Pah, even I fired an LSW.Actually handled and fired more as a civilian than I did in uniform, and only thing didn't fire in inform was LSW
Pansy suburbanites might burn faster boy, I don'tYou know as well as I do you will burn much faster at altitude then the folks at the lower elevations
Only when herself isn't at home!Besides I bet your allergic to pink clothing!
But the real question is do you think anybody in St Louis would try to charge that couple for "Brandishing" firearms, which they clearly did. But it would be political suicide to make an attempt, I don't see much support for BLM on this one at all.Pansy suburbanites might burn faster boy, I don't
Only when herself isn't at home!
But the real question is do you think anybody in St Louis would try to charge that couple for "Brandishing" firearms, which they clearly did. But it would be political suicide to make an attempt, I don't see much support for BLM on this one at all.
I’m sure there was an instance a couple of years ago when some British guy got shitfaced, tried to get into the wrong house and was shot dead as a suspected burglar for his pains.My bold precisely, Many years ago one of my cousins was posted to Washington DC. to serve in our embassy there. He happened to be the Captain of the RAF pistol shooting team and owned a Browning 9 mm.
As he knew the States offered lots of opportunities for shooting he applied for & got a permit over there. His married quarters were in a small town in W. Virginia just outside the Capitol & as a member of the diplomatic staff he got a courtesy visit from the State Police to check all was well. The officer asked him where he kept his pistol. "oh in a locked metal gun safe", said my cousin, showing it to the officer, who replied. "If I were you I'd keep it handy in a drawer, as here in the USA, if anyone comes onto your property, trespassing, the law allows you to defend it with lethal force if necessary. If you're out and one of your neighbours sees something suspicious apart from calling us, they will do it for you, as virtually everybody in this town is armed and crime is virtually zero as the criminals know what would happen to them!"
My cousin visited the local police station later and was shown a couple of wall maps with various coloured pins showing serious crimes, robbery, murder, rape etc. The map of his town was clear, no pins at all, but he noticed several areas in Washington proper absolutely covered in pins. He was told they were poor areas predominantly populated by Hispanics and Afro Americans where gangs, drugs & crime were endemic!!
But this can also be a very political issue, as we have seen in Atlanta.2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons 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; 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, RSMo, 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
(5) Possesses or discharges a firearm or projectile weapon while intoxicated; or
(6) Discharges a firearm within one hundred yards of any occupied schoolhouse, courthouse, or church building; or
(7) Discharges or shoots a firearm at a mark, at any object, or at random, on, along or across a public highway or discharges or shoots a firearm into any outbuilding; or
( Carries a firearm or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any church or place where people have assembled for worship, or into any election precinct on any election day, or into any building owned or occupied by any agency of the federal government, state government, or political subdivision thereof; or
(9) Discharges or shoots a firearm at or from a motor vehicle, as defined in section 301.010, RSMo, discharges or shoots a firearm at any person, or at any other motor vehicle, or at any building or habitable structure, unless the person was lawfully acting in self-defense; or
(10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board.
5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (, (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.
Which is :
015 Missouri Revised Statutes
TITLE XXXVIII CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS (556-600)
Chapter 563 Defense of Justification
Section 563.031 Use of force in defense of persons.
Universal Citation: MO Rev Stat § 563.031 (2015)
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:
(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 may 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 claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.
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.
So as they were on their own property, and the
protesterstrespassers had already broken and entered onto a private estate they pretty much aren't committing a crime... not in Missouri anyway...