Gun sales spike as Ferguson area braces for grand jury decision

[Athos_131]

I do not believe that Missouri has a Stand Your Ground law. Therefore, anyone shooting without verifiable fear for their life will face arrest and trial. Just because you are armed doesn't mean you are entitled to use it against someone.

They do not.

In fact, armed defence is a last resort in Missouri.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html

[Athos_131]

  Property owners who are legally defending themselves and their property from rioters would only be using a firearm on a trespasser, and so it is up to the individuals who wish to risk such a solution to their illegal behavior.

By this logic, a person who walks into a store and merely look suspicious could be blown away.

No, that wouldn't cause tension.

[phtlc]

Got news, using deadly force to defend property is not universally sanctioned and people who do that, on a place of business may face arrest and prosecution.

What about multiple cans of bear spray?

[joan1984]

Let us hope that hooligans, rioters, and looters just obey the law, and are subjected then to zero risk, other than one another, the usual. Very simple premise, obey the law, and go pursue happiness. Simple.

Supposing some may do differently is lowering expectations, for no valid reason, so no worries, right... right...?

[MissBarbara]

Let us hope that hooligans, rioters, and looters just obey the law, and are subjected then to zero risk, other than one another, the usual. Very simple premise, obey the law, and go pursue happiness. Simple.

Supposing some may do differently is lowering expectations, for no valid reason, so no worries, right... right...?

I agree with your premise, and I agree that there's lots of worries.

But "hooligans, rioters, and looters" should be arrested and prosecuted, and not shot by armed, eager store-owners.

[Katiebee]

Or armed vigilante groups.

[joan1984]

Exactly, and legal gun owners know their responsibilities, as well as their rights. There so far have been many looting and burning issues surrounding the Ferguson, MO apartment residents or agitators in their neighborhood, and NO protester has been harmed by a property owner. The "beauty and hair products" place has goon through loss of inventory at least three times, and some have yet to reglaze their store windows, waiting for the 'folk' to settle down, back to the usual behavior, to which the property owners have adapted over time.

Police seem unable, and unwilling to control the protesters, insurance companies have dropped the merchants for riot and civil commotion damages, and for fire damages when the store is not occupied in many cases. A property owner not wishing to lose that property will be in their store, on it's roof, and prepared to protect their property as may be needed, and their own lives of course.

It is prudent behavior, in the absence of being able to count upon the Police and other civil protection for which their taxes are paid. Thugs and hooligans should be arrested, jailed, and removed... prevented from looting again; and will be, one way or another, for the merchant to survive lawless behavior and weather their attackers.

Let us hope that hooligans, rioters, and looters just obey the law, and are subjected then to zero risk, other than one another, the usual. Very simple premise, obey the law, and go pursue happiness. Simple.

Supposing some may do differently is lowering expectations, for no valid reason, so no worries, right... right...?

I agree with your premise, and I agree that there's lots of worries.

But "hooligans, rioters, and looters" should be arrested and prosecuted, and not shot by armed, eager store-owners.

[joan1984]

Armed vigilante groups would be against the law, Katiebee. The merchants are in business to feed and serve the community, and they need to survive at their locations when the Police and the Cameras are gone. Folk are simply exercising their rights, all around, in Ferguson MO.

Or armed vigilante groups.

[MissBarbara]

Exactly, and legal gun owners know their responsibilities, as well as their rights. There so far have been many looting and burning issues surrounding the Ferguson, MO apartment residents or agitators in their neighborhood, and NO protester has been harmed by a property owner. The "beauty and hair products" place has goon through loss of inventory at least three times, and some have yet to reglaze their store windows, waiting for the 'folk' to settle down, back to the usual behavior, to which the property owners have adapted over time.

The key words are "so far."

With property owners being strongly encouraged to arm themselves, lock and load, and defend their property with lethal force, deaths are nigh on inevitable.   

Police seem unable, and unwilling to control the protesters, insurance companies have dropped the merchants for riot and civil commotion damages, and for fire damages when the store is not occupied in many cases. A property owner not wishing to lose that property will be in their store, on it's roof, and prepared to protect their property as may be needed, and their own lives of course.

This is the third time you've mentioned this, and the inability of law enforcement to control the protestors, and the refusal of insurers to cover these businesses, is completely irrelevant. This is, as Katie pointed out above, a plea for armed vigilantism.

You pose this as a reason why property owners must acquire firearms and be prepared to use them, as if there is no other possible solution than shoot to kill. There's no cause and effect here.

[phtlc]

With property owners being strongly encouraged to arm themselves, lock and load, and defend their property with lethal force, deaths are nigh on inevitable.   

Seems to me that not getting shot by one of these armed store owners is a pretty easy thing to do. Don't ransack his store.

[joan1984]

Individuals, whether they are property owners at 'ground zero' near the apartment dwellers of Ferguson, MO (who likely have all been armed for a long time, or they would not be able to survive there), or just homeowners in MO are not being 'ginned up' to get themselves armed. In fact they are wisely looking out for their families, and seeing the behavior of those neighbors, and deciding, after seeing the response from President O and our DOJ, that they better get a gun while they still can, and therefore are subjecting themselves to the whims of the good citizens of their city/state dealing with buying a firearm, buying ammo, scheduling training, attending training, buying secure storage accessories or trigger locks or both for their firearms, and all the hassle and grief that comes with todays "right to keep and bear arms", as currently enforced.

