Police/citizen proceedure

wow this is a good thread. learning a lot here

Jaysann22 said:

Not to say your wrong, and I fully believe this is true, however, it seems to me to be unconstitutional. An officer has the right to temporarily suspend a citizens rights and disarm them at their discretion? One man's judgement decides the fate of 100s of citizens rights a day? That doesnt seem any where near what the constitution intended.

Click to expand...

In all reality, a LEO is responsible for determining which rights a person has on a daily basis. Based on legislative and judicial decisions, LEO's are given this responsibility and would be unable to perform their jobs without the right. On the upper end of this daily responsibility is incarceration. (Obviously the upper end on a career basis would potentially be right to life.) I think anyone would agree that a LEO must at times temporarily suspend a person's right for the greater good. "With great power comes great responsibility." And that means acting within the Law and the Constitution (which includes judicial interpretation, whether you agree with the decisions made by the court or not). Also, it only comes down to one man's decision on a basic, at-the-time, level. If that person acts outside the Law or Constitution, that person can be punished up to incarceration for gross violations.

Jaysann22 said:

Sad. So if the officer is incompetant the citizen suffers the consequences? An officer can simply make up anything he/she wishes to act out side of the law? This loophole needs closing.

Click to expand...

In the short term, yes, this would be true. But, we as a nation need to work to make sure we don't have incompetant LEO's. Remember that "good faith" is not only determined based on the information available to the officer at the time, but what a "reasonable person" would have believed with that information. There has to be at least some protection for LEO's acting on unknowingly bad information or you wouldn't have a person in this world that would be willing to be a LEO.

Jaysann22 said:

How can you sift through the good ones from the bad when most of the laws are merely opinions enforced by courts? When officers lie and exploit loopholes to encroach rights, whos to know whos acting within the law or not?

Click to expand...

They are not merely opinions enforced by courts. If the legislature has a problem with the way courts have interpreted the Law or Constitution, the legislature needs to enact laws or amendments that support their true intentions taking out loopholes they don't intend to be there. Their silence on the issues means they (overall) agree with the judicial review of the law.

If an officer lies about information and that can be proven, that is effectively the end of their career based on Brady v. Maryland. In this case, the court determined that evidence of an officer lying in official capacity is admissible in court. Meaning, once an officer has lied in official capacity, he will no longer have credit in court and will almost always be released from his job as he is no longer capable of performing that job appropriately.

Jaysann22 said:

Example: New proposed laws: LEOs who unlawfully disarm law abiding citizens will result in termination from their duties. (this would make LEOs think twice before disarming citizens who are clearly operating within the law.)

Click to expand...

It's a matter of education. I believe the current system works, so long as it is followed. Officers need the ability to feel some safety in their job and know that the law is going to back them for that reason. Officers that don't feel some safety will stop doing the more risky parts of the job and we will lose control of our society. So, during a Terry Stop (whether in a car or not), an officer should retain the right to temporarily disarm individuals for officer safety. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of the Supreme Court. It is essential to law enforcement that this right remain intact. Will officers necessarily disarm individuals in every case? No. But an officer shouldn't have to have to articulate the reason for disarming the individual during this type of stop. A completely different stop would be one where an officer received a call simply because someone was open carrying. This stop is NOT a Terry Stop as there is no reason to believe an offense occurred (unless accompanied by another offense such as trespassing). The courts have not provided the right for an officer to disarm these individuals as officer safety is of no concern in those situations.

Jaysann22 said:

LEOs unlawfully using physical/deadly force will result in termination from their duties and prosecution. [/QUESTION]
In most jurisdictions, LEO use of deadly force is reviewed by a Grand Jury to determine prosecution. This way, it's taken out of the hands of a prosecutor, who may have bias toward the police, and puts it into the hands of individual citizens. This is the protection in this regard. I would support a similar approach to standard use of force.

Jaysann22 said:

LEOs are responsible for his/her actions and consequences of those actions whether or not the actions had "good intentions" (good faith) (meaning if they get the wrong address and enter the wrong home without the proper lawful entry requirements, whatever happens to them is a result of their own actions and no other party is accountable for these careless actions. This closing any loopholes and making sure the LEO better be damn sure he/she has the right address. Incompetence is unacceptable with an individual who has such authority over others.)

Click to expand...

"Good faith" wouldn't necessarily cover an officer getting the wrong address, unless a "reasonable person" would have made the same mistake. When I said the wrong address before, I meant that the search warrant specified the incorrect address, which would be the responsibility of the judge, prosecutor, or filing officer, not necessarily the serving officer. We have to remember though that every aspect of the process is human and human error is going to occur on rare occasion.

