2nd AMEMDMENT:Fearing Her Husband, She Took His Guns To Police. They Arrested Her.

[domer76]

No self defense, none at all. If a jury or judge finds her innocent by self defense, that will open a Pandora's Box
so that anyone who commits breaking and entering and theft can plead self defense and get out of it. Not gonna happen.
Why are you too stupid to see where this would go if she's innocent of those charges?

Why do you wanna bet on who goes to jail, dickhead? Who cares about him?
Why does it matter anyway? This topic is on her breaking the law, not him.

Pathetic incompetent retarded asshole.

It won’t get to trial, bitch.

No criminal intent.
Imminent danger.

You’re stupid and he’s fucked.

Who cares about him? lololololol

Without his domestic violence, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and the violations of protective orders, this isn’t an issue, is it, idiot?

What a fucking dumbshit. :rofl2;

[christiefan915]

That wasn't even a good deflection, you laughable cunt. You claimed she was justified in burglarizing her estranged husband's home and stealing his property because there was a court order that he not possess said property. If people are entitled to take the law into their own hands because a court order has been issued, should citizens be empowered to detain and remove illegal aliens who are subject to court orders of deportation? It's a straightforward question and a perfectly relevant analogy, pally boy. I don't expect you to answer of course. Pussy.

It's hilarious that you guys keep ignoring that he tried to run her down with his car. You know, that 3500 lb. deadly weapon when used the wrong way.

[christiefan915]

I love this lady's crazy eyes
Attachment 10300

You mean "I love this crazy lady's eyes."

[USFREEDOM911]

Neither has gone to trial, you laughable cunt.

Still wanna bet?

Him for 1 day.

Her for 6 days.

[USFREEDOM911]

Self defense, cuntwhistles. 100%

I see no takers on the wager of who goes to jail.

Ignorant puusies.

Him for 1 day.

Her for 6 days.

[USFREEDOM911]

100% self defense. Took action to protect herself and her family from imminent danger for their lives.

Wanna take that bet, cunt? I thought not.

Ignorant pussy.

Him for 1 day.

Her for 6 days.

[USFREEDOM911]

It's hilarious that you guys keep ignoring that he tried to run her down with his car. You know, that 3500 lb. deadly weapon when used the wrong way.

How do you "run someone down", when that someone is in a car??

[RB 60]

It's hilarious that you guys keep ignoring that he tried to run her down with his car. You know, that 3500 lb. deadly weapon when used the wrong way.

Then she should have stolen his car, not his firearms

[Sirthinksalot]

It's hilarious that you guys keep ignoring that he tried to run her down with his car. You know, that 3500 lb. deadly weapon when used the wrong way.

Actually, I specifically mentioned that multiple times in this thread. You should have made that comment to anyone in this thread besides me. Lol. Keep in mind that I was replying to domer76, so hurling insults was mandatory.

Post #43:

Should she also have been allowed to steal his vehicle and turn it in to police? That's what he ALLEGEDLY assaulted her with.
Fucking moron.

Sure do, cunt. She acted in a reasonable manner when she thought her life was in imminent danger. It usually involves force, but she didn’t even reach that bar.

Not a fucking jury will ever convict her. Won’t even get that far.

Moron.

Post #55. Responding to^:

Why didn't she steal his car, cunt?

Post #142:

If by "some sort of analogy" you mean a relevant and salient one, yeah that's what it was.

Let's be clear that the deadly weapon in question was his vehicle, not a firearm, but feel free to babble on, illiterate fucktard.

Keep on deflecting, you laughable cunt. You claimed she was justified in burglarizing her estranged husband's home and stealing his property because there was a court order that he not possess said property. If people are entitled to take the law into their own hands because a court order has been issued, should citizens be empowered to detain and remove illegal aliens who are subject to court orders of deportation? It's a straightforward question and a perfectly relevant analogy, pally boy. I don't expect you to answer of course. Pussy.

[domer76]

Actually, I specifically mentioned that multiple times in this thread. You should have made that comment to anyone in this thread besides me. Lol. Keep in mind that I was replying to domer76, so hurling insults was mandatory.

Post #43:




Post #55. Responding to^:


Post #142:

Go ahead and offer a couple more lame and absurd analogies.

Illegal aliens? Hilarious.
Try the laughable computer thing again. Priceless.

Fucking cretins.

[christiefan915]

Actually, I specifically mentioned that multiple times in this thread. You should have made that comment to anyone in this thread besides me. Lol. Keep in mind that I was replying to domer76, so hurling insults was mandatory.

Post #43:
Post #55. Responding to^:
Post #142:

My comment "you guys" refers to every single RW male on this thread who soft-pedals this woman's abuse and instead focuses on Mrs. Irby taking the guns. Personally I think abuse is worse than theft; apparently the RW males here do not. It's always about the guns.

[Sirthinksalot]

My comment "you guys" refers to every single RW male on this thread who soft-pedals this woman's abuse and instead focuses on Mrs. Irby taking the guns. Personally I think abuse is worse than theft; apparently the RW males here do not. It's always about the guns.

I assumed we could all agree that abuse was bad. Sorry if you needed that to be clarified. The case in question isn't about abuse. It's about whether an individual can take the law into their own hands and break into another's home and steal property. No matter how much impotent losers like domer76 fear guns, they are private property. Law enforcement officers can be empowered by court order to seize private property. Ordinary citizens cannot confiscate someone else's property just because a court order says the other person can't possess it. The self defense argument is completely absurd. Please don't even go there.

[domer76]

I assumed we could all agree that abuse was bad. Sorry if you needed that to be clarified. The case in question isn't about abuse. It's about whether an individual can take the law into their own hands and break into another's home and steal property. No matter how much impotent losers like domer76 fear guns, they are private property. Law enforcement officers can be empowered by court order to seize private property. Ordinary citizens cannot confiscate someone else's property just because a court order says the other person can't possess it. The self defense argument is completely absurd. Please don't even go there.

One more time, bitch.

No criminal intent.
Imminent danger.
Self defense.

“the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger”

Want to offer another laughable and absurd analogy or two?

Still silence from you, dumbfuck.

Wanna bet who goes to jail and who doesn’t?

Fucking moron.

[USFREEDOM911]

One more time, bitch.

No criminal intent.
Imminent danger.
Self defense.

Want to offer another laughable and absurd analogy or two?

Still silence from you, dumbfuck.

Wanna bet who goes to jail and who doesn’t?

Fucking moron.

Her 6 days.

Him 1 day.

[Sirthinksalot]

No criminal intent.
Imminent danger.
Self defense.

You clearly don't understand thd concept of any of the above. Moron.

Want to offer another laughable and absurd analogy or two?

Nah, the one I already made was perfect. Sorry you're too stupid to understand it.

Still silence from you, dumbfuck.

Wanna bet who goes to jail and who doesn’t?

Fucking moron.

I've already made you look almost as stupid as you made yourself look. My work here is done.