McCloskey’s Gun Didn’t Work So A Prosecutor Ordered It Reassembled And Then Declared

tinfoil said:
LOL liberal mentality writ large
>Let the authorities handle the thinking
Click to expand...

Dude, you just advocated getting rid of the courts regardless if you admit it or not. Why? What system of justice would you prefer?
 
tinfoil said:
I don't believe you have to try too hard
Click to expand...

True. Facts are not hard to understand.

At least three facts: The statute is clear. The weapon was inoperable. The prosecutor had the weapon reassembled as a part of a demonstration.

As Dutch Uncle said, intent is what's important here.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
All of which points outh whomever initially assembled the gun didn't know WTF they were doing. Not a lawyer, but "intent" seems to play a big part in a person's actions. Patricia McCloskey didn't know the gun wouldn't fire so she wielded it like it would.

Let's put it this way: If Patricia McCloskey tried to rob a liquor store with that gun in the condition it was in, would she be charged with armed robbery or not? I think she would...and should.

That said, I think this is a political show trial pushed onto the DA's office because the city is desperate. The McCloskey's will probably be exonerated.
Click to expand...

If she is authorized to conceal carry that firearm, I guarantee she know exactly how to assemble it correctly. Conceal carry folks are well trained, tested, and interviewed. Ccw folks are a different BBC variety of gun owners.
 
Evmetro said:
If she is authorized to conceal carry that firearm, I guarantee she know exactly how to assemble it correctly. Conceal carry folks are well trained, tested, and interviewed. Ccw folks are a different BBC variety of gun owners.
Click to expand...

That's the question, isn't it?
 
AProudLefty said:
True. Facts are not hard to understand.

At least three facts: The statute is clear. The weapon was inoperable. The prosecutor had the weapon reassembled as a part of a demonstration.

As Dutch Uncle said, intent is what's important here.
Click to expand...

So the intent to scare of intruders is the problem? Just trying to be clear. I can understand brandishing a gun to commit a crime being illegal, but to use a weapon to defend oneself with an inoperable weapon as a ruse is an entirely different scenario.
What's your thoughts on my point about the scenarios being opposite situations?
 
Evmetro said:
If she is authorized to conceal carry that firearm, I guarantee she know exactly how to assemble it correctly. Conceal carry folks are well trained, tested, and interviewed. Ccw folks are a different BBC variety of gun owners.
Click to expand...

I know, I have a permit. Patricia, OTOH, didn't AFAIK. She also claims she's never fired that pistol. The way she was holding and waving her pistol around, I doubt she knew how to shoot.

Ebp2wuxUYAEIPQD.png
 
If I pick up a stick and pretend it's a gun while threatening an intruder on my property, does that fit the "intent" model you folks are discussing?
 
tinfoil said:
So the intent to scare of intruders is the problem? Just trying to be clear. I can understand brandishing a gun to commit a crime being illegal, but to use a weapon to defend oneself with an inoperable weapon as a ruse is an entirely different scenario.
What's your thoughts on my point about the scenarios being opposite situations?
Click to expand...

The statute in Missouri is pretty clear. https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html

Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner

Notice the "readily capable" part?

And I understand that they claimed that they felt threatened but the "mob" wasn't threatening them and was just passing by to the mayor's house. Neighbors weren't threatened.
 
AProudLefty said:
The statute in Missouri is pretty clear. https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html

Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner

Notice the "readily capable" part?

And I understand that they claimed that they felt threatened but the "mob" wasn't threatening them and was just passing by to the mayor's house. Neighbors weren't threatened.
Click to expand...

>just passing by to the mayor's house
Did the mob express this notion? How could a reasonable person have known their intent if they didn't express it? Rioter break through a gate and you're supposed to assume they're not going to target you? Is it your responsibility to allow them to accost you before you can take preventative measures? This is troubling to me. Why do you people side with criminals who go around destroying property?
 
tinfoil said:
If I pick up a stick and pretend it's a gun while threatening an intruder on my property, does that fit the "intent" model you folks are discussing?
Click to expand...

Try robbing a liquor store with your stick and tell me if the charges include armed robbery. Here, let me help educate you:

https://www.missourilawyers.com/criminal-law/robbery/
Missouri recognizes varying degrees of robbery. The “degree” refers to the amount of force or threat of force displayed in the robbery. For example, first-degree robbery is similar to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. A common example of first-degree robbery is a holdup at a liquor store where the suspect has a gun.

An important note about the crime of robbery is that because threat of force is an element of the crime, a person can be charged with first-degree robbery even if the weapon used is fake. As long as the person being robbed believes that the perpetrator has a real, deadly weapon, that person can be charged with first-degree robbery. That means a person can be convicted of first-degree robbery even if the gun used during the crime turns out to only be a plastic toy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top