Search warrants are done in furtherance of investigations all the time, without charges. Apparently a judge found probable cause in this case.Originally Posted by fixer
For the record, I do not think they should be charged.
Search warrants are done in furtherance of investigations all the time, without charges. Apparently a judge found probable cause in this case.
For the record, I do not think they should be charged.
Thanks...
edit:
Ok so in furtherance of an investigation...what could possibly be needed to be investigated? What were they suspect of? Is it merely a weapons issue?
Search warrants are part of the investigation phase and are routinely done before specific charges. At the state/local level the vast majority are done before the target is charged. I've written, received approval, and executed a metric butt ton of warrants on shooting and robbery suspects before they were arrested or charged, and some where the case never matured enough to charge.
See details upthread, but the reasonable assumption is to prove it's an actual working firearm and the 'unlawful use of a weapon' law in MO.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Beyond what @TC215 and @BehindBlueI's have already stated, the prosecuting authority also trots this out before the public in the manner of placating the hue and cry from certain corners of the public.
This affords them a little time to let the fervor die down so that they can allow the matter to drop, should they choose to. (Not saying what will or will not happen, but the unfortunate truth is that D.A.'s and U.S. Attorney's offices do not operate, to lesser or greater extent, without an eye toward the political climate.)
There's nothing civil about this war.
Thanks guys! appreciate it...
I wouldn't go near this offer. Just my opinion that this would be bad PR. Accepting that you need training as the offer implies you don't know what you were doing, is a bad omission.
The news conference with the lawyer displaying the gun and duct tape was really strange. The idea that her gun was not operable - that's weird. Just to speculate, are they trying to beat the statute of using a 'real' weapon? Trying to throw her under the bus as irrational but the husband had to rush out to protect her?
If she was almost instantaneously responding to folks on her property, how does she come up with an inoperable exhibit in a lawsuit so quickly? Do you just leave things like that laying around in the house?
Does argue for having more than one gun, if your gun is taken by the law. I just don't get their strategy of blabbing so much. Again, sheer speculation but their history seems to be one that uses confrontation as a strategy. The St. Louis press is not presenting them as a sympathetic couple.
For our legal and law folks, is there some misdemeanor they could plead her on and let hubby walk as protecting her? I have no idea.
My bet is her issue is all the pointing. My speculation is they are trying to short circuit that with "innoperable".
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...ives-matter-la
I’m sure we will hear the same outrage over this one.
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/lo...1-d39cb8df8b4b
ST. LOUIS — St. Louis Metropolitan police have applied for warrants in the case of a couple who has been seen around the world brandishing guns at protesters.
Lots of political uproar in the article.
(edited to fix link - BehindBlueI's)
Last edited by BehindBlueI's; 07-14-2020 at 08:57 PM.
That DA is a piece of shit.
#RESIST
Reply With Quote