• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Lake St. Louis homeowner faces murder charges


Jan 14, 2012
earth's crust
This all refers to Use of Deadly Force. In many states justification or excusably will factor into the mix.

Fear in this circumstance = the reasonably held belief that another has the capacity, the will, the intent, that such action is imminent and would result in serious bodily injury or death to yourself and/or loved ones.

Dan Hawes (user on this forum) has said it more precisely, but the exact quote avoids me.

The reason why you can defend yourself is through the natural right to protect your property, your personal being being one of these things.

Fear as used in previous posts indicated the emotional feeling; Grape has provided a less or non-emotional definition. And even Grape's definition injects a inkling of a state of mind examination.

So either or both views or other factors too may = fear

And its why the law needs to be changed. It must be based not on state of mind assessments but of a clearly defined and measurable set of facts = fear.

And clarifying the law to include that any unwanted person on your land is subject to force is a reasonable rule and the facts related to this determination are generally easy to be assessed...and that's how laws should be, easily understood by all and easy to examine. I wonder how many people get convicted of crimes simply due to complexity of the evaluation of things that simply are not measurable.
Last edited:


Regular Member
Jan 19, 2015
Yeah, bad shoot from hammer going backwards. No reasonable argument to claim shooter was fearful of of death or injury.

Loss of property outside the castle or not from the person does not validate loss of life .


As far as law is concenrned, sure, as far as opinion goes..
agree to disagree, I spent tiem out of my life to work to earnt he money to buy the item, and it is a section of my life I will NEVER get back, then in my opinion, the legality should be there to add some lead weights to said perp.