Whenever the news posts about "White People With Guns" its usually scary or weird or monstrously stupid.

[ch33zw1z]

I was always taught to not point guns at anything I didn't intend to shoot. Guess that must be a libtard cucks thing

 

[soundforbjt]

I was always taught to not point guns at anything I didn't intend to shoot. Guess that must be a libtard cucks thing

And I bet you thought you were a responsible gun owner as well. /s

 

[HumblePie]

I was always taught to not point guns at anything I didn't intend to shoot. Guess that must be a libtard cucks thing

Except they never pointed or brandished the weapons. The charges Gardner is trying to get them on is Exhibiting a weapon under a very old law that has never once been used in Missouri history. It's not been used because it isn't Constitutional either. There is no victim or anyone that reported a crime. This is strictly Kim going after a couple as a DA for politics.

Statute she is looking to use:

571.030

Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties.

revisor.mo.gov

Which flies in direct conflict with all the castle and stand your ground laws Missouri has. It doesn't work the 2nd amendment nor the 5th for due process since it uses an arbitrary bar of "angry or threatening manner " for criminality. Just doesn't work. There is no definition for anger or threatening and is too vague. A recent SCOTUS case said that if different officers could interpret the statute drastically differently, it is too vague and can't be used.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Except they never pointed or brandished the weapons. The charges Gardner is trying to get them on is Exhibiting a weapon under a very old law that has never once been used in Missouri history. It's not been used because it isn't Constitutional either. There is no victim or anyone that reported a crime. This is strictly Kim going after a couple as a DA for politics.

Lol, sure they didn't.

 

[soundforbjt]

Except they never pointed or brandished the weapons. The charges Gardner is trying to get them on is Exhibiting a weapon under a very old law that has never once been used in Missouri history. It's not been used because it isn't Constitutional either. There is no victim or anyone that reported a crime. This is strictly Kim going after a couple as a DA for politics.

You have proof for this claim right?

 

[HomerJS]

Except they never pointed or brandished the weapons. The charges Gardner is trying to get them on is Exhibiting a weapon under a very old law that has never once been used in Missouri history. It's not been used because it isn't Constitutional either. There is no victim or anyone that reported a crime. This is strictly Kim going after a couple as a DA for politics.

Really?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Really?
View attachment 26372

Fake news

 

[HumblePie]

Really?
View attachment 26372

That's not what Kim is charging them on.

 

[ch33zw1z]

That's not what Kim is charging them on.

Which isn't what you replied to. You said they never pointed or brandished. Obviously, that's not true

 

[HumblePie]

571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;

And here is the exception

Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031

and that section...

Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section

A person does not have a duty to retreat:
(1) From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;
(2) From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or
(3) If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.

 

[HumblePie]

Which isn't what you replied to. You said they never pointed or brandished. Obviously, that's not true

Going by what info I had which is based on the charges. There is a brandishing crime, but that isn't what she is charging them on.

 

[ch33zw1z]

571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;

And here is the exception

Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031

and that section...

Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section

A person does not have a duty to retreat:
(1) From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;
(2) From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or
(3) If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.

Yawn, you said they never pointed or brandished. A single photo of many says they did.

Care to change your assertion? Or is a responsible gun owner someone who points a gun at people they don't intend to shoot ?

Was I taught incorrectly as a young man when I was told to never point a gun at something I didn't intend to shoot?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Going by what info I had which is based on the charges. There is a brandishing crime, but that isn't what she is charging them on.

Which had nothing to do with what you replied to lol.

 

[HomerJS]

571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;

And here is the exception

Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031

and that section...

Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section

A person does not have a duty to retreat:
(1) From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;
(2) From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or
(3) If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.

PP owned or leased by the individual, which that street was NOT. It is a street owned by the HOA which my example shows. Streets are NOT shared property of each owner because every owner has a different idea of who they want walking down that street.

Trying to move that goalpost I see

 

[HumblePie]

Yawn, you said they never pointed or brandished. A single photo of many says they did.

Care to change your assertion? Or is a responsible gun owner someone who points a gun at people they don't intend to shoot ?

Was I taught incorrectly as a young man when I was told to never point a gun at something I didn't intend to shoot?

That picture shows the lady aiming her fire arm in the general direction of the mob. Yep. Kim isn't charging them on that though either so you go by what is being charged at that point as in a criminal justice case, that is all that matters.

As far as your anecdotal background. YAWN! They could have legally shot. I am sure that if the protestors made any more threatening actions they would have shot. I certainly would have. Escalation of force laws allow you to do all those things if you can shoot as well legally. I even listed the exceptions and why they are legal for Missouri.

