St louis DA's Office Caught Altering Evidence Against McCloskeys

[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?

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.

Video shows gate was intact when St. Louis couple pointed guns at protesters

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.

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.

The report of the couple was that the mob was threatening to burn down their home and to execute their dog. Not just "walking down the street" of their private community.

That's what the couple said. The protesters said no one had any idea they were there until the couple ran out swinging guns around, so we have conflicting reports.

 

[Mac-7]

The assumption would be unjustified and would expose you to legal repercussions.

I dont think so

the mob was 400 and they were threatening

but worst of all there were no police present to prevent the rioters from setting fires and looting

 

[Andylusion]

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?

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.

Video shows gate was intact when St. Louis couple pointed guns at protesters

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.

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.

No, private property is private property, period.

Public side walks, I get that. But private property.... IS PRIVATE. That's what private property means.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

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.

Video shows gate was intact when St. Louis couple pointed guns at protesters

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.

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.

The report of the couple was that the mob was threatening to burn down their home and to execute their dog. Not just "walking down the street" of their private community.

That's what the couple said. The protesters said no one had any idea they were there until the couple ran out swinging guns around, so we have conflicting reports.

That contradicts the video that I saw, back when this first happened.

I don't know what video you saw, or if you saw any video... but the video I saw, specifically showed them forcing open a gate that was closed.

It was clearly closed. We're talking about a brick wall... with a gate. Next to the gate, was a sign that clearly in the video said "Private Property".

Again, I don't know where that video is now, but it was posted here on this forum, and that's where I saw it.

Brick wall.... gate.... sign saying "Private Property".

I don't know about you, but I don't see brick walls often, that are just publicly owned for decoration. Just saying... I have not seen that personally.

Further, I have never push open gates, that have signs saying "private property". I would assume that this meant the property beyond said gate, was private. And not for me to go walking around on.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why would she wave a nonfucntional gun at people.

Don't seem to smart to me.

 

[colfax_m]

The assumption would be unjustified and would expose you to legal repercussions.

I dont think so

the mob was 400 and they were threatening

but worst of all there were no police present to prevent the rioters from setting fires and looting

I know so. You don't get to threaten someone unless they threatened you. Saying they looked like someone who threatened someone else wouldn't pass. This is obviously true, because it would otherwise give people far too authority to start pointing guns at way too many people.

 

[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?

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.

Video shows gate was intact when St. Louis couple pointed guns at protesters

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.

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.

The report of the couple was that the mob was threatening to burn down their home and to execute their dog. Not just "walking down the street" of their private community.

That's what the couple said. The protesters said no one had any idea they were there until the couple ran out swinging guns around, so we have conflicting reports.

That contradicts the video that I saw, back when this first happened.

I don't know what video you saw, or if you saw any video... but the video I saw, specifically showed them forcing open a gate that was closed.

It was clearly closed. We're talking about a brick wall... with a gate. Next to the gate, was a sign that clearly in the video said "Private Property".

Again, I don't know where that video is now, but it was posted here on this forum, and that's where I saw it.

Brick wall.... gate.... sign saying "Private Property".

I don't know about you, but I don't see brick walls often, that are just publicly owned for decoration. Just saying... I have not seen that personally.

Further, I have never push open gates, that have signs saying "private property". I would assume that this meant the property beyond said gate, was private. And not for me to go walking around on.

The video I saw was people walking through an open intact gate as the McCloskeys were on their front law waving their guns around. A subsequent photo showed the gate bent and broken, creating an impression that the protestors had knocked it down but failed to mention that was no the case when the McCloskeys responded with guns.

Bad journalism.

 

[Polishprince]

The assumption would be unjustified and would expose you to legal repercussions.

I dont think so

the mob was 400 and they were threatening

but worst of all there were no police present to prevent the rioters from setting fires and looting

I know so. You don't get to threaten someone unless they threatened you. Saying they looked like someone who threatened someone else wouldn't pass. This is obviously true, because it would otherwise give people far too authority to start pointing guns at way too many people.

An angry , rabid mob of hundreds comes roaming up you private street- or even a public street- in front of your home. Sounds threatening to me on its face.

 

[Polishprince]

Why would she wave a nonfucntional gun at people.

Don't seem to smart to me.

If it was all she had, and she felt that she could bluff out the rabid mob, it may well have been the best choice she had at the time.

Besides, it worked. The mob didn't burn down their home, kill their dog, loot the joint or ravage her.

 

[Mac-7]

You don't get to threaten someone unless they threatened you.

If you consider bradishing a weapon as a threat then so is 400 angry mobsters a ting out within a stones throw of your home

 

[Mac-7]

An angry , rabid mob of hundreds comes roaming up you private street- or even a public street- in front of your home. Sounds threatening to me on its face.

I bet there was police protection when the mob reached the democrat mayors house

 

[westwall]

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".

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.

Just asking a question, good lord, you guys are touchy today.

Touchy? Are you stupid? No, we demand that DAs faithfully carry out their duties without political bias.

