For any neutral people reading this thread, libs in here are actually condemning the couple protecting their property. Wrap your head around that. Their brains aren't theirs anymore; propaganda has turned them into husks. Useful idiots. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Ninerfan11:
For any neutral people reading this thread, libs in here are actually condemning the couple protecting their property. Wrap your head around that. Their brains aren't theirs anymore; propaganda has turned them into husks. Useful idiots.
For all neutral people reading this thread, no we are not. [Reply]
Originally Posted by eDave:
For all neutral people reading this thread, no we are not.
This is the problem with you guys. You're so up your own ass with self righteousness you can't ever possibly believe you are wrong on something. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Ninerfan11:
For any neutral people reading this thread, libs in here are actually condemning the couple protecting their property. Wrap your head around that. Their brains aren't theirs anymore; propaganda has turned them into husks. Useful idiots.
100 percent. They have zero credibility. When you are that messed up in the head nothing you say will be taken seriously by normal and functional individuals. [Reply]
Protesters are pussy if they don’t back to that ass and finish what they wanted to do. The people have disarmed them. What more you pussy protesters want the people to do? Bus your lazy asses over there? Get the fuck over there and kill their pets, pussies. [Reply]
Originally Posted by GloryDayz:
I think those poor-ass bitches were just mad that, unlike that couple, they're all useless failures and live in shitholes.
You know the argument for these people is without basis when people around here start creating fan fiction for them. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
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.
Thanks! This is what I thought.....I do think this is very dangerous precedent for sure. But again, The couple were/are staunch Democrats, so they likely contributed to their own demise.... [Reply]
Originally Posted by |Zach|:
You know the argument for these people is without basis when people around here start creating fan fiction for them.
Do you have evidence that they aren't failures? The evidence that they are is pretty overwhelming, they're bitching in front of well-off people's homes... [Reply]