Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Aug 14 12:30:47 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Armed couple #2
Habebe
Member
Fri Jul 24 18:42:52
Tw, "
i assume neighbors walk back & forth on that sidewalk, but you wouldn't expect neighbors walking in your fenced yard (or unfenced yard for that matter)"

I think its sort like the right of way situation.

Where Inlived in Perkasie it was a row home , so anyone who built a fence ( which was all but the one guy on the end) we had to put in a 10ft wide gate to allow right of way so people could easily access there own backyard. But it was limited to our neighbors and honestly rarley used.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Fri Jul 24 19:02:47
thread already continued here:

http://www...hread=86185&time=1595628187580
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jul 24 19:17:11
this thread has a more obvious title for people looking :p

also, there was no lynch attempt, the protesters had no interest in that couple or their house

as for the gate, it has nothing to do with their property, it's an entrance/exit from that community onto the standard public streets
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jul 24 19:28:09
100 Portland Place, St Louis is the address if anyone wants to look

the gate is where the neighborhood connects out onto the public road
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 24 21:21:19
https://ecode360.com/28418728

St. Louis Ordinances.

That is the code they are charged under.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Fri Jul 24 21:38:03
No. They're charged under this state statute:

http://law...souri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
Habebe
Member
Fri Jul 24 21:42:23
Tw, But that gate is part of the gated community. It's what makes it a gated community literally and is meant to keep non members out.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jul 24 21:46:50
oops, 1 Portland Place... not 100, i was going from memory

i know the gate is for the community, just it has nothing to do w/ the couple

they may have been defending the neighborhood, but there was no threat to them or their house (they made up bullshit about being rushed)
Renzo Marquez
Member
Fri Jul 24 21:49:15
tumbleweed
the wanderer Fri Jul 24 21:46:50
"i know the gate is for the community, just it has nothing to do w/ the couple"

They live in the gated community. Their house is close to the gate that your ferals broke down "peacefully." It has plenty to do with them.
Habebe
Member
Fri Jul 24 22:01:16
Tw, I agree there story is BS.

But like you said this mob of ppl broke said gate and continued past there house.

I agree The mob was probably not going to do anything to there house. But it gets tricky since it is communal property of which they are a part of.
Habebe
Member
Fri Jul 24 22:01:46
Also they stood well within there personal property.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jul 24 22:06:47
[i was typing this before Habebe posted, not a response to him]


map
http://imgur.com/a/A9AzXEI

circle = gate
arrow = path of travel we see of protesters in videos
(almost as if they are proceeding up the sidewalk)

did they rush through that gate & charge in attack formation toward the first house (unlike every group of protesters everywhere)... where Ted & Marge* are having dinner in the backyard, hear the commotion, go to look, call 911, retrieve a working gun & an inoperable gun (as is his story)... then confront the attackers before they achieve anything against their house & they push back the murderous mob to the sidewalk & the woman w/ inoperable gun continues her solo counterattack down onto the lawn...


or maybe they never posed a threat, never had any interest in that house, never rushed thus Ted is lying which sews major distrust

(*Ted & Marge aren't the real names :p)


my complaint is Marge aiming the gun at people... if it's legal, then go ahead... keep aiming guns at people where not warranted
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jul 24 22:09:19
*sows (not sews)... i get that wrong often :p
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 25 03:51:55
RM: "No. They're charged under this state statute:"

Are you sure about that? I have found no direct reference to it.

TW
It is likely not legal. The amicus statement is arguing purely that the acts are protected by the castle doctrine. The principle here is that something that is illegal, is legal if done in the defence of home.

http://ago...---filed.pdf?sfvrsn=e1b38af9_2
Renzo Marquez
Member
Sat Jul 25 06:08:48
jergul
large member Sat Jul 25 03:51:55
"Are you sure about that? I have found no direct reference to it."

