Brandishing lawyer won't get his guns back

[bripat9643]

So either you are unable to comprehend third grade english or basically stupid; not to worry as I stated before, more capable people have basically come to the rational, lawful conclusion.

I'll take that to mean you admit no one was shot.

Those two criminals aren't getting the guns back, they are a danger to the public.

You are far more of a danger to the public than they were. If they pursue this to the end, they will get their guns back.

 

[SavannahMann]

The Fourth Amendment only applies to crimes. These people committed no crimes.

Yeah. I guess you’ve never heard of civil asset forfeiture.

 

[Woodznutz]

You're an idiot. Please tell us how it works out when you shoot someone who steps on your lawn. Moron.

Did the McCloskey's shoot someone on their lawn?

 

[Woodznutz]

Thank God that more sane, intelligent and educated people share my point of view and not the "I'll shoot you for walking past my house idiots" like you.

I think they 'suggested' that they would defend themselves and their home with deadly force if necessary.

 

[DukeU]

The problem with the “competent” defense lawyers is that video makes it difficult to create the doubts they need. You had two morons on video breaking the law.

How many times have I written the line? You all need to learn the laws. Not what you think they say. Or worse, what you think they should say. But what the laws actually are.

A gun isn’t a magic wand of death. Just pointing it in the general direction does nothing.

Let’s be serious for a moment. Let’s say they can put one person down with two shots from the rifle. Probably not, but let’s pretend they can. That means best case scenario, if the guy is the direct descendant of Carlos Hathcock, then fifteen are down when his bolt locks back on an empty magazine.

Let’s give the wife another two with her nine. That’s seventeen down. Best case scenario. I doubt that they could do it. But let’s say they do.

What then? The crowd tears them limb from limb? They get stomped to death?

You tough talking guys crack me up. You really do. In one thread you act like the crowd will just stand there and obligingly get shot. In the next thread you can’t wait to describe how dangerous the same dark skinned people are. Animals who will rob, rape, and murder without any hesitation.

If that couple had opened fire, they wouldn’t have lived long enough to get charged with a crime. The crowd would have killed them. Charging outside and waving the bang stick around doesn’t do anything but escalate the situation. And then if it doesn’t work, you can’t back down, the crowd will follow you. Then kill you.

I showed my wife the video. She agreed they were idiots. If anything this proves one of Murphys laws of combat. Professional soldiers are predictable. The world is full of amateurs. A soldier would be smart enough to seek cover. And defend from a position where additional logistical support was present. More ammo in other words.

But if you are going to be dumb enough to go outside. Have your spouse in cover with the rifle to cover you. Have a plan of action. So she knows if it starts that you are running to your right or whatever. That way there is a better than average chance of them not shooting you. Another one of Murphys laws. Friendly fire isn’t.

You ever seen what happens to a crowd of people when they hear gun shots?

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah. I guess you’ve never heard of civil asset forfeiture.

So you believe that's constitutional?

 

[Batcat]

I have no problems with guns. I have a problem with people who handle their guns like this.


View attachment 879495


View attachment 879499


View attachment 879500

the lady has her finger on the trigger. She must have got her firearm training from TV or the movies.

As the DI says, “Keep your damn booger finger off the bang switch unless you want to hear a loud noise.”

 

[BluesLegend]

And, so long as they live in that shithole, they won't.

I thought I read they moved out of that Dem shithole.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Blow it out your ass you lying sack o shit. You think people here are stupid or don't remember? You think you can just rerwrite the facts? Peaceful citizens don't break into a locked, gated, private community. Peaceful citizens don't trespass on another's property. Peaceful citizens don't refuse to leave even at gunpoint yelling in a mob waving signs making threats. Good thing they weren't here, I would have released 13 angry, hungry rottweilers and dobermans on their asses to chew them to kingdom come.

Woulda been nice if you could have joined them.

Responding with guns to peaceful citizens passing by their house who posed no threat is in fact insane; indeed, racism is a form of insanity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong, turd, they did not make the first threat. the way you put it, no one can use a gun to defend himself without making the first threat. Of course, simply being in the neighbor hood was a threat to everyone who lived there.

Wrong.

McCloskey was convicted of assault, he acted first:

“This appeal arises out of a petition for replevin in which appellant Mark McCloskey sought the return of two firearms that police had seized pursuant to search warrants in connection with a June 28, 2020, incident in which McCloskey and his spouse exhibited the firearms as a group of protesters passed by their home. They were charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon punishable by up to four years in prison. McCloskey and the State reached a plea agreement whereby McCloskey pleaded guilty to misdemeanor fourth-degree assault and forfeited ownership and possession in the two firearms in exchange for the State dismissing the felony charge….”

Mark McCloskey, Pardoned for Brandishing Guns at Protesters, Can't Get the Guns Back

From today's Missouri Court of Appeals decision in McCloskey v. State, written by Judge James M. Dowd and joined by…

reason.com

 

[SavannahMann]

You ever seen what happens to a crowd of people when they hear gun shots?

Yeah. They chased Rittenhouse all the way to the line of Police.

 

[SavannahMann]

So you believe that's constitutional?

The Supreme Court has said so.