 

[HumblePie]

PP owned or leased by the individual, which that street was NOT. It is a street owned by the HOA which my example shows. Streets are NOT shared property of each owner because every owner has a different idea of who they want walking down that street.

NO. You are completely incorrect here with the same people insisting that crap. That is a completely fenced in private neighborhood. That is not a public street. They have a shared stake ownership in the common areas including the streets and sidewalks in that neighborhood. They can legally defend it as they have a right to be there. This is not a public area where a third party entity has the property rights or title. Just stop with this.

 

[soundforbjt]

That picture shows the lady aiming her fire arm in the general direction of the mob. Yep. Kim isn't charging them on that though either so you go by what is being charged at that point as in a criminal justice case, that is all that matters.

As far as your anecdotal background. YAWN! They could have legally shot. I am sure that if the protestors made any more threatening actions they would have shot. I certainly would have. Escalation of force laws allow you to do all those things if you can shoot as well legally. I even listed the exceptions and why they are legal for Missouri.

What were these so-called threatening actions they made ?

 

[HomerJS]

NO. You are completely incorrect here with the same people insisting that crap. That is a completely fenced in private neighborhood. That is not a public street. They have a shared stake ownership in the common areas including the streets and sidewalks in that neighborhood. They can legally defend it as they have a right to be there. This is not a public area where a third party entity has the property rights or title. Just stop with this.

If the streets are owned by the individual homeowners then...

Homeowner A throws a party that includes black people.
Homeowner B does not want black people on his street.

What then? As a homeowner you have the right not to allow black people on your property

 

[ch33zw1z]

That picture shows the lady aiming her fire arm in the general direction of the mob. Yep. Kim isn't charging them on that though either so you go by what is being charged at that point as in a criminal justice case, that is all that matters.

As far as your anecdotal background. YAWN! They could have legally shot. I am sure that if the protestors made any more threatening actions they would have shot. I certainly would have. Escalation of force laws allow you to do all those things if you can shoot as well legally. I even listed the exceptions and why they are legal for Missouri.

Lol, so my anecdotal background of gun safety that's been largely taught to people for a long time must be part of my libtard cucks indoctrination by evangelical Christian conservatives that raised me. Oh man, you really got me, lol.

Besides, you said they never pointed or brandished, and it's obvious you are wrong, your feels tho.

 

[ch33zw1z]

What were these so-called threatening actions they made ?

See that one black guy holding a microphone. It's a scary looking microphone

 

[Grey_Beard]

Going by what info I had which is based on the charges. There is a brandishing crime, but that isn't what she is charging them on.

LOL. You called me out for not reading some google search of the law you posted and called me stupid, but you based all these posts on some percentage of knowledge you think you have and are using that as an excuse. Maybe read through the thread and see what information is there before call out others. I will never respond to you on this forum again. You seem to exemplify “stupid is as stupid does.” Keep fighting, soon no one will respond.

You post this shit like “intent” does not matter. If I hopped the fence to pick up some trash on your property and you shot me, you would think you were justified, but in reality if I was not “threatening” you, you just committed a much more serious crime. You cannot meet a trespasser with deadly force just for trespassing. The force you use must be justified even in your reruns of Castle Doctrine on Netflix.

Fight on dude.

 

[HumblePie]

What were these so-called threatening actions they made ?

The couple stated, as noted by a previous poster, that 2 white men of the crowd were armed as well and threatening to use those weapons on the couple when the couple was initially unarmed.

 

[soundforbjt]

See that one black guy holding a microphone. It's a scary looking microphone

Well, it is called a "shotgun" microphone.

 

[Grey_Beard]

See that one black guy holding a microphone. It's a scary looking microphone

He was “black,” therefore, everything he does is threatening.

 

[HumblePie]

If the streets are owned by the individual homeowners then...

Homeowner A throws a party that includes black people.
Homeowner B does not want black people on his street.

What then? As a homeowner you have the right not to allow black people on your property

WTF are you always so fucking racist for? Who gives a shit if the party has black people or not? Dude get that racist chip off your shoulder.

If another homeowner was throwing a party on the shared areas, they more than likely would have to notify all homeowners of it prior to taking place or other homeowners could call the cops or defend it. That is fairly typical. Seen it happen before where some dumbass in a community like that decided to have a block party on the street without notifying the whole neighborhood. Police came and broke it up. Just because you don't understand how laws work doesn't mean shit. Most communities like that have community by-laws which in many cases still have legal reprecussions if not upheld.