Who Do You Support? Vote Accordingly!

Sure, just threatened them and their dog. Piss off. Hope they sue.

According to them - but then they also claimed their property was being threatened, which was a lie.

After months of violent rioting and murdering, they had due cause to be worried. Don't worry, they'll sue and get even more money. Good job, even more money funneled to a lawyer.

Forgive me if I don't put much faith in your legal prognostications - accusations of material breech of contract aside, their actions weren't legally justified.

You have any evidence that people of MO, can't defend their lives and property, WHILE on their property? This will be good.. I'll wait.

Missouri recognizes the "castle doctrine" and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your "castle." This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances.

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-self-defense-laws.html

I asked you "You have any evidence that people of MO, CAN'T defend their lives and property, WHILE on their property?"

I am already aware of the MO castle doctrine, I asked you if you had any evidence that suggested that MO can't defend their lives and property WHILE on their property.

Because YOU claimed their actions weren't legally justified.

I'll wait for you to answer my original question.

I know legalese can be difficult to understand, but the statute clearly states it applies against invaders in your HOME, not on your PROPERTY.

There is no protection for standing in your yard and threatening to shoot someone because you're scared of black people.

The law that you linked doesn't say "against invaders in your HOME, not on your PROPERTY". I know legalese can be difficult to understand, for some people.

Show me where it says "There is no protection for standing in your yard and threatening to shoot someone because you're scared of black people."

The moment they broke the gate down the "protesters" were in the wrong.

Felons? Already convicted?

You kill someone, you're a murderer regardless of whether you're caught or prosecuted.

Same goes for committing felonies.

They're charged with a felony...happens all the time. Being convicted is a different story all together. This won't even make it to trial, considering the Castle laws in Missouri. The DA is already trying to get a lesser charge and was just caught tampering with the evidence. She'll be lucky not to get prosecuted herself, if not thrown out of office.

Hail the criminal justice system.

Castle laws only apply on your property - they were brandishing weapons at and making deadly threats at unarmed protesters on the street in front of their house.

The couple could have gone right to the curb and still been legal. All they have to do is have reason to believe they were in danger. And video has surfaced that shows protestors in their yard within 30' from the house, but that isn't even the worst part. Those were not public streets. Every homeowner in that neighborhood owns up to the C/L of the road. There is no Right of Way to confuse the issue. The protesters were all trespassing on collectively owned private property. Add to the fact that these two are lawyers and it's a slam dunk case. Technically they could have shot anyone deemed a threat and been well within Castle Doctrine, so long as they can convince the law that they feared for their life. Considering the police told them on the phone to "run" adds even more credence to this. Now it's been revealed that the woman's gun was only a prop and didn't function anyway, but the DA office ordered it to be reassembled in order to make it work...evidence tampering. This thing is done.

No, they couldn't have "shot anyone deemed a threat", and that's patently absurd - under Missouri's statute they couldn't have even used deadly force to protect property, just the home itself.

In either case, it's not a question of where they could go while recklessly threatening people with deadly force, but rather where those other people legally needed to be in order for such an action not to be a felonious act.

Wrong. According to Missouri castle doctrine they can use deadly force in protection of themselves and or property. It states it clearly. And their property extended way beyond the protesters who were trespassing.

It's like you get all of your "law" advice from someone that lives in NYC, or that is on CNN "news" that hasn't any idea of the laws in MO.

They were on their property.

Imagine defending rioters, such as yourself.

You are ignorant I so many ways it’s not worth debating with you

Shut up Communist scum. Go to China where your kind is welcomed.

They threatened the lives of the homeowner, and they even went back and threatened more, so your lies aren't welcomed in any court, public or official.

The protesters entered private property through a closed gate that they opened. They were on private property, they were trespassing.

If the AG doesn't have the charges aren't dismissed, the governor will likely pardon them.