Believe me, no homeowner, property owner, or otherwise good guy wants to shoot anyone, and go through the hassle and trial, money it would cost for defense and other grief for them and their families, and having the ability to respond in kind to assault and threats warrants their prudent response.

Can you imagine living there, and having to put up with theh threats and noise and whatever of organized, whipped up and driven by community activist agitators, never knowing on a day to day basis how your neighbors plan to break the law next... this could happen in any neighborhood they are told, and somehow it is happening in their own. Knowing that homeowners and property owners are probably armed, trained and willing to defend themselves should help keep the peace, in Ferguson, MO and in many other towns, as it should be.

Exactly, and legal gun owners know their responsibilities, as well as their rights. There so far have been many looting and burning issues surrounding the Ferguson, MO apartment residents or agitators in their neighborhood, and NO protester has been harmed by a property owner. The "beauty and hair products" place has goon through loss of inventory at least three times, and some have yet to reglaze their store windows, waiting for the 'folk' to settle down, back to the usual behavior, to which the property owners have adapted over time.

The key words are "so far."

With property owners being strongly encouraged to arm themselves, lock and load, and defend their property with lethal force, deaths are nigh on inevitable.   

Police seem unable, and unwilling to control the protesters, insurance companies have dropped the merchants for riot and civil commotion damages, and for fire damages when the store is not occupied in many cases. A property owner not wishing to lose that property will be in their store, on it's roof, and prepared to protect their property as may be needed, and their own lives of course.

This is the third time you've mentioned this, and the inability of law enforcement to control the protestors, and the refusal of insurers to cover these businesses, is completely irrelevant. This is, as Katie pointed out above, a plea for armed vigilantism.

You pose this as a reason why property owners must acquire firearms and be prepared to use them, as if there is no other possible solution than shoot to kill. There's no cause and effect here.

[joan1984]

Exactly. Actions and behaviors have consequences. Stealing cigars to make blunts; shoving a helpless immigrant store employee, threatening bodily harm; looting the beauty and hair products business, looting the liquor store, and the quick market, and they ribs place; generally being ignorant lawless pests, and more, engender a loss of respect and a more calculated than prior attitude and response by ordinary citizens. This is logical, normal behavior. Prudent.

With property owners being strongly encouraged to arm themselves, lock and load, and defend their property with lethal force, deaths are nigh on inevitable.   

Seems to me that not getting shot by one of these armed store owners is a pretty easy thing to do. Don't ransack his store.

[MissBarbara]

Believe me, no homeowner, property owner, or otherwise good guy wants to shoot anyone, and go through the hassle and trial, money it would cost for defense and other grief for them and their families, and having the ability to respond in kind to assault and threats warrants their prudent response.

And the fact that they took a human life plays no role?

It's your cold, callous heartlessness that make each of your successive posts more and more disturbing.

[MissBarbara]

With property owners being strongly encouraged to arm themselves, lock and load, and defend their property with lethal force, deaths are nigh on inevitable.   

Seems to me that not getting shot by one of these armed store owners is a pretty easy thing to do. Don't ransack his store.

I agree.

However, do you, like Joan, believe that killing people to protect stuff is morally acceptable?

[phtlc]

However, do you, like Joan, believe that killing people to protect stuff is morally acceptable?

I do value human life over property, even with dirtbags, but at the same time it seems that if a rioter sees an armed person standing in the store, they might likely give it a pass if they think the law will back the armed store owner. Furthermore, it's been my experience that dirtbags know exactly what they can and can't get away with, so if they knew store owners were armed and had the support of the law, there would likely be no attack on those stores.

If the store owner does not run out to challenge them, but rather remains inside with the doors locked, then if they charge in that person should have the right to defend himself.

[joan1984]

A homeowner, or a renter in their personal residence, even their hotel room, has the right to use deadly force against a criminal within. There may be question as to the 'need' for deadly force, but there is no requirement to wound, or where to aim, or where not to hit the perpetrator. The resident decides the force necessary for self protection.

A locked business with an owner inside would have the same degtree of protection in my opinion. A deadly "trap" set for burglars is not legal, but if the owner is there, and they break in, the owner decides the force necessary for self protection.

Solely for protection of property? Far better to deal with it with dogs.
Those who are breaking in know they are in the wrong, and should be expecting measures in place to deter and capture them, capture their image, and followup with consequences.

Lack of expected consequence is the real issue, along with lack of moral compass which is unsaid in all of the reporting and discussion.

With property owners being strongly encouraged to arm themselves, lock and load, and defend their property with lethal force, deaths are nigh on inevitable.   

Seems to me that not getting shot by one of these armed store owners is a pretty easy thing to do. Don't ransack his store.

I agree.

However, do you, like Joan, believe that killing people to protect stuff is morally acceptable?

[joan1984]

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 563
Defense of Justification
Section 563.031

August 28, 2013


Use of force in defense of persons.

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.

    (L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41, A.L. 2010 H.B. 1692, et al. merged with H.B. 2081)
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000031.HTM

[Athos_131]

KKK Threatens ‘Lethal Force' Against Ferguson Protesters And Appears on TV To Explain Why

[Katiebee]

There is too much talk of vigilante action and of shooting.

There is a danger of a trigger happy, adrenaline charged individual opening fire on a crowd occupying a public space.

[MissBarbara]

Compare:

A homeowner, or a renter in their personal residence, even their hotel room, has the right to use deadly force against a criminal within.

And:

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.

Those are two very different things!