|
SadistDave -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 9:39:29 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
I did and I agree... that means the gravel bar was private property.
Butch
Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state....
Missouri (Extends to any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile (e.g., a camper, RV or mobile home), which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, whether the person is residing there temporarily, permanently or visiting (e.g., a hotel or motel), and any vehicle. The defense against civil suits is absolute and includes the award of attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff.)
Doesnt sound like there were any buildings on the gravel bar, or even in the wooded section.
This is only partially correct. As I've already pointed out, since Missouri HB 1692 was signed into law, Missouri's Castle Doctrine applies anywhere on your property, not just in a building. You don't have to be in any kind of structure anymore, you and the person you shoot simply have to be on your own property and the shooting has to be justifiable.
quote:
A lawyer from Ozark, Mo., Harry Styron, has researched extensively the topic of property rights along streams and rivers.
“These cases are really very confusing. They are difficult to interpret,” Styron said. “You are on private property, but you have a right to be there if it’s a navigable stream and as long as you are on a gravel bar that is submerged during parts of the year, because it’s part of the stream bed.”
This case isn't, well shouldn't anyway, be all that difficult to defend. Aside from the new law governing Castle Doctrine in Missouri, this is a straight-up self defence case.
You have a man on his own property (Castle Doctrine from 1692) being threatened by one armed man while another attempts to disarm him. This should make the shooting justifiable under any reasonable definition of "self-defence" anywhere, but 1692 should strengthen the self-defence case since it occurred on the mans private property.
It seems that something is being lost in this conversation though. That is that even if someone has the right to be on your property because of federal right-of-way regulations, they absolutely do not have the right to threaten you and attempt to disarm you on your own property in the state of Missouri.
I would also like to point out that as far as I can tell, no one even knows whether or not the rafters were on a part of the gravel bar that they had the right to be on. There is a lot of fuss being made about the waterline issue, but does anyone know where this altercation even took place in relationship to the waterline? That aspect of prosecution is moot if the man who was shot had crossed the waterline.
-SD-
|
|
|
|
