Legal Docs: St. Louis Prosecutor Tampered With Evidence In McCloskey Gun Case

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by ModCon, Jul 23, 2020.

  1. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    29,649
    Likes Received:
    13,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not based on "I feel scared" alone, otherwise we'd all have free reign to murder whoever we want. All we'd need to do is say we felt scared.
     
  2. struth

    struth Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree...and i didn't say that.....I said fear for life or seriously bodily harm.
     
  3. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    29,649
    Likes Received:
    13,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Simply claiming such fear is not enough, by itself, nor should it be. If it were, we could murder whomever we want.
     
  4. struth

    struth Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not at all...that's why if the person kills someone, and the LEO investigates and brings a charge, that sort of defense must be raised at trial and a jury must agree.

    You can't just shoot someone, and say it, and not expect an investigation by LEOs...and potential charges. Happens often...sometimes the prosecutors are right, and sometimes the defendant is.

    Nor is it a get out of jail free card....person might be charged with murder, but the jury might say, or LEOs might say...well he was chearly fearful....but it might not have been reasonable...about you end up with Vol Man.

    In this case, we aren't talking about anyone being shot. We are talking about brandishing a weapon, outside on your porch, while a mob of people broke your private gate down, and approached your property. So the question is did they have a right to be fearful? I would say yes, given what was going on at the time throughout the city, the breaking and entering...agreed it wasn't their home (which would have been a clearly ok). I don't agree with the charges, but there is a gray area considering they hadn't broken in the home...which they would have been perfectly legal to shoot on sight if they broke in the home.
     
  5. Labouroflove

    Labouroflove Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    12,833
    Likes Received:
    6,848
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hence the reasonable person standard. Would a reasonable person facing the same set of facts form a fear of great harm.
     
    glitch and AmericanNationalist like this.
  6. glitch

    glitch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    12,872
    Likes Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But both would make sense. If she knew the gun was inoperable then apparently there is no brandishing within that jurisdiction. That is apparently why evidence had to be tampered with in order to press charges. A gun, even when inoperable, is a very effective deterrent to criminal activity and for self-defense. Not many would be foolish to approach a house where a crazy lady is swinging a gun around. The mob would have no way of knowing the gun was inoperable.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2020
  7. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    23,000
    Likes Received:
    13,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The argument being made is that castle doctrine doesn’t apply in this situation.
    I would say keep up but we both know that would be an insurmountable task.
     
  8. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    23,000
    Likes Received:
    13,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. The gate was intact upon them entering, while they likely damaged it on exit it was after they were threatened, not justifying the damage just showing your timeline is not correct.
    2. The homeowners are in legal dispute as to who owns the land, the homeowners or the HOA. Trespassing onto ones lawn does not give another the ability to use lethal force
    3. As per video, the homeowners were the ones that made the first verbal and actionable threat, making them the aggressors.
    If you want to see the definition of psychopath you need to look into the history of these two; multiple suits, pointing weapons at neighbors — they seem like a lovely couple.
     
  9. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    29,649
    Likes Received:
    13,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False. If she really thought her life was in danger, she wouldn't have use an inoperable gun.

    If it wasn't an operable gun, then she can't argue self defense. Period.

    The "mob" never threatened her, at least as far as the evidence shows. She can't claim she feared for her life if she responded with a fake gun. If it was a real gun, she was clearly brandishing. There is no in between. Either she was brandishing or she made threats despite having no rational fear for her safety. Those are the only options.
     
  10. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    12,558
    Likes Received:
    3,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not what I said at all. It really helps to read what is written and if you're responding to a post that was not initially directed at you that you read the chain itself. If a general discussion has arisen around various posts of a poster in a thread, it likewise behooves you to read what that poster wrote so you know what they are talking about. It grows tiresome to have to bring every tom and dick up to speed in every post: read the series dude.

    I said that the search warrant that picked up the gun was executed quite a long time after the event. Days and days. The modification made is not a gunsmith level fix. Its a simple matter. It can be done by hand. That means that just because its inoperable when the search warrant picks it up doesn't mean it was inoperable day of.
    It will be a question for the jury to decide as they are the finder of fact, whether or not they think it was operable day of. That's how trial works. Each side will offer evidence to convince the jury to be persuaded to see their side. The prosecution will have an expert explain to them how easy a fix it is and what that means. They'll likely have them actually demonstrate how easy it is and how it could've been done right after the incident by a person, especially a skilled litigator with admitted prior experience in doing this fix, to create this exact confusion. The prosecution will cross McClosky about how he thinks he's a good husband, he protects his family etc etc etc etc really let him wind himself up tooting his own horn. Then he's going to bring up at closing how implausible it is for a man who wants to protect his wife, who made all those clams when he was tooting his own horn, to claim he's in fear for her life so he handed her an inoperable prop to defend herself with.
    Then he's going to lay out the alternative: That its far more plausible that instead after the fact he realized she was rather exposed having jammed the thing in the face of multiple persons who weren't on their property or presenting an actual threat, and using his experience from the prior trial with that gun flipped the spring so he could make the exact argument he's making: O it was inoperable and she tampered with evidence somehow by noting condition by date time and ******* receiving the evidence and changes by testing at what times for what purposes and by whom. Its a narrative he's running with to subvert public opinion in his favor.

    Additionally: Its not tampering when you record the conditions as they exist when you get the evidence and everything you do to it and why. That's called "testing" and "chain of evidence". Its standard to do so. Tampering would be if they fixed the spring and didn't note it in chain of evidence. Since they've released photographs of the actual chain of evidence notations, we know that they noted it and this idea of tampering is something ****ing laypeople are besotted with, not something that has an actual basis in the law.

