Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mark McCloskey, the man in St. Louis, Missouri, who aimed a rifle at peaceful anti-police brutality protesters as his wife Patricia swung her tiny pistol around on Sunday evening, painted the situation as some kind of French Revolution in miniature.
Man Who Pointed Gun At Peaceful Protesters Compares March To Storming Of Bastille
As a former 11B1P, I'm betting I've operated more weapons than you have. I can field strip and reassemble my 1911 or my shotguns pretty quickly, but definitely not that quickly.
I believe you're misrepresenting the legal argument to be made, but we shall see.
Probably not, but regardless, do you think the lady could easily or speedily make that weapon operable under the circumstances (or any circumstance)? We both know the answer. And that answer is dispositive of the other posters contention.
Granted, the weapon brandishing couple live in a replica of a castle.
Well I guess until you have had hundreds of thugs break into your property you aren't really in a position to determine what is reasonable. But I think a fairly assembled jury of peers will have some people on it that find it reasonable.
Probably not, but regardless, do you think the lady could easily or speedily make that weapon operable under the circumstances (or any circumstance)? We both know the answer. And that answer is dispositive of the other posters contention.
Again, is that the argument to be made, or is the argument that the people the weapon is pointed at cannot reasonably determine if the weapon is loaded/unloaded; operable/inoperable?
Again, is that the argument to be made, or is the argument that the people the weapon is pointed at cannot reasonably determine if the weapon is loaded/unloaded; operable/inoperable?
Again, I don't think it is a pertinent point at all, I'm just pointing out the logical error of ChiGeek who believes the gun was readily lethal under the law. It wasn't.
This thread is about the weapon and the action of the city and crime lab, not what the criminal trespassers may have been thinking when they broke into the McCloskey's property.
A guilty conviction would have taken away his right to practice law (and therefore their livelihood), their right to bear arms, and possibility their freedom. If the order WAS given to reassemble a firearm, then some people are in huge trouble - and it's not the McCloskeys.
Granted, the weapon brandishing couple live in a replica of a castle.
Don't give a crap what kind of house this couple live in. They earned the money, it's a free country, and they can live where and how they want.
Q: What does the "storming of the bastille" link have to do with the St Louis prosecutor ordering the disassembly and reassembly of one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case? AKA evidence tampering.
Could the question be reasonably asked without stirring up a hornet's nest of contrary opinion; what SHOULD be acceptable in law given the occasion of a number of people actually breaking down a closed and locked gate to your property in your immediate presence?
Would you not be entitled to interpret "the intent to do harm upon your property or persons"? Would it not then follow you being legally allowed to display your legally owned firearm to dissuade advancing people who have already displayed their intent to do harm? Should it not be acceptable under law.
How is one to make a judgment that people who have deliberately damaged a gate, intended to keep people without a valid reason from entering, and those people subsequently entering, their intent is anything other than to do harm?
Would not every one of us desire the ability to forestall harm coming to our property or persons by the mere displaying of a firearm to the same extent we'd be allowed the trouble of training a huge Rottweiler dog and chaining him adjacent to the fence?
I must be missing something critical in all of this.
One of the facts you are missing is there is no supporting evidence the protesters damaged the gate.
Additionally, one of the litigious weapon-brandishing couple's previous lawsuits focused on the poor condition of the gate & who was responsible for fixing/maintenance. They used photos of the gate in that lawsuit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
