Originally posted by Surturit seems like the couple would be making an affirmative defense and the burden would be on them to prove they were threatened not the states burden to prove they're lying.
At the end of the day, the couple should not be charged unless it is demonstrated with concrete evidence that they lied about being threatened.Is there anyone here who disagrees with that?
"The defense must establish that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position also would have committed the crime. It resembles self-defense in some respects, since it arises from a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, and it requires that the defendant had a reasonable fear that the threat would be carried out. In addition, duress requires the defendant to show that they had no alternative to committing the crime."
"Like self-defense, duress is an affirmative defense, so the defendant must present evidence of each element."
https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/duress/
"This is a defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal liability or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_defense
Federal Courts Law Review- 2013
Top of pg 10
"An affirmative defense operates much like a claim for relief in that the party asserting an affirmative defense usually has the burden of proving it."
Originally posted by Raptor22
it seems like the couple would be making an affirmative defense and the burden would be on them to prove they were threatened not the states burden to prove they're lying."The defense must establish that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position also would have committed the crime. It resembles self-defense in some respects, since it arises from a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, and it requires that the defendant had a reasonable fear that the threat would be carried out. In addition, duress requires the defendant to show that they had no alternative to committing the crime."
"Like self-defense, duress is an affirmative defense, so the defendant must present evidence of each element."
https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/duress/
"This is a defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal liability or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_defense
Federal Courts Law Review- 2013
Top of pg 10
"An affirmative defense operates much like a claim for relief in that the party asserting an affirmative defense usually has the burden of proving it."
I covered the legal side of the debate, here:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Really depends on the state. If it has a castle doctrine and/or they have a no trespassing sign posted anywhere, they can warn once or twice and then shoot to kill very generously if there is even a mild case to be made about the angry mob being an angry mob. In this case, it was definitely and angry mob being an angry mob.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#State-by-state_positions_in_the_United_States
Most states have them. Thankfully.
And this couple is from Missouri. There's no legal justification to do anything at all against the couple and any judge or prosecutor who does should get their ass thrown in jail for gross corruption. No exception at all. That's what the outrage is about.
What should have happened is the couple should have started shooting every single one of them in the brain. Every single one. Only those that were on their property.
Get this: they'd be legally justified in doing so and they would get off 100% free from charges.
Don't fall for the circus clown buffoonery going on related to their case. They will definitely get cleared. It's very much on the books in Missouri. They need to escalate until any judges and prosecutors involved in this situation are severely punished including jail time.
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.Missouri's law is more extensive than the law in other states because it permits property owners to use the amount of force reasonably perceived as necessary, including deadly force.
However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from "the use or imminent use of unlawful force."
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-self-defense-laws.html
Meaning, they don't have to prove anything beyond they perceived a threat. The burden is on the prosecution to prove no reasonable person would feel threatened with a large angry busting into their property, yelling and screaming at them, after days of civil unrest, riots, murders from the rioters, and rampant violence.
Not only would they be justified in killing any on their property, there's definitely no case for them brandishing their guns to get the losers off their property. This case turned into a circus because of the identity politics and black pandering the media and the governments were doing. They didn't want to stoke the flames anymore so they decided to be "tough" in the moment even though the law was clearly not on their side. This case entire scenario will end soon because it got too much attention.
Originally posted by Surtur
The bloodthirsty left legit seems to want them put in jail despite no evidence.They have forfeited the right to complain about minorities in jail over minor drug offenses if they look the other way over this.
The innocent couple who did absolutely nothing wrong (and that's a fact) needs to come and say they voted for Hillary in 2016 and hate President Trump with all of their heart then the loonies on the left will finally admit that the couple did nothing wrong.
Originally posted by Silent Masternot sure what the actual facts are, but going by the scenerio of one (or more) of the protesters were armed and threatening my wife, i would have probably shot them and dealt with the consequences. I dont care if it was in my yard, my house or a public space.
So, what is your opinion on the case?
When it comes to threatening my familys safety i dont **** around.
Originally posted by Surturim sorry u dont like the laws of our country.
Okay you can't answer, we move on(an inferior will be along shortly to bingo you)
In ur nutty world, someone could just sneak into your house and shoot u. When u call the cops they could claim u invited them in and then threatened them. If there is no evidence to prove or disprove their claim they will be set free.
Good luck with that