Jaysann22 said:

LEOS shall not have an unfair bias in a court of law. Any unfair, unlawful, irresponsible, warrantless bias toward either party in an altercation will result in additional penal action.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by warrantless bias here. In terms of warrantless searches, the courts have determined that specific instances require the ability to do warrantless searches. These are very specific exemptions and have very specific purposes to them. Search incident to arrest is for officer/public/other inmate safety, to prevent contraband from being introduced into our jails, and to recover evidence of the crime that could easily be disposed of if not immediately recovered. Terry frisks and cursory searches (searching the immediate area inside a structure for other potential suspects) are solely for officer/public safety. Exigent circumstances is for public safety/recovery of evidence that may be disposed of prior to a warrant being issued. Motor vehicles is due to the mobile nature which would make it easy to dispose of evidence. Inventory searches are intended to provide a protection to the citizen's property that is being impounded by allowing valuable property to be placed on an inventory sheet and logged. And then there's obviously consent, which obviously shouldn't require a warrant regardless of the reason for the search (so long as consent isn't coerced). Outside of those, pretty much any other search requires a search warrant. Officers can't enter a home forcibly without a warrant or exigent circumstances (someone screaming "help me" or the like).

Well, I'm sorry if this got a little off topic. I think that all of this (even though it's strayed a little) has some relevance to the original topic.

All of this comes down to what the Legislature and Courts allow. If we have a problem with the Law or Constitution, we need to take steps to resolve it. This essentially means contacting your members of Congress and pushing for a change of law. It also means that they should be enacting laws that are clear in terminology. If a court determines something to be unconstitutional and the Legislature doesn't agree, they must address the issue in the Constitution through an amendment. It's tough, but it is possible.

Click to expand...

heresyourdipstickjimmy said:

Official manner? Please refer to the legal definition of "color of law". Official manner does not give any LEO any authority to act in an unlawful manner. Once they do act unlawfully they're a criminal. This is where the lawful purpose comes into play for LEOs and once you tell a LEO to leave your property if they do not have a warrant, that LEO is no longer there for a lawful purpose if there is no evidence to provide reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime immediately present. It's then called trespassing.

An attempt to unlawfully enter, search, or seize persons or property using "official manner" would fall under "color of law", especially if it's involving a LEO. Color of law incidents are absolutely illegal.

Click to expand...

Okay I don't think you are getting what I was saying. An Officer of the Law, IN uniform, who conducts an unlawful search and/or seizure is still acting as an Officer. Meaning yes he made a bad call, but he is still an Officer doing his job and just because it is unlawful does not give the resident the right, under the castle doctrine, to use deadly force. I never said that he/she was not a criminal, but they are still LEOs. I was simply saying that the misinterpretation of the Castle Doctrine would most certainly result in the lose of that law. No matter what some over zealous people may think or even wish. A violation of 1A, 2A, and/or 4A, are not grounds for deadly force.

ALOTAGLOCK said:

Okay I don't think you are getting what I was saying. An Officer of the Law, IN uniform, who conducts an unlawful search and/or seizure is still acting as an Officer. Meaning yes he made a bad call, but he is still an Officer doing his job and just because it is unlawful does not give the resident the right, under the castle doctrine, to use deadly force. I never said that he/she was not a criminal, but they are still LEOs. I was simply saying that the misinterpretation of the Castle Doctrine would most certainly result in the lose of that law. No matter what some over zealous people may think or even wish. A violation of 1A, 2A, and/or 4A, are not grounds for deadly force.

Click to expand...

Once again, this is wrong. Law enforcement officers enjoy NO exemption under RSMO 563.031.2. You really need to READ THE LAW and then understand how laws work. You can't just make something up because you have some kind of preconceived notion of how you think things should be, or because you think law enforcement officers enjoy some kind of "above the law" status that a "normal" person does not enjoy. There is no "misinterpretation" here on anyone's part except that of yourself. Think about it; by your line of reasoning, a police officer could pretty much enter any residence or vehicle for any reason at any time and be exempt from any consequences for his/her unlawful actions. That simply is not reality.

In a nutshell, you have the right to use deadly force against ANY person unlawfully entering your residence in the middle of the night (or any other time) in Missouri. It doesn't matter if that person is a drunk, a crack-head, a teenager looking for an adrenaline rush, a deranged ex-spouse, or a police officer. The law is explicit and provides you with an absolute defense if the requirements of the law are met.

