ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 5 of 12
< 12345 6789 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Police seize rifle from St. Louis couple who protected themselves from mob
Ninerfan11 09:11 PM 07-10-2020
This country is in shambles. I feel bad for even being naively proud on July 4, the evil has just taken over.

BREAKING: Police seize rifle from St. Louis couple in Black Lives Matter standoffhttps://t.co/OtTySD1fNe

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) July 11, 2020


We need a hero to step up very, very badly.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 08:13 AM 07-11-2020
Originally Posted by Merde Furieux:
:-)
It's true, I watched that undercover video of the entire movement from Antifa to Sunrise movement and Unicorn Riot. They talked about how they have friendly politicians they can go to, in order to get their help. In fact, one undercover surveillance video showed Ilhan Omar in the middle of an Antifa riot with her lover, because as she turned around in the crowd she removed the cloth covering her face and looked right into the camer. She's a communist and one of those friendly politicians.

Infiltration is how commies have worked historically. That's why I think communists should not be allowed to work for any local, state of Federal govt position. They use it for seditious activity to overthrow our govt ultimately. It's suicide.

BWillie thinks they should be allowed govt jobs, and yet calls himself a centrist. :-)
[Reply]
Merde Furieux 08:29 AM 07-11-2020
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:

BWillie thinks they should be allowed govt jobs, and yet calls himself a centrist. :-)
Right but call him or any of the other NPC's a "communist" and watch them become defensive.
[Reply]
eDave 09:42 AM 07-11-2020
Originally Posted by Frazod:
Any of you socialist cunts care to remind me how many protesters these reckless and dangerous people shot?
Cunt here. Zero. Also not the point.
[Reply]
Flying High D 09:46 AM 07-11-2020
Civilizations fail from the rot within them.
[Reply]
Bowser 09:47 AM 07-11-2020
Originally Posted by eDave:
I was tote's fine with them standing on their porch brandishing their weapons.

And Bowser, if you ever compare me to penz, we are throwing hands. Do we understand each other?
Don't forget those 'chucks, toughie.


[Reply]
Easy 6 10:21 AM 07-11-2020
The city will be paying them damages when it’s all said and done
[Reply]
mililo4cpa 10:28 AM 07-11-2020
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
They don’t have to be in McClosky’s property for McCloskys to be able to use self defense. Say they owned a condo. People are marching down the hallway. They start pounding on the door of McClosky’s condo yelling that they are going to break in and kill them. Legally do the McClosky’s have the right to open the door while bearing arms? In this country, generally, yes. In New York and some other states, maybe not because there is the potential to retreat.

But Missouri is a stand your ground state, if I’m correct. As such, they have every right to come outside and stop intruders from coming onto their property. Can they have firearms? The law generally requires one to be ‘reasonable’. Considering: the damage crowds had done to nearby properties (In St Louis); the crowds breaking down barriers to public entry; the number of people there; and the repeated threats from the crowd to kill the McCloskys, I think that the answer is very much ‘yes’.
Question for you: Let's assume that, for whatever reason, that their acts were unreasonable. Does that justify having to turn over their guns? I'm not clear on the law regarding that situation.
[Reply]
Bwana 10:42 AM 07-11-2020
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Don't forget those 'chucks, toughie.


Heh, that was the 1st thing I thought of as well. :-)
[Reply]
eDave 10:44 AM 07-11-2020
Originally Posted by Bwana:
Heh, that was the 1st thing I thought of as well. :-)
That guy was a dumbass.
[Reply]
Shiver Me Timbers 10:53 AM 07-11-2020
Originally Posted by mililo4cpa:
Question for you: Let's assume that, for whatever reason, that their acts were unreasonable. Does that justify having to turn over their guns? I'm not clear on the law regarding that situation.

"peaceful" protesters purposely bust down a private community gate and make their way towards this couples house........

Given the riotous acts of the past weeks, should that alone not be considered a potential threat?

Were the weapons confiscated merely because they pointed them at this mob of miscreants?