What this bitch is doing is priming the pump for a war.

 

[TheParser]

You ain't seen nothing yet!

In the coming decades, there will be many officials with the mindset of the Honorable Ms. Gardner.

Heaven help any good people who are still left in this country!

 

[Andylusion]

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?

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.

Video shows gate was intact when St. Louis couple pointed guns at protesters

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.

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.

The report of the couple was that the mob was threatening to burn down their home and to execute their dog. Not just "walking down the street" of their private community.

That's what the couple said. The protesters said no one had any idea they were there until the couple ran out swinging guns around, so we have conflicting reports.

That contradicts the video that I saw, back when this first happened.

I don't know what video you saw, or if you saw any video... but the video I saw, specifically showed them forcing open a gate that was closed.

It was clearly closed. We're talking about a brick wall... with a gate. Next to the gate, was a sign that clearly in the video said "Private Property".

Again, I don't know where that video is now, but it was posted here on this forum, and that's where I saw it.

Brick wall.... gate.... sign saying "Private Property".

I don't know about you, but I don't see brick walls often, that are just publicly owned for decoration. Just saying... I have not seen that personally.

Further, I have never push open gates, that have signs saying "private property". I would assume that this meant the property beyond said gate, was private. And not for me to go walking around on.

The video I saw was people walking through an open intact gate as the McCloskeys were on their front law waving their guns around. A subsequent photo showed the gate bent and broken, creating an impression that the protestors had knocked it down but failed to mention that was no the case when the McCloskeys responded with guns.

Bad journalism.

So facts, over opinion..... Here we go with the proof.

Not exactly difficult to read or understand. Private Street. Access limited to residents.

Even with the goofy font, pretty clear..... Private Streets. No trespassing. No Dogs.

Not hard to understand.

Facts over opinion. Facts are on my side. Just provide clear undeniable evidence.

 

[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".

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.

Just asking a question, good lord, you guys are touchy today.

Touchy? Are you stupid? No, we demand that DAs faithfully carry out their duties without political bias.

What this bitch is doing is priming the pump for a war.

Heard it before. Conservative breaks the law and then whines that it's just political bias that they're charged with violating the law.

Just another weak excuse.

 

[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?

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.

Video shows gate was intact when St. Louis couple pointed guns at protesters

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.

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.

The report of the couple was that the mob was threatening to burn down their home and to execute their dog. Not just "walking down the street" of their private community.

That's what the couple said. The protesters said no one had any idea they were there until the couple ran out swinging guns around, so we have conflicting reports.

That contradicts the video that I saw, back when this first happened.

I don't know what video you saw, or if you saw any video... but the video I saw, specifically showed them forcing open a gate that was closed.

It was clearly closed. We're talking about a brick wall... with a gate. Next to the gate, was a sign that clearly in the video said "Private Property".

Again, I don't know where that video is now, but it was posted here on this forum, and that's where I saw it.

Brick wall.... gate.... sign saying "Private Property".

I don't know about you, but I don't see brick walls often, that are just publicly owned for decoration. Just saying... I have not seen that personally.

Further, I have never push open gates, that have signs saying "private property". I would assume that this meant the property beyond said gate, was private. And not for me to go walking around on.

The video I saw was people walking through an open intact gate as the McCloskeys were on their front law waving their guns around. A subsequent photo showed the gate bent and broken, creating an impression that the protestors had knocked it down but failed to mention that was no the case when the McCloskeys responded with guns.

Bad journalism.

So facts, over opinion..... Here we go with the proof.

View attachment 366388

Not exactly difficult to read or understand. Private Street. Access limited to residents.

View attachment 366389
Even with the goofy font, pretty clear..... Private Streets. No trespassing. No Dogs.

Not hard to understand.

Facts over opinion. Facts are on my side. Just provide clear undeniable evidence.

Hard to believe that the right to defend one's property extends to the entire subdivision.

 

[colfax_m]

You don't get to threaten someone unless they threatened you.

If you consider bradishing a weapon as a threat then so is 400 angry mobsters a ting out within a stones throw of your home

Being angry and near someone does not constitute a threat in and of itself.

 

[Polishprince]

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".

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.

Just asking a question, good lord, you guys are touchy today.

Touchy? Are you stupid? No, we demand that DAs faithfully carry out their duties without political bias.

What this bitch is doing is priming the pump for a war.

Heard it before. Conservative breaks the law and then whines that it's just political bias that they're charged with violating the law.

Just another weak excuse.

Defending yourself against an angry mob isn't a "violation of the law".

 

[colfax_m]

Defending yourself against an angry mob isn't a "violation of the law".

Self defense requires a threat. Whether there was a threat or not remains to be seen.

 

[Polishprince]

You don't get to threaten someone unless they threatened you.

If you consider bradishing a weapon as a threat then so is 400 angry mobsters a ting out within a stones throw of your home

Being angry and near someone does not constitute a threat in and of itself.

It can. If the angry mob of liberals here was a group of national socialist and the couple were children of Israel, would the couple be justified in seeing this as a threat?