Can you tell me what time in the video where they stepped on their property?
McCloskey’s Gun Didn’t Work So A Prosecutor Ordered It Reassembled And Then Declared
- Thread starter volsrock
- Start date
Can you tell me what time in the video where they stepped on their property?
Why do you even argue with this retard?
What retard? I have accepted that they modified the weapon.
ExpressLane
Verified User
The point was to see if the gun was operable. It was not and the DA had to change it to make it operable.
Correct. As per the statute.
Tampering with evidence is a crime, no matter who does it. It will be thrown out as evidence.
Aside from that fact, is the Missouri State Constitution:
"Section 23. Right to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and certain accessories—exception—rights to be unalienable.—That the right of every citizen to keep
and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such
arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this
section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict
scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall
under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this
section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws
which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be
a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity."
https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/Publications/CurrentMissouriConstitution.pdf
(page 16)
So you think the DA group and the judge are retards?
ExpressLane
Verified User
The R word again.
Yep. You think they're dumb.
I apologize. I was replying to the wrong person.
I'd say they are in contempt of their state constitution. They should be immediately removed.
No shots were fired. There were no injuries. No crime was committed.
Then what is your argument?
ExpressLane
Verified User
I have slipped a couple times miself.
Not my argument. The OP's argument.
Nope. The OP's article was about tampering with evidence. Which is a crime in itself. This should not get past the local preliminary hearing.
Ok. And the judge doesn't have any problem with it, right?
I've had enough, take your stupidity and silly games elsewhere.
Read the statute. I know you can read it clearly.
§ 571.030 (4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.
Dude, the charges involve criminal intent which is why it's irrelevant that Patricia, or, more likely, her husband, misassembled her pistol and that the prosecutor reassembled it to prove it was operable. IMO, that too is irrelevant since she intended for others to believe it was a deadly weapon when she brandished her pistol at the mob.
That said, I still think it's a bullshit charge driven by politics and that they'll be exonerated...mostly. They were on their own property facing trespassing protestors who were known to be violent after a month of both peaceful and violent protests. Protesters don't wear labels on who's violent and who isn't.
https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-...cle_78d2ba00-a437-11ea-a508-3f744be72f0e.html
The defense lawyers will point at Missouri's laws of self-defense and rights of homeowners. The prosecutor will point out the laws on brandishing. IMO, this will be pled down to a fine for brandishing or something to that effect. I haven't seen pictures of Mark doing it, but Patricia clearly did.
https://www.thetrace.org/2020/07/armed-st-louis-missouri-couple-threat-brandishing-self-defense/
But using a gun in a “threatening” or “angry” manner is still illegal in Missouri, as it is in nearly every state, and could be charged as an “unlawful use of a weapon.” That’s where things get more complicated, though, because the statute in Missouri that prohibits brandishing points to the state’s self-defense laws as exceptions. “They all intersect,” Ammann said. “It’s like a matrix. You need a flowchart to get through the statutes.”
Does the “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground” apply to brandishing?
Castle doctrine laws say that a person has no duty retreat while defending themselves or their home with force against an intruder. And Missouri’s version of this law is far more expansive than in most states — it’s not limited to just the structure of the home itself but covers the rest of their private property, too. That in itself complicates matters with the McCloskeys, who live in a private, gated community. Even so, it’s a stretch to say the self-defense law applies to the whole neighborhood, Ammann said. And trespassing is not a sufficient justification for deadly force.
“What people seem to not understand is that even with all those protections, you can only respond with the threat of deadly force to a threat,” Ammann said. “Some people are saying that you have the right to use deadly force against a trespasser. … I would ask, well, what’s the difference if it was a group of 100 Christmas carolers walking down the sidewalk of a private street singing. Could you aim a gun at them? These protesters were walking down the street, chanting and singing and holding signs. What’s different about this?”