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

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

  1. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,183
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Brandishing is not the definition of a violence act. It is the definition of menacing, but not violence. Menacing is normally a misdemeanor is most area. A violent act is normally a felony and involves physically harming someone.

    I doubt if I would have acted as these two. More than likely I would have pulled up a lawn chair with the rifle in my lap and sat and watched the circus.
     
    glitch, DivineComedy and cd8ed like this.
  2. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    23,000
    Likes Received:
    13,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which would have been fine, you would have been making your point that you were prepared to protect your property while not engaging with the group. That is completely justifiable.
     
  3. ModCon

    ModCon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2016
    Messages:
    6,323
    Likes Received:
    9,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess we'll see.
     
  4. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,136
    Likes Received:
    24,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you with your fellow property owners in your private gated community vote to put up a fence around all the properties on the common grounds the fence is the property of the HOA jointly own by all the property owners.

    Did you have a point with your question? It's private property and was marked as such, property was destroyed to gain entry and the persons that did so were trespassing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2020
    RP12 likes this.
  5. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,136
    Likes Received:
    24,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Post the video that shows it was unlocked. Which hardly matters. It was damaged......PERIOD. And it was PRIVATE property and clearly marked they were trespassing. The law abiding citizens who lived there see a mob entering their private property and a gate torn down. They have been watching these mobs burn down the city and loot private property. The had a reasonable expectation that they were in danger and needed to protect their property and themselves. The governor has already said that if this idiot, politically and racially motivativated prosecutor proceeds and somehow inspite of the law gets a conviction he will pardon. The States Attorney General has started an investigation and has said he will inject himself to stop this persecution.

    Missouri attorney general defends intervention in McCloskey prosecution

    Missouri’s top lawyer acknowledged Tuesday his intervention in a high-profile unlawful use of a weapon case involving a St. Louis couple is unusual.

    “It doesn’t happen every day,” Attorney General Eric Schmitt told the Post-Dispatch in an interview in the Capitol.

    But, he said his controversial decision to seek to have gun charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey dismissed is rooted in the state’s long-held interest in the right to bear arms.


    “There is a common law interest if the attorney general feels that the broader interest of Missourians are affected, like the chilling effect that this might have with people exercising their Second Amendment rights,” Schmitt said.

    “I felt it was appropriate that I weigh in,” Schmitt added. “We felt it was important to get it in and make the state’s position known early.”
    https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_b8bcf1c2-8e49-5f78-a9b5-a2d1190d4989.html
     
    glitch likes this.
  6. SkullKrusher

    SkullKrusher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    5,032
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What was missing was a sign posted:
    Trespassers will be shot, Survivors will be shot again
    Also, mistake to take advantage of house roof top or upper story prepared firing position , in case one or more of mob have firearms and Molotovs or other IEDs ready to use
    Preparation of the grounds might be in order here also in the future, in case Biden gets elected, and a bigger mob of vandals returns
     
  7. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    23,000
    Likes Received:
    13,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    See post 165

    There is a right to bear arms (by a well regulated militia) but there is no right to point those weapons at others
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2020
  8. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,452
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whether or not the couple called someone, I'm not sure, the guy on the news said he called, and the police did not respond. Maybe you have a video of the police responding, maybe there is a 911 call, but since there may have been tampering, we may never get it.

    Where is the law? Who is the law?

    If called and the police (exempt from brandishing laws) do not show up, maybe under orders out of cowardly fear of their mayor or police chief, where is the law, who is the law?

    If the couple had not brandished outside, the mob (which demonstrated violence and intent with the gate) could have broken windows (as shown on the news everywhere), the mob could have gone inside to loot (as shown on the news everywhere), and then the homeowner would have no choice but to kill, so the homeowner brandishing outside in absence of the law may have prevented further Rebel action and death.

    Where is the law? It was absent. Who is then the law in the absence of law? Obviously, only the homeowner, who then as the only law enforcement presence must have also the rights of the official police (who are exempt from brandishing laws). Maybe it needs to go to a higher court, and obviously that family has the money to do it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2020
  9. struth

    struth Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    actually SCOTUS said the right to bear arms is a individual right...separate from a milita and it’s based in a right of self defense. You have every right to put a gun at someone (and fire it) if you believe your life is in danger.

    This was a bogus charge from a dem that is defending terrorist
     
  10. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,452
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did something similar once, at...2:00 AM...sat outside and watched BCR, and was amused at the consistent mocking of the police, but left the guns inside, as for the most part they were just ******** and peeing and selling drugs in public for all to see; I was happy to watch them jump and squeal when my dog scared them when they approached my fence to pee. I know I would not have done like that couple.



