Federal judge makes permanent ruling allowing KKK leaflets

MO4LIFE 7 months, 2 weeks ago

The racism returns and history shall repeat itself. Racism supported by the federal courts. That is what happens when you put a bunch of republicans on the bench and no dems. Black people Stay away from se MO you may get lynched or kidnapped legally. If they can put what they want on vehicles. There will be racial problems down there within 6 months because i catch the klan putting something on my car. Ding Ding time to start round 1 I promise you.

TomScooterJones 7 months, 2 weeks ago

The Judge, John A Ross was a BARACK OBAMA appointment, and the ACLU sure is not part of the GOP, they are the far left. The rest of this post is not worth commenting on....although it could grow some nice roses.....oh almost forgot, the Klan can go to h e double hockey sticks. Nuff said.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

The Klan is a far right group.

However, the ACLU is not "far left." The ACLU is conservative, because the ACLU is always asking for less government. They are always suing to get the government to STOP doing something... in this case, to stop banning car leaflets (although I assume there must be some language in the ordinance that equates to content-based discrimination, because I would think the government would have legit power to make a law telling people to keep their hands off other people's cars).

Left wants more government. Right wants less. So how could the ACLU be "left"? Wouldn't a "left" group oppose a "right" group?

TomScooterJones 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Please, the ACLU, who Michael Dukakis is a card carrying member for example is WITHOUT a doubt a left leaning (far, as in not the mainstream) organization. And stated for the purposes of my post, in correcting the previous posters poor conclusion that everything bad comes from the GOP etc. Lets render this further...Klan Bad, Judge Obama, ACLU left, but not all bad, making assumptions bad. Nuff said.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

But what about the ACLU is "left"? Left means more government. The ACLU argues for less government.

MO4LIFE 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Constitution mean anything to you graceful SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Public School is Govt' Run therefore constitutionally no Prayer in Gov't!!!!! Pretty cut and dry to me if you claim everything is unconstitutional except for what you believe should not be in the constitution.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I'll beat Grace to the punch here: Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution.

The prohibition on government establishment of religion IS in the constitution. That's the origin of the ACLU's argument on school prayer.

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Where does the Constitution say that schools are to be run by the Federal government?

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Where in the Constitution does it say the school are to be run by the federal government? It doesn't. So what?

Where in the Constitution does it create the CIA? Where does it give the U.S. government the authority to regulate nuclear weapons? Where in the constitution does it mention NASA or the space program? Does that mean the federal government shouldn't administer a space program?

Please. The Constitution is not a step-by-step instruction. It is a broad framework that gives us the power and mechanism to rule ourselves.

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

The CIA, Nuclear arms, and even NASA are foreign policy departments or concerns. That is within the realm of the Federal government. Defense, which is the only real spending the Federal government should be interested in and is actually Constitutional for it to be interested in it.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Baloney. The Constitution itself gives Congress the power to tax and spend "for the general Welfare."

Why don't you read the Constitution before you try to get on here and debate with me? I know the darn thing. Your talk radio blurbs don't cut it with someone who actually knows the document.

Read it and weep, pal. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

I think education falls squarely in with "general welfare" for which Congress has the power to tax and spend money.

So don't tell me that defense is the only Constitutional thing the government can spend money on. It's right there in black and white.

Rookie.

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

And that is your liberal side once again showing it's true colors.

You take "welfare" as a cradle to grave government nanny state policy and refuse to read the whole part of article 1, section 8 which list them out. Promoting arts and "useful" sciences is listed as providing exclusive rights to the authors ie: patents/trademarks. That is the closest thing to education in that section. It also mentions a navy, standing armies, lesser courts, coinage (says nothing about the fed), immigration, tariffs, etc.

Nothing about education being financed by the federal government, among many other things the government controls/finances today.

You interpretation is liberal pure and simple and assumes much. It is your ideologies downfall that over assumption.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I just equate "welfare" with "for the better."

The point is, we can organize and decide through the democratic process what is and is not in the general welfare. That's why "general welfare" isn't defined in the Constitution. That means it is up to us, now, to decide.

