St Louis Couple Served, AR confiscated

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Ugh, media describing self-defense laws. Every time I read one of those articles, I wonder if they aren’t deliberately putting out bad advice in hopes that somebody will read it, believe it, and shoot someone in a circumstance that they can use to repeal castle doctrine/stand your ground statutes.

The more I deal with the press, the more I realize they aren’t misinterpreting things out of ignorance, they are deliberately lying.

ETA: The gist of Aguila Blanca’s post is absolutely on point. The myriad errors of interpretation in just the quoted paragraph are disturbing though.

[ghbucky]

"The castle doctrine" is not a law, it is a general legal principle. What counts is the way the castle doctrine is expressed in the state's laws, and we have fifty states. It's probably safe to assume that each state expresses it somewhat differently.

In KY, the castle doctrine is very specific. It applies to the "domicile". And the domicile is further expanded to be the parts of the livable parts of the house that were on the ORIGINAL blueprints.

In other words, by letter of the law, if you build an addition, the addition is not considered to be part of the domicile, so someone entering it does not invoke castle doctrine. Nor, does someone entering the garage without invitation.

How that would actually apply to someone acting in self defense in an added-on bedroom, I have no idea. I guess you'd better hope for a friendly prosecutor.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ghbucky

In KY, the castle doctrine is very specific. It applies to the "domicile". And the domicile is further expanded to be the parts of the livable parts of the house that were on the ORIGINAL blueprints.

In other words, by letter of the law, if you build an addition, the addition is not considered to be part of the domicile, so someone entering it does not invoke castle doctrine. Nor, does someone entering the garage without invitation.

How that would actually apply to someone acting in self defense in an added-on bedroom, I have no idea. I guess you'd better hope for a friendly prosecutor.

The notion that an added bedroom might not legally qualify as being within one's "domicile" does seem a bit of a stretch, but this demonstrates my point that we can't rely on a general principle called "castle doctrine." What matters is exactly how the castle doctrine is written into the laws in each state. There is no substitute for reading -- and understanding -- the law that applies to you.

[SHR970]

44 AMP wrote: Keeping in mind it was a different place and a different time, and everyone didn't have a phone that takes videos, look at what happened (legally) to those "Korean shopkeepers" who stood armed between their property and the mob during the LA riots.

Pertty sure they pointed guns at people, then.

A) They didn't only point guns they discharged them.
B) Martial Law had been declared.
C) Ca. National Guard were deployed w/o magazines or ammo for their guns at that point.
D) Even under existing Ca. law (INAL) still on the books they were well within their rights to use deadly force to stop ARSON & LAWFULLY stop a riot.
E) I openly packed my NMBH 357 & or Mossy 500 and the LEO's that saw it / them (several) didn't even bother to try to do anything about it.
F) My neighborhood was at one of the stopping points for the carnage. WE stopped it and WE enforced it. NOT LACSD who had jurisdiction. WE the PEOPLE.

In the case of the McCloskey's and the vidoe's from the "protesters" threatening to burn their home down and kill them & their dog; I can and will bet on their being able to articulate a resonable fear for their safety. I've already seen video form the "peaceful protesters" that would have me DQ'ed as a juror.

[JohnKSa]

Not "by all accounts." I'm fairly certain I read reports that the "peaceful protesters" paused to threaten to burn down the McCloskey's house.

As far as I can tell, no one stopped to do anything or say anything to the McCloskeys until after the McCloskeys started screaming at them and displaying firearms. They weren't going to the McCloskeys', they were going past their house. It's possible someone may present evidence to the contrary, but right now the evidence available indicates that they created a confrontation where none existed.

You can still use lower levels of force in self-defense for lower levels of threat.

Yes, that's a good point. A lower level of response (pointing a gun vs. shooting at someone) can be justified by a lower level of threat , but it's important to understand that there must be some kind of threat to provide justification even for pointing a gun at someone.

In the absence of a threat (and you can't use threats uttered AFTER you start pointing the gun as justification) pointing a gun at someone is a serious criminal offense.

[Tom Servo]

A lower level of response (pointing a gun vs. shooting at someone) can be justified by a lower level of threat

This is the nuance that keeps getting lost. If I just sit on my front porch with a rifle leaned up against the railing, the gun is present, but I'm not actively threatening people with it. Things change when I pick up that rifle and start pointing it at people. That's the line the McCloskeys crossed, and to do so requires a clear threat to their physical well-being, even in the most permissive states.

[Hal]

Lost in this whole debate is the single most important point...

The "defenders" made an unforgivable tactical blunder & one that will cost them plenty - in propaganda value.

They forgot the video.

People - if you take only one thing away from the learning experience that this incident should provide to you it's this:
"Have your camera/cell phone in hand".

It is vital to provide "your side" of the events because you can count on the other side cherry picking the footage.
Instad of a non-working pot metal POS - that woman should have been taking videos.

So - sling or holster your weapon - if/when you find yourself in a similar situation - and use you camera or cell phone.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Yes, that's a good point. A lower level of response (pointing a gun vs. shooting at someone) can be justified by a lower level of threat , but it's important to understand that there must be some kind of threat to provide justification even for pointing a gun at someone.

Once again, it depends on the state. I don't know what Missouri law says on this subject. In my state, pointing a gun at someone or, in fact, even putting your hand on the butt of a holstered firearm in a "threatening" manner is deemed to be use of deadly force, just as much as actually pulling the trigger and shooting someone. It doesn't even have to be a real gun ... as long as the person it's pointed at might reasonable believe it's a real gun, you would be using deadly force under the laws I have to live with.

