countryboy
Verified User
LOL. How is it tampering with evidence if everyone knows what they did?
Well, that settles it. You are the king of contrarian stupid questions.
McCloskey’s Gun Didn’t Work So A Prosecutor Ordered It Reassembled And Then Declared
- Thread starter volsrock
- Start date
Well, that settles it. You are the king of contrarian stupid questions.
Maybe them showing they had firearms was a deterrent from the mob entering and destroying their property.
The mere showing of a firearm has stopped many crimes from occurring without firing a shot. That is a fact.
The mere showing of a firearm has stopped many crimes from occurring without firing a shot. That is a fact.
Bullshit
Just show a gun to a carjacker and watch him run! Would he run if u showed him a stapler?
A gun can protect u without being fired!!!!
Nomad
Verified User
It depends on the details of the situation, most of which the public likely doesn't know yet and shouldn't be making pronouncements about.
If the protesters were coming onto the McCloskey's property and behaving in a particular manner that could be construed by a reasonable person as threatening, then they probably had the legal right to display their weapons.
If, otoh, the protesters were peacefully walking down the street and never gave any indication of any intention to encroach upon the McCloskey's property, the n they are likely guilty of illegally brandishing their weapons.
All of those details will come out during the trial as witnesses testify under oath.
Until then, everyone should stop trying the case on the internet.
Nomad
Verified User
It can also get you shot if the carjacker also has a gun and squeezes the trigger before you do.
A lot of times these thugs just shoot reflexively without even thinking.
There have been countless instances where thugs breaking into a home have fled from the homeowner "banishing" a weapon. No shots needed to be fired. That is a concrete fact.
Why are you ignoring the fact she was brandishing a loaded .380 which was stupidly misassembled?
They ran because they were about to be shot. I would shoot home invaders...just not in the back.
Nomad
Verified User
So?
There have also been "countless instances" of thugs breaking into homes and stealing the guns of irresponsible idiots who for whatever reason, laziness, thoughtlessness, too cheap to spend money on a safe, etc, then using the stolen gun to commit violent crimes against others with.
There have also been "countless instances" of thugs breaking into homes then finding the gun and using it on the homeowners when they come back.
There have also been "countless instances"of accidental gunshot deaths in homes because of improperly stored guns.
So what, if anything, was your point?
I think that on the whole, when privately owned guns are used against or fired at other people, it is more often for criminal purposes than for self defense.
Nomad
Verified User
That's not quite correct.
The husband being a lawyer, the gun she was waving had been used in a trial for demonstration purposes and had been purposely misassembled so that it could be brought into a courtroom.
A fact that they almost certainly were aware of.
There's a difference between displaying a firearm and brandishing one.
That's not what the OP article said: The gun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable when it arrived at the St. Louis police crime lab, but a member of Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s staff ordered crime lab experts to disassemble and reassemble it and wrote that it was “readily capable of lethal use” in charging documents filed Monday, 5 On Your Side has learned.
In Missouri, police and prosecutors must prove that a weapon is “readily” capable of lethal use when it is used in the type of crime with which the McCloskeys have been charged.
Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley ordered crime lab staff members to field strip the handgun and found it had been assembled incorrectly. Specifically, the firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin, which was backward, and made the gun incapable of firing, according to documents obtained by 5 On Your Side.
Stupid. If you're quick enough you'd be able to put a couple of rounds in his chest before he can run off and go carjack some innocent mother and her children
That's completely and obviously false.
St. Louis had been experiencing violent riots and buildings burning for over 3 weeks prior to the protestors trespassing on the McCloskey's property. Since peaceful protestors look just like violent protestors, the McCloskey's had reason to be concerned about a mob trespassing on their property. Americans have an inherent right of self-defense.
The charge here isn't self-defense or owning guns, but brandishing guns. They need to there was a legitimate reason to point their gun(s). Again, IMO, they'll plead to a minor offence of brandishing and go home. The city wins it's political points of kowtowing to the protestors and the McCloskeys are left alone.
Nomad
Verified User
No, that is EXACTLY what the OP article said.
Had you read a little further, you'd have seen the following passage....
Thanks for the correction. Do you understand the use of deadly force? Intent? Brandishing? Even if Patricia knew the gun was inoperable, others didn't. They could have feared for their lives.
If I was on the sidewalk and a crazy woman ran at me pointing a gun at me, causing me to be in fear of my life, I'd be well within my rights to draw my .45 S&W and stop her with one through the chest. Does it really matter if her gun was loaded or not? Operable or not?
Nomad
Verified User
Do you? All of those things depend on the specific details of a given situation as to whether or not they are illegal. You can't just consider the definition of the terms in a vacuum.
Tough shit for them. They shouldn't have been tromping around in front of her house acting in a loud, aggressive and threatening manner.
Show us where she "ran at" anyone "pointing a gun" at a particular individual.
She was standing in her front yard with her husband pointing an inoperable gun in the general direction of the protesters telling them to stay away.
Had you done what you described, you'd be receiving all your future birthday and Christmas cards in prison for the next 20 years or so.
This has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen.
Dismantling a gun, recording what condition it was in and then putting it back together differently is tampering with evidence?
When a murder victim is autopsied, the body is dismantled, the condition of the body is recorded and then the body is put back together in a different fashion then when it arrived. Organs were cut out and not reattached the same way. Murder in Mississippi would no longer be able to be charged because of evidence tampering by the coroner if your argument had any legal validity.
By making a record of the condition of the evidence before it is altered the statute can not be violated unless the record itself is concealed. I highlighted the part of the law you failed to include.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
My bet is Ken and Barbie go to trial. They have the cash to do it. They have top shelf representation. They're lawyers so they know the game. The DA is looking at an expensive and time consuming jury trial with a doubtful outcome. It's more likely she'll cut and run to save her career rather than risk a high publicity potential loss in court over this. All that needs to happen for this outcome is the MSM quietly drops the story so Gardner's ass is covered.
Do not bother Dutch. Particularly with Dainty Hands and those like him. Common sense and your rights mean nothing to their narrative.