But the point is more along the lines of yes, property can be seized without a crime being committed.

And a crime was committed. The people pled guilty. They were pardoned later. Pardoned means forgiven in context. So the pardon says all is forgiven. But it doesn’t mean nothing happened. So the original deal of surrendering the weapons stands.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But the point is more along the lines of yes, property can be seized without a crime being committed.

Why?

And why would anyone support such a thing?

 

[SavannahMann]

Why?

And why would anyone support such a thing?

Well. Republicans and Democrats used this holdover from English Common Law during prohibition to seize assets from bootleggers and mobsters. The idea of hitting them in the wallet.

After Prohibition ended, it wasn’t used much, until the 1980’s when again it was embraced by bipartisan legislators and authorities to hit the cartels in the wallet. Since that time, it has been expanded to the idiotic point of being used by pretty much every police department and every federal agency.

Some departments literally have personnel assigned to do just this. They hunt for things that can be seized and used, or sold, for profit.

Now. I’m no fan of it. But I’m honest and say it exists and is used every day. People who call on it to be abolished are accused of being soft on crime. Are you soft on crime?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court has said so.

But the point is more along the lines of yes, property can be seized without a crime being committed.

And a crime was committed. The people pled guilty. They were pardoned later. Pardoned means forgiven in context. So the pardon says all is forgiven. But it doesn’t mean nothing happened. So the original deal of surrendering the weapons stands.

Correct:

‘Soon after, the governor pardoned McCloskey and he filed against the State, the Sheriff, and the Mayor (Respondents) his underlying petition for replevin of the weapons in which he claimed the governor's pardon gave him the right to their immediate return….

While we agree that the pardon restored all of his rights forfeited by the conviction and removed any legal disqualification, disadvantage, or impediment, Missouri law is unequivocal that a gubernatorial pardon obliterates the fact of the conviction, not the fact of guilt. Thus, McCloskey's guilty plea, for which he obtained the benefit of the State dismissing a felony charge punishable by jail time, survived the pardon and importantly, with respect to the issue at hand in this replevin action, triggered the guns' forfeiture. Therefore, since McCloskey's guilt remains, it follows that he is not entitled to the return of the weapons….’ ibid

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well. Republicans and Democrats used this holdover from English Common Law during prohibition to seize assets from bootleggers and mobsters. The idea of hitting them in the wallet.

After Prohibition ended, it wasn’t used much, until the 1980’s when again it was embraced by bipartisan legislators and authorities to hit the cartels in the wallet. Since that time, it has been expanded to the idiotic point of being used by pretty much every police department and every federal agency.

Some departments literally have personnel assigned to do just this. They hunt for things that can be seized and used, or sold, for profit.

Now. I’m no fan of it. But I’m honest and say it exists and is used every day. People who call on it to be abolished are accused of being soft on crime. Are you soft on crime?

Also correct:

“Long before the American Revolution, both the English Parliament and legislatures in the American colonies were using the threat of forfeiture to encourage compliance with statutes. Forfeitures of this sort, moreover, often were enforced through civil proceedings in rem.”

The Constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture

Many state and federal statutes provide that when property is used in certain prohibited ways, ownership of the property passes to the government. Often, the statutes allow these forfeitures to be declared in civil proceedings against the property itself, without the normal safeguards of the...

www.yalelawjournal.org

 

[Zincwarrior]

It was dumb. Dumb on the part of those two damned Fools.

It was the dumb trifecta. It was dumb legally, dumb strategically, and dumb tactically.

It was dumb legally, and they pled guilty to prove it was dumb. It was dumb strategically. They went outside showing their guns; without any plan on what to do beyond waving the guns around to try and scare the crowd. The literal definition of brandishing.

Finally it was dumb tactically. They were in the open. Two or three seconds of motion at a dead run from the house. An eternity in a shooting situation. They were in the open, no cover, no concealment, no additional ammo, no protection in any way.

All they had was threats and not enough ammo for the crowd. If the shit started, they were going to do right there in front of their home.

Better to set up where if you are mobile, to get some cover somewhere. If you want to defend in place, better to do it inside and where you have both cover and legal protection.

Not these two idiots. They went out with all the how dare you attitude they could muster.

Speaking of defending your family. If you are dumb enough to go outside in a similar situation then you better hope some relative is willing to take your family in, because you won’t be around long enough to protect them ever again.

Exactly. Nothing they did is in accord with the law (in Texas) or self defense training.

The only additional note, is that is this really is a mob bent on their destruction, they will be armed too.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Does that thought make you all warm inside? I bet it does…

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.

Are we forgetting that these rioters had already shown willingness to be violent.

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

Once you break into or onto private property, you can and will be confronted with a firearm in Missouri.

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

Did the McCloskey's shoot someone on their lawn?

They threatened to. Thats the whole event.

 

[Woodznutz]

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.

When did it become illegal to threaten someone.

 

[SavannahMann]

When did it become illegal to threaten someone.

A couple centuries ago.

In Georgia. We don’t have Brandishing as a crime. All that sort of thing is called Aggravated Assault here. It is a Felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

We don’t have a misdemeanor alternative. So in Georgia those two would have been going to prison for at least seven years.