The McCloskeys initial lawyer, Al Watkins, said that Patricia McCloskey knew that the handgun she had was inoperable because it had been used as a prop in a past lawsuit against a gun manufacturer. [More]
How they could determine evidence tampering before it was officially evidence beyond a reasonable doubt tells me this is just spaghetti being thrown against the wall to see how much sticks. That said, WTH on the gun manufacturer lawsuit, and if it means what I think it means, why would I care if they end up being hoist on their own petard?
And what are rich people doing with a Bryco?
[Via bondmen]
2 comments:
"what are rich people doing with a Bryco?"
If you're suing Bryco for defective product, the prop has to be a Bryco, right?
Considering the shenanigans the Left will use, at this point I cannot help but think that the whole situation with the "peaceful protesters" singling out the McCloskeys' home wasn't choreographed.
Just sitting here this am bc, before coffee, thinking about the video of the incident I believe it was in fact a staged occurrence.
Post a Comment