NJ Mom forced to turn over guns and charged for peaceful protest

[Quantum Windbag]

The civil case will be thrown.

I don't see guilt in her, spoon, but I do see that it is the system's responsibility to make sure she did not make such a threat.

Our opinions, yours and mine and anyone else, means nothing except that is what we think, which is not evidence.

Wrong.

The system has the responsibility to assume she did not make the threat until it is proven otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The civil case will be thrown.

I don't see guilt in her, spoon, but I do see that it is the system's responsibility to make sure she did not make such a threat.

Our opinions, yours and mine and anyone else, means nothing except that is what we think, which is not evidence.

Actually that is not the job of the court system( to make sure) .
The civil case, should she file and it appears she will, has merit in that if there is no evidence( we have not seen any save the County official's complaint) she can prevail. Of course that is up to the judge. I can tell you this, she stands a very good chance of at least getting a settlement due to the propensity of NJ courts to hear suits.
Hell, NJ may very well be the litigation capital of the US.
ONce again it is the duty of the Prosecutor's Office to prove the threat was actually made.
The 5th Amendment guarantees the right of a citizen to not become a witness against them self. The 6th Amendment guarantees a speedy trial in which we are judged by a jury of our peers. The 14th Amendment guarantees us equal protection under the law and of course Due Process.
With those issues in mind, you must choose your words carefully. You state that system must make sure she did not make the threat. That is incorrect. The system, by that I assume the prosecution or "the people", must prove she DID make the threat.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

The public attorney does have a duty to investigate, to determine if she did or did not do it. The "did not" part is that there is not enough evidence to warrant moving forward.

There will be be no civil case, I think, but that is only my opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is not an opinion is that the court is hearing the case because it thinks on merits the woman violated the law.

It is, however, a lie. The court has made no such ruling because, as of yet, the court has no evidence before it to rule on.

You just lied.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The civil case will be thrown.

I don't see guilt in her, spoon, but I do see that it is the system's responsibility to make sure she did not make such a threat.

Our opinions, yours and mine and anyone else, means nothing except that is what we think, which is not evidence.

Wrong.

The system has the responsibility to assume she did not make the threat until it is proven otherwise.

No, little podjo, that is the trial system's responsibility, not the prosecution's.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

NJ Mother Pressured to Turn Over Her Guns, Charged With ?Terroristic Threats? After Reading the Constitution at Tax Dispute Assembly | TheBlaze.com

Apparently citing the Constitution to a government official is a terroristic threat.

Orwell tried to warn us about the Democrats

 

[Mac-7]

Secondly, there is no evidence other than her word that she did not make the threat to come back with a gun.

Actually ot works the other way around

The 4th Reich in new jersey has to furnish proof that she did make a threat