St louis DA's Office Caught Altering Evidence Against McCloskeys

[colfax_m]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

It does not matter but I assume they did in fact enter the property of the couple and yes a person has the right to defend communal property just like their own property. Be specific now and do as asked cite the law or laws that the couple broke and are charged with.

I think it does matter. Does castle doctrine apply when it’s someone else’s castle? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.

Links above with the law in question.

why are you ignoring the castle law???
if you check you will see their name on all legal documents on the property the rioters were on,,so it was their property,,,

Not ignoring it. But I refuse to believe castle doctrine applies to the street and sidewalk. That’s just absurd.

if you actually read it you would understand why,,,

Post it.

its your claim so you should have already posted it,,,thats how it works in this country,,,

You’re the one that brought it up claiming it excused their behavior.

So post it.

Don’t be a lazy asshole.

I said its the law that proves you wrong,,,

please stop lying about what I said,,,,

Ah! So if you claimed it proves me wrong, you should have no problem posting it.

At least, if you aren’t a lazy asshole. But you are so, it’s not going to happen.

What your dainty fingers and eyes incapable of looking up the law?

I just get sick and tired of being the only one who ever backs up their claims.

Gotta draw a line in the sand, ya know?

 

[colfax_m]

2013 Missouri Revised Statutes :: TITLE XXXVIII CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS :: Chapter 575 Offenses Against the Administration of Justice :: Section 575.100 Tampering with physical evidence.

law.justia.com

.

Universal Citation: MO Rev Stat § 575.100 (2013)

Tampering with physical evidence.

575.100. 1. A person commits the crime of tampering with physical evidence if he:

(1) Alters, destroys, suppresses or conceals any record, document or thing with purpose to impair its verity, legibility or availability in any official proceeding or investigation; or

(2) Makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false with purpose to mislead a public servant who is or may be engaged in any official proceeding or investigation.

2. Tampering with physical evidence is a class D felony if the actor impairs or obstructs the prosecution or defense of a felony; otherwise, tampering with physical evidence is a class A misdemeanor.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)

Effective 1-1-79

They need to go to jail and lose their license to practice law.

But they didn’t tamper with evidence. Everything that was done with the firearm was documented and submitted to the court. Therefore it could not be considered false or misleading.

They had someone come in and change a nonfunctional firearm to a functional one, in order to file the charge, dumbass...

Which means they can also be sued for knowingly filing a bogus criminal charge...

It also brings in the possibility of a perjury charge if they said the firearm they picked up was functional in the criminal complaint!!!

The question is whether moving the spring is sufficient to count as readily functional. It’s a question for the court to decide.

The point is that all relevant facts are presented to the court so the idea that there’s some perjury here is stupid.

The point is that in the State of MO homeowners do have the right to defend their "castle".
The felony charges brought by the crooked DA (Kim Gardner) against the McClosky's are illegal.
Kim Gardner now adds falsifying evidence to add to the other charges against her.
I hope the State AG files charges against Kim Gardner soon, and disbars her.

Whether they were defending their property or not remains to be seen. The judge and jury will decide. There’s nothing illegal about the charges, that’s absurd.

As I’ve already pointed out, the evidence was not falsified.

You guys aren’t actually thinking here, just following a narrative.

There won't be a jury trial for the McCloskys' but there will be one for Kim Gardner.
The governor and State AG already said that the McClosky's did not commit any crime, period.

Missouri Gov. Parson to pardon McCloskeys 'without a doubt,' saying prosecutor's actions 'defy common sense'

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson told "Hannity" on Monday that "without a doubt," he will pardon Mark and Patricia McCloskey, hours after St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner filed felony charges against them.

www.foxnews.com

Whether they committed a crime is for the judge and jury to decide. Not the governor. He may pardon them but that doesn’t mean they’re law abiding.

This is getting to be a pattern with right wing crime. Just claim the prosecution was politically motivated. Doesn’t matter what you did.

But back to the topic of the thread, no evidence was falsified. Y’all got that one wrong.

1. What part of "there is no crime" don't you get? The DA wrongly filed charges against law-abiding homeowners. There will not be a trial, unless its for Kim Gardner.
2. The gun doesn't matter if there was no crime. Generally speaking tampering with evidence is a crime.
3. We'll see who broke MO law.

1. Who the hell appointed you arbiter of what is and isn't a crime. Thanks for your opinion but don't go pretending it's any more than that.
2. There was no tampering with evidence, there was no crime.
3. Sure we will. If someone starts waving a gun around at people walking on the sidewalk in front of their house, that'd be a crime, wouldn't it?

The people you claim were " walking on the sidewalk in front of their ( McKloskey's ) house" had torn down a gate and were tresspassing on prvate property and threatening the McKloskeys.

The sidewalk?

They hadn’t torn down the gate. They opened the gate. Walked through. Don’t be so dramatic.

 

[gmeyers1944]

 

[gmeyers1944]

This gate is obviously broken!

 

[WEATHER53]

You sounds like you're willing to bet someone else's life on it.

Nah. I try to stay away from violent people.

