Missouri man who guarded home with rifle reveals that 'rumor is' he and wife will be 'indicted shortly'

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

9 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

I used Waze for about a year after it came out.  Not sure why, but I drifted away from it.  Not really sure why, exactly.  But now that google maps allows you to report stuff like gators and cops, plus all the business info... I guess I just prefer that.

I'd use Waze more just to avoid Google apps but thing crashes too much. Google copying competitors really isn't a surprise, they exist purely to pull as many people as possible into their data ecosystem.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

28 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I'd use Waze more just to avoid Google apps but thing crashes too much. Google copying competitors really isn't a surprise, they exist purely to pull as many people as possible into their data ecosystem.

That one reason Toyota was so late to Android Auto. They would not agree to all of Google's intrusive data sharing 

[90DayFinancier 910]

Waze and Google maps are both Google products so you are not dodging any Google data gathering. Waze has the crowd sourced layer and features like Spotify. I expect the products to merge eventually.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Apparently nearly a decade ago too, never even knew that. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, laylalex said:

Do the McCloskeys have the right to threaten people with deadly force to leave private property which they do not own? I mean, they don't own the private street. Presumably the HOA does. I mean, even when these people wanted to enforce part of the HOA agreement in the past to exclude unmarried couples, they recognized it was the HOA who had to enforce the rules, not them. 

So what rights do renters have in defending their homes or property?

[Dashinka 23,252]

10 hours ago, laylalex said:

But they don't own Portland Place. The trespassers didn't come onto the McCloskeys' property. They can't enforce other people's/parties'/organizations' rights. 

 

My best friend lives in a mixed-use building not far from me. The residences are condos; there's a yoga studio and some restaurants and cafes on the ground floor. Let's say some people walk into the yoga studio after hours. Not a break in, just walk in. She can't go down to the yoga studio and tell people to get out of there, it's private property. She doesn't have the right to tell them to get lost and wave a gun around. The people who own the yoga studio do, and so does the HOA (which owns the yoga studio from what I know). 

Even if the property the rioters were on was community property, the McClosky’s are at least partial owners of it and it is still private property.  Now unless any of the other co-owners invited the rioters to come in, these folks were still trespassing, and all of the co-owners have the ability to enforce this.  Now I would think that a community like this would opt for private security to patrol the common areas, but that is a decision of the HOA.  We live in a private sub that includes signs against trespassing, and no solicitations, when a solicitor comes to my door, I courteously remind them this is private property and they are trespassing, in general they leave, but sometimes some of the political types like to hang around.

[Dashinka 23,252]

8 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

I used Waze for about a year after it came out.  Not sure why, but I drifted away from it.  Not really sure why, exactly.  But now that google maps allows you to report stuff like gators and cops, plus all the business info... I guess I just prefer that.

I use Waze almost exclusively, but lately it has deteriorated in its performance, picking crappy routes, not warning of an event that was marked such as an object on the road, and going into some sort of warning loop occasionally, etc.  My thought is that this is the Google/MS effect, when these good software packages are purchased by these big boys, they become much worse.  Skype is another example, much better program before MS bought them.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

14 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

There was nothing unsafe, unless one of the mob of  rioters had tried to assualt them.

 

  Are you saying no one in the mob tried to assault them? That's not going to help their case.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Are you saying no one in the mob tried to assault them? That's not going to help their case.

Don't you know that words equal violence?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Even if the property the rioters were on was community property, the McClosky’s are at least partial owners of it and it is still private property.  Now unless any of the other co-owners invited the rioters to come in, these folks were still trespassing, and all of the co-owners have the ability to enforce this.  Now I would think that a community like this would opt for private security to patrol the common areas, but that is a decision of the HOA.  We live in a private sub that includes signs against trespassing, and no solicitations, when a solicitor comes to my door, I courteously remind them this is private property and they are trespassing, in general they leave, but sometimes some of the political types like to hang around.

 

      Some key issues to sort out.

 

   Difference between home and property. In general, you can kill a trespasser for coming into your home. You can't (legally) kill a trespasser for walking onto your lawn and digging up your yard.

