Defensive Carry banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,094 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There are multiple articles on this, but I am not linking one, because right now they are conflicting. There are some articles saying the AG has dismissed the charges and others who say he has filed a motion in the circuit court to dismiss the charges. But the AG has officially taken action in the case. I guess this will unfold.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
It would be good to see the charges dismissed in recognition of the couple's 2nd Amendment rights to defend their home against rioters stating harmful intent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,644 Posts
While most of us agree they shouldn’t have been charged (I am one), this kind of sets a slippery slope precedent.
You mean a slippery slope down into compliance with the Constitution?

Governors and AG's have always had the authority to intervene in any case they wanted to. The AG is the chief law enforcement officer in the state and the governor is the chief executive with power to pardon anyone convicted of violating a state statute.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
You mean a slippery slope down into compliance with the Constitution?

Governors and AG's have always had the authority to intervene in any case they wanted to. The AG is the chief law enforcement officer in the state and the governor is the chief executive with power to pardon anyone convicted of violating a state statute.
You know what I mean. The AG intervening in a case can and will happen one day and we won’t like the outcome. The charged shouldn’t have been brought, but they were. So let it play out in court. If a jury doesn’t follow the law, then the governor can step in afterward.
I’m not a fan of judicial interference, whether it’s our president tweeting, or the AG of a state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,644 Posts
I understand what you're saying, but I'm just not a big fan of our judicial system in any way, shape or form. Elected prosecutors and Judges have become little Napoleons - even to the point of completely ignoring the law, as in this case. This DA would be emboldened if she could take this to trial, and I would much rather see her embarrassed.

It is a situation we should not have in this country. Those people took the same oath I took. They just didn't really mean it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,888 Posts
I look at it this way.
If the charges are completely ridiculous and blatantly unconstitutional.
Just brought up for political reason.
It is the duty of the AG to step in and right a wrong to save the state the cost and embarrassment of going to trial. And help a citizen who is wrongly accused
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,648 Posts
What probably needs to happen here is what happened in my home state of NC back in 2007 I think it was. Many of you will remember the Duke lacrosse team allegations of rape. DA, Mike Nifong, went so far overboard that the AG at that time, now our governor, dismissed the case. Then the North Carolina Bar Association disbarred Mr. Nifong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,028 Posts
What probably needs to happen here is what happened in my home state of NC back in 2007 I think it was. Many of you will remember the Duke lacrosse team allegations of rape. DA, Mike Nifong, went so far overboard that the AG at that time, now our governor, dismissed the case. Then the North Carolina Bar Association disbarred Mr. Nifong.
Funny that you mentioned that case as it popped into my thoughts as well. The DA became ridiculously aggressive and he played to the masses and the media. He ran an absolute witch hunt with little resistance. The constitution is a great thing until we allow it to be ignored for too long a time. There were many young lives forever impacted, unnecessarily.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,980 Posts
You know what I mean. The AG intervening in a case can and will happen one day and we won’t like the outcome. The charged shouldn’t have been brought, but they were. So let it play out in court. If a jury doesn’t follow the law, then the governor can step in afterward.
I’m not a fan of judicial interference, whether it’s our president tweeting, or the AG of a state.
So you'd rather the people have to spend $50,000+ and go to court than the AG dismiss the charges? Maybe these people could afford that, could you? I certainly don't have that kind of money laying around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
So you'd rather the people have to spend $50,000+ and go to court than the AG dismiss the charges? Maybe these people could afford that, could you? I certainly don't have that kind of money laying around.
I believe you’ve missed my point. I don’t care if it’s a speeding ticket, I don’t believe in judicial interference. If there isn’t something completely unethical going on, then let the courts settle it. These people were incorrectly charged, so a jury following the law should acquit them. Or perhaps a well organized motion from their attorneys will convince a judge to drop the charges.
But yes, to answer your question, I can afford legal representation if I need it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
charges should never have been brought ,at this point a PUBLIC apology from prosecutor or be dismissed or both and a public statement to the protestors on privet property rights and personal responsibility good luck with any of the weenies having the guts to do what is right
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,925 Posts
You know what I mean. The AG intervening in a case can and will happen one day and we won’t like the outcome. The charged shouldn’t have been brought, but they were. So let it play out in court. If a jury doesn’t follow the law, then the governor can step in afterward.
I’m not a fan of judicial interference, whether it’s our president tweeting, or the AG of a state.
This case is not judicial interference. This is AG interference. The Attorney General is the chief prosecutor in the state. They are both part of the executive branch. It is being slapped down by your supervisor.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,278 Posts
The case should be dismissed based on the AG ordering "evidence tampering". The gun used by Mrs McCloskey was a prop gun and not usable as a weapon. The AG ordered the police to take it apart and "fix" it so that it would be a working weapon.

That fact alone should be enough to throw the case out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,135 Posts
The case should be dismissed based on the AG ordering "evidence tampering". The gun used by Mrs McCloskey was a prop gun and not usable as a weapon. The AG ordered the police to take it apart and "fix" it so that it would be a working weapon.

That fact alone should be enough to throw the case out.
Reasonable doubt has been established before any trial can begin.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top