Brandishing lawyer won't get his guns back

[bripat9643]

It was in the link I posted, accidentally twice. But.

View attachment 880565

I forgot you are so determined to stay ignorant that you wouldn’t click on a link.

None of that address what where discussing here with is forfeiture without a conviction for any crime.

 

[bripat9643]

There is an old theory. You train the way you are going to fight. You do it that way because when the pressure is on, when it’s balloon going up time, you don’t want to think. You want everything to be automatic. Sight picture. Trigger control. Breath control. Peripheral vision for situational awareness. Avoid tunnel vision.

You also train to avoid unintentional discharges because they won’t help you when the crap hits the fan. But let’s say that she needed to shoot someone. In self defense. That picture would call her claim into doubt. The prosecutor would use it to tell the jury that the shot was accidental and negligent. Not taken as part of a need in self defense. She was lying to cover up her actions.

You do things the right way because that is a hell of a lot easier to defend later. If pictures and video exists and you are handling the weapons properly, pointing in a safe direction. Finger off the trigger. Not threatening anyone. Then if you do shoot you have an easier, easier, not easy time justifying it as self defense.

The more you **** around, the sooner you will find out.

But let’s say this woman popped a round of by mistake. I understand that some of the crowd was also armed. If they hear a shot, don’t you think they’ll shoot too? Bullets flying in two directions tend to be somewhat hazardous to the health of participants.

Sorry, but your theory that she should keep her finger off the trigger iss utter horseshit. She's threatening to shoot these people, you ******* dumbass.

You're nothing but a clown repeating stuff you read in some hunter's safety pamphlet.

 

[toobfreak]

As seen in this image.

View attachment 880618

As WHAT is seen? A woman pointing a gun into space while looking down at her keychain? For a "2A defender" you sure are an odd duck.

 

[ThisIsMe]

As a safety officer it makes me want to unload them and then yell at them profusely for being stupid.

This is why, if you are going to avail yourself of your Second Amendment rights, you should be trained properly. I had safety drilled into me before I ever held a firearm, and took multiple classes when I got my CCL.

Different people, different location, different time. They were brandishing against innocent marchers, and a jury would have tour them a new asshole in trial

They were on the sidewalk. You need to know local laws before you do stupid shit.
.

They threatened to. Thats the whole event.

Different people, different location, different time. They were brandishing against innocent marchers, and a jury would have tour them a new asshole in trial

That’s irrelevant, the mcloskys didn’t know any different. All they knew is what had been on tv, which is that these rioters had a propensity to be violent, and that violence took form in different cities.

 

[SavannahMann]

Sorry, but your theory that she should keep her finger off the trigger iss utter horseshit. She's threatening to shoot these people, you ******* dumbass.

You're nothing but a clown repeating stuff you read in some hunter's safety pamphlet.

You are wrong. I was taught by dad when I was eight. The Army reinforced it. When I was a Sergeant I trained my own troops on it. I’ve also been shot at. Something that only happened to you in video games.

I love how you run your mouth. You are the toughest talking blowhard on here.

 

[bripat9643]

That’s irrelevant, the mcloskys didn’t know any different. All they knew is what had been on tv, which is that these rioters had a propensity to be violent, and that violence took form in different cities.

What were they even doing in a residential neighborhood? That's threatening behavior right there.

 

[bripat9643]

You are wrong. I was taught by dad when I was eight. The Army reinforced it. When I was a Sergeant I trained my own troops on it. I’ve also been shot at. Something that only happened to you in video games.

I love how you run your mouth. You are the toughest talking blowhard on here.

Did the army teach you not to put your finger on the trigger when you're confronted by hundreds of enemy troops? Of course not.

You're a major ******* idiot.

 

[SavannahMann]

Did the army teach you not to put your finger on the trigger when you're confronted by hundreds of enemy troops? Of course not.

You're a major ******* idiot.

Actually they did. You see. You fire upon command. You don’t fire when you want to in that situation.

You want the enemy in the kill box. In the kill zone. Where you have artillery and interlocking fields of fire prepared. If your dumb ass fires early, the enemy takes cover, and avoids the kill box, and brings superior firepower onto your position.

You are an ignorant ass. And you despite having zero knowledge outside of video games and TV believe you are wise. You aren’t. To quote my Grandfather. You are a dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually they did. You see. You fire upon command. You don’t fire when you want to in that situation.

No they didn't, you lying numskull.