Now, having said that, it doesn't mean you could use deadly force against a police officer who "announced" his forced entry into your home, but happened to be at the wrong address by mistake. If you hear the police at the front door shout, "POLICE DEPARTMENT - SEARCH WARRANT", you won't necessarily be justified in using deadly force even if they are at the wrong house. This would, no doubt, be a very precarious situation for a citizen to be in. A mistake made in "good faith" on the officer's part may not meet the requirements of justification in the eyes of the court. The courts would likely want hard evidence of a malicious, unlawful entry before ruling that you have an absolute defense under RSMO 563.074.1 if it was a LEO involved. .

cshoff said:

Once again, this is wrong. Law enforcement officers enjoy NO exemption under RSMO 563.031.2. You really need to READ THE LAW and then understand how laws work. You can't just make something up because you have some kind of preconceived notion of how you think things should be, or because you think law enforcement officers enjoy some kind of "above the law" status that a "normal" person does not enjoy. There is no "misinterpretation" here on anyone's part except that of yourself. Think about it; by your line of reasoning, a police officer could pretty much enter any residence or vehicle for any reason at any time and be exempt from any consequences for his/her unlawful actions. That simply is not reality.

In a nutshell, you have the right to use deadly force against ANY person unlawfully entering your residence in the middle of the night (or any other time) in Missouri. It doesn't matter if that person is a drunk, a crack-head, a teenager looking for an adrenaline rush, a deranged ex-spouse, or a police officer. The law is explicit and provides you with an absolute defense if the requirements of the law are met.

Now, having said that, it doesn't mean you could use deadly force against a police officer who "announced" his forced entry into your home, but happened to be at the wrong address by mistake. If you hear the police at the front door shout, "POLICE DEPARTMENT - SEARCH WARRANT", you won't necessarily be justified in using deadly force even if they are at the wrong house. This would, no doubt, be a very precarious situation for a citizen to be in. A mistake made in "good faith" on the officer's part may not meet the requirements of justification in the eyes of the court. The courts would likely want hard evidence of a malicious, unlawful entry before ruling that you have an absolute defense under RSMO 563.074.1 if it was a LEO involved. .

Click to expand...

I never said that a LEO can do whatever, whenever, however. I said that they are not the same as a "crack-head" or "deranged ex-spouse". They have to be precieved differently. In the situation where you are walking down the hall of your house. You see a crack-head, acting like a "crack-head", walking out of your living room coming toward you. Bang you shoot. Rightfully so. Kill him everytime. No debate. Everyone knows what could happen when dealing with some nut with no sense because of drugs. Now You are walking down your hall and see a Police Officer walking toward you. No bang. Why there is no reasonable perception of a threat. Why would you be threatened by a LEO. Yes you will definitly be stunned, maybe even a little pissed. I would hope pissed. But there is no reasonable threat.

Never accept your rights being violated. But the situation does not dictate deadly force. An Officer has to be precieved differently. Common sense would tell you that. So would every Lawyer or Attorney. I know several.

Also just food for thought there are circumstances that allow LEOs to not announce entry.

Once more so you are not confused by my position. COPS DON'T HAVE SPECIAL POWERS SET BY THE GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW FOR THEM TO DO WHATEVER, WHENEVER, HOWEVER THEY WANT. BUT they are considered and classified differently in certain instances.

ALOTAGLOCK said:

I never said that a LEO can do whatever, whenever, however. I said that they are not the same as a "crack-head" or "deranged ex-spouse". They have to be precieved differently. In the situation where you are walking down the hall of your house. You see a crack-head, acting like a "crack-head", walking out of your living room coming toward you. Bang you shoot. Rightfully so. Kill him everytime. No debate. Everyone knows what could happen when dealing with some nut with no sense because of drugs. Now You are walking down your hall and see a Police Officer walking toward you. No bang. Why there is no reasonable perception of a threat. Why would you be threatened by a LEO. Yes you will definitly be stunned, maybe even a little pissed. I would hope pissed. But there is no reasonable threat.

Click to expand...

How in the world do you deduce "no reasonable threat" from a person dressed as a LEO walking through your house in the middle of the night, unannounced? A better question is why WOULDN'T you feel threatened by a person dressed as a LEO walking down your hall in the middle of the night, unannounced? You had BETTER treat that person as a threat, because no LEO in his right mind would put him/herself into that situation unless they were up to no good!