That way of thinking got us where we are today. Use the tools we have to solve the problems we have.

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

And that is another way to define the gap between liberal and conservative. The founders knew the ultimate danger in a republic was rampant spending as the citizens voted themselves more and more. That is why welfare means simply the general environment for individual prosperity not entitlement welfare. Honestly they only knew what we call welfare today as charity if they had wanted charity to be a government responsibility they would have put it i there.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

No, the founders didn't know "the ultimate danger in a republic was rampant spending as the citizens voted themselves more and more."

Look at WHY the founders wrote the Constitution. It's because the federal government under the Articles of Confederation was TOO WEAK! It couldn't collect taxes, and the states just sat around and argued while nothing productive got done. That is the basic problem that the founders decided to write the Constitution to solve. If rampant federal spending was the big problem, they'd have kept the Articles of Confederation.

It is the checks and balances of three branches of government, along with federalism, along with state governments that have their OWN checks and balances, that solve the problem of too much government spending.

I'm not saying "general welfare" means "entitlement welfare." I'm saying that the people have decided that it is in the "general welfare" to set up a system of "entitlement welfare" to deal with the problem of poverty in an organized way, so that, if nothing else, we don't have roving bands of migrants like in the Great Depression, and a bunch of robbing and killing by desperate poor people.

You've heard the saying that "a hungry mob is an angry mob"? Well, it is in the general welfare to prevent angry mobs. Certainly we can argue about the best way to do that without asserting that entitlement programs are prohibited by the constitution simply because they are not mentioned in the constitution.

The genius of the constitution is that it doesn't mention too much.

Think about this: The founders at first didn't think the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights, because OF COURSE future generations would ASSUME we had all those rights.

THE FOUNDERS EXPECTED US TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T SAY ABORTION OR SCHOOLS OR ENTITLEMENTS WERE LEGAL OR NOT.

Grownups don't need a Daddy who has all the answers. We figure it out for ourselves. The constitution doesn't prevent us from doing that. It gives us the tools to do so.

Sheesh. You guys!

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I mean, do you think the founders really sat around thinking: "Do we want abortion/entitlements/car leafleting to be legal or illegal? Hmmm, illegal? Well, we better not mention it in the constitution. That way future generations will know for sure that it is definitely not legal."

Isn't that what you're saying here? It's truly stupid. It's a product of learning from talk shows.

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I will address your lack of knowledge regarding the Constitution and the Founders with one quote and one last comment.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic". Benjamin Franklin

The founders, especially Mr. Franklin knew well the pitfalls of a Republic and cautioned against them. These pitfalls were foremost in his mind and worried him and others greatly. We mettle in the Constitution to our own peril and we have proven their worst fears justifiable.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

No, the school prayer argument is for less government. The ACLU argues that schools, as government agents, should not take actions that promote one religious belief over the other. The ACLU argues that, as a principle of limited government and personal freedom, the government should not advocate one particular religion over another.

That is, the government may be (perhaps barely) competent in the realms of data, evidence and public policy, but not in discerning spiritual truth.

That's actually quite conservative.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

The ACLU was founded to defend the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. How on earth could that be communist?

The fact is that when the ACLU was founded, a lot of government censorship was against speech deemed to advocate communism. The ACLU believes that anyone, be they communist or Klan member, has the right to speak in a democracy.

A true communist would not advocate free speech, wouldn't you agree?

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Defending certain and very specific rights does not a conservative make. Making mountains out of molehills and urging judicial findings that mandate more bureaucracy is certainly not conservative. Nine times out of ten the so called "rights" they defend are merely social constructs that require more resources and money to deal with than they are worth and are not a real problem.

You really should study what the actual baseline between liberal and conservative is sometime and realize there are many different areas that can overlap. All these areas must be weighed and measured to see what the final situation on the scale yields.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

So, what is the actual line between liberals and conservatives? If it isn't "more government" (liberal) versus "less government" (conservative), then what IS the difference? What are these areas of overlap you speak of?

Can you be specific as to what mandates or rights you're talking about? What's not a real problem? I'm not understanding these vague statements.

