- Joined
- Aug 4, 2019
- Messages
- 13,042
- Reaction score
- 8,463
- Location
- 'Murica
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
YouTubeA social media video showed the armed couple standing outside their large home Sunday evening in the upscale Central West End neighborhood of the Missouri city.
What is the provenance of this scene?
Is that their private property?
From the link site page:
YouTube
So it appears they were letting people know this was their property and they would defend it.
I guess it now depends on what the "brandishing" laws say in regards to home defense/property rights for that jurisdiction.
Oh, the black people were breaking into their house? I didn't see that.
If that's their house, they are a lot richer than they dress. Maybe they're the servants?
I'm pretty sure assault with a deadly weapon is a forcible felony and thus according to SYG shooting her would not result in being charged.
:lamoCan't wait to see what the ammosexuals have to say about this. Private property, blah, blah, gun ownership rights, blah blah, shouldn't have been around.
They were on the sidewalk. Does she bring out her gun when someone takes an evening stroll on the sidewalk? Maybe when someone walks the dog?
I'll bet the mail carrier is terrified.
Oh wait -- :roll:
Did you watch your own video?
Looked like a mixed crowd to me, or do you only see "Black" when you watch such reports?
Then an ad hominem attack on the property owners. :roll:
You don't have any right to be on anyone's property without their express permission.
Meanwhile, after viewing the random destruction of public and private property, I don't think it is necessarily a "bad thing" to tell people to get off your property, and show you mean business.
Or would you prefer we start pulling up video of store/home owners doing the same in areas with rioting?
Still, it remains (as I clearly stated) how the laws of that jurisdiction can and/or will be applied to the situation.
That's a very good point. The moment she whips out that gun, if someone shot her dead, that would be self defense.
iLOL She made no mistake.When she pointed it at people. Kinda puts her mistake in perspective.
That's a very good point. The moment she whips out that gun, if someone shot her dead, that would be self defense.
That's a very good point. The moment she whips out that gun, if someone shot her dead, that would be self defense.
A lawyer could make that argument. There is no guarantee that argument would hold up in court, however.
If what she did is a forcible felony, and I believe it is, then there are no lawyers involved under SYG. Shooting someone for a documented forcible felony in progress means you are not arrested.
If it is ruled a forcible felony, then yes. If she was on her own property, and especially if the person she aimed the firearm at was also on her property, then she may not be guilty of anything thanks to the castle doctrine.
And even if the shooting were ruled self-defense and the shooter was not arrested, he or she could still be sued. And the hypothetical victim looks like her family could afford some good lawyers.
https://i.imgur.com/eBU3Y7Z.png[IMG]
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/xEawSpQ.png[IMG][/QUOTE]
[img]https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/new-jersey-2nd-amendment-3.jpg
She can hold it anyway she chooses to protest her property.It looks like they have no excuse for not being trained. Just look at how she is holding that gun.
My claims presume the person firing at her was in legal possession of the firearm including not committing a crime at the time.
If forcible felony, no arrest. SYG protects from civil suit.
She can hold it anyway she chooses to protest her property.
She can hold it anyway she chooses to protest her property.
You have no actual point.A "private" neighborhood street is not her property.