Two other reasons the professor's reasoning does not stand are:
1. The child at least has an excuse to trespass on private property which is to retrieve his ball while the protesters have none.
2. The McCloskeys did neither shoot nor kill as the professor falsely tries to establish in his absurd analogy.
nightrider 發表評論於
@橡溪:
The professor is clearly and deliberately biased, feigning ignorance of common sense and trying to muddle the water. There is a substantial and essential difference between a child running in to get a ball and a mob deliberately and violently not only breaking down but destroying a clearly shut iron gate of a high stone-walled private complex along with a sign clearly signaling the enclosed area as private. There have been countless and very recent videos showing what violence and damage such a mob is capable of exacting on private peaceful private citizens and properties, all in stark contrast to the behavior of an innocent child.
橡溪 發表評論於
Asked about Monday’s charges, St. Louis University law professor John Ammann said, “It makes a lot of difference that the protesters were not on their property, according to the videos.” If the protesters were on their property, the reasons matter, he added, giving as an example someone picking up a water bottle that had been dropped or thrown. “Under the McCloskeys’ theory, they could shoot and kill a child running on their property to get a ball they were playing with,” he said.
He also said that the fact that the McCloskeys lived on a private street didn’t matter.
nightrider 發表評論於
@橡溪:
That is true. That was why it was specifically said that the Missouri Attorney General "moved to dismiss" the charges. We will see how the judge handle the case.
Besides, judging from the temperament of Mr. McCloskey as characterized by the blogger, I won't be surprise if he embraces this opportunity to boost his notability through the high profile trial of this case, especially when he enjoys over-whelming support of home and property owners.
橡溪 發表評論於
"Missouri's attorney general, Eric Schmitt, filed an amicus brief asking that the charges be dismissed." He can only "filed an amicus", but can't dismiss the charges.
nightrider 發表評論於
回複 '槍迷球迷' 的評論 :
Cannot agree more!
nightrider 發表評論於
This Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner is trampling on the right of people to defend themselves and particularly Missouri's Castle Doctrine. She needs to be reprimanded. Fortunately Missouri Attorney General moved to dismiss the felony charges filed by Kim Gardner. https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-ag-moves-to-dismiss-charges-against-couple-who-pointed-guns-at-crowd
橡溪 發表評論於
剛才見到的那兩條談麥律師案涉及的法律問題評論,怎麽轉眼就被什麽人刪了貼?
文取心 發表評論於
這個檢察官蓋特勒就跟希特勒半字之差。左棍上台的話,希特勒自愧不如。
Rubin717 發表評論於
放心,總統赦免權…關鍵是要選淳樸2020
槍迷球迷 發表評論於
這起訴要能讓12個陪審員一致判罪才怪了。
槍迷球迷 發表評論於
左派把司法政治化到了空前的高度。 用國家機器打擊不同政見者。一旦當權後果不堪設想。
格利 發表評論於
支持麥律師持槍保護性命和財產。
雅美之途 發表評論於
回複 '橡溪' 的評論 : It has been changed.
橡溪 發表評論於
檢察官。Kimberly M. Gardner is the Circuit Attorney (chief prosecutor) for the City of St. Louis, Missouri.