Couple defend home.....

[99explorer]

I am not forgetting about the property.
I am contradicting your false statement of the law that could get someone into trouble.
You quoted from a statute that purports to allow the use of deadly force "to protect any private property that you own."
Then you omitted a paragraph that cited case law saying that the law "does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect personal property."
That is a very dishonest omission.

[PigHunter]

I am not forgetting about the property.
I am contradicting your false statement of the law that could get someone into trouble.
You quoted from a statute that purports to allow the use of deadly force "to protect any private property that you own."
Then you omitted a paragraph that cited case law saying that the law "does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect personal property."
That is a very dishonest omission.

You've got to be the most stupid member on this forum. I gave you the link from where I got the quote, and I gave you a link to an interview with the homeowner. Note, he's an attorney and had his attorney with him during the interview. There's no doubt they are way more familiar with Missouri Law than you are.

Why are you making such a fuss? What's your personal stake in this? Have you chickened out before and are jealous of someone else when they exhibit bravery?

[99explorer]

You have not answered for the dishonest omission. You just added a few more personal insults.
What more can be expected from a party who was caught point-cheating on the Outdoor Life forum, whose defense is that it was not specifically prohibited?
And then you entered this thread just to insult my personal courage.
I'll bet by now you are sorry you started in with me, because in a battle of wits, you are strictly a unarmed man.

[PigHunter]

You have not answered for the dishonest omission. You just added a few more personal insults.
What more can be expected from a party who was caught point-cheating on the Outdoor Life forum, whose defense is that it was not specifically prohibited?
And then you entered this thread just to insult my personal courage.
I'll bet by now you are sorry you started in with me, because in a battle of wits, you are strictly a unarmed man.

That's where you are wrong. My answer was clear. The text was from a KSGK news article on the incident and I provided the link. And you know damned well there was nothing dishonest about it. Here it is again...

What the 'Castle Doctrine' means in Missouri
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/lo...5-c270a0fd2879

Your narcissism is showing when you think it's all about you. Look again, I entered this thread to add relevant content which included a local news article and a video interview with one of the homeowners. It's not my fault you're such a dumbass.

As far as the Outdoor Life points you keep bring up, at no time did Bonner Corp nor anyone else show that I was operating beyond the site rules. Thus it was not point-cheating and I'm proud of my accomplishments there. For the last year and a half, the site no longer tracks points in that way and it's childish of you to keep bring up this old issue. I think you're just jealous you never made the top 10

[99explorer]

Wow! You made a copy of the Leaderboard with your name at the top. Bet that makes you feel superior or something.
You still have not answered for that omission of the qualifying paragraph that explains that you cannot use deadly force in defense of private property.
Here is the key paragraph that you omitted:

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect personal property. In 2016, the state Supreme Court held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from imminent harm.

Or do you stand by your post (Comment #24) that claims you CAN use deadly force in defense of personal property?

[PigHunter]

Wow! You made a copy of the Leaderboard with your name at the top. Bet that makes you feel superior or something.
You still have not answered for that omission of the qualifying paragraph that explains that you cannot use deadly force in defense of private property.
Here is the key paragraph that you omitted:

However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect personal property. In 2016, the state Supreme Court held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from imminent harm.

Or do you stand by your post (Comment #24) that claims you CAN use deadly force in defense of personal property?

Idiot, I've already shown you where I got the information. Unlike you, I'm a licensed Professional and ethically I'm not supposed to give advice outside of my expertise. "I" didn't claim a damn thing nor give recommendation about the use of deadly force. Instead, I presented a quote out of an article.

As far as I know, you haven't passed the Missouri Bar Exam and thus shouldn't assume you know that State's laws.

[99explorer]

I am not letting you weasel out of this so easily.
You quoted a source of law on the use of deadly force to prove a point, that deadly force could be used in protecting personal property, and omitted a paragraph from the same source that supported the opposite conclusion, based on case law. That is dishonest, but you could beg off by apologizing for your neglect, and failure to understand the law.
Your apology would be accepted.

[dewman]

You guys need to read the Whipple decision a little closer. The appellate court said the lower court was in error for not instructing the jury in regards to self defense as there was ample evidence such was the case. The appeal he lost in that same case was they used his former conviction in sentencing and he argued they could not do that as the sentence he received was suspended.

[dewman]

Whipple's wife went over to the neighbors and accused their kids of taking their kids bike. When she went home the neighbor took his kids over to Whipple's place and of course the two dads argued. Neighbor said he'd beat Whipples ass so Whipple showed he was packing. Neighbor gets in his vehicle and backs up to do a 3 point turn so Whipple draws and puts one in the neighbors hood. Neighbor hauls ass out of there and calls police. You be the judge. Missouri does have a very liberal castle doctrine. Appellate said jury should have been instructed in castle doctrine but I don't think it would've mattered much.

[dewman]

Also and much more important : WHIPPLE DONT MEAN A DAMNED THING TO MISSOURI STAND YOUR GROUND. HIS CASE WAS OVER! INCLUDING APPEALS IN 2016. MISSOURIS CASTLE DOCTRINE IS 2017. Jeese, do your homework

[PigHunter]

I am not letting you weasel out of this so easily.
You quoted a source of law on the use of deadly force to prove a point, that deadly force could be used in protecting personal property, and omitted a paragraph from the same source that supported the opposite conclusion, based on case law. That is dishonest, but you could beg off by apologizing for your neglect, and failure to understand the law.
Your apology would be accepted.

For the 4th time dumbass, I was quoting out of an article. Go to the link if you don't believe me. There's no neglect on my part because I'm not the one trying to practice law.

Missouri Laws 484.020 – Who shall engage in the practice of law or do law business — penalty.

https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/...20professional

"No person shall engage in the practice of law or do law business, as defined in section 484.010, or both, unless he shall have been duly licensed therefor and while his license therefor is in full force and effect..."

[fitch270]

Three days with no cell service and this is what’s waiting. Oh well. Haven’t seen where shots were fired so at worst it would be menacing, but not in my opinion. Looks like both have their fingers outside the trigger guards so good on them.

We haven’t seen the last of these situations.

[jhjimbo]

That's where you are wrong. My answer was clear. The text was from a KSGK news article on the incident and I provided the link. And you know damned well there was nothing dishonest about it. Here it is again...

What the 'Castle Doctrine' means in Missouri
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/lo...5-c270a0fd2879

Your narcissism is showing when you think it's all about you. Look again, I entered this thread to add relevant content which included a local news article and a video interview with one of the homeowners. It's not my fault you're such a dumbass.

As far as the Outdoor Life points you keep bring up, at no time did Bonner Corp nor anyone else show that I was operating beyond the site rules. Thus it was not point-cheating and I'm proud of my accomplishments there. For the last year and a half, the site no longer tracks points in that way and it's childish of you to keep bring up this old issue. I think you're just jealous you never made the top 10

I miss some of those old guys.

[PigHunter]

I miss some of those old guys.

Me too. That last site upgrade was too much for a few of them. Charlie Elk has his own site and I occasionally read his blogs.

[jhjimbo]

I did hear one news report say that some of the demonstrators did have firearms. Good things did not get out of hand. BUT, my prediction is they will be back - in spades.