Yes. It's in the other thread. tw posted a link to the first page of the complaint. It refers to the state statute.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jul 25 06:26:16
The reference might be in the interview with the couple.

http://www...07-4adc-4df0-a7d0-000d40a89e78
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jul 25 12:08:19
"Being inside that gate is like being in my living room."

total nonsense

-----

"My wife doesn't know anything about guns, but she knows about being scared. And she grabbed a pistol and I had a rifle, and I was very, very careful I didn't point the rifle at anybody."

well, she sure wasn't careful (& adds to my theory he disabled it to save her from herself... quite likely just after that incident)

-----

"The only thing that stopped the crowd from approaching the house was when I had that rifle and I was holding there. The only thing that stemmed the tide."

bullshit, they would've passed on by

it's actually the opposite... the only thing that made the crowd angry at them (or notice their house at all) was their armed response


fuck you, Ted, you liar
Renzo Marquez
Member
Sat Jul 25 12:14:28
tw is angry at a man for protecting his property against violent criminals but not at the tool of the state (prosecutor) for repeatedly misleading the public about the case. Many such cases. Sad!
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jul 25 12:43:31
he wasn't protecting his property, his property was not harmed nor likely to be harmed (unless these protesters suddenly changed tactics starting at his specific home)

============
the law that seems at play:

"
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:
...
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;
...
"

=============

she did this clearly... (i haven't studied all the video to analyze Ted's behavior)

i don't know if her gun was disabled or not at that point, but she certainly didn't think so & i doubt it was as why would you keep a disabled gun in your house... you have the gun for defense

(& two weeks passed before confiscated, so condition at seizure isn't proof one way or the other)

============

the possible applicable exception to law seems to be:
"
5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031, RSMo.

...[some text of 563.031]
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: [goes on w/ exceptions]
"

so that & the disabled gun seem to be the whole case

& probably why lyin' Ted keeps trying to pretend they were about to be killed & house burned (they have to expect imminent unlawful force from the protesters who were walking by... & whom Marge walked right up to waving her gun...)
Renzo Marquez
Member
Sat Jul 25 13:59:32
tumbleweed
the wanderer Sat Jul 25 12:43:31
"so that & the disabled gun seem to be the whole case"

Yes. She will argue that her gun was not "readily capable of lethal use" and will likely prevail on this point. The prosecutor is unlikely to be able to prove that the gun was capable of being fired at the time of the incident.

They will both argue the affirmative defense of self-defense. They will both prevail as MO is very lenient regarding what constitutes self-defense.
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 25 15:19:15
RM
Or they might just take mandated sensitivity training to avoid rolling the dice.

There is the link I provided. What might be legal in general state law can still violate city law.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Sat Jul 25 15:33:40
jergul
large member Sat Jul 25 15:19:15
"There is the link I provided. What might be legal in general state law can still violate city law."

This prosecutor would have charged them if she could. She's Nifong Jr.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jul 25 17:45:59
Tw, In all fairness the couple couldnt read the minds of these protestors. At the time similar protests were turning violent. Its anyones guess if this would have remained non violent, especially after they ripped down a gate by force.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jul 25 17:46:00
Tw, In all fairness the couple couldnt read the minds of these protestors. At the time similar protests were turning violent. Its anyones guess if this would have remained non violent, especially after they ripped down a gate by force.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jul 25 19:02:28
well Marge at the 12 sec mark would be an exhibit if i was prosecutor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoJebUvnSAI
(sidewalk is in frame so can estimate how close, plus that stone fencing behind her is visible in the overhead map)

i see no reason she got so close when they have to feel imminent threat to -them- from the protesters

i don't know how being in a gated community factors into the law... i noticed nothing that lets you substitute the general community's property for your own personal property/safety (but there may be something in there somewhere)


Ted at 10 sec mark also useful, it must've gone on for a fair bit as there's photos of them in entirely different spots too
Renzo Marquez
Member
Sat Jul 25 19:13:13
tumbleweed
the wanderer Sat Jul 25 19:02:28
"i see no reason she got so close when they have to feel imminent threat to -them- from the protesters"

