'Keep moving!' Couple brandish an AR-15 and a handgun at protesters

[vcdgrips]

STD Disclaimers previously made in this thread at Post 106 and others

RJ

UUW and Assault 4 were the two charges that jumped out v their defenses re stand your ground etc. I attached links to the statutes in post 106 as mentioned above.

The road may be long and winding for these folks but i stand by my original prediction. When the dust finally settles they

1. will not be felons
2. will not go to jail
3. will keep their law licenses
4. will still be millionaires and can cherry pick who they represent re personal injury and other plaintiff oriented litigation.

edited to add:

are armed tonight with a similar or better rifle if they want to be...and pistol.

It should be fairly easy to prove if they have had litigation against the manufacturer of the pistol and if that "pistol" has been an "exemplar" or exhibit.

[Bart Carter]

How would the police know that they confiscated the weapon that was in the video?

If they did not know that it was the weapon in the video, how could the confiscation be justified?

[JodyH]

How would the police know that they confiscated the weapon that was in the video?

If they did not know that it was the weapon in the video, how could the confiscation be justified?

I'm guessing that you just uncovered the defense strategy.

Prove it was a deadly weapon that meets the statute and not an Airsoft replica or demil museum collectable that I had in my hands at the time.

[BehindBlueI's]

How would the police know that they confiscated the weapon that was in the video?

If they did not know that it was the weapon in the video, how could the confiscation be justified?

Warrants are based on probable cause, not complete certainty.

Convictions are based on beyond a reasonable doubt, not complete certainty. Jury trial instructions include something like "there is very little in this world we know with absolute certainty...(and then an explanation of what reasonable doubt is)"

A gun that looks like the gun in the video is probably the same gun, especially if no other gun or replica is located. Let the defense make the argument that they had an exact replica and that's what the guy actually had, but it's since been removed from the house and the real one left behind, and see if a jury buys it. Maybe they will decide that's a reasonable explanation, maybe not.

[JodyH]

There will be no jury (or trial), so all this is merely academic.
It is fun watching a couple of high resource lawyers fuck with each other in real time under a spotlight though.

[Caballoflaco]

STD Disclaimers previously made in this thread at Post 106 and others

I keep reading this incorrectly.

[TC215]

Prove it was a deadly weapon that meets the statute and not an Airsoft replica or demil museum collectable that I had in my hands at the time.

It can be done. As far as I know, I had the first successful federal case in the United States where a person was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm based off a Facebook photo.

[JodyH]

It can be done. As far as I know, I had the first successful federal case in the United States where a person was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm based off a Facebook photo.

This guy won't have a public defender handling his case.

[TC215]

This guy won't have a public defender handling his case.

Neither did my guy.

[TDA]

It can be done. As far as I know, I had the first successful federal case in the United States where a person was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm based off a Facebook photo.

God Bless you sir, I like to imagine that every time this happens an angel gets it’s wings.