79
Comments (10)
sorted by:
5
Formerlurker92 5 points ago +5 / -0

While I agree with what he did being exactly what he was charged for, I dislike that anyone asserted that was illegal in a clear case of self defense. And his taking of the deal further erodes the concept of self defense through the application of precident

2
JohnCocktoastin 2 points ago +2 / -0

district court cases carry pretty much zero precedential value

3
Iamnotademocrat4 3 points ago +4 / -1

He is a lawyer and smart as a whip...he will be running for office and well you know .....he is working the system

2
Dialectic 2 points ago +2 / -0

What did the joggers get?

2
ShinAkuma 2 points ago +2 / -0

He took the deal because it ultimately won't impact them. The state needs to save face and part of the deal was likely they would drag it out, preventing him from running for Senate, even if they knew they couldn't win.

This way the state doesn't look like the doofus tools they are because they get a "conviction" and now the McCloskeys move on with their lives.

0
KYMAGApatriot1 [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

I think the McCloskeys chose the lesser of two evils. This way, he buys another AR 15 and has more “ammunition” to tackle this issue when he runs for office. And you better believe he will make an issue of it.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
3
Dalek07 3 points ago +3 / -0

If this charge is only a misdemeanor then I believe they are good. Depending on the state they could maybe revoke concealed carry.

1
Somniac 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, doesn’t negate gun ownership. Probably part of the reason he took the plea deal. If he had been convicted of a felony, all too possible with the right jury, the. He would have lost his gun right AND his law license. Not to mention the months of time and untold amount of money.

1
MrEvangelon1 1 point ago +1 / -0

The cowards took a plea deal for defending their property and their lives.