Irrelevant. She's on her own property. She has no duty to retreat.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jul 25 20:16:57
according to the exception they have to feel imminent threat... why would you advance alone on a mob you feared posed imminent threat
Renzo Marquez
Member
Sat Jul 25 20:22:46
A massive mob of violent criminals just broke down a gate close to their house. Obviously, it's reasonable to believe the violent mob poses a threat.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jul 25 21:34:01
advancing on them so far doesn't make any sense... she has closed around 75% of distance from where husband is, including removing any cover and obstacles she had
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jul 25 22:09:08
i updated my exhibit (let me know if it doesn't work... i'm not an imgur user :p)

http://imgur.com/a/gkb0kBZ

H is husband & W is wife position in that video i keep posting... purple area is a hedge/stone-work barrier that would protect you from melee assault... presumably she didn't leap over it and followed something similar to my dotted yellow line

(& they are also both seen standing up on that red brick area in front of house in some photos for whatever that's worth)

i don't see how you can fear imminent harm from a mob on the sidewalk & take the action she took... seems she's entirely expecting verbal combat only from the mob
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jul 25 22:29:09
good pic of the menacing woman
http://i0....2020/07/Patricia-McCloskey.jpg

the guy she's aiming at/towards seems to have audio/visual gear

...also shows she got even a tad more east than my map shows (judging by that plant behind her which would be the 2nd of the 5 white circles along that purple area wall)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jul 25 22:32:07
and using my mind-reading gift: husband in back is thinking 'wow, she's fucking nuts, i better disable that gun!'
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jul 25 23:18:17
AND! if this aggressive threatening "storming the bastille" mob had -ever- given any indication they were willing to cross the invisible line of sidewalk onto lawn, she -never- would've gone to that position so far east along the wall where she could easily have her escape route cut off

she clearly did not think they were willing to enter her lawn (which also means she never witnessed them do it) & she clearly did not think they would attack her

(her gun would not give enough confidence to abandon her escape route)

prosecution rests... guilt proven
Habebe
Member
Sun Jul 26 00:05:40
Maybe. Her gun and her Husband with an AR_15 as cover fire mixed with her ober inflated self worth.

People under estimate them, but there is a good reason its ome of the top selling guns in the US.

Did you know that as a semi automatic rifle you can fire up to 650 rounds per minute, so pretty much as fast as you can move your finger assuming you add a hellfire trigger.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jul 26 00:49:14
i don't buy it, it's completely illogical behavior

maybe they can argue she was drunk out of her mind too
Cherub Cow
Member
Sun Jul 26 00:54:05
[tw]: "guilt proven"

It doesn't work that way in a legal sense.

Again, with Castle Doctrine, no property owner has to back down from their property. Approaching a group that is potentially going to cross the line of the sidewalk (which the group did, btw; in some video you can see them partly on the lawn) may not be the best tactical move if the crowd really does rush en masse, but it is covered and can be seen as a reasonable move to get people to back down from the property lines (like a counter-offense; it discourages further trespassing). So approaching someone to get them to back down can make sense, is covered by law, and does not hurt the couple's "in fear" defense (it can even *boost* an "in fear" defense if seen as a bad tactical move, just like their being barefoot — part of being caught off guard and spontaneously stirred). On the other hand, if the mob had left the private road and the couple had left the private road too (beyond the gate)... then it's brandishing for sure. Not the case here. The couple stayed on their own private property within a private street where everyone knows each other and knows who is allowed access.

..
[tw]: "...and what makes it even more unbelievable that it was disabled (knownst to her) is after the incident the bad press would've made them more concerned of retaliation & wanting working weapons for defense"

That's covered too: after the initial incident, they hired private security, which was armed and visible from the streets ( http://www...n-lawyer-couple-drew-guns.html ). So they themselves may not have re-armed (though they may have), but they did have people armed on their behalf.

..
[tw]: "and incident was ~June 28th... gun confiscated ~July 10th"
[Renzo Marquez]: "The defense doesn't have to prove anything. The burden is on the prosecutor to prove every element of the offense. The prosecutor can attempt to prove that the gun was disabled at some point between the incident and when the evidence was collected. It's unethical for the prosecutor to lie about the state of the evidence when it was collected."