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

A good example is a cross placed on private property that the ACLU attempts to have removed because it can be viewed from public property. There are many instances and different scenarios which require judicial costs, new legislation, labor costs etc. In some cases we are talking about a cross that is maybe seen by 100 people a year and all of them more than likely Christian.

Bringing the government into social issues that have little to no impact on society either before or after is not conservative. Pursuing an ideology for it's own sake is not necessarily conservative either.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Is that a real thing? The cross on the church by my house (private property) can be seen from public property (my sidewalk) but why would that be removed? I've never heard of the ACLU trying to remove a cross on private property. There was a Texas case where the ACLU sent an information request to find out whether a school paid for a cross. My understanding is that a different group asked for the cross to be removed. I'm not sure whether it is still there or not, but it doesn't seem like the ACLU asked for it to be removed. They just asked about who paid for it, which would determine whether or not it should be removed.

christianpost.com/news/cross-removed-from-san-antonio-tower-62925/

Part of the problem is that these emails get flowing around saying "The ACLU did this or that! Outrage!" But many times, the ACLU did not, in fact, do this or that.

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

The cross in the Mojave was originally on public land, which was private before it became public. They then transferred the land to VFW and the complaint was that the cross could be seen from the public road.

I believe the ACLU used that argument to attack the cross off I-44 down in Texas as well and there was another one I remember reading about out East too.

Bottom line here is the attempt to engineer something by using the government. That equals liberal.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Go look at any ACLU material or website. I can't find their "Plan for U.S. Communism" anywhere. Can you cite to it?

Oh, right. It doesn't exist.

Civil liberties is the exact opposite of communism.

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Conservatism is the ideology that the best course of action is to let things work themselves out with limited laws, regulation, government etc. You don't like crosses messing up the place? Well if it is a hindrance and most people agree with you then eventually they will disappear. Individual freedoms and responsibility are what matters.

Liberalism is the idea that things must be manipulated and changed using government intervention and more laws, resources etc. The ends justifies the means and natural selection is wrong or unfair. This does not mean all ends must include more government just government intervention which is why the ACLU is liberal.

As I said there is overlap and no one person nor institution is completely conservative or liberal. It starts int he middle and goes back and forth.

For example Conservatives tend to be very liberal in some ways regarding abortion and in some ways not. Abortion when all things are left alone is typically frowned on by societies as a whole and religions which makes their anti-abortion stance conservative. However natural selection would assume that those who are prone to abortion and their typically inheritable attitudes would die out by natural selection (or man made selection in this case) by their own hands so to speak.

The biggest single factor between the two? Conservatives do not try and force issues with government while Liberals do. Sometimes you have to fight the battles where they are which means both ideologies must use courts and voting but Conservative values mean less regulation and less government together.

With all the gray areas you have plenty of room to justify your false claims and deceptions for attempting (rather comically I might add) to brand obvious liberals as conservative but the core is so obvious that no one is fooled.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

So, when people argue that the U.S. government should invade Iraq in order to transform the region into a democracy, is that liberal or conservative?

By your definition, it seems that the Iraq war was liberal, in that it represents, as you say, the idea that "things must be manipulated and changed using government intervention and more laws, resources etc. The ends justifies the means and natural selection is wrong or unfair."

So, you'd agree that anyone who supported the Iraq War is liberal?

Gets confusing, doesn't it?

Your thing about abortion doesn't make any sense. What if a woman has 5 kids she can barely feed,and aborts the 6th because she wants to preserve her family. Why would it follow that she or her remaining children "would die out by natural selection" by their own hands? In this scenario, it seems that an abortion would preserve resources and enhance the lives of the living, right?

I'm not sure what "natural selection" has to do with anything. I don't think natural selection "assumes" anything. Only people make assumptions. I didn't think conservatives believed in evolution, so why would conservatives view "natural selection" favorably? Are you saying that liberals are opposed to natural selection? What does "natural selection" even mean? That makes sense for animals in the jungle, but not people in a modern society. Are you saying that anyone's position in society can be the result of "natural selection"? What on earth would you say is "natural" about any modern society on earth? There is very little that is natural about our lives anymore. This is just ridiculous.

