You probably should move to California. Who did she assault?
Under Georgia law she could be charged with simple assault. If the prosecutor was anti 2A the charge could be aggravated assault. Not saying that it should be that way but just be sure that you know the laws in your state before brandishing a firearm.
Key words.. most could care less about liberty and freedom.. they're extorting money from this 'wealthy' couple. This is justice in the US. If you're poor you get a pass, but if you're rich.. oh boy. The lawyers know the judges.. and you're ripe fruit.
True in Georgia. Had the media not tried the couple unfairly, usually this can be pleaded to disorderly conduct which lowers a misdemeanor to infraction and later on can be expunged in most states. It’ll be interesting to see how this unfolds and what precedents get set. This is so over done from the hateful, destructing media.
Defunding the police will allow them to spend more time on 'real' crimes instead. Example: Funds will be taken from police budgets that will be used to hire counselors to take over investigating family and psychological situations. At least that is the theory.
Respectfully disagree. First everyone will have their own definition of "real" crimes. Biggest loophole that will fly in the face of years of writing and enacting laws that define all crimes. The Lip-Tards think police are causing the problems so their intent is to eventually abolish the police because all of the "money spent" will cure all of the intent for crimes.
Seems the McCloskeys, both lawyers, might be the political type (we all know them) playing both sides as a matter of convenience and self promotion. One article mentions they financially supported BLM. Missouri does not require registering a political association in order to vote. In reading about the McCloskeys it's difficult to determine their political bent at any given moment. One may assume when they supported BLM and associated political representatives, they were also supporting gun control. This incident may alter their commitment structure, and soon their fortune. Having it both ways soon fades as strangers with agendas encroach on your vulnerable make believe world.
So, by (allegedly) donating to a cause that (purportedly) aims to stem racism, they relinquished their rights to bare arms and defend themselves from an unruly mob? Is that actually what you are stating?
Well that addresses the victim but does nothing to stop the crime. I know what you meant, give them what they are willing to pay for but just like pets and kids: "if there are no consequences, behavior doesn't change". (that could be positive or negative consequences)
It seems that whoever stole the OP's Jeep doesn't care about security devices. Nice suggestion to deter the average goof ball, but won't work for a professional thief.
Any answer I would give would be meaningless to you in what I see as a reading comprehension disability or factual denialism (In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth). So I'm limited to leave my comment to your own interpretation regardless of what it is. Perhaps you can draw a conclusion from the below sources regarding what these people should expect as a result of their actions which seem in conflict with whatever they seem to support whenever it's convenient to do so.