Expanding on this point a little..:
• The couple turned over the pistol to their lawyer for safekeeping ( http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/attorney-for-portland-place-couple-turns-handgun-over-to-police/article_ac03a41f-6a40-5d84-ad8c-7f559457d726.html ), which may have occurred well before the lawyer handed it over to police on July 11th. This means that the lawyer can confirm that it was handed over to him as a non-functional firearm, and under threat of his own disbarment for perjury and/or evidence tampering he can affirm that it was kept in its non-functional state until it was handed over to police. This establishes a chain of custody which would implicate the St. Louis police and prosecutor's office if the firearm suddenly became functional in police custody.
• The firearm has a previous court-backed history of being nonfunctional (sounds like it was used for courtroom demonstration purposes?).

This means that if prosecutors want to make the claim that the pistol was functional at the time that the protestors trespassed, prosecutors have to track its status after it left court to when it was held by Patricia McCloskey. So they have to find evidence that the McCloskeys were able to make it functional and then make it non-functional while it was in their custody. Easier said than done.

The prosecution's best strategy would be to demonstrate to a jury how one would go about disabling and enabling the pistol (maybe the firing pin was removed?), and, with luck, that demonstration will appear to be an easy process for the jury — one that could be completed in the time between the incident and when the pistol was handed over to the lawyer. If it is at all complicated or if the jury does not believe that the McCloskeys could do it, then the prosecution fails on this point. Given Patricia McCloskey's bad form with a weapon, the prosecutors would have to blame the disabling/enabling on the husband to sell the story.. but it's tough to sell a hypothetical when the evidence sandwiches that hypothetical with counter-points on both sides (i.e., evidence exists for its before and after state (non-functional), but not its during state. Without real proof otherwise, the during state would be non-functional).
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jul 26 01:24:19
well in my opinion there's no way she is exhibiting any kind of fear of them :p, but the jury can decide


i think the enabled/disabled is a red herring, i can't imagine they have to prove it was operable at the time of the incident (plus very hard to believe she 'knew' it was inoperable as lawyer claims, for all the same reasons as her getting so close plus abandoning any easy escape route)

i would imagine the text of the law is to distinguish between a gun & a fork for example, but maybe i'm wrong

if they have to -prove- the physical condition of the gun, then they may as well drop the charges as can't be done


this was how disabled:
"The firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin, which was backwards, thus making the gun incapable of firing."
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jul 26 01:50:16
this element i noted above appears to be 'the castle doctrine' law:

"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:"

[then restrictions on it, & other stuff on lethal force, not needing to retreat]

then ends with:
"  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."
(which makes it sound to me that the couple has the burden of proof... subdivision 2 is regarding actually killing people)


so does she not have to believe the guy aimed at is about to use unlawful force?

http://i0....2020/07/Patricia-McCloskey.jpg

(i hope they have that guys audio/video... would be nice to know what she's saying & if pointed right at him or someone else)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jul 26 01:50:52
this is the full 563.031 law
http://rev...?section=563.031&bid=33873&hl=
hood
Member
Sun Jul 26 04:01:36
The most likely reality:
The lady grabbed a working gun and, feeling powerful with it in her hand, went to confront the protesters and waived it at them.

Was what she did illegal? Probably.
Is it provable? Almost undoubtedly not.
Were it provable, is it worth prosecuting over? Also almost undoubtedly not.
Cherub Cow
Member
Sun Jul 26 04:14:28
"i think the enabled/disabled is a red herring"

Probably so. It's not too difficult to imagine them calling their lawyer and brainstorming a thick legal defense after the incident. But their being good at handling legalities doesn't work against them except as the prosecution's character assassination.

