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

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/2...tampered-with-evidence-in-mccloskey-gun-case/



There's no justifying this. Progressive media is predictably silent. Tim Pool does a great job of breaking this down.

 

If they ever get charged and found guilty, youre going to have a hugeeee problem with gun owners around the country.

 

Hmmm, what kind of moron brandishes a none working gun. Good way to end up dead.

Those two folks are simply embarrassing.

 

There should be no room in any prosecutor's office for rabid biased political activists.

 

Because “gun owners” are not allowed to point those weapons at people standing in their street or yard?

Next they will be saying it is their second amendment right to shoot people that ask them to wear masks...

As a gun owner I have never had the urge to brandish, even a few times when I could have legally drawn my weapon — bit I was taught if you pull you fire.

 

Bet you've never had a mob rip down a gate and storm your neighborhood either.

What they could have done is let the rioters walk in the front door and then mow them down. Would your opinion change with six dead bodies in their foyer?

They did everyone a favor. Its amazing to me you have trouble seeing that, as a gun owner.

 

Scared.

 

Off-topic, could explain the meaning of your name so we can understand it? I believe your name might be referring to military service but the HTown part of it makes no sense to me.

 

Perhaps, but people should not be prosecuted for being morons or embarrassing.

 

Houston. I lived there for a few years after I got out.

Lived in a half dozen places since then.

 

Most people I've talked to who know anything about firearms don't find it credible. Flipping the spring isn't rocket science.
Its going to come down to whether anyone who knows anything about firearms ends up on the jury.

 

Yes. What is the point of a non working gun? If she truly felt she was threatened, what good would it do her? It would, however, explain how she was holding/handling it.

 

If they were scared they would've remained inside, in cover. A scared person does not go charging onto the lawn to confront persons they fear for their lives from with what they know to be a non operational firearm.

 

If neither gun worked, it wouldn't have mattered, would it?

 

And let them throw rocks through their windows? Spraypaint their house? Set it on fire?

Your spouse probably feels real safe with you. Lol

There are hundreds of animals in the animal kingdom who become aggressive when threatened. Thats kind of the whole point.

 

What is the point, really. It kept that mob that just broke down a gate on private property from tearing up their house like the wacko lefties had been doing all over St. Louis.

 

Two things are very clear. These people were scared of the rioters that forcibly broke into their neighborhood next to their home and they had no idea how to use firearms. I'm sure they just thought they should "do something" to deter the angry mob from making them targets. If something like this were to happen where I live a lot of people would have ended up dead. Its wrong to prosecute these people for taking steps to defend their property. The governor has already said he would pardon them and now the prosecution and police are trying to railroad them anyway. What a joke these liberal chitholes have become.

 

Was anyone else's house torn up? Aside from the gate, was there other damage done? I'm not saying the gate isn't illegal destruction, just trying to understand what kind of damage they'd saved themselves from.

 

Easy to judge when its not you feeling/being threatened.

 

Wait - it's a bad idea to give criminal politicians & their toadies absolute immunity from prosecution so that they'll inevitably commit crime after crime in order to convict the innocent?

Who knew?!?!?!?

 

Stay on point.

Mob, not people. The synergy involved creates a unique construct. A mob is more than its constituent parts or limited in its actions by the moral constraints of any individual member or even by its weakest member. A mob will kill where individually none of its members would even contemplate violence or raise a hand against another.

Mobs don't just stand in the street, they act and react violently. Once formed they can only be viewed as unstable energy capable of instantaneous violence without notice or rational cause.

So we are on the same page; a group of people protesting loudly isn't a mob, but can become one. A mob can form from a group of people in one moment and dissolve in the next.

It is rational and reasonable to point a weapon at a mob.

It may be reasonable, rational and necessary to shoot at a mob that is demanding you wear a mask, or conform to any demand.

All bets are off when a group is so energized.

 

not sure where you got that idea. You certainly can if you feel your life is in danger or you feel threatened of great bodily harm. A mob that has just broken into private property and approaching your home could lead to that.

 

What? Scared people often attack, many times out of proportion to the threat. Fight or flight, both can be motivated by fear.

 

Once they actually attack the house you can open up with that A2. No one was coming on their property. No one was even concerned with them until they stepped out on the porch. When they did step out on the porch: No on came on their property.
They don't own the private street, they have the right to use the private street. Nuanced difference.

Well my wife has got functioning firearms, tactical training, and a plate carrier I bought her and she knows better than to run around outside cover where any jackass can take a shot at her, particularly she knows not to run around where I can't even act in support just as I know not to run around where she can't act in support. So I think so, yes. Certainly she's more safe than if I handed her a prop and told her to go wander about the property unsupported. I don't find it credible that a person would hand their spouse a prop to go face a mob with.

And a person is not a dog or a bull. A person is expected to exercise REASON. That's why use of force for anyone but a cop is governed by a reasonableness test, and why we need a modicum of police reform so they are bound by the same reasonableness test (in addition to other reforms such as their ability to use ignorance of the law as an affirmative defense). Its not a good idea to go wandering about your property with an inoperable prop when you fear a mob attack. Its also not difficult to make the modification they speak of to a PPK. Which is why I think 1) she wasn't holding an inoperable prop at the time and 2) they altered it after to make the exact argument they're making.
We'll have to see if the jury finds the PI lawyers credible, but I'm not really holding my breath on that one.

 

A scared person does not normally run from shelter to go confront a mob of, apparently, assailants with something they know to be a prop. Scared people when cornered certainly will lash out, but they don't tend to leave the place of relative safety to do so. They back themselves into a corner because they can't be attacked from 3 sides and only have to defend the one, and then they go berserk holding that position. They do not go a wandering with a prop.