The Castle Doctrine In Missouri
BY Herschel Smith
3 years, 9 months ago
PJM.
Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that although it’s “very dangerous” to engage protesters with guns, the homeowners broke no laws by brandishing or pointing weapons at them because Portland Place is a private street. He said the McCloskeys are protected by Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.
“At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn,” Walker said, calling the state’s Castle Doctrine a “force field” that “indemnifies you, and you can even pull the trigger in Missouri.”
Well that should about cover it. But leave it to the communist prosecutor bringing charges against this couple to continue the carnival, waste taxpayer monies, and continue her march through the halls of Marxist heroes.
On July 16, 2020 at 10:41 pm, penses said:
Two words. Michael Flynn.
On July 17, 2020 at 4:35 am, rondo1342 said:
I’d like to think the McCloskeys will move out of St Louis, as it’s obvious the city views them as the enemy, but who in their right mind would buy their house??? St Louis, an independent city, not part of St Louis County, has been in a Detroit-style death spiral for years….looked it up a few days ago, St Louis population peaked in the 1950 census, a little above 850k people…..its population now is barely above 300k, and dropping fast…
Meanwhile, in KC where I live, we might break 500k for the second time in history; KC broke 500k in the 1970 census, but has remained fairly stable since, hovering a bit above or below the 450k mark….current estimated 2019 population is approx 495k…..KC has had only two population declines per the census since 1870; 1980, and 1990. But KC is not an independent city, and is spread over three counties (the least two populous went for Trump in ’16), and so it has to deal with three county gov’ts and thus has constraints on the more crazy leftist buffoonery that the St Louis city “leadership” doesn’t
On July 17, 2020 at 7:25 am, Mark Matis said:
Two more words: Roger Stone.
Piggies gonna pig.
On July 17, 2020 at 8:45 am, Jim Bryan said:
It’s Missouri, so “Show Me” (I don’t trust what the lawyer says). If that’s accurate–that “they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn”–then Missouri’s approach to the Castle Doctrine is unique. Generally, elsewhere, the CD applies to “forcible and unlawful” entry into an occupied dwelling or conveyance.
A prudent man would not trust any “constitutional law professor” who advises that a statute is “a force field” that “indemnifies you.” That’s not the way that serious people communicate on serious legal matters. It’s nonsense. Get better advice. lawofselfdefense.com is a great resource (but not free).
I do have sympathy for the McCloskeys–certainly NOT for the rioters–but I don’t think the McCloskeys handled the situation in a manner that was safe or legally prudent. As attorneys, they should have known better.
As Herschel said in an earlier post, they need to get some training so they can safely and effectively defend themselves (we all do). They also need to spend some time defining some boundaries and tactics that are legally defendable. Safe, effective self defense requires significant forethought and practice.
And do not listen to advice about legal “force fields” and the use of deadly force to “get people off your lawn”. That is just stupid talk.
On July 17, 2020 at 11:33 am, Wes said:
“Generally elsewhere” is also not advised as guidance.
Use of deadly force laws can vary more between states than one might suspect, especially reading the precedents that are normally annotated to the statute if one looks them up – i.e., stuff that’s actually been adjudicated; call them lessons-learned, many hard ones.
The so-called “CD” applies in WI to the residence, whether in or out, and the curtilage thereto and property over which the person has exclusive control. However, one need not be INSIDE their residence to find defense within the law, as well as for a 3rd party (like a good neighbor) who’d be ‘permitted’ to defend themselves in the same way if they had the means. Repelling boarders that have crossed your line will be dependent on the circumstances; and some others are likely to decide for you what your perceived level of threat should be. That’s just one example.
Bottom line: know the law for the ground on which your feet are planted.
And never talk to the cops.
On July 17, 2020 at 8:23 pm, penses said:
“He said the McCloskeys are protected by Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.” BFD
Two many words to count.
From the tower of Babel to the present laws have been quicksand for the innocent. The banana republic, with its bought and paid for kangaroo court system, has done away with what little objectivity the law possessed. Most laws are capricious and passed based on a whim, the passion of a movement or a crusade, for the sole purpose of satisfying a vested interest.
Trial by jury was a system wherein the jury decided the law and the judge handed down a judgment. The tyrants in robes have taken that power away from the jury and in some instances have instructed juries on what decision they should make and have reversed juries decisions.
The recent war Trump has had with various judicial courts, where a local or district judge makes an unconstitutional decision based on political adventurism and then applies it to all 50 states, is a good example of what Jefferson meant when he said the law in the hands of a judge is like clay in the hands of a child.
Now AJs and DAs are flexing their well paid (Soros) muscles and taking the same tack as their leftist friends in the judiciay by ignoring the law and handing down illegal edicts and fiats, not based on statutes but, meant to satisfy various vested interests with leftist agendas, with no fear of retribution by a mongrel, spineless, inept Republican party that owes its soul to Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce. (Same scenario for masks, distancing and shutdowns.) If there is a bandwagon rolling through town the Republicans will jump on it in a heart beat.
As for the Supremos, bye, bye Constitution.
