07-25-2020, 05:02 PM
Interesting comments and thoughts, but in a criminal case where the state must have evidence and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt... those points are all conjecture.
The crux of the issue is, can the DA prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the alleged incident, that gun was capable of lethal force. If the DA cannot prove that, and the burden is on the state not on the defendant, then any other points about that gun are moot.
Besides, as I mentioned before, the DA should have sent social workers to their house, not police with a warrant, since no harm was done to anyone. That's their mantra right? Oh! except when they are trying to intimidate citizens into submission!!
I might even conjecture that their attorney disassembled and rendered it that way since it was in his possession when the police got it. Who's to prove otherwise?? The final analysis is that the state, and we, don't know what the condition of that gun was at the time of the alleged incident. All they know is the condition of the gun when they obtained it.
The crux of the issue is, can the DA prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the alleged incident, that gun was capable of lethal force. If the DA cannot prove that, and the burden is on the state not on the defendant, then any other points about that gun are moot.
Besides, as I mentioned before, the DA should have sent social workers to their house, not police with a warrant, since no harm was done to anyone. That's their mantra right? Oh! except when they are trying to intimidate citizens into submission!!
I might even conjecture that their attorney disassembled and rendered it that way since it was in his possession when the police got it. Who's to prove otherwise?? The final analysis is that the state, and we, don't know what the condition of that gun was at the time of the alleged incident. All they know is the condition of the gun when they obtained it.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"