tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2070230228986033327.post4970616313985615782..comments2023-10-28T09:08:37.317-05:00Comments on Arms, Farms & Fam: Making a Difference - Helping Sarah McKinleyBeckyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173525523262041518noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2070230228986033327.post-63329642773033110872012-02-18T08:17:47.393-06:002012-02-18T08:17:47.393-06:00Carls... cool your jets, dude. life is way too sho...Carls... cool your jets, dude. life is way too short to get so worked up. She will get her original gun back, plus she gets a great home defense gun in the process. SHE WINS!!!!, bad guys lose. Try looking at the big picture once. Sheese! Big picture is: Good guys win bad guys loose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2070230228986033327.post-3890543160619580672012-02-16T13:37:26.316-06:002012-02-16T13:37:26.316-06:00Edit to read:
The gun was not stolen or otherwise...Edit to read:<br /><br />The gun was not stolen or otherwise taken from the householder INSERT by the defendants and thus is not evidence of any crime committed by the defendants.CarlSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2070230228986033327.post-61638418597713920262012-02-16T13:23:49.088-06:002012-02-16T13:23:49.088-06:00Please guide me . . .
The purpose of the trial is...Please guide me . . .<br /><br />The purpose of the trial is to decide if the goblins were - what, exactly? Breaking in with felonious intent? THEY didn't have anything to do with the gun other than be the proximate cause for its' use.<br /><br />The ONLY rational reason for confiscating the property of a non-criminal citizen is to gather evidence needed to prove it was in fact used. CarlSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2070230228986033327.post-15127111105087540992012-02-16T13:11:23.563-06:002012-02-16T13:11:23.563-06:00I beg to differ . . . but then it wouldn't mat...I beg to differ . . . but then it wouldn't matter what evidence I provided, would it? You've obviously been encouraged . . .CarlSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2070230228986033327.post-45231635593762760072012-02-14T18:14:56.511-06:002012-02-14T18:14:56.511-06:00Obviously sir... You know nothing about the Laws ...Obviously sir... You know nothing about the Laws of this Country or the Rules of Evidence. It's not a whim on the part of the police to take that gun in a shooting incident. They are required to do so as evidence. I should know. I was a Homicide Supervisor for 30 years. Keep your uninfomed comments to yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2070230228986033327.post-88902213635108260122012-02-14T16:40:36.865-06:002012-02-14T16:40:36.865-06:00Thanks for the update, I'll toss a Hamilton or...Thanks for the update, I'll toss a Hamilton or two their way.<br /><br />@ CarlS,<br /><br />While I agree with your intent, the fundamental reason that the gun has not been released as yet, is that it is material evidence needed in the trial of the Goblins. <br /><br />I know of this as I had items and a gun stolen from my abode. The officer, while taking the report, told me that if any of Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2070230228986033327.post-68371140886732218512012-02-14T13:15:05.040-06:002012-02-14T13:15:05.040-06:00Lemme see . . . the lady is on record as stating s...Lemme see . . . the lady is on record as stating she – herself – did in fact use the weapon. The police are on record as saying her actions were lawful self-defense. There is no question as to the weapon used. Therefore, why is there any need for ballistics evidence? Answer? There is not. Corollary: The taking of the weapon by police can be justified as “just following orders.”. However, as we CarlSnoreply@blogger.com