Regardless, your perception of a "reasonable threat" is irrelevant as far as RSMO 563.031.2 is concerned. There is no "threat" standard that must be met to satisfy the requirements of that statute.

Never accept your rights being violated. But the situation does not dictate deadly force. An Officer has to be precieved differently. Common sense would tell you that. So would every Lawyer or Attorney. I know several.

Click to expand...

A police officer who identified himself as such WOULD be perceived differently, and the law would require you to do so. It's called the "reasonable man standard". But I digress, you are trying to move the goal posts here now. You are trying to change your argument to fit your desired outcome. I have said that under RSMO 563.031.2, you have a right to use deadly force against ANYONE who unlawfully enters, attempts to unlawfully enter, or remains after unlawfully entering any residence where you lawfully reside in Missouri. That is a fact that is not disputable by your opinion or any preconceived notions of what you think may or may not be. Throwing variables in like, "if you know this guy is a cop" or "no-knock warrants" changes the entire dynamic. A cop who is serving a no-knock warrant is NOT unlawfully entering. Likewise, a cop who enters after identifying himself cannot be considered to be unlawfully entering under the "reasonable man standard".

Missouri law clearly defines the act of "unlawfully enter" as:

(8) "Unlawfully enter", a person unlawfully enters in or upon premises when he or she enters such premises and is not licensed or privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his or her purpose, enters in or upon premises that are at the time open to the public does so with license unless he or she defies a lawful order not to enter, personally communicated to him or her by the owner of such premises or by another authorized person. A license to enter in a building that is only partly open to the public is not a license to enter in that part of the building that is not open to the public.

Click to expand...

This is very specific. If a LEO has reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a warrant issued by a court to enter your residence or vehicle, he/she is NOT unlawfully entering and thus, you would have no justification under RSMO 563.031.2 to use deadly force. Likewise, if a LEO enters your residence or vehicle by accident, but has clearly identified him/herself as a police officer, you would have no justification under RSMO 563.031.2 to use deadly force due to the "reasonable man standard". However, if a person dressed as a LEO breaks out and crawls through your bedroom window in the middle of the night, unannounced, without identifying him/herself, you WOULD have justification under RSMO 563.031.2 to use deadly force, whether the person was a legitimate police officer or not.

Is that easier for you to understand?

Also just food for thought there are circumstances that allow LEOs to not announce entry.

Click to expand...

Yes. It's called a no-knock warrant, and entering in this manner is NOT unlawful, at least, not at the present time.

Once more so you are not confused by my position. COPS DON'T HAVE SPECIAL POWERS SET BY THE GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW FOR THEM TO DO WHATEVER, WHENEVER, HOWEVER THEY WANT. BUT they are considered and classified differently in certain instances.

Click to expand...

But NOT in instances outlined in RSMO 563.031.2, which is what you seem to keep wanting to argue about.

ALOTAGLOCK said:

I never said that a LEO can do whatever, whenever, however. I said that they are not the same as a "crack-head" or "deranged ex-spouse". They have to be perceived differently. In the situation where you are walking down the hall of your house. You see a crack-head, acting like a "crack-head", walking out of your living room coming toward you. Bang you shoot. Rightfully so. Kill him every time. No debate. Everyone knows what could happen when dealing with some nut with no sense because of drugs. Now You are walking down your hall and see a Police Officer walking toward you. No bang. Why there is no reasonable perception of a threat. Why would you be threatened by a LEO. Yes you will definitely be stunned, maybe even a little pissed. I would hope pissed. But there is no reasonable threat.

Click to expand...

Very ugly situations. With their being less than seconds to gather in the situation. I would say there would be a possibility of some one wearing a toe tag in either one.

Doc

How in the world do you deduce "no reasonable threat" from a person dressed as a LEO walking through your house in the middle of the night, unannounced? A better question is why WOULDN'T you feel threatened by a person dressed as a LEO walking down your hall in the middle of the night, unannounced? You had BETTER treat that person as a threat, because no LEO in his right mind would put him/herself into that situation unless they were up to no good!

Regardless, your perception of a "reasonable threat" is irrelevant as far as RSMO 563.031.2 is concerned. There is no "threat" standard that must be met to satisfy the requirements of that statute.

Click to expand...

well said.

