Is this a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by chris155au, Jul 15, 2020.

  1. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you said "I am an Independent"
    I agreed
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  2. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And when does the "moment" expire? 24 hours after pacing the vote or something?
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2020
  3. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To be fair, isn't Barr and his team still working on investigations?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  4. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh I see! I'm sure you can forgive me for not thinking that was actually a name! That has to be the most ridiculous name in the history of the world! It makes me think of Reality TV show Winner.

    Is there really all that much evidence against those guys?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  5. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What do you mean? The guy in that case was NOT justified in the use of deadly force against his assailant. Hence why he was sentenced to 20 years.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2020
  6. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He was violently knocked to the ground by a potentially lethal move, by an individual who had absolutely no interest in ceasing the engagement after the initial blow. The only reason the perpetrator ceased the assault was when the victim proved that he was armed. Had Michael McGlockton been able to fire immediately after drawing, he would have been justified in the use of force.
     
  7. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suppose you gotta have hope, and Barr does give good pep talks. ;-)

     
    chris155au likes this.
  8. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reality Winner's parents certainly set her up for a tragic ending.

    Our high level Deep State officials often do not even bother to cover up their crimes.

    “Former Senate intelligence committee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told the New Yorker, “I was startled by the answer,” though she also defended Clapper, saying he could have misunderstood the question, which could let him off the hook.

    Clapper’s unpunished untruth has attracted routine jabs. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., suggested Clapper share a cell with Snowden. More seriously, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., struggled to push the Justice Department to action, noting officials were convicted of lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra and Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals.”
    US NEWS, The outgoing spy chief needs to be punished for lying, his critics say, By Steven Nelson, Nov. 17, 2016.
    https://www.usnews.com/news/article...esume-calls-for-james-clapper-perjury-charges
     
    chris155au likes this.
  9. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The aim of a search warrant is not to discover a crime. You are already investigating a crime, and you are searching for evidence of that crime. To get a search warrant you list the crime you are already investigating, and then show why probable cause exists that evidence linked to that crime will be found at the location you wish to search. Each object you want to search for must be specifically listed in the warrant, with probable cause for each item. There is no limitation on search warrants that requires the items sought to be seized must already be “illegal” items. The item can be “illegal” like drugs, or “legal” like guns or documents so long as it is evidence that can help prove a crime. The examples of “legal” things can be endless. So long as any item—legal or not—is capable of helping prove the existence of a crime and/or your identity as the criminal, then it can be seized by a search warrant.

    Q1: Absolutely not. Q2: It could have gone down with a kicked in door if the couple had given law enforcement the middle finger and said “molon labe” when told the search warrant had been issued.

    Based upon what little I have seen I don’t think they should be convicted. But I don’t have access to all the evidence.

    A motion to suppress has nothing to do with the press or keeping the media from understanding what has happened. It is a motion filed by a defendant challenging the search warrant’s justification. It is an argument in court between the government and the accused. The goal of a motion to suppress is to have the search declared unconstitutional and to have the evidence found in the search ruled inadmissible at trial.

    Every time a search of someone’s property happens based on a search warrant it is an invasion of someone’s privacy, which is a possible infringement on that person’s 4th Amendment right. Every person who suffers a search based upon a search warrant has the right to question whether the search warrant meets the standard required by the 4th Amendment to make this privacy invasion legitimate. If the warrant meets the constitutional standard then the evidence seized can be used.

    If a court agrees the warrant did not meet the constitutional standard, then the search based upon the warrant is declared unconstitutional, and all evidence seized by the search warrant can be (but is not automatically) “suppressed.” If that happens, then the evidence cannot be used in any prosecution against the homeowner. Nor can it be used to find other evidence against the homeowner.

    The motion to suppress is argued in court where the public can attend. Both the state and the defendant are allowed to offer evidence and argument in support of their positions. It is at this hearing where you will hear the state explain the reasons why the warrant was sought and why the warrant should be deemed valid.
     
    chris155au and Rucker61 like this.
  10. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What happens if you vote for candidates from both parties in a particular election?
     
  11. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Such would constitute voter fraud, and thus amount to a crime.
     
  12. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How so?
    Yeah, but is there really all that much evidence against Clapper, Brennan and Comey?
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2020
  13. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Had Michael McGlockton been able to fire? Or do you mean the guy that killed him?
     
