'Keep moving!' Couple brandish an AR-15 and a handgun at protesters

[Hieronymous]

Am I the only one seeing the committal of a multiple felonies by the couple?

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSecti...&bid=33874&hl=

*571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:

  (1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any area where firearms are restricted under section 571.107; or

  (2) Sets a spring gun; or

  (3) Discharges or shoots a firearm into a dwelling house, a railroad train, boat, aircraft, or motor vehicle as defined in section 302.010, or any building or structure used for the assembling of people; or

  (4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSecti...&bid=29703&hl=

571.037. Open display of firearm permitted, when. — Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.

So, your post made me curious. I've linked the two statutes that seem relevant. Missouri is now a constitutional carry state, so they don't need a permit, but on first impression, it sure looks like it (the actions of husband and wife) could fit into Section 1 (4) of 571.030. Unlawful use of weapons - Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner But then look at 571.037, above.

With the caveat that it is all very fact sensitive, and I don't have all of the facts, here's what I see. Based on the above statutory language, AND assuming a that reasonable person standard would find their display was in necessary self defense (I think it would) I don't see that a felony was committed. Which felonies are you thinking of? It's good for us all to be aware of the consequences of our choices. It would nice to not have to be burdened by the fear that protecting oneself can also subject one to criminal or civil liability, but it can, and often (in less forgiving jurisdictions) does.

Best,

Hieronymous

[TheNewbie]

Aaaaand they've released a statement they support BLM and the agitators were white.

https://fox2now.com/news/couple-seen...imminent-harm/

Brainwashed sissies.

[farscott]

Brainwashed sissies.

My guess is the press release is so as to not antagonize prospective clients as clients are whom allowed them to buy that mansion. They are personal injury lawyers, so this press is bad for business.

[vcdgrips]

I AM NOT YOUR ATTORNEY. I AM NOT GIVING LEGAL ADVICE. ANY OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN AND DO NOT REPRESENT THOSE OF ANY EMPLOYER, PAST, PRESENT OR FUTURE.


A bit of a ramble.


Possible charges in MISSOURI-where the offense allegedly took place.

Unlawful use of a weapon
571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, 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;

Assault in the 4th degree
565.056. Assault in the fourth degree. — 1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if:...(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;[Felony] (4) The person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person;[misdemeanor]

v.

The applicable stand your ground laws of the state
https://law.justia.com/codes/missour...ction-563-031/


https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/mark-...le-guns-video/

The above article indicates that they are self employed plaintiff/personal injury attys (who office in their mansion btw) such that they are not likely worried about any employer fallout.
These folks are Tier 1 Personal injury attys who can afford to cherry pick 6-9 figure cases with good facts and deep pockets all day long.


The husband was clearly the driving force re practicing in STL. He is a graduate of a Tier 1 college prep day school in the STL area with a retail tuition of 20k-28k.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I...try_Day_School

Suffice it to say that if they are charged, the will mount the best defense available. One would underestimate their influence in the STL legal community at their point of view's peril.

I have read that many are filing complaints against them with the Missouri Bar. While I believe that theses complaints will be fully investigated, the only slam dunk ways somebody loses their license in MO is if they are convicted of a felony or if they "comingle" a client's money with their own. i.e. you get a settlement of behalf of a client and you put it in your account FOR ANY REASON as opposed to the trust acct you HAVE to have for a client's settlement funds.

Short of that, one does not typically lose their ticket to ride, probation, supervision, continuing/"remedial " education, public letter of censure etc are often in play. Occasion Suspensions while attys rectify their ills, particularly when the atty "surrenders" his license as opposed to making the Supreme Court formally take it.


Interesting reading with lots of "opinions" re the attys in question and their legal jeopardy.

https://thebulwark.com/the-missouri-...-screwed/?amp=

[blues]

I can't say I'm surprised. When everyone around you is capitulating, capitulating is normal.

[RoyGBiv]

Bullshit like “feelings” are how we got into this mess in the first place.

The law is objective not subjective, meaning it operates in facts, not feelings.

It is called “Deadly Conduct” in Texas.

Deadly conduct must be “reckless” as such Context matters. Pointing a gun at a hostile mob threatening your residence is not the same as pointing a gun at normal passers by. The violence and arson inherent to recent civil unrest also favors the reasonableness of their actions.

In this case it is reported the mob was in the couples actual yard / curtilage not just the common private road. It’s a different situation from both parties being out in public.

