And I bet you thought you were a responsible gun owner as well. /sI was always taught to not point guns at anything I didn't intend to shoot. Guess that must be a libtard cucks thing
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.
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?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.
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
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.
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.
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.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?
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.
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.
If the streets are owned by the individual homeowners then...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.
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 ?
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.
What were these so-called threatening actions they made ?
Well, it is called a "shotgun" microphone.See that one black guy holding a microphone. It's a scary looking microphone
See that one black guy holding a microphone. It's a scary looking microphone
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