So, sitting in your house and hear people protesting going down the street. You decide that you’re in imminent danger even though the “protestors” are walking past other houses, you and your wife decide to grab your firearms and go outside.
i don’t think there’s anything illegal up to this point. Stupid? Absolutely, but not illegal.
It becomes illegal when the woman starts aiming her gun at people protesting down a public sidewalk. You’d also be hard pressed to make the argument that these protestors are exactly the same as the rioters you saw on television in another part of the country.
You want to stand outside with your firearm, whatever. I think most states allow that, but it’s a whole different ballgame when you’re aiming it people.
You clearly do not understand the application of the term "force disparity."
A crowd of protestors is objectively a greater physical threat than these two assumed homeowners. Therefore, they are fully justified in displaying their weapons and showcasing the full risk of attack to the protestors.
Such action has likely dissuaded violent action by the mob.
force disparity doesn’t lower the threshold of having to prove what is objectively reasonable.
Nothing shows the crowd was attacking the homeowners or their property, everything I’ve seen shows the crowd on a public sidewalk/street.
They’re legally justified to carry their firearms, I’m not arguing that. Fuck, I’m not even arguing that I disagree with the spirit of their actions. My point was that there is no way (legally) the woman will be able to prove her subjective belief of fear is objectively reasonable.
Subsection 2, part 3: "Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section."
My God...
So, sitting in your house and hear people protesting going down the street. You decide that you’re in imminent danger even though the “protestors” are walking past other houses, you and your wife decide to grab your firearms and go outside.
i don’t think there’s anything illegal up to this point. Stupid? Absolutely, but not illegal.
It becomes illegal when the woman starts aiming her gun at people protesting down a public sidewalk. You’d also be hard pressed to make the argument that these protestors are exactly the same as the rioters you saw on television in another part of the country.
You want to stand outside with your firearm, whatever. I think most states allow that, but it’s a whole different ballgame when you’re aiming it people.
You clearly do not understand the application of the term "force disparity."
A crowd of protestors is objectively a greater physical threat than these two assumed homeowners. Therefore, they are fully justified in displaying their weapons and showcasing the full risk of attack to the protestors.
Such action has likely dissuaded violent action by the mob.
force disparity doesn’t lower the threshold of having to prove what is objectively reasonable.
Nothing shows the crowd was attacking the homeowners or their property, everything I’ve seen shows the crowd on a public sidewalk/street.
They’re legally justified to carry their firearms, I’m not arguing that. Fuck, I’m not even arguing that I disagree with the spirit of their actions. My point was that there is no way (legally) the woman will be able to prove her subjective belief of fear is objectively reasonable.
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=563.031
Subsection 2, part 3: "Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section."