Let me just say that I am not persuaded or impressed by the line you draw between conservative and liberal. I don't think the core is as obvious as you say.

I don't think you've thought things through as much as you think you have.

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

You, As usual refuse to see anything.

The Iraq war had nothing to do with ideological political philosophy at all. One can be conservative for his own household, state, country etc and still be a greedy bloodthirsty tyrant. Just as one can be liberal and attack his neighbor. Many excuses can be given for why we invaded Iraq some that sway one side some that sway the other. Some even that attempt to paint a version of defense. A politician for example can be conservative in spending and still be forced to liberal engineering by the media or the courts etc.

You refuse to see it for what it is, as I knew going in, so the waste of time was purely my fault. Natural selection is all around us even in modern society. We see it as the debt ratio rises above our ability to even pay the interest on that debt. We see it as we waste trillions to make round pegs fit in square holes. We see it as people like MO4LIFE write for all to see that he can assault people at will and use his race as a shield.

Natural selection will be what springs the backlash, what makes our society sink into factions as the money dries up. If you think you can keep it at bay forever with your deity the government you are completely mistaken.

There will always be forces beyond your control and you should learn to deal with it.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I'll certainly agree that mother nature gets the last laugh. I'm a tree, dude. Forces I can't control beat on me every day. How I deal with it is to bend, but not break, and to hold on tightly to the earth.

So, when the water is rising, and people get out to put up sandbags, is that liberal or conservative?

That is, is it liberal for people to organize into governments to fight against entropy, decay and disaster? Or is it conservative to try to orgainze to protect what you have built?

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Organizing to fix a disaster mess, decay what have you is not conservative nor liberal ideologically speaking.

The liberal ideology will manifest itself with the one named Sequoia back behind the work crews screaming that the only reason a male engineer is in charge is because no woman was ever given the chance to be an engineer and all work should stop until a woman can be educated and placed in the engineer slot. Oh and new laws should be enacted giving incentives for women to become engineers.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

That is ridiculous.

I think this kinda makes my point. It seems like "liberal" is more of a cartoon personality to you than an ideology. You use the word liberal like talk show hosts use it.

I think the word "liberal" has just been thrown around like an insult, so that it has lost its original meaning.

Which is this, according to the dictionary:

"1. Favoring individual freedom and nonrevolutionary reform. 2. Broad minded or tolerant 3. Generous. 4. Bountiful 5. Not literal 6. Of or relating to the cultivation of general knowledge and the humanities 7. One holding liberal political or cultural views."

That's most of us, right?

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Well without starting an entire printed lecture on the various facets of liberalism. To begin with you are confusing different terms of liberal. Unfortunately the definition you are looking for under today's political cultures varies greatly from how it was used in the past in these United States or elsewhere.

For instance Revolutionary French statesmen called themselves Liberals and their ideology did embrace several Conservative values but as one can plainly see your "Non revolutionary reform" doesn't fit. You also mix definitions of liberal the noun with liberal the adjective and all the confusion that brings with it.

Modern day acceptance of Liberalism means government intervention more than any other core belief. That typically leads to more government but does not always have to be so.

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

And so I think we'd also agree that in that sense, then, "conservative," generally means "less government intervention" (I don't think it means "no government," do you?), which was basically my original point about the ACLU.

Now, as Grace gets into, there is the sense that the ACLU is liberal in that they have used the federal constitution to strike down discriminatory state legislation. As to that, ask yourself whether you are a citizen of Missouri or a citizen of the United States. If your answer is "both," then you're pretty much a "liberal" in that sense, too.

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

No the ACLU is liberal because their answer is more government. Maybe not in the employee sense but in the intervention sense. They are in fact using government and requiring government to change things to their interpretation of the Constitution.

JCLifer 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I thought you were a Toyota.

spelchek 7 months, 1 week ago

"The ACLU is conservative, because the ACLU is always asking for less government." -- Really? Suing to take the 10 commandments out of the public (govt) arena is conservative?