Trump has let the left beat the c–p out of his supporters almost daily with no moral support whatsoever. Then two liberals in St Louis get stiffed and he comments publicly in their support. GAG
Now we are back to situational awareness or in this case political activism awareness. In this scenario standing your ground only applied to the rioters because they are the “vested interests” that the local law enforcement will support. In simple layman’s terms the Kimberly Gardners of the world are telling America “You can take your private property rights, stand you ground and the Constitution and shove them up your a–.”
Over the yrs I have developed a habit of reading between the lines of leftist cant. It would be a good habit to form for everyone on the right. In some cases–Lenin, Saul Alinsky, Mao–they are honest and tell you they will give you the rope to hang yourself with. But right now it has to be smoke and mirrors and pretending to hide behind Muh’ Constitution for the local commissars, presenting a pretense of law and order while at the same time ignoring it. ChazI in Seaddled and Chaz2 in Portlandia is the silent scream of the leftist ruling class mantra in its true essence: Here we are. We are here to stay. Go f–k yourself (excuse my French). They are telling you this is our agenda.
This couple has not been paying attention because they are members of the left and thought themselves untouchable. They are part of the problem and are paying double by supporting the very controllers that blindsided them. They are in my prayers but I have n-o sympathy for them. Reminds me of the video of the man who used his foot in the wood shredder. It was not an accident. It was planned carelessness.
As Herschel keeps reminding us the CONTROLLERS are feverishly at work while Amerika sleeps.
OT: At the latest NASCAR event Bubba Wallace got booed during the introductions and cheered whenever he wrecked. NASCAR is so desperate for good publicity before the race they had a crew painting the seats in the upper tiers to make it look like they were full of paying customers. LOL.
On July 17, 2020 at 11:04 pm, Ron said:
First.
It’s NOT the Castle Doctrine that they should be talking about.
What they should be talking about is that Missouri has a “Stand Your Ground” law.
There is NO duty to retreat if in “imminent threat of deadly harm” ANYWHERE you have a legal right to be.
The same applies to protecting another person if they are in “imminent threat of deadly harm”.
PUBLIC or Private, as long as you have a right to be there. [see Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII § 563.031 below]
No rule about “within 21 feet” or whatever.
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.031. Use of force in defense of persons
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046 ;
or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;
(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.
2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person;
or
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
3. A person does not have a duty to retreat:
(1) From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;
(2) From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or
(3) If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.
4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.
On July 18, 2020 at 1:35 am, StillSworn said:
Have heard comment that if your guns are to taken away, they should be worn out.
On July 18, 2020 at 2:14 am, Dan said:
The law…be it ‘castle doctrine’, ‘stand your ground’ or any other law is irrelevant in this instance. The issue is NOT one of legal or illegal. The issue is quite plainly partisan politics. The prosecutor behind the persecution of the McCloskey’s is owned body and soul by George Soros. She is one of untold hundreds…perhaps THOUSANDS of such low level politicians in positions of meaningful power he contributed spent a great deal of money on to help them get elected. Now she….like ALL his hired henchpeople….is doing EXACTLY what she was put in place to do. Ignore the law and use her position to misuse, abuse and persecute ANYONE and EVERYONE who isn’t part of the communist lefts attempts to destroy freedom and America. This prosecutor KNOWS that the McCloskey’s broke no laws. She simply DOES NOT CARE about the law except as a tool to use to further the agenda of the communist left.
On July 18, 2020 at 6:32 pm, Pat Hines said:
We now know that a George Soros connected PAC has donated $78,000.00 to the communist female attempting to prosecute the McCloskys.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/soros-linked-pac-donates-77000-st-louis-circuit-attorney-targeting
On July 18, 2020 at 9:30 pm, penses said:
In the future a Miranda card and 911 will be moot. Just ask the victims of another civil war going on in Portlandia. There are videos of victims being pummeled into unconsciousness and then dragged off the street to suffer and maybe die. Or the four Proud Boys sitting in jail in NY for the crime of being attacked by an ANTIFA mob. These are the types of “police actions” to expect from the controllers in every Blue state.
The ACLU and the Oregon AT are not suing the organizers of the riots to recompense the destroyed businesses and victims.
“Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum will file a lawsuit in federal court tonight seeking a temporary restraining order barring the Department of Homeland Security and other federal law enforcement agencies from seizing and detaining Portland protesters without probable cause.
“Her announcement follows a July 16 report by Oregon Public Broadcasting that federal officers whisked away protesters in unmarked vans—rental vehicles, it now appears.
She also announced that the Oregon Department of Justice and the Multnomah County district attorney would open a criminal investigation into the July 11 injury of Donavan LaBella, whom a U.S. Marshals Service officer shot in the face with a munition.”–Willamette Week
“What is happening in Portland is an unconstitutional nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “This is not law and order. This is lawlessness. The ACLU will not let the government respond to protests against police brutality with still more brutality. We will continue to hold law enforcement at all levels of government accountable, just as we have nationwide.”–From the ACLU pr.
The best example of projection by the left so far.
And keep in mine the Feds are not there defending American citizens or their property. They are there to defend federal property that was being vandalized. It is interesting seeing an example of the ROCK and a HARD PLACE fighting each other. Taking time out in their war against YOU to have their own civil war. This doesn’t seem to be apparent to any of the talking heads on the left or right.