Political Prosecution of Innocent People

What they need to do is file a constitutional lawsuit against the court and get an injunction against the court proceeding or holding them in jail until the constitutional suit is resolved. Then after its found that 'bearing arms' means holding them in your hands, they can criminally prosecute the judge and arresting officers.

For what? Because people were walking by their house? No one did anything to them. These idiots were waving guns around and pointing them at people for nothing.

Doesn't matter. If I want to hold a gun in my yard. Its completely legal according to the 2nd amendment. Any lawsuit that would be brought can be countered with a constitutional lawsuit against the judge and DA. In fact you could bring a criminal charge against the DA for charging you with anything.

2hsnp9.jpg (click to show) Upvoted!

holy crap the GTA 6 home screen is so realistic

heh heh

Fixed it for you XD

Bestseller if I say so myself

They waved their guns at each other with their finger on the trigger- first5 mins of hunter safety course would have helped these dumbass people.
If a grand jury of their peers found them indictable- sure lets go against the law

A grand jury also concluded that Breonna Taylor’s death was the result of justified actions. And since you’re consistent, you have no problem with that, right?

Nothing but silence on that I guess. Hypocrisy is still embarassing for him at least.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/st-louis-husband-wife-who-pointed-guns-protesters-indicted-firearms-n1242359

look how they doctored the video to show her finger on the trigger

Answer the grand jury question he proposed hypocrite.

You said they had their fingers on the trigger, incorrect he followed trigger discipline

FYI, Octavia....

Legal Docs: St. Louis Prosecutor Tampered With Evidence In McCloskey Gun Case

By Tristan Justice
The gun Patricia McCloskey waved at a mob surrounding her home last month was inoperable at the time, but the St. Louis prosecutor’s office ordered the city’s crime lab to re-assemble it into working order after confiscating the firearm, according to a local Missouri TV station reporting Wednesday.

Missouri law requires the government to prove firearms be “readily” capable of fatal harm in order to score a conviction based on the charges filed against McCloskey and her husband this week for their attempt to use legal weapons to deter rioters from their home.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/23/legal-docs-st-louis-prosecutor-tampered-with-evidence-in-mccloskey-gun-case/

They did no harm to anyone and belonged there as it is their home. The "protesters" did not and broke a gate to a private community. The husband & wife were verbally threatened, had every right to protect themselves and their property and the guns were legally owned.

Octavia, put yourself in that situation. These "protesters" scared & intimidated the homeowners and even threatened to do something to their dog. Having seen what utter destruction to businesses had been done recently, these folks reacted reasonably.

Octavia,
1. homeowners GOOD
2. loud, obnoxious, 'threatening to do harm' trespassers BAD

It is just that simple. Why do you most always side with the disruptive criminal type element?

No matter what common sense or logic you use, Octavia will never learn.

I do not think that is accurate. Octavia has learned some things that are not necessarily in line with our thinking, but he does think. And thinking is a path to truth.

To be fair, I didn't say Octavia doesn't think.

All of a sudden you're antigun? Seen you talking about defending yourself and your property with your own gun.

It's not illegal to defend your home from a mob. Who was the victim in this 'crime'?

No one damaged property, they didn't get hurt and neither did the protesters. Sounds like it turned out well. Yet now murderers are being released from jail cuz covid.

Does that include trespassers who break down fences to get into private property? Does it include people who destroy businesses, set fires, block traffic, harm others, terrorize & threaten people minding their own business in their own homes, and so on? Or, should they be bailed out of jail to do unto others AGAIN while prosecutors are hired to support the criminal element? You brought up common sense, Octavia...

So..........how come these "protesters" are not held to the same standard? Soros hates America and is behind the funding to support and then to release these low-lifes as well as influence the prosecutor. But you and the other leftists on here are hell bent on supporting Anti-fa and BLM to the detriment of our country.

Your minds are ass-backwards and refuse FACTS while supporting the destruction of America. Democrats have been taking a wrecking ball to our cities and calling for police to be defunded. Since that seems ok with you, I question your mental soundness.

They called police, they didn't come.
Could they have stayed inside? Yes. Could they have better muzzle control? Yes.
What more could they have done, Octavia? Is it a crime now to defend yourself and home?

If that “angry stuff” is a threat of violence, yes, you can.

Missouri Self-Defense Laws
Created by FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors | Last updated July 01, 2020

If a person is under attack and in fear for their life, they have the right to use force to protect themselves. Every state has self-defense laws that detail the circumstances under which an individual can use self-defense (and the limits of the force that may be used) to justify their conduct without being convicted of a crime.

About half of the states have some version of "stand your ground" laws. These laws don't require people to back down from an attacker even when withdrawal is possible. A common variation on this concept is the "castle doctrine" which allows individuals to defend themselves against threats in and to their homes (expanded in some states to include cars and/or workplaces) without the duty to retreat.

Missouri Castle Doctrine
Missouri recognizes the "castle doctrine" and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your "castle." This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances.

Missouri's law is more extensive than the law in other states because it permits property owners to use the amount of force reasonably perceived as necessary, including deadly force.

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-self-defense-laws.html

Elaborate, what evidence? The prosecutor put the gun together and made it operable.

Because the prosecutor put made a non operational gun operational again. In the end, the prosecutor will be charged with tampering.

Octavia, there's a thing called a corrupt prosecutor. Welcome to the real world.

Because the prosecutor’s office is corrupt and deceitful. Your childlike faith in the goodness of the government is cute. Are you 12?

SJW Libprogacrat Soros funded DA.

No, it is horrendous that the corrupt prosecutor’s office tampered with the evidence in this case.

the gun had been rendered inoperative years earlier in order to be used in a court trial. Thr DA's office confiscated it and had it made operable. They tampered with evidence.

Correct, Tom, and I read a similar account of what happened.