A police officer who identified himself as such WOULD be perceived differently, and the law would require you to do so. It's called the "reasonable man standard". But I digress, you are trying to move the goal posts here now. You are trying to change your argument to fit your desired outcome. I have said that under RSMO 563.031.2, you have a right to use deadly force against ANYONE who unlawfully enters, attempts to unlawfully enter, or remains after unlawfully entering any residence where you lawfully reside in Missouri. That is a fact that is not disputable by your opinion or any preconceived notions of what you think may or may not be. Throwing variables in like, "if you know this guy is a cop" or "no-knock warrants" changes the entire dynamic. A cop who is serving a no-knock warrant is NOT unlawfully entering. Likewise, a cop who enters after identifying himself cannot be considered to be unlawfully entering under the "reasonable man standard".

Click to expand...

Sounds more like a "loophole standard" thats left to be intrepreted by whoever. Doesnt really sound constitutional. Whenver law leaves something to be interpreted its a loophole that is ALWAYS exploited by courts or LEOs. Not saying all LEOs are "out to get you" but they're going to bag you the quickest/easiest way possible if need be after an arrest/altercation.

This is very specific. If a LEO has reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a warrant issued by a court to enter your residence or vehicle, he/she is NOT unlawfully entering and thus, you would have no justification under RSMO 563.031.2 to use deadly force. Likewise, if a LEO enters your residence or vehicle by accident, but has clearly identified him/herself as a police officer, you would have no justification under RSMO 563.031.2 to use deadly force due to the "reasonable man standard". However, if a person dressed as a LEO breaks out and crawls through your bedroom window in the middle of the night, unannounced, without identifying him/herself, you WOULD have justification under RSMO 563.031.2 to use deadly force, whether the person was a legitimate police officer or not.


Is that easier for you to understand?

Click to expand...

ouch...

Yes. It's called a no-knock warrant, and entering in this manner is NOT unlawful, at least, not at the present time.

Click to expand...

Sounds unconstitutional to the citizen and quite dangerous for the LEO.

Jaysann22 said:

Sounds more like a "loophole standard" thats left to be intrepreted by whoever. Doesnt really sound constitutional. Whenver law leaves something to be interpreted its a loophole that is ALWAYS exploited by courts or LEOs. Not saying all LEOs are "out to get you" but they're going to bag you the quickest/easiest way possible if need be after an arrest/altercation.

Click to expand...

It's been in use for nearly two centuries now and has withstood the scrutiny of many SCOTUS cases and rulings. I doubt it will be going anywhere soon.

Sounds unconstitutional to the citizen and quite dangerous for the LEO.

Click to expand...

And hopefully, at some point, it will be ruled unConstitutional and the practice eliminated.

why

ok just my thought, unless you are in iminent danger of being killed by a police officer if you were not doing any thing at all, why would anyone even ask such questions, you do not shoot the police, this is wht would hppn if you are lucky you will get put in jail for life, if you are not lucky in most cases you will be dead yourself after he puts his entire clip in you after you shoot at him, is it worth your life to protect against seizure of propety by an officer, if this hppns let them then you get a lawyer and go threw the legal system to get it bck.

To the OP

No, you are not obligated to disclose that you have a weapon unless asked, you then may NOT lie.

Everything else, you have requested legal advice, every single answer is: "It depends"

You are either a crafty internet troll whom has sought to get others to play internet lawyer or you asked questions of the wrong persons as no one but a lawyer may indeed give you legal advice.

No officer shall ever seize MY weapon or run its serial number with out significant risk to himself from a legal perspective as I shall very likely sue him and the city he works for if he does. This however requires that I be very in tune with my rights and never give him permission or probable cause because if he gets either, he can indeed do so whether I like it or not.

Only a lawyer can answer your questions and you should expect to pay for that advice as they tend to charge for it, all other advice including advice that I consider to have merit, from persons I respect has just that much value to you, 0

Peace

force against officer

yes it a nut shell not a good idea to use deadly force on a police officer it will turn very bad very fast

You are either a crafty internet troll whom has sought to get others to play internet lawyer or you asked questions of the wrong persons as no one but a lawyer may indeed give you legal advice.

Click to expand...

Get off your high horse. There's no motive here. We're all adults and this is America. We can all speak freely. With the ever growing disgust with nation wide police abuse and other posts by other bloggers speaking their concern over their rights to protect themselves, I wanted to make things clear and get opinions from other bloggers on the subject. These questions were to educate others. nothing more. Dont read any further into it.

Only a lawyer can answer your questions and you should expect to pay for that advice as they tend to charge for it, all other advice including advice that I consider to have merit, from persons I respect has just that much value to you, 0

Click to expand...

