Did you rush your evidence to law enforcement? No? You need a visit from a good samaritan to flip you off your back.
Ladies and gentlemen, lets analyze this TROLL post in detail Here is where the troll tries to spin ONE thing, to something completely DIFFERENT. The act of a couple defending their property is somehow BIGOTRY and HATE and a loss for DOPEY (lets not forget the DOPEY) Donald. The only part true about this is "gun toting", I don't see ANY proof of bigoty. This is what lefty trolls do, DON'T get fooled! Trolls like to sit on Mom's basement figuring out ways to annoy people online, don't take the bait! More SPIN, we know that in reality, the trespassers are lucky they weren't fed a led salad for lunch. Still trapped in a delusional land (I call it the matrix), TROLL blatantly pretends these individuals weren't standing on THEIR OWN PROPERTY. TROLL inserts a fact/law for good measure to try and undo the SPIN in his previous sentences, nicely done!
Please don't thank me. Your application to become my disciple is rejected. You are so obsequious no sane person could believe you.
LOL You can't dispute a single thing in that post. Your post was pure partisan nonsense. Not an objective thought in site.
I will check Good Samaritans to see if they do home visits to your location. Your need is desperate. Please don't thank me.
No, it being inoperable when they pick it up days later would not necessitate that it was inoperable day of. You would only be able to prove that if it wasn't a simple fix and it is a simple fix. Its not gunsmith level ****. How do you think they do testing in drug cases? They'd have to alter the evidence to test it in a lab. So how is that not tampering? Because just like in this case they note what the conditions were and what changed and who did it etc on the chain of evidence. You're embarrassing yourself, please stop. The DA can bring assault charges until this incident hits final trial, sorry dude.
They were not gun experts by any means............The states attorney general and the governor will see this rightfully goes nowhere.
Argue with President Ford who pardoned Richard Nixon who had not even been charged with a crime. And it is you who is here to debate the issue...................and BTW your cite does not refute what I posted.
He had done it before for a prior trial. Its part of his "see it was inoperable the whole time" defense, that he'd used it that way at trial years ago. Its not difficult. If they skate unlawful use, she still is amenable to assault charges so it is going somewhere. Additionally: If they accept the pardon it means they're guilty, as shown to you.
You realize Ford cited the ****ing case I'm showing you which says exactly what I ****ing said in his rationale? Ok then. Thanks for playing dear.
Nixon was not charged with a crime nor had to admit to any guilt to accept it as your rationale says is required.
And an update St. Louis BLM protesters from McCloskey confrontation cited for trespassing Nine Black Lives Matter protesters who were confronted by an armed St. Louis couple on their lawn have been issued citations for trespassing, officials told Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/us/st-louis...oskey-confrontation-cited-for-trespassing.amp Good let's hope they are prosecuted to the full extent and the charges against the McCloskey's dropped.