You want the enemy in the kill box. In the kill zone. Where you have artillery and interlocking fields of fire prepared. If your dumb ass fires early, the enemy takes cover, and avoids the kill box, and brings superior firepower onto your position.

There was no ******* kill box, idiot. There was no artillery and there were no fields of fire. There was two home owners on their lawn facing down hundreds of thugs in a mob.

You are an ignorant ass. And you despite having zero knowledge outside of video games and TV believe you are wise. You aren’t. To quote my Grandfather. You are a dumbass.

I'm wise enough to know that you're pumping out absolute horseshit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When did it become illegal to threaten someone.

It’s always been illegal – it’s called assault.

“Assault is when someone causes another person to fear that they will be physically harmed. Physical contact is not necessary to prove assault; a threat is enough to prove assault.”

https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/legal-implications-of-criminal-threats-and-intimidation.html

Brandishing a firearm clearly constitutes a threat.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You must be confused or talking about a different group, Clay--- there was nothing peaceful or non-threatening about that violent mob--- I saw the video of them that day. I would have had every one of them rubber bulleted into submission, hauled away and locked up for terroristic threats, breaking and entering, and disturbing the peace.

The only ‘threat’ was that the peaceful citizens were black – that the racist right perceives Americans of color to be a ‘threat’ comes as no surprise.

 

[SavannahMann]

No they didn't, you lying numskull.


There was no ******* kill box, idiot. There was no artillery and there were no fields of fire. There was two home owners on their lawn facing down hundreds of thugs in a mob.


I'm wise enough to know that you're pumping out absolute horseshit.

You should thank God that you were never in the Military. You would have been lucky to get out with a Less than Honorable discharge.

 

[bripat9643]

It’s always been illegal – it’s called assault.

“Assault is when someone causes another person to fear that they will be physically harmed. Physical contact is not necessary to prove assault; a threat is enough to prove assault.”

https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/legal-implications-of-criminal-threats-and-intimidation.html

Brandishing a firearm clearly constitutes a threat.

So does forming a mob and trespassing.

 

[bripat9643]

You should thank God that you were never in the Military. You would have been lucky to get out with a Less than Honorable discharge.

ROFL!

What does the military have to do with this?

What a ******* moron.

 

[SavannahMann]

ROFL!

What does the military have to do with this?

What a ******* moron.

You were the one who brought it up dumbass.

 

[Woodznutz]

It’s always been illegal – it’s called assault.

“Assault is when someone causes another person to fear that they will be physically harmed. Physical contact is not necessary to prove assault; a threat is enough to prove assault.”

https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/legal-implications-of-criminal-threats-and-intimidation.html

Brandishing a firearm clearly constitutes a threat.

So why aren't persons who brandish weapons in defensive of life and property charged. It seems to me that the Mccoskey's were charged without regard to the circumstances. It appears to me that the McCoskey's genuinely felt that their property was in jeopardy by the mob based on destruction wreaked by such mobs.

That said we know it was all political, no justice involved whatsoever.

 

[Mac-7]

How is that obvious? Why shouldn't they get their guns back?

If they agreed to give up their guns the far left has a solid case for not returning them now

As I remember the events these two DEMOCRAT lawyers pointed their guns directly at the mob of violent protesters

What they should have done is show the rioters that they armed without directly threatening anyone unless absolutely necessary

 

[Woodznutz]

It’s always been illegal – it’s called assault.

“Assault is when someone causes another person to fear that they will be physically harmed. Physical contact is not necessary to prove assault; a threat is enough to prove assault.”

https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/legal-implications-of-criminal-threats-and-intimidation.html

Brandishing a firearm clearly constitutes a threat.

Can Verbal Threats Be Assault?​

"As briefly mentioned above, the definitions and requirements to prove assault will depend on the laws of a specific state. However, the general rule of thumb is that verbal threats are not usually considered an act of assault."

Are Verbal Threats Assault?

If a person only uses threatening words and nothing more, then its likely not considered an assault. Read this article to learn more.

www.legalmatch.com

This is why the police don't generally take them seriously.

 

[Mac-7]

So why aren't persons who brandish weapons in defensive of life and property charged. It seems to me that the Mccoskey's were charged without regard to the circumstances. It appears to me that the McCoskey's genuinely felt that their property was in jeopardy by the mob based on destruction wreaked by such mobs.

That said we know it was all political, no justice involved whatsoever.

The lib mob was trespassing but still too far away to loot and/or burn down the house

 

[Woodznutz]

The lib mob was trespassing but still too far away to loot and/or burn down the house

If so, they were too far away to be threatened by the McCloskey's.