St Louis Couple Served, AR confiscated

Right. Unfortunately the threat has to be imminent, not just a reasonable projection. Someone has to be actually committing or just about to commit a justifiable offense. One can't just assess that things could possibly be about to turn ugly and start taking action at that point. Unless, or course, that action is to just get away--which is an excellent strategy unless, perhaps, the protest happens at your dwelling.
 
Not trying to change the subject but, I wonder how things would be going for these home owners if they would have held their firearms at low ready and not pointed the muzzles at any one?

If under the similar circumstances this happened to me, I do believe I would have walked outside with my AK locked and loaded. But, I would have held it at low ready.

Would this change things? Or would they be in just as much hot water?
 
If I were going to carry a long gun and wanted to make sure no one accused me of pointing it, I would get a sling for it and carry it slung. Roughly the equivalent of a holstered pistol. No one can claim you're pointing a handgun at someone if it's in a holster on your person. Same with a slung rifle if you're not touching it.

That said, even a slung rifle can be used to threaten someone depending on what you say and how you act.

Unless I was certain that my house/property was being targeted, I wouldn't do anything at all. Why would I want to draw attention to my property? I'd much rather that my house be just one more house in a row of houses that they walk past on the way to get where they're really going.
 
Agreed. Nondescript/unnoticed is useful when you are not the target.

Being armed inside your house (perhaps with an open window, if things escalate) is a better plan, in my opinion.
"Rooftop Koreans" had advantages in fields of fire, obstacles to mobs (elevated position/locked doors), and operated from part of their business (defensive confrontation within your building usually affords a slight benefit under the law and/or more clearly establishes who was the aggressor.)
 
From what I've seen they were living in Jed Clampett's mansion. I can imagine so many better options than standing in the front yard and pointing functioning and non-functioning firearms.
 
Should be a relatively easy defense. Just play for the jury, a couple hours of the days worth of video of these "peaceful protesters" destroying property, lighting fires, and attacking people all over the nation. Then tell them that is why you were in fear for your life.
 
Should be a relatively easy defense.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people have gone to prison for a long time believing that.

The idea that if X is true, then Y will definitely happen is something that goes out the window when lethal force, or the threat of lethal force, enters the equation. Police, prosecutors, and juries can all introduce elements of uncertainty.

There is no guaranteed sequence of events or collection of circumstances that will always ensure the authorities call a situation a "good shoot" or simply send you on your way. Things can (and do) get very complicated.
 
News flash today, an interview with the state governor where he said, based on what he knows now, if they were charged with "brandishing", he would consider a pardon.

Full of cya phrases, and committing to nothing, the only real thing about the statement is that it shows that the entire state gov is not monolithically solid on this matter.
 
News flash today, an interview with the state governor where he said, based on what he knows now, if they were charged with "brandishing", he would consider a pardon.
Click to expand...

I just saw that on a couple media outlets that are 'less than mainstream news' but you know that mainstream is not going to cover it. The Missouri Governor hinted very strongly that he intends to pardon these homeowners. I happen to agree with this if he does.
 
44AMP said:
News flash today, an interview with the state governor where he said, based on what he knows now, if they were charged with "brandishing", he would consider a pardon.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The governor and prosecutor both get to perform for their constituents..
 
I'm thinking he is over charging and looking for a plea deal on a lesser charge. I'm thinking I would go with no deal and go to a jury trial. And bet on a hung jury.
 
Looks like its now up to a court to decide who has the "bigger stick" the St Louis city prosecutor or the state Attorney General.

pass the popcorn, my bet is on the state AG...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top