MO4LIFE 7 months, 2 weeks ago

fully agree with you on the hockey sticks and thanks for pointing out the judge I thought it was a different judge. But this will lead to some violence in SEMO trust me.

TomScooterJones 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Sure hope not, groups like the Klan feed off of reaction, they are so marginalized it is all they have left.

MO4LIFE 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Not all GOP is bad! But when you make a statement that goal of congress is not to fix the recession but to limit the president to one term that is BAD!!! do you agree? It is also bad when a campaign says that they are not going to let a little thing like the facts stand in the way of a campaign is past BAD its AWFUL because you are letting the people know upfront that you are running on lies out of the gate. Do you agree with that?

TomScooterJones 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I think it is a separate discussion. I'll pass.

jcguy25 7 months, 2 weeks ago

So according to that logic, then everyone supporting the re-election of President Obama is also trying to undermine America's standing? Exactly where do you come up with this bs anyway?

jcguy25 7 months, 2 weeks ago

That again is simply flat out BS. Where do you get off acting so superior and accusing millions of Americans of trying to undermine the country or calling them dumb and lazy just because they have a different opinion than you?

clingingredneck 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Are you Kidding Me?! You liberals pass out junk all the time. Just because a bunch of racist biggots want to you throw a hissy fit an accuse everyone in the area of being just like them. If you don't like what they say, do the same thing I do with your liberal junk. Pitch it in the trash and move on. Quit being all butt hurt.

MO4LIFE 7 months, 2 weeks ago

No i do what i do and catch you putting something on my vehicle and you are tampering with personal property and i will hurt anyone black white red I don't care what color you are u have no business tampering or being on my personal property. Castle Law applys to vehicles too!!!! Bang Bang Bang!

TomScooterJones 7 months, 2 weeks ago

It would be assault, and you would face consequences. Now telling them how you feel about their disgusting beliefs and the spreading hate, terrific, let em have it. However I understand what you are feeling. I think a nice smile and kindness would hurt them most of all, hate feeds off hate, a smile deflates...

MO4LIFE 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Castle Law and personal property would not be assault. fathers a cop and said hands on personal property is defending your property. Sorry but nice try though!

bluesfan13 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Yeah, you'd better get some different legal advice. If they're ENTERING your car, sure. But under your line of thinking, you could shoot someone for running into your car in a traffic accident and walk away free. You don't need to defend your property from a leaflet. The castle doctrine is meant as a defence for protecting your property from theft or intentional destrctuction, not from someone simply touching your stuff.

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

While for once I agree with your sentiment and castle laws should apply to vehicles they do not. You may pay for it but owning a car and driving is a privilege granted to us by the government. I do not agree with this assessment and certain gains have been defended for trunks and what have you in some states but by and large vehicles do not count.

Of course due to liberal laws and legislation using force even in defense of your rightful property will still get you time in prison. So although I would feel you are justified I wouldn't recommend any physical altercation in the scenario you cite.

MO4LIFE 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Man carjacked in STL killed the carjacker and walked for protecting his property. KKK comes my way; I am bi-racial, and i feel threatened no judge in the world will convict me unless he is racist because the hate crime and self defense laws say that i will walk. No Racist KKK member is gonna touch me, my property or anything that is my possession. without dealing with life threatening repercussions

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Why I have no idea what specific incident you are referring to I would point out a carjacking means the initial violent behavior was started by the dead man.

Retaliating for a leaflet on a vehicle is an entirely different situation and if your victim is unarmed as well....

TomScooterJones 7 months, 2 weeks ago

A chip on a persons shoulder is rarely helpful in life, fortunately with age some times comes maturity.

MO4LIFE 7 months, 2 weeks ago

whenn kkk doesn't exist like the black panthers were all locked up but not the kkk they even ran for president. Shows the true colors of the govt don't it!