I guarantee had the couple not had these weapons displayed (call it brandishing if you want), the mob would have made their way physically onto the property.

Bottom line is they felt threatened and took the appropriate action. No shots were fired and confiscating these firearms should be considered wrongful property seizure.
[Reply]
frozenchief 12:19 PM 07-11-2020
Originally Posted by mililo4cpa:
Question for you: Let's assume that, for whatever reason, that their acts were unreasonable. Does that justify having to turn over their guns? I'm not clear on the law regarding that situation.
That question mixes up several aspects of the question. Legal analysis starts with determining the order of the issues presented. That’s why most appellate opinions start with a procedural history of the case and then determine whether they’ve jurisdiction. If they don’t have jurisdiction, the case goes nowhere fast. Sometimes it’s a real simple sentence: “we have jurisdiction pursuant to [insert statute or case].” Sometimes the question of whether they have jurisdiction is complicated.

Here, whether they acted reasonably is ultimately a jury determination. If a jury finds they acted unreasonably, they would likely be ordered to forfeit their weapons. But that’s not where we are. A jury question is the culmination of the trial process and we are at the beginning of an investigation.

Cops served a search warrant, which is a court order that gives police authority to seize certain items that are potentially evidence. Search warrants are requested by cops, usually after having the warrant reviewed by the prosecuting attorney’s office. The attorney reviews to make sure it will withstand legal challenges down the road.

It may be that the cops were instructed to serve a search warrant by a prosecuting attorney but since cops serve the warrant, they are the ones who request the warrant.

So at this point, the case is just at the evidence gathering stage. A judge has reviewed the affidavit telling why the cops think they have probable cause (PC). PC means that the judge found probable cause to believe that: 1) a crime was committed; 2) evidence of the crime is at the place that is described in the warrant; and 3) the evidence was sufficiently described that law enforcement is on notice about what they can seize and why.

So right now, there is no finding that they were unreasonable. Further, they have not been accused. PC is defined as a reasonable probability that something may have occurred. So there isn’t even an allegation that it is more likely than not that they committed a crime. But it is a signal that the prosecuting attorney is looking at them very carefully. Frankly, they don’t really need the firearms because they have video evidence. This was a message from the prosecuting attorney to the McCloskeys and to anyone else who has the wherewithal to consider using self defense. It is intended, at a minimum, to chill citizens from exercising their right to self defense.
[Reply]
Frazod 12:21 PM 07-11-2020
Originally Posted by eDave:
Cunt here. Zero. Also not the point.
So what is your point? That only people with guns can kill, maim and cause damage to people and property? I guess you haven't been paying much attention lately.

Who knows what those fucking savages would have done after tearing down that gate? The people with the guns stopped their violence dead in its tracks. They didn't fire a shot, and nobody was hurt.

Of course the socialist turds that control St. Louis are pissed - an armed populace defending their lives and their property is bad for the revolution.
[Reply]
Redbled 12:28 PM 07-11-2020
Originally Posted by lostcause:
George Zimmerman?

Pregnant lady in MI that had her gun out retreating while the black mother was saying racist things and threatening to beat her.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 12:32 PM 07-11-2020
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
This was a message from the prosecuting attorney to the McCloskeys and to anyone else who has the wherewithal to consider using self defense. It is intended, at a minimum, to chill citizens from exercising their right to self defense.

And that's really the takeaway here. As long as the couple has more guns, this, to this point, has done nothing but "terrorize" others who might choose to defend themselves from an approved mob.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 12:35 PM 07-11-2020
Originally Posted by Redbled:
Pregnant lady in MI that had her gun out retreating while the black mother was saying racist things and threatening to beat her.
That case is much more interesting to me. This case has the wife continually pointing the gun at the crowd before the crowd gets anywhere near close enough to inflict personal damage without a gun, so it should be a much more straightforward case to determine based upon precedent and current law.
[Reply]
Page 5 of 12
< 12345 6789 > Last »
Up