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 发表评论于
@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 发表评论于
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 发表评论于
@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 发表评论于
"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 发表评论于
回复 '枪迷球迷' 的评论 :
Cannot agree more!
nightrider 发表评论于
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 发表评论于
刚才见到的那两条谈麦律师案涉及的法律问题评论,怎么转眼就被什么人删了贴?
文取心 发表评论于
这个检察官盖特勒就跟希特勒半字之差。左棍上台的话,希特勒自愧不如。
Rubin717 发表评论于
放心,总统赦免权…关键是要选淳朴2020
枪迷球迷 发表评论于
这起诉要能让12个陪审员一致判罪才怪了。
枪迷球迷 发表评论于
左派把司法政治化到了空前的高度。 用国家机器打击不同政见者。一旦当权后果不堪设想。
格利 发表评论于
支持麦律师持枪保护性命和财产。
雅美之途 发表评论于
回复 '橡溪' 的评论 : It has been changed.
橡溪 发表评论于
检察官。Kimberly M. Gardner is the Circuit Attorney (chief prosecutor) for the City of St. Louis, Missouri.