And another one gone, and another one gone...

[Zigner]

I'm troubled by the way the law they are charged with violating is written. It is much like the hate crime laws where someone has to decide the motivation for the act. In this case,

" in an angry or threatening manner"

Seems to me that only one of the two conditions there have to do with motivation ("angry"). "Threatening" is judged by those who were the (purported) victims. In other words, if they felt threatened, then it was done in a threatening manner.

 

[mightymoose]

In the end I suspect that the fact they were on their own property and did not advance on the crowd will support their castle doctrine claim.
That rowdy trespassers had a weapon pointed at them is not terribly concerning. Their intentions were just as unknown as the McCloskeys.

 

[mightymoose]

"Threatening" is judged by those who were the (purported) victims.

Ultimately the reasonableness of that perceived threat is determined by a jury relying on the facts known at the time.
The McCloskeys also had a perceived threat, likely formed by media coverage of other similar events around the country that may have began peaceful but became riotous.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I'm troubled by the way the law they are charged with violating is written. It is much like the hate crime laws where someone has to decide the motivation for the act. In this case,

" in an angry or threatening manner"

No. A hate crime law tries to get into the head of the person committing the crime to determine if his/her motivation was hatred of some group. Those laws are indeed troubling for that reason.

But that law doesn't look at what the defendant was thinking. Rather, it goes to the manner in which they carried out their actions, i.e. it focuses on what they did, not what they were thinking. There are a lot of laws across this country that use as a factor whether the defendant's actions were threatening, for example. That's nothing new.