And as a strategy, claiming the pistol's non-lethality lessens the possibility that she could be charged with brandishing or at the very least lessens the severity of sentencing; a big part of brandishing law is that the weapon has to be demonstrably deadly — almost all charges under the title depend on it — so an inoperable pistol held by a senior citizen conceivably drops that charge (I mention senior citizen because that drops the possibility of its being used for blunt force trauma). "Brandishing" even includes unloaded weapons, but inoperable.. that's a good defense.

So I think they were just proactively giving her a backup defense in the event that it wasn't enough that the protesters were trespassing. If their other defenses fail (Self defense and Castle Doctrine), the pistol being non-lethal could be the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. If she were to get a felony conviction, they might have to move out of their gated community ;)

..
"so does she not have to believe the guy aimed at is about to use unlawful force?"

The couple is already in a good position when it comes to proving justification because the mob had just illegally entered a street with no permit and despite private property owners telling them that they were not permitted. This means that the mob had just proven that they were not law-abiding, so it is very easy to make the claim that they would break further laws. In fact, the mob's very continued presence there is the further breaking of the law, and every protester who stopped there to yell instead of move along or retreat gives further legal claim to the couple's defense.

Also, in the case of a mob, a defender does not necessarily have to make sure that she only points at the most egregious law-breaker. By forming a mob and taking part in the mob's illegal behavior, rules on individual action severity become legally dubious, giving defenders more leeway. So here, with an illegally-assembled group stopped and yelling, when she points the weapon at someone standing (next to) the loudest yeller (even someone who was "just recording"), she's not legally in any more trouble than if she pointed it at the very loudest yeller. That's another reason that taking part in mobs can be dangerous — in legal cases it sacrifices individual autonomy and adds individuals to the group's overall behavior by some flexible percentage. Here it might be, "Did you stop and face her and yell at her? Yes? Okay, 30 days in jail."

It'd be interesting if select mobbers started self-incriminating with selfie angles and better audio recordings.
Habebe
Member
Sun Jul 26 04:35:18
Pretty much agrees with hood*
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 26 05:14:38
The problem with the castle doctrine and standing ground defence is that the woman is obviously advancing beyond her property towards the demonstrators.

The problem with the mob argument is that even discounting that the gun might have been disabled, she was still aided and abetted by a fuctional weapon in her husbands hands. Goose-gander. If you want to treat the mob as a group, then it seems valid to treat the husband-wife as a group.

The prosecutor's goal is for the matter to be settled without a ruling by the couple accepting mandated sensibility training.

Its up to the couple if they want to roll the dice instead of taking a course.

There are still the city ordinances they definitely violated. I am unsure of what the penalties there are, but they are certainly more serious than sensitivity training.

jergul
large member
Sun Jul 26 05:17:18
(the city ordinances deal specifically with using an unfunctional weapon as if it worked. It deals with it as if it worked).
Cherub Cow
Member
Sun Jul 26 08:33:40
[jergul]: "The problem with the castle doctrine and standing ground defence is that the woman is obviously advancing beyond her property towards the demonstrators."

False. She remains on her property at all times. Property lines usually extend at least to the side walk and oftentimes to the street curb. In a home owner's association on a private street (the case here), they may have an even larger purview.

..
[jergul]: "The problem with the mob argument is that even discounting that the gun might have been disabled, she was still aided and abetted by a fuctional weapon in her husbands hands."

Legally this changes nothing. He is 100% legally allowed to hold a firearm — especially on his property. At no time does he point it at the crowd, though, if he had, that may not have been an issue either.

..
[jergul]: "If you want to treat the mob as a group, then it seems valid to treat the husband-wife as a group."

That is not a legal thing. That is just some dumb bullshit. Two people acting in defense of their home is entirely different from an unlawfully assembled mob trespassing on private property.

..
[jergul]: "The prosecutor's goal is for the matter to be settled without a ruling by the couple accepting mandated sensibility training. [/] Its up to the couple if they want to roll the dice instead of taking a course."

It's not a roll of the dice at all, and it's not just "a course".

You seem to be talking about prosecutor Kim Gardner offering them a pretrial diversion, which may just mean no charges and instead a probation period which does not go onto their records ( https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/charges-filed-against-mccloskeys-st-louis-couple-who-pointed-guns-toward-protesters ).

