Are you new to SwampGas? Jumping to conclusions would be an Olympic sport if people on this site had a say.
Without video evidence it's going to be pretty hard to disprove their claims. You'd pretty much need drone footage.
This is a problem with some gun owners. The issue is when you have a gun, you feel compelled to use it. I would think it should only used, drawn, displayed or pointed whenever the owner is truly in physical danger. Instead some gun owners flash their gun at first sign of uncertainty which needlessly escalates the situation.
Agreed, and it appears that some folks on here have forgotten that its the State's burden to prove that they should not have felt threatened. Good luck finding a jury in St. Louis where you couldn't convince at least 1 juror that given everything we have seen on TV around the country for the last few weeks, particularly in St. Louis, that their fear that their property and lives were potentially threatened by a mob of chanting protestors marching up to their home was unreasonable. I wouldn't have done what they did without further provocation, and I think they completely overreacted, but only a person that has lived under a rock for the last month or so while our cities have been burning wouldn't be at least a little uneasy if a large group that might have contained violent individuals came marching up toward their house.
"Which needlessly escalates the situation."? Not claiming that this couple was right in doing what they did, but you are discounting by a very large factor of the situations that are "de-escalated" by the possession and display of a firearm, which doesn't even include the situations where potential grievous bodily harm wasn't prevented by the actual use of a firearm.
You are simply not correct. Merely feeling threatened or that your property was threatened isn't enough to threaten the use of deadly force.
The threshold would be that a "reasonable" person would feel that their life or property was threatened. We will see if a jury agrees that they were not being "reasonable," or are you too impatient to let our legal system do its work?
You still don't understand the distinction between using reasonable force to protect your property and threatening the use of deadly force. I'm not impatient about anything...I'm just correcting bad information.
Now you are just parsing words. It means the same thing. They threatened the use of deadly force for what they say was a reasonable concern for bodily and/or property damage. I don't agree or disagree with them. I need more information. I'm not as comfortable hanging up people by their short hairs as you appear to be. Again, I'm happy to let the legal system run its course.
No, I'm not parsing words and they don't mean the same thing. You are throwing out legal terms without an understanding of what they mean in a legal proceeding. You definitely need to let the legal system run its course because you're simply not following permitted uses of force in differing situations.
I don't know the answer to this, or I wouldn't be asking. Does an individual have the right to use deadly force to protect property, independent of bodily harm?
Florida's statute: 776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.— (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force. (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be. 776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
Yeah I read it too and came away confused as to what their final verdict was. Did the protesters in fact break through the gate or not? Yet another ambulance-chasing lawyer trying to side with the most votes. If said protesters did in fact break down a gate, they no longer are considered peaceful. Yet, she turns around and says the protesters were met with "violent assault". Standing on your lawn armed with guns is not a violent assault. Opening fire on the protesters is. Huge difference and one I'm surprised an educated person would know. But again, she might be getting ready to run for a higher office and she's drumming up votes. And she should know as a defense lawyer, I'd tell her this - "Make no mistake: we will not tolerate the use of force against those exercising their Second Amendment rights in addition to the Castle Doctrine, and will use the full power of Missouri law to hold people and city officials accountable."
You're welcome. Trespassing is generally only a misdemeanor and is mentioned in FS 761.031(1), the non-deadly force section.
No. There is a video clearly showing that they opened the gate, which was intact, and walked through it. It got broken sometime after Rambo decided to point his gun and make threats. There's so much wrong with this post, but I'll focus on one thing. Did you actually just call a prosecutor an "ambulance-chasing lawyer"? Do you not realize how silly that sounds?
Not sure any crime was commit “Senator Hawley, who believes in the Constitution, is usurping the will of the voters. I thought the Republican Party was all about states’ rights and local control. What happened?” That is literally why we have a constitution to protect an individual from mob rule, but if you are on the right side of the mob then screw the constitution.