    Most laws seem to say the person brandished must have some reasonable fear, I saw none whatsoever from the vandals, and they did return which indicates the vandals had no fear.
     
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,136
    Likes Received:
    24,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Give me the timestamp where it shows the gate was unlocked.

    An individual right to keep and bear arms and use them to defend yourself.
     
  12. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,452
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Florida, seems to exempt self-defense: “790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.”

    The Vandals seemed unafraid of the brandishing, or exhibition, implying that the Vandals knew they were in the wrong, and that the exhibition was simply in self-defense.

    Missouri, if this is it, has everything broken down in sections:

    “(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or”

    But:

    “5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), ( 8, (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031.”

    https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5630000031.html

    The Vandals obviously were not afraid of the display, did not feel threatened, as they returned for another round of it, but the second time did not illegally enter, so the “exhibit” seemed to have worked to prevent further escalation.

    Each time though, it is the burden of the one brandishing to show why they felt threatened. In court a display of the Vandals doing their thing all over the country, and police letting them, should be enough to show fear.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2020
    Ddyad likes this.
  13. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    23,000
    Likes Received:
    13,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah yes, I forget the new right can no longer source or scrub through to obtain new information, they must be directly fed it — and in it’s absence they just make up a story to fit their narrative. You can seem them opening and walking through the undamaged gate at the 28 minute mark.

    What were they defending themselves from? People walking?
     
  14. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    30,545
    Likes Received:
    14,844
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one is claiming that except you.
     
  15. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    24,855
    Likes Received:
    1,531
    Trophy Points:
    113
    she was racist
     
    HB Surfer likes this.
  16. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    12,558
    Likes Received:
    3,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah no need to warn anyone. Once they actually assault the house they've opened themselves up for force in Missouri. That's not what dumb and karen did though
     
  17. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    12,558
    Likes Received:
    3,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Post hoc ergo propter hoc: They were outside and therefore stopped something that was otherwise certain to happen to their home. You don't have evidence that they halted any attack as you have no evidence of any attack on their property specfically.

    You're telling me you find it reasonable and plausible to hand your wife what you know to be a prop gun to go confront people you claim are such a threat to you and she that they're amenable to deadly force or the threat thereof? That's going to be a hard sell to any juror that loves their spouse, particularly the men. A good husband would take the prop himself and give his spouse the functioning arm. A good husband would be the one a wandering with the prop if that was required. McClosky will present how he was terrified for his and his wife's lives and so.... he gave her a prop to defend herself with.... Its too thin when you've got an expert saying "here I'll show you how easy it is to flip this spring".

    No one said they needed to FLEE. Simply to not charge into the yard when they were already behind both cover and concealment and could best defend their homestead and themselves from there. People do not leave a position of safety they can hold to go stand on the lawn like jackasses if they're terrified for their lives.
     
  18. RP12

    RP12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    47,840
    Likes Received:
    10,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Strangely enough to defend yourself you first aim or point it as you put it at someone.... Can you show in state law that you cant "point" a weapon at someone under Castle Doctrine....
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2020
    Ddyad likes this.
  19. RP12

    RP12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    47,840
    Likes Received:
    10,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you as a lawyer are not saying they broke a law but he is guilty of not being a "good husband"?

    Please tell me you solely work pro bono... please....
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2020
    Ddyad likes this.
  20. glitch

    glitch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    12,872
    Likes Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course she knew the gun had been disabled, but it was pretty uncomfortable to watch.
     
  21. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    29,649
    Likes Received:
    13,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps. But defenders need to make a decision. Either the gun was inoperable or she was acting in self defense. They can't have it both ways.
     
  22. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    41,315
    Likes Received:
    17,538
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The McCloskys, like all Americans under mob rule, clearly need to be armed to defend themselves

    JUST THE NEWS, GOVERNMENT, COURTS & LAW, At least one protester at McCloskey altercation was armed with firearm, sources say, Attorney has argued state's castle law shields couple from prosecution., By Daniel Payne, July 28, 2020.
    https://justthenews.com/government/...gedly-contained-notes-confirming-claims-armed
     
  23. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    29,649
    Likes Received:
    13,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BS. You need more than just "I fear my life is in danger" to point your gun at someone and fire. It isn't as subjective as that. Quite making stuff up to justify illegal use of force.
     
  24. ricmortis

    ricmortis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2018
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    63
    On the other hand, there is no right to tear down a gate, tresspass onto someones property while screaming threats of death at the residents. But, there is a right to defend oneself on ones own property from psychopaths who do such things.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2020
    Ddyad likes this.
  25. struth

    struth Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a reasonable person standard....in most states.
     
    Ddyad and glitch like this.

Share This Page