Meramec River Shooting

[fishinwrench]

Not really, F&F. All the defense has to point out and make understood is that river-front landowners as a whole DO INDEED BELIEVE that they own the gravel bars, and that no official document of any kind has ever indicated differently.

See where I'm going here?

This may very well be a test of the castle law, but all it does is secure and further complicate the elimination of the gray area regarding river rights.

[fishinwrench]

Owning property does not give you the right to blow someones face off for walking across your lawn. If so there'd be a serious shortage of Jehovah witnesses and paper boys.

[Flysmallie]

If he is going to use the Castle Doctrine then they first have to determine whose property it was. There is no way around it. He can't just say he thought it was his and they move on. They will have to determine whether or not they were on his property.

[Feathers and Fins]

Exactly to prove and use Castle they first have to prove property rights.

[Jerry Rapp]

had any other canoes/party goers stopped on this gravel bar earlier in the day? Or for that matter, all summer?

[fishinwrench]

Guys, Up until the time the trigger was squeezed there was no document, or ruling indicating that it wasn't his property. If he says that it was his property and free of easement then the burden of proof is on the state.

So I guess his property survey is gonna determine the degree of his crime ?

[Wayne SW/MO]

Well i don't see him getting anywhere with the Castle Defense. He has to come up with a defense and this is probably his only chance, if he has one. The first thing is what is property and I don't think that land will make the list. It's hard to damage and near impossible to steal under the theory of people stopping on it. They could load it it up and leave. peeing on a wild wooded area open to wildlife isn't going to inflict damage so he's left with protecting himself. I don't see him getting away with shooting to kill and I don't think it will pass the intent of the law. In the end it will still be up to the jury though. Under the Castle Defense it still has to be proven that his property was in danger, not his mobile property, but real property and that is going to be tough. It was also reported that he said he probably should have just left and called the sheriff. If that's true, then he admits he knew he had an option.

[Chief Grey Bear]

yep...... but not a big surprise as the media is a bastion for the left who detest the "stand your ground laws" as they call them or the Missouri Castle Doctrine if you live in Missouri.....I think they will be lucky to get a manslaughter charge to stick.....one thing for sure, both parties involved in this case were stupid as shiot

Thats is odd. I know a ton of leftist, as you call them, among other things, and I don't know a one of them that detest this law. Not in the least. Why would they?

[LarrySTL]

One of em was stupid as dung, and the other one was stupid as dung and was shot.

[Haris122]

Owning property does not give you the right to blow someones face off for walking across your lawn. If so there'd be a serious shortage of Jehovah witnesses and paper boys.

Lol. But on a serious note though, I thought outside of Texas, Missouri included, the castle doctrine only applies inside an actual house or structure of that sort. Not out in the middle of a field or on a river bank. I mean yeah, there's bound to be legal ways that allow someone to protect themselves in those cases, but not something like the castle doctrine.