  14. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They've been charged with 4th Degree Misdemeanor ASSAULT. Can you even BEGIN to get your head around that? I can't figure out who it is they assaulted.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2020
  15. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed. After so much time it is difficult to keep all relevant details straight and organized. However the point remains the same. Had the individual who had been struck and knocked to the ground been able to fire immediately, he would have been justified in the use of legal force.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  16. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How much more "immediately" could he have fired?
     
  17. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Depends on the legal definition of “assault.” That term does not typically require any contact or injury. Words alone are never enough to constitute an assault, but an assault can occur through threatening actions (both with and without words) which places someone else in fear of harm. The common law standard, which Virginia still uses, defines it this way:

    A common law assault “occurs when an assailant engages in an overt act intended to inflict bodily harm and has the present ability to inflict such harm or engages in an overt act intended to place the victim in fear or apprehension of bodily harm and creates such reasonable fear or apprehension in the victim. Clark v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 636, 641, 691 S.E.2d 786, ___ (2010)

    Think of it this way—an “assault” is either: An attempted “battery” which failed (like trying to hit someone with a rock but you miss) OR threatening conduct that placed someone in fear.

    In that sense, the statutory offense of “brandishing” a firearm (as defined in Virginia) is just a subset of the common law crime of “assault”—where the “overt act” constituting the threatening conduct involves the use or display of a firearm or something that appears to be a firearm.

    This is a fairly common standard definition of “assault,” and it is possible Missouri defines it this way. If so, then the alleged “victim” would be anyone who was placed in fear because they had a gun pointed at them and/or was reasonably frightened by the brandishing of the firearm.

    All this assumes the alleged “victim” was not engaged in some conduct for which the law allows a gun to be pointed at them for doing and/or that—when viewing it from the perspective of the homeowner—their actions would be deemed a reasonable and legal threat of the use of force in defense of either themselves or—if Missouri allows it—defense of their property. Either of which would constitute a justification which excuses the display of force against the alleged “victim.”

    In any event an “assault” is different from striking someone. When we see (all too often today) a group of people hitting and kicking someone, we tend to call it an “assault.” And that is what it is. But the legal definition of that would be “assault and battery.” “Assault and battery” requires some form of unjustified offensive contact (a “battery”)—which can but need not cause any injury.
     
    Ddyad and chris155au like this.
  18. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to those who were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he committed murder, he should have discharged his firearm the instant he was on the ground. The fact he apparently waited, even if only for one second, likely due to the shock of being physically assaulted, was interpreted as evidence that he was not in fear of his life, and thus unjustified in the use of lethal force.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  19. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The odds will always against anyone named "Reality Winner". Never tempt the Loser Stick. ;-)

    When officials lie under oath they are a slam dunk for any prosecutor inclined to prosecute them.
    Now we know that there is, as Maleficent remarked about "true loves kiss" that is an NST. ;-)
     
    chris155au likes this.
  20. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought that you were saying her parents are responsible for her going to prison.

    Who lied under oath?
     
  21. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wrongful decision in your opinion?
     
  22. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The notion that one can freely commit random, unjustified, physical, potentially deadly assault on any given individual, and then seemingly just take a single step back while still remaining physically present in the area and able to immediately reengage, does not serve to remove the threat of further violence to the one who was subjected to physical assault in the first place. It defies everything related to common sense. A single step taken back does not mean one is disengaging from the assault.

    Once one commits assault, they continue to remain a physical threat for as long as they remain in the area.
     
    Tim15856 and Ddyad like this.
  23. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here is an example of a Deep State boss lying to Congress and getting away with it:

    “The passage of more than three years hasn’t cooled the insistence in certain quarters that Clapper face charges for an admittedly false statement to Congress in March 2013, when he responded, “No, sir" and "not wittingly” to a question about whether the National Security Agency was collecting “any type of data at all” on millions of Americans.

    About three months after making that claim, documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the answer was untruthful and that the NSA was in fact collecting in bulk domestic call records, along with various internet communications.”
    US NEWS, The outgoing spy chief needs to be punished for lying, his critics say, By Steven Nelson, Nov. 17, 2016.
    https://www.usnews.com/news/article...esume-calls-for-james-clapper-perjury-charges
     
    chris155au and Tim15856 like this.
  24. Tim15856

    Tim15856 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    7,792
    Likes Received:
    4,229
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ddyad likes this.
  25. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hasn't Clapper been asked about this?
     
    Ddyad likes this.

Share This Page