If you had read the above conversations we all were not giving "legal advice" we were speculating and reviewing current MO law and trying to establish a credible legal stand point and opinion on the subject. Are you a lawyer? or the thought police? Cuz you seem to be very quick to judge.

Opinions are a 2-way street, at least the should be.

Such should be offered without animosity or negative personal remarks. Keeps the subject on track better too.

Jaysann22 said:

Get off your high horse. There's no motive here. We're all adults and this is America. We can all speak freely. With the ever growing disgust with nation wide police abuse and other posts by other bloggers speaking their concern over their rights to protect themselves, I wanted to make things clear and get opinions from other bloggers on the subject. These questions were to educate others. nothing more. Dont read any further into it.





If you had read the above conversations we all were not giving "legal advice" we were speculating and reviewing current MO law and trying to establish a credible legal stand point and opinion on the subject. Are you a lawyer? or the thought police? Cuz you seem to be very quick to judge.

Click to expand...

A credible legal standpoint cannot be established by discussions on an internet forum. When I was in the Army, we called people trying to give this kind of advice "Latrine Lawyers" because their advice wasn't worth s***
It is interesting and informative and even fun for some to discuss the law here but remember, LMTD was correct in stating that legal advice should only come from a lawyer -- YOUR lawyer I think I understand what you want, assuming that you came with honest questions (as I always assume until proven otherwise, an American legal tradition) but the best you can do is get OPINIONS from people you don't know and should not trust -- much anyway. I come here to get perspective and give mine and learn where the laws are found and try to gather as much info as possible to develop my own opinion, too. But credible legal standpoint? Nooooo, that is not possible here.

But, you will probably be alot closer than 99.9999% of Americans

Happy hunting!

It doesn't take an attorney to reference laws and discuss ways that various scenarios might be affected by said laws. That said, if you want legal advice, you're pretty much stuck with going to an attorney.

I didn't see anywhere in the OP where he was asking for legal advice. He clearly asked what the laws were and asked for opinions on how those laws might be applied; questions that could be answered by anyone willing to search the laws or who already knows where to find them, and by anyone willing to give an opinion.

It's a gun forum, folks. Nearly every topic posted here relies on the opinions of everyone in the "community" to make the topic interesting and relevant. If being an "expert" in the particular field was a requirement for answering, I dare say that the vast majority of topics here would never be replied to.

I come here to get perspective and give mine and learn where the laws are found and try to gather as much info as possible to develop my own opinion, too. But credible legal standpoint? Nooooo, that is not possible here.

Click to expand...

A credible legal standpoint meaning a reasonable perspective or outcome of actions to reactions based on what we all know of MO law.

So, an OPINION based off or from what MO law states is what we are discussing. NOT strict legal advice.

To cloud laws with personal opinions, and not use the real legal interpretation from the ones who are working with the law, is not a defense I want to use in court. "Well your Honor, I read the law as I can blank blank blank." You will look like a fool and be sentenced as one too. With that said my opinion as given, on legal points, is what was given to me by some friends who are practicing attornies.

ALOTAGLOCK said:

To cloud laws with personal opinions, and not use the real legal interpretation from the ones who are working with the law, is not a defense I want to use in court. "Well your Honor, I read the law as I can blank blank blank." You will look like a fool and be sentenced as one too. With that said my opinion as given, on legal points, is what was given to me by some friends who are practicing attornies.

Click to expand...

Well I guess we all should just stop posting on this site until we are all licensed attorneys.....

plus no one said ANYTHING about using the opinions given for their use in court. Which would be LEGAL ADVICE!! Which is not the subject at hand... :banghead:

ALOTAGLOCK said:

To cloud laws with personal opinions, and not use the real legal interpretation from the ones who are working with the law, is not a defense I want to use in court. "Well your Honor, I read the law as I can blank blank blank." You will look like a fool and be sentenced as one too. With that said my opinion as given, on legal points, is what was given to me by some friends who are practicing attornies.

Click to expand...

One must actually understand the law in addition to understanding precedent that's been set on it. Since the law that you wanted to argue about, in the context it was used in, has yet to be tested in Missouri, I find it very hard to believe you've been given legal opinions of this law based on precedent by any attorney in this state. Until the law is tested in a court of law in the context given, the law must be taken at face value based off of what it actually says, which is exactly as I explained it earlier in this thread.

The law in question (RSMO 563.031.2) is written so clearly, that it doesn't require any arm-twisting or creative thinking skills to understand it's meaning, and I can already point you to one case in Missouri, where the perpetrator was a citizen, in which the law was applied exactly as it should be.