“ Missouri couple who defended home have rifle seized...”

I'd be interested in knowing about the judge who signed the warrant.

Kleanbore said:

The most likely serious charge would involve violation of Mo. Rev Statutes § 571.030 (4).

Click to expand...

For those who would like to read that, here's the link. http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=571.030&hl=

Law enforcement forums say that this is perfectly legit given a reasonable assumption that there might be a crime. Nothing stops them from buying another gun. The issuing judge isn't the one to decide innocence or guilt.

The only thing that surprises me about this is that they didn't take Patricia's pistol as well. (Or maybe they did and the news just didn't mention it).

Without knowing all the ins and outs of Missouri, wouldn't RsMo 563.031 subsection 2 subdivision 3 make bringing a charge pedantic at best?

rabid wombat said:

not pedantic, punitive...check out the DA...it explains a lot.

Click to expand...

I guess where I'm headed is the DA is well past negligence and is quite firmly in the realm of stupidity. How else do you explain bringing a case with no chance of winning (unless they have video of the defendants being just boneheads prior to the crowd committing trespass) and setting up a financial loss for the city/state? Even if for punitive reasons, handing the very people you're trying to punish a win isn't very punitive IMO

*added thought*
Surely a win in an election isn't a blank check to disregard the very law you swear to uphold. Isn't there a version of fiduciary responsibility for elected officials?

The DA has a whole lot of baggage and history and extreme bias and prejudice on this case. From what I have read about her she has had a 56% drop in prosecution rates since taking office. Obviously not a friend of the Police. I am hoping this really back fires on her. Abuse of office is not what this country is about or stands for. Hopefully a full mounted investigation into her conduct will start immediately.

It is easy to say a trial will go this way or that way if there is a trial. Also, saying the DA is this or that, doesn't help them. This is the legal forum so let's stick to the LAW and not drop into side issues and politics.

Take the hint.

What puzzles me is why they would seize the AR and not the woman’s pistol. As I recall she was brandishing the pistol while her husband seemed to be just holding then rifle at ready. I know I am making a big assumption here, but I think the if her pistol had also been seized it would have been reported. I hope I am not getting simple minded in old age, but I just don’t get only taking one weapon.

The lesson I get from this is, have spares! Like tires and fire extinguishers.

Can someone tell me what the law says about "Peaceful Protest" as the prosecutor is declaring what they were. Do you have to have a permit to protest? Did they have one? If not, were they protestors or alleged criminals?
Is there a law against NO TRESPASSING when going through a gated community where they had to go through signs that were clearly visible?
If the so called Protestors were illegal in their acts and did threaten the lives of the residential owners, is that Lawful? Were the protestors questioned individually? I am guessing that they were arrested and a trial for each and every one of them will come up soon.(or just released and not charged or just given a ticket?) Can a lawyer for the Defense, subpoena each and every one of the Protestors?

Kleanbore said:

I see no basis for believing that the prosecution would have not chance of winning.

By the way, pointing a gun at trespassers is a no no in almost every state in the union, and it has been for centuries.

Click to expand...

Lol, that is your opinion. Certainly not the belief of the Defense. And the defense might very well see the relevance to the trespassing on private property and illegal gathering of so called Protestors. How about we let the trial come out and let a judge decide what is relevant and what is not? Let's see even if it goes to trial and not completely thrown out.

Kleanbore said:

pointing a gun at trespassers is a no no in almost every state in the union, and it has been for centuries.

Click to expand...

So this is what confuses me. As I step through this, here is my thought:
*571.030.1(4) says "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"

ok, seems like a clear cut case except for *571.030.5 which says
"Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031."

So I think "Does 563.031 give the defendants a solid defense?"
When I read through it, I come to 563.031.1(1) which says " A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:" "(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:"
There are then some qualifiers which make force justified but not sure if they would apply, so as I alluded to earlier, some evidence may exist that shows the defendants to clearly be the aggressors but without knowledge of that I keep reading.

I then get to subsection 2 as referenced and then subsection 3. 563.031.2(3) "A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:" "2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:" "(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."

If the group (peaceful or otherwise) unlawfully entered, and remained after unlawfully entering the private property that was the gated community, then by the statute, I then take it the defendants would be justified in using physical force. I am assuming that an offense of 571.030.1(4) would be classified as a physical act that is justified under 563.031.2(3) or is pointing a gun not considered a physical act? How would the answer change had both defendants kept their weapons at low ready or had maintained position on the front porch of the home (weapon handling and position may be two separate issues here also)?

Thank you in advance for any insight.

The McCloskeys' have a right to defend themselves and I support that. What they did may, or may not have been illegal, that will be determined later. But standing in your yard pointing guns at people walking down the street was stupid. There are better ways to handle this. They didn't make any of us look good.