The problem: the terms of the diversion would be dictated by Gardner's office, meaning that the couple would likely have to go on the record admitting guilt and taking a share of the blame. I.e., they would have to admit to Gardner's version of events, which include lies like that it was a lawful and peaceful protest and that the couple was attempting to illegally intimidate. If they violate probation (a probation which Gardner's own office gets to monitor for compliance), then they would be legally bound by their admitted guilt. It's a "Crucible" John Proctor deal; they would have to sign away their names to avoid prosecution, which empowers injustice.

Gardner may have offered this deal either because she has been told by her office that she has no case or because she wants to score points for her upcoming election. In any event, it's not a good deal for the McCloskeys. They have a strong case, the prosecutor is incompetent, and best of all: Missouri Governor Mike Parson has said that if the McCloskeys were somehow convicted, he would pardon them. All they have to do is keep calm and watch Gardner fold.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jul 26 12:07:03
i'm just trying to apply the text of the law to her & not working for me

imo, she satisfies the elements of the crime charged under (571.030, text above... which doesn't even require pointing right at people)

and the exception cites that 563.031 law, which seems to require 'imminent unlawful force'

'unlawful force' seems to be: "Power or violence that is directed against a person without that person's consent . Such an act is punishable as an offense or actionable tort."

so i don't see how she fits those law texts...

although i did find 563.041 that allows force "to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree."

i'm unclear why 563.031 is specifically noted as an exception & not 563.041 though

041 seems more workable if they can use it
chuck
Member
Sun Jul 26 15:32:58
Wow, debating city vs state statues, analyzing Google Maps, etc. Two threads now. A brief meta post:

Of the Ted and Marge supporters here, there's approximately one (possibly two based on recent posting history, but that's a stretch...) for whom "They are BLM supporters" isn't already enough justification to point a gun at someone.

If Marge was a black lady who lived by the Kentucky governor's mansion during that shitshow, most of these same posters arguing in defense of white Marge would be arguing that shooting black Marge had been justified after she pointed the gun at the crowd.

Debating with the "whatever my side did is justifiable" contingent is a lost cause.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jul 26 16:13:36
"Debating with the "whatever my side did is justifiable" contingent is a lost cause."

Indeed. Watching tw shill for a prosecutor because he dislikes white Marge is fucking hilarious.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jul 26 16:47:56
i dislike Ted too... for his definite lying

that's one reason i massively hate Trump for that matter... not sure why his supporters don't mind when he definitely provably lies to them repeatedly
Renzo Marquez
Member
Sun Jul 26 16:50:20
Still no comment on the prosecutor's repeated lies from tw.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jul 26 17:17:53
give me the list & i'll comment :p

on the peaceful to riot scale these were heavily on the peaceful side imo (1 gate broken belonging to a faceless entity)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jul 26 17:26:52
new evidence! (for these threads anyway)... i googled about the gate, found this:

http://www.facebook.com/1299000055/videos/10223888744188701/

appears to show the initial entering of neighborhood by just opening the gate, not destroying it (although it may have been damaged later)... plus NO rush toward that house, just standard protest walking

Ted's a fucking liar... another lyin' Ted... even though not a Ted

(not sure it changes anything legally)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jul 26 17:41:28
so maybe Ted smashed up the gate then disabled the gun of his passed out drunken wife... (probably not though :p)
Habebe
Member
Sun Jul 26 18:23:53
Actually the gate does make a difference if it was open to the public it can negate trespassing unless therenis a sign.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jul 26 18:34:08
some photos of the gate show a "private street, access limited to residents" sign roughly where guy is standing holding gate open (perhaps behind him)

the sign is not in the photo of the damaged (by Ted) gate, so possibly it was damaged too or it was not there, and merely added by criminal mastermind Ted
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jul 26 18:37:09
actually you can see the edge of the sign in video (it's black like the guy's shirt so hard to see)... but obviously people walking through couldn't read it w/ him standing there

that black object after the gate that resembles a mailbox may be a sign too though
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jul 26 19:30:44
Protesters casually walk through private gate, later break it, on way to mayor's house, for a totally valid protest - mayor publicly reveals personal information of protesters, essentially doxxing them in a press conference.

