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

[Doug_Nightmare]

When Can You Threaten Deadly Force as a Defensive Tactic?

This question is in the news because of the St. Louis controversy (see, e.g., here and here); but I thought...

reason.com

 

[OC for ME]

RSMo 569.140. Trespass in the first degree — penalty.

569.140

Trespass in the first degree — penalty.

www.revisor.mo.gov

...

563.041. Use of physical force in defense of property.

563.041

Use of physical force in defense of property.

www.revisor.mo.gov

...

563.031. Use of force in defense of persons.

563.031

Use of force in defense of persons.

revisor.mo.gov

...

RSMo 571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1.

571.030

Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties.

revisor.mo.gov

(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]

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]

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?

When Can You Threaten Deadly Force as a Defensive Tactic?

This question is in the news because of the St. Louis controversy (see, e.g., here and here); but I thought...

reason.com

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...

 

[OC for ME]

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

 

[OC for ME]

For your reading enjoyment...

569.055

Knowingly burning or exploding — penalty.

revisor.mo.gov

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.

Warren v. District of Columbia

Warren v. District of Columbia - 444 A.2d 1

law.justia.com

Police Not Required to Protect; Are They Required to Serve? | Criminal Legal News

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

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]

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]

A query...

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

 

[Doug_Nightmare]

 

[OC for ME]

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.

Curtilage

www.law.cornell.edu

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...

 

[Logan 5]

Too bad the owners don't have some form of previous training with their firearms....

 

[Doug_Nightmare]

Too bad training is not required for exercise of the First Amendment Right to Free Speech.

 

[OC for ME]

...darn that private property right...

 

[color of law]

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]

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.

 

[OC for ME]

...having guns is good...even for liberals...diminish their power in government...expand/restore their individual liberties...