Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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 pulledAgain, not sure if moving the spring counts as "readily" or not. No idea what case law has to say about this.
How long would it take to move the spring? Any idea?It absolutely does require interpretation. If all it takes is moving a spring, then it very well may count as "readily".No, it's not. It is a fundamental fact. It requires NO interpretation.
Moron.....to "Move the spring" you had to take the gun apart...you dope.........that isn't "readily" anything.
That's what the McCloskey's say, but I see no reason to take their word for it.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.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 pulledAgain, not sure if moving the spring counts as "readily" or not. No idea what case law has to say about this.
What she did is not brandishing......she was under threat from a mob of antifa and black lives matter terrorists, who had shown over the last 3 weeks that they were willing and able to burn, loot and kill and the police would not be there to stop them.
Keep spinning... Your ass is about to be handed to you by the State Appeals Court. An emergency injunction was filed this AM by the state attorney generals office.I don't think you can brandish a firearm against one person based on the actions of someone else.What the protesters felt is irrelevant..."Potentially violent" is a cop out. Everyone can be considered "potentially violent" if you want.A potentially violent mob of reportedly up to 500 people crashing a private gate is reason enough to fell threatenedThe real question is whether he was justified in feeling threatened. I don’t know if he was or not.
Crashing a gate is hyperbolic. They opened the gate and walked through.
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..
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.
30 minuets and requires special pinning tools. not what the average gun owner can do or has tools to complete.How long would it take to move the spring? Any idea?It absolutely does require interpretation. If all it takes is moving a spring, then it very well may count as "readily".No, it's not. It is a fundamental fact. It requires NO interpretation.
Moron.....to "Move the spring" you had to take the gun apart...you dope.........that isn't "readily" anything.
We dont know that it was a different mobI don't think you can brandish a firearm against one person based on the actions of someone else.
You don't get to make that assumption to justify swinging a gun around.We dont know that it was a different mobI don't think you can brandish a firearm against one person based on the actions of someone else.
the streets were ablaze with anarchists who all look alike behind their ANTIFA and BLM disguises
with no police around to restrain the mob, fire department to but out any fires that were set
Still waiting to see where you found out that the court asked the prosecutor about modifications to the gun.Keep spinning... Your ass is about to be handed to you by the State Appeals Court. An emergency injunction was filed this AM by the state attorney generals office.I don't think you can brandish a firearm against one person based on the actions of someone else.What the protesters felt is irrelevant..."Potentially violent" is a cop out. Everyone can be considered "potentially violent" if you want.A potentially violent mob of reportedly up to 500 people crashing a private gate is reason enough to fell threatenedThe real question is whether he was justified in feeling threatened. I don’t know if he was or not.
Crashing a gate is hyperbolic. They opened the gate and walked through.
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..
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.
God you are stupid. In order to "move" the spring requires you to take the firearm apart then reassemble it in the proper order. With out that it is in operable. YOU KNOW CAN NOT be fired AT ALL.It absolutely does require interpretation. If all it takes is moving a spring, then it very well may count as "readily".No, it's not. It is a fundamental fact. It requires NO interpretation.
The video record of rioting and setting fires over the previous month in St louis alone is enough to convince any reasonable personThat's what the McCloskey's say, but I see no reason to take their word for it.
She would need to have a bench or table she would need to physically take the firearm completely apart and then reassemble it a trained professiona could do it in less then a minute but I doubt you can classify her a trained professional. So several minutes as many as 5 minutes.How long would it take to move the spring? Any idea?It absolutely does require interpretation. If all it takes is moving a spring, then it very well may count as "readily".No, it's not. It is a fundamental fact. It requires NO interpretation.
Moron.....to "Move the spring" you had to take the gun apart...you dope.........that isn't "readily" anything.
Ahh ya you are right the spring assemble is not easily disassembled. And I forgot about special tools to disassemble it been a while since I handled a firearm.30 minuets and requires special pinning tools. not what the average gun owner can do or has tools to complete.How long would it take to move the spring? Any idea?It absolutely does require interpretation. If all it takes is moving a spring, then it very well may count as "readily".No, it's not. It is a fundamental fact. It requires NO interpretation.
Moron.....to "Move the spring" you had to take the gun apart...you dope.........that isn't "readily" anything.
Tampering with evidence in an attempt to deprive a suspect of their civil rights? Sounds like a Federal Crime.
Time to pick up the St. Louis DA and run her in.
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.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.There won't be a jury trial for the McCloskys' but there will be one for Kim Gardner.The point is that in the State of MO homeowners do have the right to defend their "castle".They had someone come in and change a nonfunctional firearm to a functional one, in order to file the charge, dumbass...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 need to go to jail and lose their license to practice law..
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
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 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.
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
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.
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?
Yes, unless they were walking up on your property through a forced open gate.
If by forced, you mean opened the gate and walked through it?
Not quite as scary as the defendants told us.
What else are they lying about?
Just asking a question, good lord, you guys are touchy today.God you are stupid. In order to "move" the spring requires you to take the firearm apart then reassemble it in the proper order. With out that it is in operable. YOU KNOW CAN NOT be fired AT ALL.It absolutely does require interpretation. If all it takes is moving a spring, then it very well may count as "readily".No, it's not. It is a fundamental fact. It requires NO interpretation.
Again, actions taken by some people cannot be justification against actions against totally different people, obviously.The video record of rioting and setting fires over the previous month in St louis alone is enough to convince any reasonable personThat's what the McCloskey's say, but I see no reason to take their word for it.
the ones who should be on trial - other than the mob itself - is the mayor and chief of police
If all they're doing is walking down the street of a gated community, I think you are going to have a hard time justifying swinging a gun around at them.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.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.There won't be a jury trial for the McCloskys' but there will be one for Kim Gardner.The point is that in the State of MO homeowners do have the right to defend their "castle".They had someone come in and change a nonfunctional firearm to a functional one, in order to file the charge, dumbass...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 need to go to jail and lose their license to practice law..
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
Yes, unless they were walking up on your property through a forced open gate.
If by forced, you mean opened the gate and walked through it?
Not quite as scary as the defendants told us.
What else are they lying about?
Were they lying about entering private property through the gate?
If they did, and no one entered private property through the gate, then I agree with you. If not... then that would make them criminals, and I'm good with the owner pointing a weapon at them.
You cannot know if it was totally different riotersAgain, actions taken by some people cannot be justification against actions against totally different people, obviously.
If all they're doing is walking down the street of a gated community, I think you are going to have a hard time justifying swinging a gun around at them.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.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.There won't be a jury trial for the McCloskys' but there will be one for Kim Gardner.The point is that in the State of MO homeowners do have the right to defend their "castle".They had someone come in and change a nonfunctional firearm to a functional one, in order to file the charge, dumbass...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 need to go to jail and lose their license to practice law..
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
Yes, unless they were walking up on your property through a forced open gate.
If by forced, you mean opened the gate and walked through it?
Not quite as scary as the defendants told us.
What else are they lying about?
Were they lying about entering private property through the gate?
If they did, and no one entered private property through the gate, then I agree with you. If not... then that would make them criminals, and I'm good with the owner pointing a weapon at them.
The assumption would be unjustified and would expose you to legal repercussions.You cannot know if it was totally different riotersAgain, actions taken by some people cannot be justification against actions against totally different people, obviously.
A mob is a mob