    If testing the pistol and noting all conditions in chain of evidence is tampering, so is testing alleged cocaine to see if its cocaine and noting amounts removed and destroyed by testing etc.

    As to pro bono: Are you calling me a slut?


    Further, since you're somewhat unclear: I'm saying clearly Patricia is guilty of either unlawful use of a weapon or if the jury finds that it was inoperable at the time then of the lesser included offense of assault by intentionally causing the apprehension of a harmful contact with each person she jammed the gun into the face of.
    Mark would only face charges that would end up sticking at trial if he tampered with evidence by flipping the spring and the jury decided that, or if in a video I've not seen of the incident he actually points the thing rather than just cradling it.
    Patricia is the one who is in sure jeopardy from what I've seen.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2020
    cd8ed likes this.
  11. glitch

    glitch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    12,872
    Likes Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course she would if she believed it would deter the mob.

    Period is not an argument. If the gun works as a deterrent, whether or not it is operable is irrelevant.

    There is testimony that they threatened her and her dog. They were certainly yelling at her. A mob breaks into your private area and is yelling threats, any reasonable person should feel fear.
     
  12. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    29,649
    Likes Received:
    13,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deterring the mob is not enough. This only works if she thought that her LIFE required deterring the mob. She clearly didn't think this was the case.

    Of course it is relevant. She is claiming her action was NECESSARY to protect her LIFE. An inoperable, fake "weapon" doesn't cut it.

    If she had actual, reasonable fear, she would have used a real weapon, not a fake one. The only "testimony" comes from her, and it appears to be false.
     
  13. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    2,844
    Likes Received:
    2,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not quite the clincher you seem to think it is.

    It was a "real" weapon, just not in a functional state. It's possible she didn't have another functional firearm readily available, and concluded that bluffing the mob with a broken gun was better than just waiting around to be raped & murdered. That doesn't prove that her fear was non-genuine, nor that her attempts at deterrence were unlawful.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2020
    glitch likes this.
  14. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    29,649
    Likes Received:
    13,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    how so?


    There was no threat of rape. That's a fake claim. And if your "weapon" doesn't function as a "weapon" then it isn't a real weapon. It is a decoy. The fear was fake.
     
  15. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    2,844
    Likes Received:
    2,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sometimes a bluff is one's only option. It doesn't logically follow from that that "the fear was fake".
     
  16. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    29,649
    Likes Received:
    13,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you really think your life is in danger, you don't leave shelter to confront with a fake threat. It's a fake argument. She had the option of not confronting at all. If she did confront (and she did) then you can't claim a real threat if you won't use a real weapon to defend yourself. This is complete nonsense.
     
  17. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    2,844
    Likes Received:
    2,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not nonsense at all. If you were sitting at home with nothing but a broken gun when someone tries to break into your house, the threat doesn't suddenly become "fake" if you use that broken gun to try to frighten off the (very real) threat.

    If you know anything about defensive gun use statistics, you'd know that in the vast majority of cases no shots are fired. The mere indication that someone is armed and prepared to defend themselves is often enough to frighten off criminal. It's not something I'd recommend (confronting a real threat with a broken gun), but if it's the only thing you have on hand, do your best. Again, that doesn't somehow make the threat "fake". The logical fallacy you're exhibiting here is known as a "non sequitur".
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2020
    glitch likes this.
  18. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    50,004
    Likes Received:
    30,097
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: St. Louis Circuit Attorney hasn’t disclosed trips as required by law, documents show.
    The feds, or the State of Missouri, will investigate this thoroughly. The notion that she might be prosecuting people at the behest of an organization that has given her free travel is disturbing, and undermines the public trust that an effective prosecutor must have.
     
    glitch likes this.
  19. Moolk

    Moolk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2020
    Messages:
    6,813
    Likes Received:
    4,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They will be pardoned. It’s already confirmed.

    The illogi;cal anti gun crowd lost.
     
  20. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    6,093
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Yeah, so I keep reading here, yet when in Oregon, the Feds were jackbooting against the citizens, no shot fired. All sombrero, no Mexican.
     
  21. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    50,004
    Likes Received:
    30,097
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ricmortis likes this.
  22. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    50,004
    Likes Received:
    30,097
    Trophy Points:
    113
  23. RP12

    RP12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    47,840
    Likes Received:
    10,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Blah blah blah.. It was used as a prop for another case.. if you have evidence that during the day of the incident it was operable and then they messed with it and then turned it in by all means provide said evidence? You Pretend to be a lawyer so try acting like one.
     
  24. RP12

    RP12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    47,840
    Likes Received:
    10,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That argument would be wrong...
     
  25. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    50,004
    Likes Received:
    30,097
    Trophy Points:
    113
    POLITICAL PROSECUTOR COMPLAINS PEOPLE ARE POLITICIZING HER POLITICAL PROSECUTION: Kim Gardner May Be In Hot Water Over McCloskey Prosecution, Burns Her Self-Awareness to the Ground In Response.

    “It’s improper to prosecute someone for political reasons and she clearly outed herself as doing that by immediately using the case to fundraise off of.”​

    Then complained when people pointed it out. Plus:

    “Gardner would ironically go on to accuse the McCloskeys of ‘political theater,’ which shows a lack of self-awareness so pervasive that she should probably see a professional about it.”​
     

Share This Page