Gun Debate Time: where do you stand on the Missouri couple with their guns?

Can they point if they feel threatened? This is the thing I'm wondering about.

Depends what state but I think the overall censuses is that you can't.

You can't shoot someone on the leg either. That's illegal in a lot of places. You must prove that your intent was to defend yourself, not because you felt threatened but because your life was in actual danger.

From what I understand this is why most institutions train their people to "shoot to kill". Less chance of a lawsuit when the person is dead instead of wounded and alive.

If the person is dead, people will generally believe the shooter had no choice, true or not. If the person is shot and wounded, the victim could say "Oh well obviously I was not threatening their life, otherwise they would have shot me dead. So I am going to take your ass to court for excessive force" or whatever.

Not sure if that's true or not, just something I've read a few times.

@mrbojangles25: It's always trained to neutralize the threat, never shoot to kill, even if death is a common result.

Sadly I will have to dismiss your whole post because of that lie. :P

Do you think the DA has a chance to identify which protesters were coming with threats? Going after the couple is much easier. We got them on video.

@LJS9502_basic: 2 pages of people explaining how you're wrong, you're either extremely dumb or trolling, its hard to tell the difference.

Dumb? Considering they still violated the St. Louis law I'd say those excusing their behavior are more in line with your slur. Come back to me after you read the law and not until. Or are you trolling? I actually expect trumpers to be wrong all the time anyway. It's what they do. So don't use an appeal to whatever you guys are. Certainly not authorities.

I’m no legal expert, but I don’t think they did anything wrong. It’s just not what I would have done. The only time I would even consider getting my firearm is if they were breaking into my home. The protesters were trespassing on private property and vandalized a gate. None of which they have a right to do.

ROFL like the left is any better. Give me a break man. You all are some of the biggest hypocrites in government right now. You all justify a position because someone else has done it.

BTW you are wrong about this.

BTW read the law cited by the DA. You're wrong.

Nope, those are political charges. He will be wrong when this goes to court.

If people can't defend their homes from an angry mob, there's no point in having freedom. No jury would ever convict them, and the DA who charged them should be thrown out of office.

Let's think realistically about this. Politically speaking, the St. Louis DA has little to no incentive to even try and identify anybody of the protestors involved. I can pretty much guarantee that if that crowd wasn't involved with BLM they would put a better effort into identifying the people involved. Either that or they showed up at her house as other protesters did at the Seattle mayor's house before she took action.

In regards to the couple, it's extremely unlikely they will face any punishment. This is to satisfy the mob that is pulling the race card and is strongly implying that they were just a racist couple that wanted to shoot poor black people. The MO governor already said he would pardon them if things didn't go their way, but I think the DA will have a tough time finding a jury that will convict them anyway if the defense does their job and screens them correctly. That's assuming the MO AG doesn't get the charges thrown out first.

Do you think it would be easy to identify those who trespassed, those who threatened them?

@LJS9502_basic:

You keep saying "they broke the law" or "they violated the law". It seems you have already decided they are guilty.

Now I know you are a smart person, and have read the US Constitution. What happened to the presumption of innocence? Does simply being charged prove the person being charged "broke the law"? Of course not. So why do you keep stating that as though it were a fact?

Yeah those arguing semantics are being very disingenuous because if a violent mob was threatening their home and family, you'd best believe they'd fight back with any means necessary, legality be damned.

I can't say, because I don't know how much footage the DA's office has access to. It's possible they may have access to footage that didn't make the internet. Maybe the couple had video surveillance that could show some of the faces that didn't appear in the viral video, for example. Even something as simple as a Ring Doorbell could have captured that if they owned one.

Keep in mind that on the other side of the political aisle, right-leaning protestors have been doxxed based on their faces being visible in footage of past protests. Sometimes, there have been false identifications, but other times the identifications have been accurate.

Even if they have the means to identify those people, the DA still has to have the desire to identify those people. So far, she has made it clear she has no desire to do so, rather her priorities are to prosecute the couple for pointing weapons at the protestors instead.

That doesn't mean they wouldn't be charged.

Yes, it does. Context is a deciding factor in to whom does or does not get charged with crimes. People aren't robots. Their charges will be dropped, guaranteed.

Being charged isn't proof they broke the law.

Being charged means the DA feels there is a case to be made that the law was violated. Whether they prove it or not or have the accused take a plea deal is entirely different.

Sometimes the DA files charges for less than proper reasons, sometimes even nefarious reasons. But no matter why they were charged, you cannot use the fact that they were charged as proof that these people "broke the law", or "violated the law". To do so demonstrates an unwillingness to adhere to one of our most cherished liberties, the presumption of innocence.

By my count, you have stated 8 times in this thread that this couple either broke or violated the law. Before any trial. Before any opportunity to present their defense, you have already convicted them in your mind.

I hope for this couple's sake that you are not in the jury pool. You are a prosecutor's wet dream.

Easy way to get out of jury duty, though. "If they weren't guilty they wouldn't be in jail."

We all know what she was doing, and who she thinks she was doing it for. She will be shut down for this nonsense.

100% this. To many times in this country when someone gets charges brought against them we automatically assume guilt or they broke the law. That crap really needs to stop, that is what the courts are for. Charges are not facts of law, the facts of law is when the court decides what happens to you and decides if you broke the law or not.

Yes. I use the law as a guide unlike you who picks a side and emotion.

I have not expressed an opinion on this situation. If I were to state my opinion, I would not declare it to be fact.

Obviously you are going to persist in declaring these people to be guilty, so carry on. I am just thankful that we have a constitution that prevents a single individual like this DA, or yourself for that matter, from being the sole arbiter of guilt and innocence.

On the other hand, you might get a jury full of LJS9502's....

On a similar note, if emotion and "picking sides" doesn't factor into the law, then why do lawyers use it as such an effective tool to sway the jury's opinion.

Believe me I wish the law was as objective as we think it is, but it is not. Accusing these people of these various crimes is, in fact, an emotional action by the DA to appease the BLM folks and other sides of this debate.

If this is true and she is found guilty of this, you just cant make this stuff up anymore. ROFLMAO!

Yea its kind of disgusting. I've had to do jury duty twice. Both times I was the odd one out when it came to agreeing on stuff. There was myself (the youngest juror) and the only person who agreed with me was the oldest. Both making our decisions objectively and not being swayed by lawyers emotional theatric shit. oh well.