But instead of marching on to mayor's house, they stop to scream at the first people who engage them, and someone in the crowd threatens to kill them.

tw naturally sides with these "victims". We then break down a play by play on the logical consistencies of white Marge, who clearly has never had the first lesson on gun handling or safety. We never question the actions of the mob. We never question the actions of a clearly biased prosecutor.

lol
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jul 26 21:16:11
the mob, it seems, did decreasingly little, and the presumed liar Ted has moved to proven liar Ted... that gate may have been fine when white Marge went all Honey Bunny from Pulp Fiction

and white Marge exhibits more than poor tactics and gun handling, I just can't see how anyone no matter how dumb would be so careless with their escape route if in fear of a large mob right in front of them... she turned the wall protecting her into a hindrance... it's gotta be around 50 feet she has to move laterally just to start back to her home if she gets in trouble
Habebe
Member
Sun Jul 26 21:54:56
Tw, Well, the law generally goes by " plain sight" by " reasonable assumption"

However criminal tresspassing also entails knowingly doing so. So for example if people in the mob had not seen the sign because an individual was blocking it wouldnt be CT on there part. However the guy blocking the sign... IDK .

But it also reasonable assumption would say it was a private area. Im also not familiar specifically with local laws there.

I plead guilty to one where I didnt even commit, I had already done 8 months, would have been llike another year until I.got to court and I thought my dad had stomach cancer... I filed to have it removed... Anyway.
Habebe
Member
Sun Jul 26 21:54:56
Tw, Well, the law generally goes by " plain sight" by " reasonable assumption"

However criminal tresspassing also entails knowingly doing so. So for example if people in the mob had not seen the sign because an individual was blocking it wouldnt be CT on there part. However the guy blocking the sign... IDK .

But it also reasonable assumption would say it was a private area. Im also not familiar specifically with local laws there.

I plead guilty to one where I didnt even commit, I had already done 8 months, would have been llike another year until I.got to court and I thought my dad had stomach cancer... I filed to have it removed... Anyway.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jul 26 22:22:55
for what it's worth
"HEY! Private neighborhood! Get the hell out of my neighborhood!"
is what lyin' Ted starts off w/ in that video

i don't hear any obvious murder threats from crowd in that video... is there proof of that or are we relying on lyin' Ted?

presumably the unlocked gate helps the prosecutor

i dunno what it all means legally
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jul 27 00:16:12
[tw]: "imo, she satisfies the elements of the crime charged under (571.030, text above... which doesn't even require pointing right at people)"

In self defense, defense of property, and Castle Doctrine, that does not apply — like the exception notes and like you pointed out with 563.041.

The mob was illegally assembled and refused to comply with legally backed commands to vacate private property. "Imminent" was the key word; someone does not have to successfully attack a person for that person to defend against attack. If someone is breaking the law by entering one's property, by self defense and Castle Doctrine, one does not have to wait until they start punching before defending.

..
[chuck]: "most of these same posters arguing in defense of white Marge would be arguing that shooting black Marge had been justified after she pointed the gun at the crowd."

Get specific when you level straw men arguments at posters like that! :p
I certainly would not care if the couple were black or if the mob were assembled in favor of my favorite political position; I am concerned with the legal realities here, which involve illegal trespassing and the legal defense of persons and property. "White Marge" may be an in-person nightmare that deserves no personal support (And I certainly would not have done as she did), but the *law* supports citizens in the defense of themselves and their property. I hope no one needs to explain what a crucial protection that really is. All the spray paint, vandalism, and property destruction that surrounded the mayor's home after this same protest arrived at its destination should show the consequences that home owners face if they decide not to defend their property.

