined that no one in the community authorized the protesters to enter the neighborhood? If they were authorized there is no trespass.
From Missouri law

Blah blah blah

Were the firearms capable? Crime lab will determine that. If so you can expect a jury to decide if the weapon was displayed in "an angry or threatening manner." If so that is a felony.
If there is a single Facebook post saying " the mayor lives around the corner from me and you all should come protest here on this street." These folks will likely be convicted.
Can "any single resident" give permission for a mob to break down a gate and start threatening other residents?

That is what happened don't you know?

The mob broke down the gate while these two were outside on their property witnessing it. When the mob noticed them, the mob started telling them they were going to burn down the home, kill their dog, etc. etc. The homeowners armed themselves and did not let the mob attack their home.

Your assertion that "any single resident" can authorize unlawful behavior is laughable.

Making terroristic threats and breaking a gate are both unlawful no matter how you try and twist this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,805 Posts
As I said, if a single member of the community gave permission for the protesters to enter the community there is no trespassing unless the mob actually set foot on these people's individual yard.. It doesn't matter why the people are there. All that the trespassing question hinges on is if anyone in that community gave permission for them to enter.

And yes any resident of the community can legally authorize them to break the gate. It is commonly owned. The person giving that permission would then have to answer to the homeowners association for the damage their guests did to the property. Just like if they broke a basketball hoop at the rec center by hanging on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
As I said, if a single member of the community gave permission for the protesters to enter the community there is no trespassing ... .
Do you have any evidence that this happened?

And yes any resident of the community can legally authorize them to break the gate.

.

Now you’re just being silly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,117 Posts
And yes any resident of the community can legally authorize them to break the gate. It is commonly owned.
And therein lies the fallacy of your statement. It is "commonly owned," and needs HOA permission. No member can authorize illegal entry via damage to common property than same individual can authorize entry to your home. It is not "theirs" to authorize.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,100 Posts
As I said, if a single member of the community gave permission for the protesters to enter the community there is no trespassing unless the mob actually set foot on these people's individual yard.. It doesn't matter why the people are there. All that the trespassing question hinges on is if anyone in that community gave permission for them to enter.

And yes any resident of the community can legally authorize them to break the gate. It is commonly owned. The person giving that permission would then have to answer to the homeowners association for the damage their guests did to the property. Just like if they broke a basketball hoop at the rec center by hanging on it.
And if I said I was going to hold a "protest" in your neighborhood, and indicated that I had every intention of being violent, would one of your neighbors being ok with me coming into your neighborhood, vandalizing your property, and injuring or killing you and your family somehow change any rights to protect yourselves, or your property?

As far as your other comment about someone posting on social media that the mayor lives there, it doesn't matter if someone posted that they mayor lives there. The mayor doesn't live there. In fact, the only people who ever said they were looking for the mayors house is the media. There is no mention of they mayor in any of the facebook posts advertising the times and locations of their riots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: graydude

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,805 Posts
And therein lies the fallacy of your statement. It is "commonly owned," and needs HOA permission. No member can authorize illegal entry via damage to common property than same individual can authorize entry to your home. It is not "theirs" to authorize.
An HOA is a corporation owned by it's members. If a member of the HOA authorized the entry it by definition is not illegal. The HOA does not own the individual homes which is why the HOA can not authorize entry into anyone's home.
Everyone seems to be operating under the assumption that the protesters were there illegally. The homeowners in question do not have exclusive authority over who may use that gate. I am not saying that were definitely invited. What I am saying is that if they were invited there is no trespassing involved which means the homeowners (who have an admitted history of this kind of behavior) could be legally considered the aggressors. There are conflicting statements as to whether the gate was unlocked or forced. There is damage shown to the gate after the fact. No one other than the residents in question (from what i have seen) has said the gate was locked. A reporter that was covering the protest said the gate was unlocked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,117 Posts
An HOA is a corporation owned by it's members. If a member of the HOA authorized the entry it by definition is not illegal. The HOA does not own the individual homes which is why the HOA can not authorize entry into anyone's home.
If you can document any of the residents of that HOA inviting the "protesters" in, fine, then there would have been no reason whatsoever for them to break down a gate where the inviter could have given them a code to the gate. I believe you are grasping at straws, paper one at that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
As I said, if a single member of the community gave permission for the protesters to enter the community there is no trespassing unless the mob actually set foot on these people's individual yard.. It doesn't matter why the people are there. All that the trespassing question hinges on is if anyone in that community gave permission for them to enter.

And yes any resident of the community can legally authorize them to break the gate. It is commonly owned. The person giving that permission would then have to answer to the homeowners association for the damage their guests did to the property. Just like if they broke a basketball hoop at the rec center by hanging on it.
I am going to have to go to the eye doctor to get my eyes straight again as they just rolled to the back of my head after reading this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Seems we have some folks here who like to argue instead of communicate - that's unfortunate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,805 Posts
The "Private Street" is legally equivalent to the lobby area or a hallway in an apartment building. It belongs to everyone who lives there.

Their lawyer knows they screwed the pooch on this one. Notice how he took possession of the pistol? The pistol he later turned over to police claiming it was non functional. There is a reason for that. Husband is toast. They will maybe plea bargain. But the "non functional" pistol means the wife can't be convicted because all the elements of the crime are not there. Or do we believe that millionaire lawyers who believe their lives are in danger grab broken guns to defend themselves?

Some folks say the protesters were rioters. Ok. Riot under Missouri law (574.050) is a class A misdemeanor. Some say they made terroristic threats. Under Missouri law (574.115-125) that requires the evacuation of a building. Didn't happen. The law that would cover those alleged threats would actually be Peace Disturbance, (574.010) which is a class B misdemeanor. First degree Trespassing (569.140) is a class B misdemeanor. So if we are looking for a forcible felony we could try Property damage in the first degree (569.100). The person that broke the gate is guilty of that if the damage is more than $750. Only problem is once the gate is broken that justification (563.041) disappears. You have to catch them in the act. The burden of proof for a justification claim (563.031) is on the defense in this case because the protesters did not enter a dwelling, residence or vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,779 Posts
If I were them I would go across the river for the weekend. That DA will have them picked up at whatever time of the night that ensures a judge is not available to grant bail.
 
41 - 60 of 67 Posts
Top