TomScooterJones 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Apples and Oranges kid. There were MILLIONS of KKK members, and some, quite a few in fact did get "locked up" would you care to tell us which Black Panthers got a bad wrap back in the day, or is your line of manure something you've heard repeated so often that you believe it? You jump to a lot of conclusions, and don't get your facts right while puffing up your I'll bang bang bang them persona to the point of being ridiculous. And what "govt" the one that existed in 1930? 1970? or the one Run by a biracial America in 2012? Your all over the place, and the only one who is showing "true colors" today.

copcamaro 7 months, 2 weeks ago

One of your old southern DUMBOCRATES senators was a stanch KKK member!! So you would hurt a kid who put a school thing on your winshield, how a free car wash coupon, or other civic things. Castle law doesn't apply to protecting your car, just your or loved one personal safety, material tings can be replaced You scare me soooooo much, you nut case!

John 7 months, 2 weeks ago

It is not the Castle "Law," it is the "Castle Doctrine." It DOES apply to your house (and property, it DOES apply to your car . . . . BUT, you still must be in fear of great physical harm.

I also deplore leafletting cars, however, you cannot shoot the pamphletteers. Get a grip people!

However, I suppose under very limited circumstances, you could make an arguement for having them arrested/sued for trespass if they came on your private property to put the leaflet on your car. But, if you do that, you had better be prepared to sue those who deliver phone books, girl scouts/boy schouts leaving notices about cookies or other things for sale.

You could also possibly have them prosecuted for littering.

But Shooting them!? How precious is a life to you. . . . good grief.

spelchek 7 months, 1 week ago

And under Obama's watch too!

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I had to go back and read MO4LIFE's comment a few times.

Man carjacked in STL killed the carjacker and walked for protecting his property. KKK comes my way; I am bi-racial, and i feel threatened no judge in the world will convict me unless he is racist because the hate crime and self defense laws say that i will walk. No Racist KKK member is gonna touch me, my property or anything that is my possession. without dealing with life threatening repercussions

Any judge that would convict him for assault is racist? Hate crimes mean he can do as he pleases with judicial immunity?

So no Mo4life is outwardly admitting he feels his race grants him special privileges under the law.

And people like him call Republicans racist?

Sequoia 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I think a man who killed a carjacker would "walk" because he was protecting his life, not his car.

You can protect your life with deadly force. You cannot kill to protect property, tough guy.

connor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

LOL I am assuming that you are reading the second paragraph and thinking I wrote that Sequoia.

That second part was the quote that MO4LIFE wrote. I should had placed inside the marks I guess.

Glad to see we agree though :)

John 7 months, 1 week ago

Actually, Sequoia, are you blowing that tired old trumpet again ? Yes, the Castle Doctrine has been upheld to include the protection of property in many states, including Missouri.

Sequoia 7 months, 1 week ago

No, John, you are wrong about the castle doctrine.

Read the statute for yourself: 563.031 RSMo.

The statute says: "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."

Doesn't say anything about property, John. You call me a "liberal," but I have to school you in Missouri gun laws? You better wise up before you end up in jail.

The castle doctrine just sets up a presumption that anyone who is in your vehicle or on your property is presumed to represent a physical threat. The idea is that their presence on your property represents an imminent physical threat required to justify deadly force. The idea is not that you can protect your property with deadly force. The idea is that an intruder's presence on your property is legally presumed to be the kind of imminent threat that justifies deadly force.

Here is what a court said about Missouri's castle doctrine:

It is State v. Clinch, 335 S.W.2d 579 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011)

"Nevertheless, we agree with the circuit court's conclusion that the “castle doctrine,” as set forth in subsection 2(2), did not eliminate the requirement of a reasonable belief in the use of actual or imminent unlawful force but merely codified that the unlawful entry into a dwelling, residence, or vehicle constitutes the act of force necessary to justify deadly force. Because actual unlawful force was used to gain entry in such a situation, no further requirement of imminence would be necessary to justify the use of deadly force."

This is a serious issue, man. Your gun isn't a toy you can wave around stupidly like a child. Get off this board until you know what you're talking about.

eileen10 7 months, 2 weeks ago

If a KKK member put a leaflet on my car I'd just toss it in the garbage. If one of them approached me I'd say " Oh..nice sheet". What's that? They don't wear sheets? In that case I'd hand the leaflet to him or her and very nicely say "shove this where the sun don't shine" and get the hell out of there. Case closed.