..
[tw]: "new evidence! (for these threads anyway)"

That's been around since the beginning! From the last thread:
"Tue Jun 30 00:10:23 ... one of the better vids:"
..scrolling down in the Tweet replies:
http://twitter.com/CassandraRules/status/1277435223412805638

"plus NO rush toward that house, just standard protest walking"

The homeowners will have some wiggle room there since less than a minute elapses between the gate being opened and 40+ protestors being on the private sidewalk.

"so maybe Ted smashed up the gate ... probably not though"

Yeah, probably not. I had figured that the protestors broke it apart in retaliation after they met resistance from the couple.

..
[Habebe]: "However criminal tresspassing also entails knowingly doing so. So for example if people in the mob had not seen the sign because an individual was blocking it wouldnt be CT on there part."

Not necessarily. The people who entered without noticing the sign would potentially have reduced charges, but this is where mob law comes into play: by taking part in a mob, individuals may bear the legal burden of illegal actions taken by the mob at large. This can be called "joint enterprise" and is similar to how a getaway driver can be charged with the robbery itself despite not technically doing the stealing or how instigators in a group murder may all be convicted of murder in various degrees of punishment despite not having themselves held the murder weapon. So here, by being *part* of a group that ignored signs saying, "PRIVATE STREET Access Limited to Residents", anyone who entered that private street was part of an illegal action — regardless of whether or not they themselves saw the sign. If they *did* see the sign and admitted as much, it would just be a harsher sentence compared to someone who didn't.

..
[tw]: "presumably the unlocked gate helps the prosecutor"

Mark McCloskey has indicated in interviews that the gate had a locking mechanism, but I suspect that he's stayed away from pushing that point too much because it apparently functions on the security awareness of residents, meaning that any resident may have forgotten to close&lock it after opening it. At any rate, leaving a door unlocked doesn't grant permission, so it would just be icing if the above video showed them forcing the lock (which doesn't seem to be the case).
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jul 27 00:43:08
"That's been around since the beginning! "

well it was new to me! you made me nervous when posting my own comment :p thought i'd already posted it specifically rather than it just being down in comments

"like the exception notes and like you pointed out with 563.041"

i don't see why the law they are charged under notes 563.031 as an exception specifically & doesn't note 563.041 if it also is an exception (& w/o a damaged gate, 041 gets weaker... unclear to me how just trespassing fits into any of the laws cited), but i'm kinda giving up trying to analyze laws w/ no law training :p


i remain in disapproval of white Marge's actions & lyin' Ted's lying... may justice fall where it may
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jul 27 00:57:16
"i remain in disapproval of white Marge's actions & lyin' Ted's lying... may justice fall where it may"

They're definitely gaming things however they can! Lawyers being lawyers ;p

It would certainly have been a total non-issue if they'd just let the crowd pass by and had remained secure through obscurity, but I supposed Castle Doctrine sort of works against that "Fahrenheit 451" dystopia where everyone is afraid to leave their homes because roaming madmen have been empowered to do whatever they want to anyone who presents as a target (thinking of the scene where Montag is almost killed by murderous, nihilistic teens). Mobs need to be held accountable for illegal acts, otherwise they act without social responsibility.
Habebe
Member
Mon Jul 27 01:12:48
I'll give TW this, he isnt lazy... Honestly he will argue on for so long that I often lose interest and hengets rather in depth, cites and all. He should write a book on the things Trump says, now would be the time to do it.
Habebe
Member
Mon Jul 27 01:12:49
I'll give TW this, he isnt lazy... Honestly he will argue on for so long that I often lose interest and hengets rather in depth, cites and all. He should write a book on the things Trump says, now would be the time to do it.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jul 27 01:41:46
thanks, i guess :p i'm a terrible writer (all my English teachers hated me & the feeling was mutual) so no book coming from me
Habebe
Member
Mon Jul 27 02:28:30
Meh, who cares. Plenty of shit writers write books, yours would be more of compilation I guess.

Besides, more and more every day Im thinking we are living in a simulation anyway, michio kaku is like the one hold out.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share