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
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.I was always taught to not point guns at anything I didn't intend to shoot. Guess that must be a libtard cucks thing
Lol, sure they didn't.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?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 trueThat's not what Kim is charging them on.
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 isn't what you replied to. You said they never pointed or brandished. Obviously, that's not true
Yawn, you said they never pointed or brandished. A single photo of many says they did.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.
Which had nothing to do with what you replied to lol.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.
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.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?
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.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.
What were these so-called threatening actions they made ?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.
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.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.
See that one black guy holding a microphone. It's a scary looking microphoneWhat were these so-called threatening actions they made ?
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.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.
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.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
He was “black,” therefore, everything he does is threatening.See that one black guy holding a microphone. It's a scary looking microphone
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 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