• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

When Can You Threaten Deadly Force as a Defensive Tactic? Eugene Volokh

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,379
Location
White Oak Plantation
RSMo 569.140. Trespass in the first degree — penalty.
...

563.041. Use of physical force in defense of property.
...

563.031. Use of force in defense of persons.
...

RSMo 571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1.
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or
...

Jury selection will be critical. If the Prosecuting Attorney gets her jury, the home owners are toast...we shall see.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,312
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
OC for ME provides a lot of reading material from statutory law, but no case law. Should these people be charged and found guilty, such finding could be easily be overturned. This is not a slam-dunk case by any means. Curtilage will play a part as well as "belief" of harm.

Let's not forget this guy is an attorney. He is presumes to know the law more so than the average person and that could actually play into his favor as to being charged.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,680
Location
here nc
Hummm...

N.C.G.S 14-34...
Assaulting by pointing gun. If any person shall point any gun or pistol at any person, either in fun or otherwise, whether such gun or pistol be loaded or not loaded, he shall be guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor.

i suppose a class A1 misdemeanor punishment, the most serious type of misdemeanor, carries a maximum penalty of 150 days in jail and a discretionary fine, could be better than ten/twenty/life?


to dougies’ cite...i personally like the article’s use of the words... “recall” “general matter” “generally can’t use” “admittedly oversimplified rule” tho my personal favorite ~ “I don't know the Missouri law...”

oh btw dougie...thanks again, i so enjoy the nonsensical postings from your friend and aristocratic confidante Eugene...so fact filled w/concise “oversimplified” language aimed at assisting J.Q.Citizen stumble through legalise in todays troubling times...
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,379
Location
White Oak Plantation
569.100. Property damage in the first degree — penalties. https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.100
The homeowner's attorney can reasonably argue that the homeowners were not in violation of the restrictions in RSMo 563.041...et al.

The case law cited in the article was for a unlawful use of weapon charge for a one on one confrontation...not a trespass or property damage.

The cited RSMo 569.100 requirement was easily met when the gate was destroyed...repairs which will easily exceed the $750 threshold for the Class E felony charge for all of the "peaceful protesters" to be applied.

edited: grammar correction
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,379
Location
White Oak Plantation
For your reading enjoyment...
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSect...011&bid=34960&hl=forcible+felony%u2044563.011

Chapter definitions. (4) "Forcible felony", any felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual, including but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense;
When STLMPD did not respond to their 911 call the cops exercised their Warren v. DC defense.

 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,270
Location
northern wis
Threating deadly force and defensive display seems to be two different things.

The merely having a firearm or having one and threating some one with it seems to be different.

Defensive display where legal is tool that can end a situation before it can become worst.

Either situation can change in a matter of mere seconds and one needs to be situational aware to go with the flow.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,312
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Threating deadly force and defensive display seems to be two different things.

The merely having a firearm or having one and threating some one with it seems to be different.

Defensive display where legal is tool that can end a situation before it can become worst.

Either situation can change in a matter of mere seconds and one needs to be situational aware to go with the flow.
Federal law:
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “brandish” means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person.
(my emphasis)

What do I always say? Definition, definition, definition.

Missouri Law:
§ 571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;
This is Missouri's definition of brandishing.

So, what's in a word?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,680
Location
here nc
A query...

what does the law state about leaving a Concrete safe haven to face a mob of protesters except they are idiot?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,379
Location
White Oak Plantation
The law in Missouri stops...stopped...at the homeowner's now destroyed gate. The video(s) clearly show the mob violating their curtilage...cuz they is beyond the destroyed gate.
  1. The proximity of the thing to the dwelling;
  2. Whether the thing is within an enclosure surrounding the home;
  3. What the thing is used for.
  4. What steps, if any, the resident took to protect the thing from observation/ access by people passing by.
Seems like the homeowners are in like Flint...
 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
530
Too bad training is not required for exercise of the First Amendment Right to Free Speech.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,312
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Curtilage.

Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1415 - Supreme Court 2013
We therefore regard the area "immediately surrounding and associated with the home" — what our cases call the curtilage — as "part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes." Oliver, supra, at 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735. That principle has ancient and durable roots. Just as the distinction between the home and the open fields is "as old as the common law," Hester, supra, at 59, 44 S.Ct. 445, so too is the identity of home and what Blackstone called the "curtilage or homestall," for the "house protects and privileges all its branches and appurtenants." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 223, 225 (1769). This area around the home is "intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically," and is where "privacy expectations are most heightened." California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986).
(my emphasis)

Though the invasion of the curtilage is an invasion by the government without a warrant, the protection of private property is a constitutional protected right. The display of arms by the homeowners towards the trespassers is simple NOTICE and DEMAND to leave their property.

Psychologically is a belief and the homeowners demonstrated their fear of invasion well beyond the simple trespass.
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
299
Location
Planet Earth
The thing that bugs me about these two (beside their poor gun handling skills) is that they are frequent donors to the DNC as well as groups BLM, Everytown et. al., yet, being the elitists they are, they choose to have guns.
 
Top