[JohnKSa]

Right. The point is there must be sufficient justification if you're going to do something that is normally a crime.

What I was trying to point out is that one can't just start "defending" one's self with a gun (whatever shape that takes) unless someone is committing a crime against you that justifies your defensive actions. State laws can vary, but in no state is it legal to threaten someone with a gun in the absence of some fairly serious crime being committed against the person using the gun.

Also, one can get a rough feel for what sort of justification is required by looking at the seriousness of the offense of threatening someone with a gun. Threatening someone with a gun is a felony--pretty serious--and so it's reasonable to assume that the justification for threatening someone with a gun is also pretty serious--probably at least a low-level felony.

People seem to have the idea that until you start shooting at someone, anything you do with a gun is perfectly legal. It's not, and this is an important lesson to learn. Pointing a gun at someone/threatening someone with a gun is likely aggravated assault/assault with a deadly weapon which is quite a serious crime.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the same laws apply even during periods of civil unrest. Don't get the idea that the fact that there are protests and riots taking place that you will get more leeway from the legal system when it comes to using a firearm.

[JERRYS.]

the only defense I can see the couple using is the fact that the vast majority of these "peaceful protests" in metropolitan areas nationwide have turned extremely violent at the hands of the "peaceful protesters" themselves. And that this self induced violence has lead to arson, thefts, mass vandalism, assaults, murders...

[JohnKSa]

Right. Unfortunately the threat has to be imminent, not just a reasonable projection. Someone has to be actually committing or just about to commit a justifiable offense. One can't just assess that things could possibly be about to turn ugly and start taking action at that point. Unless, or course, that action is to just get away--which is an excellent strategy unless, perhaps, the protest happens at your dwelling.

[Mike38]

Not trying to change the subject but, I wonder how things would be going for these home owners if they would have held their firearms at low ready and not pointed the muzzles at any one?

If under the similar circumstances this happened to me, I do believe I would have walked outside with my AK locked and loaded. But, I would have held it at low ready.

Would this change things? Or would they be in just as much hot water?

[JohnKSa]

If I were going to carry a long gun and wanted to make sure no one accused me of pointing it, I would get a sling for it and carry it slung. Roughly the equivalent of a holstered pistol. No one can claim you're pointing a handgun at someone if it's in a holster on your person. Same with a slung rifle if you're not touching it.

That said, even a slung rifle can be used to threaten someone depending on what you say and how you act.

Unless I was certain that my house/property was being targeted, I wouldn't do anything at all. Why would I want to draw attention to my property? I'd much rather that my house be just one more house in a row of houses that they walk past on the way to get where they're really going.

[raimius]

Agreed. Nondescript/unnoticed is useful when you are not the target.

Being armed inside your house (perhaps with an open window, if things escalate) is a better plan, in my opinion.
"Rooftop Koreans" had advantages in fields of fire, obstacles to mobs (elevated position/locked doors), and operated from part of their business (defensive confrontation within your building usually affords a slight benefit under the law and/or more clearly establishes who was the aggressor.)

[Mainah]

From what I've seen they were living in Jed Clampett's mansion. I can imagine so many better options than standing in the front yard and pointing functioning and non-functioning firearms.

[Aikibiker]

Should be a relatively easy defense. Just play for the jury, a couple hours of the days worth of video of these "peaceful protesters" destroying property, lighting fires, and attacking people all over the nation. Then tell them that is why you were in fear for your life.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Just play for the jury, a couple hours of the days worth of video of these "peaceful protesters" destroying property, lighting fires, and attacking people all over the nation.

Why? So half the jury pool can relive fond memories?

[Tom Servo]

Should be a relatively easy defense.

Plenty of people have gone to prison for a long time believing that.

The idea that if X is true, then Y will definitely happen is something that goes out the window when lethal force, or the threat of lethal force, enters the equation. Police, prosecutors, and juries can all introduce elements of uncertainty.

There is no guaranteed sequence of events or collection of circumstances that will always ensure the authorities call a situation a "good shoot" or simply send you on your way. Things can (and do) get very complicated.

[44 AMP]

News flash today, an interview with the state governor where he said, based on what he knows now, if they were charged with "brandishing", he would consider a pardon.

Full of cya phrases, and committing to nothing, the only real thing about the statement is that it shows that the entire state gov is not monolithically solid on this matter.

[Mike38]

News flash today, an interview with the state governor where he said, based on what he knows now, if they were charged with "brandishing", he would consider a pardon.

I just saw that on a couple media outlets that are 'less than mainstream news' but you know that mainstream is not going to cover it. The Missouri Governor hinted very strongly that he intends to pardon these homeowners. I happen to agree with this if he does.

[44 AMP]

but you know that mainstream is not going to cover it.

It was one of the "headlne" things on my computer this morning, " powered by Microsoft News".

It's not there NOW.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44AMP

News flash today, an interview with the state governor where he said, based on what he knows now, if they were charged with "brandishing", he would consider a pardon.

Interesting. The governor and prosecutor both get to perform for their constituents..

[Bartholomew Roberts]

McCloskeys have been charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon:
https://www.timesunion.com/news/arti...h-15421237.php

[rwilson452]

I'm thinking he is over charging and looking for a plea deal on a lesser charge. I'm thinking I would go with no deal and go to a jury trial. And bet on a hung jury.

[ghbucky]

McCloskeys have been charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon:
https://www.timesunion.com/news/arti...h-15421237.php

Any evidence of the protesters being charged with trespassing?

Sorry, rhetorical question.