St louis DA's Office Caught Altering Evidence Against McCloskeys

[westwall]

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.

Then why would they need a pardon...

“It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner,” a prosecutor in the city said.

Because the governor realizes the DA is a political hack and correctly decided that she needs to stomped on.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Then why would they need a pardon...

“It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner,” a prosecutor in the city said.

Even if a crazed mob breaks into your gated community in order to destroy? Missouri Supreme Court will decide this one in favor of the peaceful homeowners who's lives were threatened.

I am waiting for an emergency injunction to stop this prosecutor's trampeling of their rights under the US constitution.

 

[westwall]

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.

Then why would they need a pardon...

“It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner,” a prosecutor in the city said.

Even if a crazed mob breaks into your gated community in order to destroy? Missouri Supreme Court will decide this one in favor of the peaceful homeowners who's lives were threatened.

Cowboy Ted is a statist moron. Only the government should have guns, and they can abuse you how they see fit. He thinks he'll be one of the camp guards because he's too stupid to figure out he's going to be one of the first the government would put up against the wall.

 

[Mac-7]

Then why would they need a pardon...

What they need, along with the rest of America, is for the spineless hippy democrat mayors to restore order in their cities so that private citizens are no longer put in jeopardy by the mobs

 

[colfax_m]

The real question is whether he was justified in feeling threatened. I don’t know if he was or not.

A potentially violent mob of reportedly up to 500 people crashing a private gate is reason enough to fell threatened

"Potentially violent" is a cop out. Everyone can be considered "potentially violent" if you want.

Crashing a gate is hyperbolic. They opened the gate and walked through.

 

[colfax_m]

Actually I haven't said anything about the guilt or innocence of the McCloskey's, so in fact I did not make my mind up.

Plenty of liberals have made up their mind including the political animals in the St Louis prosecutors office

and my guess is so had you

Well, at least the prosecutor office did an investigation before deciding, which, you know, is their job given they're prosecutors and all.

 

[colfax_m]

Not according to the statute.

I think the prosecutor had a right to examine the gun as he did

but all he proved is that it didnt work and would not fire

Again, not sure if moving the spring counts as "readily" or not. No idea what case law has to say about this.

 

[Mac-7]

Potentially violent" is a cop out.

Its a fact that the prosecutor will not be able to overcome

other parts of st louis were set on fire by the mob

and they were 400 strong after tearing down the private gate

 

[colfax_m]

No, it's not. It is a fundamental fact. It requires NO interpretation.

It absolutely does require interpretation. If all it takes is moving a spring, then it very well may count as "readily".

 

[Vastator]

News

St. Louis, Missouri breaking and local news updates from KMOV News 4

www.google.com

This, if proven should lead to charges against the prosecution.

 

[Mac-7]

Well, at least the prosecutor office did an investigation before deciding, which, you know, is their job given they're prosecutors and all.

Not really

the female head of the office publicly accused them of a crime within hours of the event

 

[colfax_m]

Potentially violent" is a cop out.

Its a fact that the prosecutor will not be able to overcome

other parts of st louis were set on fir by the mob

and they were 400 strong after tearing down the private gate

The McCloskey's were swing their guns around in their front yard before the gate was "torn down" as video evidence proves despite what they claimed.

Makes you wonder what else they were lying about.

"Other parts" is irrelevant. You don't get to threaten some people with guns because of the actions of others.

 

[colfax_m]

Well, at least the prosecutor office did an investigation before deciding, which, you know, is their job given they're prosecutors and all.

Not really

the female head of the office publicly accused them of a crime within hours of the event

Can you show me where that happened please?

 

[Mac-7]

Again, not sure if moving the spring counts as "readily" or not. No idea what case law has to say about this.

Since “finger on the trigger” was the initial claim that libs were outraged about your case goes up in smoke if the gun would not fire when the trigger was pulled

 

[colfax_m]

Again, not sure if moving the spring counts as "readily" or not. No idea what case law has to say about this.

Since “finger on the trigger” was the initial claim that libs were outraged about your case goes up in smoke if the gun would not fire when the trigger was pulled

Finger was on the trigger, but no one had any idea if that was operable or not. I imagine that it would be illegal to brandish an unloaded firearm too even if pulling the trigger wouldn't do anything.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The real question is whether he was justified in feeling threatened. I don’t know if he was or not.

A potentially violent mob of reportedly up to 500 people crashing a private gate is reason enough to fell threatened

"Potentially violent" is a cop out. Everyone can be considered "potentially violent" if you want.

Crashing a gate is hyperbolic. They opened the gate and walked through.

What the protesters felt is irrelevant...

It is what the HOME OWNERS FELT and PERCEIVED at the time that is relevant.

They feared for their very lives. Given the recent events it was REASONABLE to conclude that these protesters were violent and they were as they destroyed property to enter PRIVATE PROPERTY.

There is massive amounts of evidence to show their fears were valid... This case is about to crash into the dirt..

 

[Gdjjr]

This, if proven should lead to charges against the prosecution.

Nah- that will be ignored.

 

[Mac-7]

Can you show me where that happened please?

I could search for it but I wont

this is a fast moving story and I dont have the resources to archive everything being reported

 

[2aguy]

No, it's not. It is a fundamental fact. It requires NO interpretation.

It absolutely does require interpretation. If all it takes is moving a spring, then it very well may count as "readily".

Moron.....to "Move the spring" you had to take the gun apart...you dope.........that isn't "readily" anything.

 

[colfax_m]

The real question is whether he was justified in feeling threatened. I don’t know if he was or not.

A potentially violent mob of reportedly up to 500 people crashing a private gate is reason enough to fell threatened

"Potentially violent" is a cop out. Everyone can be considered "potentially violent" if you want.

Crashing a gate is hyperbolic. They opened the gate and walked through.

What the protesters felt is irrelevant...

It is what the HOME OWNERS FELT and PERCEIVED at the time that is relevant.

They feared for their very lives. Given the recent events it was REASONABLE to conclude that these protesters were violent and they were as they destroyed property to enter PRIVATE PROPERTY.

There is massive amounts of evidence to show their fears were valid... This case is about to crash into the dirt..

I don't think you can brandish a firearm against one person based on the actions of someone else.

Whether their fear was rational or not remains to be seen.

As I've pointed out to others, there's video evidence that they did not destroy the gate to enter their subdivision, which contradicts what the McCloskey's have stated, so it raises questions about their credibility in my mind.