You also have a hostile mob of 100 plus vs 2. Numbers are a disparity of force issue as is threatening behavior on the part of the mob.

Tactically it was dumb but legally I would not call it deadly conduct based on the totality of the circumstances.


You worried about your leftist chickens from Austin coming home to roost ?

The relevant section is Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code: CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

There's also a 46.035 UCW defense for displaying a firearm in situations where Force or Deadly Force would be justified under PC 9

[DDTSGM]

I can't tell for sure, but in this picture, it looks like the individual wearing the red mask is pointing his finger guns at the woman/couple. It's definitely NOT his middle finger (hold up your own hand and look at it from that view). So he's either giving them a thumbs up or making a finger gun.

In a few states, the finger gun is accepted as a legitimate threat of violence or disorderly conduct.

A masked person, part of a crowd, chanting things and marching on your lawn, pointing their finger guns at you...with an unknown sense of whether they are armed, they just kicked in your gate. Look at the pictures of the crowd, not just 'Karen'. Seems like you're treading quickly into the "legitimate threat" situation.

What is being pointed toward the lady in the third picture of the first post? She appears to be pointing her pistola at whomever is haolding it.

[Zincwarrior]

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSecti...&bid=33874&hl=

No. I can see your argument.

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSecti...&bid=29703&hl=



So, your post made me curious. I've linked the two statutes that seem relevant. Missouri is now a constitutional carry state, so they don't need a permit, but on first impression, it sure looks like it (the actions of husband and wife) could fit into Section 1 (4) of 571.030. Unlawful use of weapons - Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner But then look at 571.037, above.

With the caveat that it is all very fact sensitive, and I don't have all of the facts, here's what I see. Based on the above statutory language, AND assuming a that reasonable person standard would find their display was in necessary self defense (I think it would) I don't see that a felony was committed. Which felonies are you thinking of? It's good for us all to be aware of the consequences of our choices. It would nice to not have to be burdened by the fear that protecting oneself can also subject one to criminal or civil liability, but it can, and often (in less forgiving jurisdictions) does.

Best,

Hieronymous

No, I can see your argument.

[ranger]

That guy is going to get doxxed and memed without mercy.

(If I would have read that sentence five years ago, I would have had no idea what it meant.)

If he's not completely self-employed, he's probably already out of a job, right or wrong.

That is the double standard that really bugs me - how many rioters/looters will lose their jobs. Maybe the two lawyers that firebombed the police vehicles.

[RJ]

I AM NOT A LAWYER

I thought as a homework exercise, I would look up FL law as regards open carry and/or brandishing and/or openly displaying firearms.

We've got a few sections of Chapter 790:

790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Chapter 776 defines Justifiable Use of Force.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.013.html

For deadly force, the key section, 3A is:

A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:

...

(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

"Reasonable fear" is defined as:

The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

It seems reasonable to have a conversation with myself as to how I would articulate the above to a judge, after a shooting (did not display weapon threateningly; I had no duty to retreat in my dwelling; and that I used deadly force as necessary to prevent my own or my loved ones death or great bodily harm.) Or as they say, was there Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy for harm. I think if I saw a large armed mob of people busting down my gate and entering my private property armed with weapons, screaming epithets at me, probably qualifies to have a master grip and go to the low ready, at least (or whatever is the equivalent for a long gun, of which I do not know). If, after an enthusiastic "BACK THE FUCK UP", they don't leave, and continue to advance, I'd need to articulate why I raised my gun and made a decision to fire. Same if they held a glass bottle filled with yellow liquid, and proceeded to apply a lighter to a piece of cloth sticking out. I think a reasonable person would conclude doing that, or someone pointing a gun at me, would be a justification for shooting in self-defence.

The statues also mentions occupied vehicle, so my presumption is everything above applies to me in my car.

Obviously circumstances might vary, but that's where I come out interpreting things in FL. As an asterisk, I don't see where curtilage is addressed in FL law, so I'm not sure how that plays out for me, or I'm missing it.

Comments on my thinking welcomed.

EDIT: I did find Curtilage, in FL law, for burglary and trespass, defined here:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...s/0810.09.html

" As used in this section, the term “unenclosed curtilage” means the unenclosed land or grounds, and any outbuildings, that are directly and intimately adjacent to and connected with the dwelling and necessary, convenient, and habitually used in connection with that dwelling."