 

   Difference between carrying a gun and pointing a gun at someone. You can legally point a gun at someone in the same situations in which you can legally shoot them. Doing it to scare or intimidate someone is going to cause legal issues.

 

  Difference between defense and attack. You cannot pre-emptively defend yourself because you are scared of a situation. They were not attacked. They were fine going out with weapons. That is their right. They should not have pointed the weapons at the crowd unless reasonable and legitimate threat existed. The prosecutor has not seen evidence of that threat. 

 

 

    

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

18 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Are you saying no one in the mob tried to assault them? That's not going to help their case.

Their case has nothing to do with assault. Their case is the justification of pointing weapons at a mob of people already recklessly trespassing in their neighborhood and not heeding warnings. All they need to demonstrate is that they were reasonably afraid for themselves and their family, a ridiculously easy task.

 

9 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

      Some key issues to sort out.

 

   Difference between home and property. In general, you can kill a trespasser for coming into your home. You can't (legally) kill a trespasser for walking onto your lawn and digging up your yard.

 

   Difference between carrying a gun and pointing a gun at someone. You can legally point a gun at someone in the same situations in which you can legally shoot them. Doing it to scare or intimidate someone is going to cause legal issues.

 

  Difference between defense and attack. You cannot pre-emptively defend yourself because you are scared of a situation. They were not attacked. They were fine going out with weapons. That is their right. They should not have pointed the weapons at the crowd unless reasonable and legitimate threat existed. The prosecutor has not seen evidence of that threat. 

See above: The rationality you pointed out might be acceptable in states I lived in like CA where more leeway is given to criminals than law abiding citizens. 

 

However, where you are correct (and the point is applicable) is in the bold. Because the McCloskeys could reasonably interpret them as a threat, and have no duty to retreat, some people could've been shot and the couple would be doing just as well legally.

 

There also could've been things that happened off video. I'm not sure but when the people were entering the gate, it looks like one of them throws something into the McCloskeys yard. If idiots think they can get away with behaving like this to people, they might need that kind of reality check.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, Cyberfx1024 said:

Don't you know that words equal violence?

 

     The threat has to be legitimate. If I punch someone in the face for "words" and there was no legitimate reason to believe the threat is real, I am going to jail.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

6 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     The threat has to be legitimate. If I punch someone in the face for "words" and there was no legitimate reason to believe the threat is real, I am going to jail.

That would be applicable to whatever other scenario you speak of, not for this.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Their case has nothing to do with assault. Their case is the justification of pointing weapons at a mob of people already recklessly trespassing in their neighborhood and not heeding warnings. All they need to demonstrate is that they were reasonably afraid for themselves and their family, a ridiculously easy task.

 

   That's a common fallacy that people need to get past. Especially in the day and age where everything is recorded on cell phone video. What you are talking about applies inside your home and/or immediate area where the castle doctrine applies. That is when you only need to demonstrate reasonable fear for safety. 

 

  The McCloskey's already admitted they went outside after they saw the crowd marching. They will not be able to justify pointing weapons at the mob. There is nothing on the video evidence that shows they will be. That is why they are facing the possibility of being charged. 

[Dashinka 23,252]

13 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   That's a common fallacy that people need to get past. Especially in the day and age where everything is recorded on cell phone video. What you are talking about applies inside your home and/or immediate area where the castle doctrine applies. That is when you only need to demonstrate reasonable fear for safety. 

 

  The McCloskey's already admitted they went outside after they saw the crowd marching. They will not be able to justify pointing weapons at the mob. There is nothing on the video evidence that shows they will be. That is why they are facing the possibility of being charged. 

So you are saying if a mob was approaching your abode you would sit back and let them start the fire.   BTw, assault can include words, in fact in a legal sense assault typically includes only verbal threats whereas when things get physical, then battery comes into play.  The mob was illegally on private property doing what they could to threaten the homeowners living there plain and simple, whatever happens to this couple is up to the justice system,  but where are the prosecutions of the mob participants?