Gun toting St. Louie lawyers

Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!

Join today!

Register Log in
Welcome! You have been invited by victoryhawk to join our community. Please click here to register.
Boriqua said:
kptaylor said:
Sorry, I'm of the opposite viewpoint. They acted like idiots. No danger to them while in their safe home so what made them decide to grab their guns and run outside to confront? Pretty stupid regardless of whether it was private property or not. This is a good example, especially here in AZ, why taking a CCW course is beneficial even if you can carry without it. Learning the law, what you can do legally and not do is important. People like this make law abiding gun owners like many of us look bad.
Click to expand...

You must have taken a different CCW course than I !?

Mine didnt cover a large group of known violent anarchist in masks, helmets, body armor and black jerseys breaking in my gate and assaulting my home. Hope those Frequent CCW course work out for you when SHTF... that moment of hesitation while you course through all your instruction will be just enough to get you killed.

Now that is not to say I believe in brandishing. As a rule I am very against it ... however different circumstances sometimes call for different tactics.
Click to expand...

Nope probably same CCW course where they teach you about brandishing, not leaving a safe location to confront with your weapon and general common sense. Whether it's a group of anarchists , zombies or whoever, why would you put yourself at risk trying to be a badass?
 
So, if there is a HUGE commotion in the street in front of your house, in a locked/gated community, you're just going to continue watching Jeopardy?

Thinking that being in Ahwatukee might help protect you from the unrest if it hits PHX is being blind. I'm directly on the other side of the mountain, and can almost guarantee you my street would be safer than yours...
 
well now there is stupid, really stupid and "what", and some can really point out their position in life, you are either on the one side of the fence or on the other side, in these times there is no "on the fence'
RJ
 
Whether it's a group of anarchists , zombies or whoever, why would you put yourself at risk trying to be a badass?
Click to expand...

We will have to agree to disagree. There are few images I think say "badass" less than those images of this couple and thier display of ferocity. It's almost comical.

I see two people defending themselves against a violent mob attacking them and they, in fear for their lives and beautiful home, doing what they hoped they would never have to.

I hope you are never in such a position. Violent encounters seem to make a mark on your psyche and you may not be as stalwart and rational as you think.

In the end ... I hope the prosecutor goes to hell. That is a foul human being.
 
kptaylor said:
Nope probably same CCW course where they teach you about brandishing, not leaving a safe location to confront with your weapon and general common sense. Whether it's a group of anarchists , zombies or whoever, why would you put yourself at risk trying to be a badass?
Click to expand...

unknown.png

Contrary to meme's online they aren't democrats or really republicans source here. No party affiliation is required in Missouri and they've donated to both parties...most recently republicans. Given their most recent donations I can only assume they watched news sources that didn't go out of their way to downplay deaths, property damage, assault, arson, etc. in regards to the current tensions around the USA. Yeah they're not operators, yeah that trigger discipline is atrocious, yeah they flagged each other. However they were average people who with the information (assumption by me) they had saw a very real potential for danger coming through and into their private property. A gate was broken, a photographer with the large group said someone bent the gate open to enter that private property. If you watched a large group of people that you know could turn violent at any moment would you sit in your house and wait for the molotov? I'm not saying that would have happened. We can't know because we didn't see schrodinger's shit show play out in all its permutations nor can we know their thoughts with certainty as we aren't telepathic. However its very possible that what they in the moment felt was that they could be in real danger. I'm not a lawyer, but from what I've garnered online through this source you could argue that subdivision 4 applies. However the Mccloskeys being lawyers made sure that was a moot point(my assumption here). In fact a staffer was caught tampering with evidence to try to make that applicable. Was the firearm operable at the time of the incident? Who knows, but what we do know is that when the pistol was surrendered to the police it was in an inoperable state. (Cute Lawyer Move?). This source might tempt someone to argue that they fall under subdivision 1 for unlawful use of force. However despite being portrayed as the aggressors, they were on their property when someone broke in. In addition in Section 3? subdivision 1 and 2. It specifically states they had no duty to retreat. Being lawyers they probably have had a once over on this stuff prior to this. My assumption is afterwards they contacted their peers or did their own research made sure that they wouldn't fall prey to subdivision 4 in 571-030 and put 563-031 in their back pocket. My assumption is also that, being lawyers, they figured they could litigate their way out of something. Not being immortal/necromancers, they had no response for death so they chose their actions accordingly.

Do you care about optics or living is essentially what I've seen most discussions on this play out. What about the cops? Well would they have responded? Would they have responded in time? Why not just hunker down in their home? There's no duty to retreat, that house isn't a bunker, I suppose it's possible they have a panic room...fire still burns things/melts things/cooks things maybe they saw the potential for incendiary devices being used by ne'er do wells in the group. That wasn't in their actual home though? Well that also wasn't a public space, and how much reaction time would you like to cut for the sake of optics? Well you don't know what you're talking about and my experience is xyz. I could give someone that depending on their bonafides. I've already stated I'm not a lawyer, I'm also not private security, I'm also not a cop, I've also not had that specific situation happen to me.
 
Aaaaaaannnd,...it's Soros.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/soros-funds-campaign-of-st-louis-prosecutor-charging-couple-for-protecting-home-from-blm-protestors/

"A Soros-linked group called Missouri Justice Public Safety PAC, recently gave Gardner’s 2020 campaign $78,000, according to a news article that includes her most recent financial report."
 
They did win, now they can sue for civil rights violations.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/07/30/victory-missouri-ag-intervenes-to-drop-charges-against-couple-who-fended-off-mob-n2573458

Another report

https://m.theliontimes.com/politics/missouri-ag-eric-schmitt-will-dismiss-case-against-st-louis-couple-charged-with-brandishing-gun.html
 
From your keyboard to God's monitor, but

“That is why I am entering the case in terms of seeking the dismissal of the case to protect the rights of Missourians to defend themselves in their property under Missouri’s castle doctrine.”

From what I can tell, he is "seeking" the dismissal, but the dismissal is not yet a done deal.

Fingers crossed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top