They are not coming for your guns

[codflyer]

1. A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if:

- The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury; or
- The person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death or serious physical injury to another person; or

You clearly are out of your element here and have no idea what you are talking about.

So...if I come home and find someone assaulting my wife and draw a gun on them...i have just committed assault?

 

[mnole03]

So...if I come home and find someone assaulting my wife and draw a gun on them...i have just committed assault?

Yes, and you have a defense.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Yes, and you have a defense.

While true, not sure why folks insist on using certain words in ways that are obviously controversial or combative at the least. For example "Defund the Police" is obviously a trigger phrase, but could be easily defused by using the word "reform", but people love a little combativeness (apparently).

 

[Gimmered]

1. A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if:

- The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury; or
- The person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death or serious physical injury to another person; or

You clearly are out of your element here and have no idea what you are talking about.

So we can agree that the mob was not only trespassing, it was committing assault.

 

[IAHawk2011]

So we can agree that the mob was not only trespassing, it was committing assault.

Derp

 

[William Bonney]

 

[codflyer]

Yes, and you have a defense.

Okay...so we are just playing the semantic game of calling it assault without the clarifying context that it is written in the same statute that self-defense or defense of others negates the charge and that catsle-doctrine in Missouri further strengthens the negation. Basically, "it would be assault if...", and then don't mention the reasons why it clearly is not. I mean, I suppose you could claim someone raped someone else, they just had the defense that they were married and it was consensual...

 

[mnole03]

Okay...so we are just playing the semantic game of calling it assault without the clarifying context that it is written in the same statute that self-defense or defense of others negates the charge and that catsle-doctrine in Missouri further strengthens the negation. Basically, "it would be assault if...", and then don't mention the reasons why it clearly is not. I mean, I suppose you could claim someone raped someone else, they just had the defense that they were married and it was consensual...

There's nothing clear about it. I don't think she has defense. This should go to trial. Let a jury decide.

 

[codflyer]

There's nothing clear about it. I don't think she has defense. This should go to trial. Let a jury decide.

If you are not legally justified in brandishing a firearm in your front lawn with a mob that just tore down an adjoining gate and were chanting things that can very reasonably be interpreted as imminent threats to yourself and your property...i am struggling to think of a situation where it would be justified. Granted, her trigger discipline was pretty abysmal, and things really could have gone sideways quickly...but I put that more on the violent mob that created the situation in the first place. If I had any confidence whatsoever in the current legal system, I would say send this to trial in a heartbeat and let that loudly enforce our individual rights...but, alas, in today's judiciary, that is a sketchy proposition.

 

[DooBi]

From my understanding it wasn’t on their property, the protesters were just walking down the street in a gated neighborhood. I could be wrong though, because I have admittedly not been paying much attention to this story.

Thats kind of my point. The castle doctrine would only apply if they shot someone. They didnt have to because of what they did.

 

[DooBi]

If you are not legally justified in brandishing a firearm in your front lawn with a mob that just tore down an adjoining gate and were chanting things that can very reasonably be interpreted as imminent threats to yourself and your property...i am struggling to think of a situation where it would be justified. Granted, her trigger discipline was pretty abysmal, and things really could have gone sideways quickly...but I put that more on the violent mob that created the situation in the first place. If I had any confidence whatsoever in the current legal system, I would say send this to trial in a heartbeat and let that loudly enforce our individual rights...but, alas, in today's judiciary, that is a sketchy proposition.

I couldn't agree more

 

[IACub]

Uncle Joe is coming to take them away, ha ha

K

 

[IACub]

i don’t think you would say that to my face, but sitting behind a keyboard brings out the worst in people

Just as I doubt you’re simpering in fear about someone taking away your guns in real life, rather just anonymously stirring the pot over imaginary threats.

 

[RNHawk]

Just as I doubt you’re simpering in fear about someone taking away your guns in real life, rather just anonymously stirring the pot over imaginary threats.

this isn’t imaginary

 

[dgordo]

Good stuff in here

 

[hawksurprize]

this isn’t imaginary

Someone who failed government in high school and doesn't understand the constitution.