Littleinvestor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Even hateful speech is protected by the First Amendment. That does not mean I or anyone else has to listen to it, or read it. Eileen has the right idea. And I don't think the original U.S. Constitution addresses education at all. The Missouri Constitution does.

wow 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Yes "ALL" hater's have free speech: so I agree the KKK is able to stand on a corner and hand out leaflet's; however I own my car and that is "MY PRIVATE PROPERTY", which is off limits to anyone that I do not invite to use it. SOOOOOOO I'm sorry the Judge is wrong to allow the KKK to attach leaflets to someone's car. In most of these case the Klan members will be attaching material to a strangers car...what if while doing so, they damage something, or slip and fall into the car and get injured, or a zipper from their clothing scratches the car paint. I know this is pretty far fetched, but stranger things have happened...who's gonna be liable for the damamge or injury? Look, if the KKK or anyone else wnats to hand out material as people walk by, that's fine, messing with someone elses private property is another. Hand out you hate material, but stay away from my ride. I paid to much money for you to be messing around trying to turn it into a bill board for hate. I don't even have the dealership sticker where I bought the car on ride...I dont' use my car to advertise, especially for free...ESPECIALLY for something I disagree with. The Judge got this one wrong. I hope this doesn't mean the leagal system is reverting back to dark days of supporting the "Night Rider's".

spelchek 7 months, 1 week ago

Good to see both sides still appreciate the first amendment.

wow 7 months, 1 week ago

Ok for the 1st Amendment....not for the KKK...especially since they have worked so awfully hard to deny people they view as "different" their basic Constitutional rights. The KKK is one of America's oldest "terorrist" organizations. Groups like the Minutemen/women, SOCS, DOCS,etc, etc, have sprouted from these Hooded Cowards. Bloods, Crips, Folk, Vice Lords and other's are no better, but nobody is making it easy for these groups to operate. In some cities the current gangs can get arrested for wearing their colors...ala the Mongole MC Club...don't get me wrong that is probably a good thing especiallyu since so many innocent people have been hurt when the Mongoles have gone postal. But I still don't understand the hands off kids glove approach to the Klan. I don't see how free speech has anything to do with them attaching leaflets to a stranger's car. What next they'll be able to burn crosses where ever they wish? The Klan can say what they want....but they should not be allowed to cross onto private property to hand out hate literature.

TomScooterJones 7 months, 1 week ago

Sticking a leaflet under a cars wiper is not violating ANYTHING, it is done all the time by lots of organizations from Pizza joints to the less savory KKK. It is a way of advertizing almost as old as the windshield wiper itself. Any extrapolation beyond these people exercising their rights as US citizens is silly. They are looking for attention, even with attention they are going nowhere, without it they are going nowhere faster, don't feed the fear. Nuff said.

JCLifer 7 months, 1 week ago

Putting anything under my wiper that I do not authorize is trespassing and vandalism. I had a windshield cracked and a bent wiper arm from one of these clowns spreading leaflets a few years ago. If I could have caught him, it would have been the last time he would be able to raise a wiper arm to put his trash under it. Leafletting cars is litter at best, and is always a cowardly way to try to get the word out. You have something you want to tell me- then mail it to me or come tell me to my face. Do not mess with my car.

TomScooterJones 7 months, 1 week ago

It's neither trespassing or vandalism, it's advertizing. How do you know a leaflet guy did it? Once upon a time...they leave the leaflet under your cracked windshield? The End. Anyway, that's not advertizing that's property damage. I dislike windshield flyers also, it's aggravating, and somehow violates my space, if it were a constant thing we'd all be up on it n such. Nuff said.

John 7 months, 1 week ago

If you read my post completely you would have noticed I wrote if they came on your property to put the flyer on the vehicle.

It IS, however, "Tampering with a motor vehicle."

asb 7 months, 1 week ago

There are no federal or state laws prohibiting leafleting, but there are often local ordinance addressing the practice as a nuisance.

Federal judge makes permanent ruling allowing KKK leaflets

More like this story

Comments

Or login with: