Quote:
Originally Posted by flagman1776
Supposedly the pistol was held by heir atty and still later surrendered. The couple claims the pistol was non-functional during the confrontation. [Can't be proven. You can believe it or not as you wish.]
|
Not "supposedly." It was. And of course it can be proven. They have the pistol. Have you read the associated news stories? They are linked in various posts in this thread.
Quote:
Watkins stood outside his Clayton office building Saturday afternoon and held the handgun wrapped in a plastic bag. He said the gun was “inoperable” and had been used as an exhibit in several cases against the manufacturer — litigation that Mark McCloskey had handled at his firm.
Patricia McCloskey knew the gun was inoperable as she confronted protesters, Watkins said, but displayed the gun as an “intimidation factor which may be utilized within the context of any self-defense.”
|
I don't know what the pistol was, but from the pictures and my knowledge of firearms with a lot of litigation in their history, my guess is Jimenez, Bryco, Jennings, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flagman1776
The correct assembly by the crime lab and subsequent test firing will undoubtedly be subject to legal arguments.
|
You don't get to "correctly assemble" a firearm after the fact to prove a crime. The standard is "readily capable of lethal use" at the time the crime was committed . . .