As an example, the McCloskey’s are now claiming they own part of the common land in the subdivision, squatters rights. Not joke. There’s a lawsuit in progress because this couple is absolute garbage.

Apparently, according to their own court filings, they’ve pointed a gun at someone cutting across this contested land. That’s right. They threatened someone for walking on common area.

These people are trash. No one in their neighborhood wants them there.

Maybe you should go burn a cross in their front yard.

They smashed beehives that belonged to a Jewish school next door. The children were planning on harvesting the honey to enjoy on Rosh Hashanah.

I worry more about these assholes than anyone who they pointed guns at.

They are assholes.

But being assholes doesn't mean people have the right to break the law by trespassing on their property.

You do know that, right?

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

The common area thing is diversionary bullshit and yes each property owner does own his percentages portion of the common areas even with restrictions on what he can do with it.

 

[WEATHER53]

View attachment 366888

Looks like a gate for something not seeking vandalism

 

[colfax_m]

This gate is obviously broken!

Not at the time the McCloskey's started swinging their guns around.

 

[progressive hunter]

This gate is obviously broken!

Not at the time the McCloskey's started swinging their guns around.

doesnt matter,,,

 

[daveman]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

One person in that photo...and now you're going to pretend he's the only one who did...is on the grass.

 

[daveman]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

It does not matter but I assume they did in fact enter the property of the couple and yes a person has the right to defend communal property just like their own property. Be specific now and do as asked cite the law or laws that the couple broke and are charged with.

I think it does matter. Does castle doctrine apply when it’s someone else’s castle? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.

Links above with the law in question.

why are you ignoring the castle law???
if you check you will see their name on all legal documents on the property the rioters were on,,so it was their property,,,

Not ignoring it. But I refuse to believe castle doctrine applies to the street and sidewalk. That’s just absurd.

if you actually read it you would understand why,,,

Post it.

its your claim so you should have already posted it,,,thats how it works in this country,,,

You’re the one that brought it up claiming it excused their behavior.

So post it.

Don’t be a lazy asshole.

I said its the law that proves you wrong,,,

please stop lying about what I said,,,,

Ah! So if you claimed it proves me wrong, you should have no problem posting it.

At least, if you aren’t a lazy asshole. But you are so, it’s not going to happen.

What your dainty fingers and eyes incapable of looking up the law?

I just get sick and tired of being the only one who ever backs up their claims.

Gotta draw a line in the sand, ya know?

That line was drawn by me in Post #233 of this thread, when I linked and quoted Missouri's Castle Doctrine law, responding directly to you.

So you can stop lying about it now.

 

[Levant]

As much as I think the prosecutor is a slimeball and as much as I think that the McCloskys were right and are being prosecuted unfairly, I still have to ask the question, when did the firing pin spring get put in backwards?

My guess is that it happened between the rioters approaching their house and when the gun was picked up.

 

[Levant]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

You ignore the fact that it is a gated, private neighborhood. They broke down the gate. Walking on that sidewalk and on that street absolutely is trespassing.

 

[Levant]

A front door and a gate to a subdivision is not the same thing.

Either way, there is no force involved.

Really? Did you see the pictures of the gate torn off its hinges? No force in that?

 

[progressive hunter]

This gate is obviously broken!

Not at the time the McCloskey's started swinging their guns around.

as I showed you several times,,, it doesnt matter cause the castle law allows them to protect themselves once they came through the gate and were told to leave and they didnt leave,,,

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You sounds like you're willing to bet someone else's life on it.

Nah. I try to stay away from violent people.

As an example, the McCloskey’s are now claiming they own part of the common land in the subdivision, squatters rights. Not joke. There’s a lawsuit in progress because this couple is absolute garbage.

Apparently, according to their own court filings, they’ve pointed a gun at someone cutting across this contested land. That’s right. They threatened someone for walking on common area.

These people are trash. No one in their neighborhood wants them there.

The common area is common because of the shared ownership of the homeowners. Not because there is any ownership interest of the public.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As much as I think the prosecutor is a slimeball and as much as I think that the McCloskys were right and are being prosecuted unfairly, I still have to ask the question, when did the firing pin spring get put in backwards?
My guess is that it happened between the rioters approaching their house and when the gun was picked up.

The McCloskeys refered to it as a 'prop' so I doubt it was ever capable of being fired with the spring in the front.

i doubt that they even understood how it was mechanically a prop and incapable of being fired.

 

[WEATHER53]

Gun swingers versus gun slingers
Oh my the snowflake fake offended ness

 

[daveman]

As much as I think the prosecutor is a slimeball and as much as I think that the McCloskys were right and are being prosecuted unfairly, I still have to ask the question, when did the firing pin spring get put in backwards?

My guess is that it happened between the rioters approaching their house and when the gun was picked up.

The McCloskeys intentionally assembled the gun wrong for a court case to use as an exhibit.

 

[Faun]

A front door and a gate to a subdivision is not the same thing.

Either way, there is no force involved.

Really? Did you see the pictures of the gate torn off its hinges? No force in that?

The gun came out before the gate was broken.

 

[Faun]

View attachment 366888

That happened after the protesters had already begun entering Portland Place. When they first entered, all they did was open the gate...