St louis DA's Office Caught Altering Evidence Against McCloskeys

[Polishprince]

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.

A angry radical mob threatening to shoot your dog and burn down your home is a threat. And I've seen no proof to PROVE that didn't happen.

 

[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.

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.

Says the dumbass trying to rationalize falsifying evidence.

You deserve everything you are going to get when that karmic bitchslap catches up to you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

LOL parsing words? I would suspect the law in question assumes that what a reasonable person would think applies. Let's see 400 masked angry protestors with a KNOW month long history of burning looting and killing breaks onto private property after damaging a gate clearly marked private property . Yup a REASONABLE person would assume a threat even if NOTHING was said.

 

[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.

Says the dumbass trying to rationalize falsifying evidence.

You deserve everything you are going to get when that karmic bitchslap catches up to you.

I explained how the evidence wasn’t falsified but you idiots just love ignoring that.

Sheep.

 

[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.

LOL parsing words? I would suspect the law in question assumes that what a reasonable person would think applies. Let's see 400 masked angry protestors with a KNOW month long history of burning looting and killing breaks onto private property after damaging a gate clearly marked private property . Yup a REASONABLE person would assume a threat even if NOTHING was said.

Again, you don’t get to assume one person is a threat based on the actions of a totally different group.

 

[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.

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.

Says the dumbass trying to rationalize falsifying evidence.

You deserve everything you are going to get when that karmic bitchslap catches up to you.

I explained how the evidence wasn’t falsified but you idiots just love ignoring that.

Sheep.

The memo describes how it was. Unlike you I AM an officer of the Court. I DO know how evidence is supposed to be maintained.

 

[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.

A angry radical mob threatening to shoot your dog and burn down your home is a threat. And I've seen no proof to PROVE that didn't happen.

I’ve seen no proof it did happen.

 

[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.

Says the dumbass trying to rationalize falsifying evidence.

You deserve everything you are going to get when that karmic bitchslap catches up to you.

I explained how the evidence wasn’t falsified but you idiots just love ignoring that.

Sheep.

The memo describes how it was. Unlike you I AM an officer of the Court. I DO know how evidence is supposed to be maintained.

The memo indicates exactly what condition the firearm was in and what they did to it. It’s not falsifying evidence if there is no intent to deceive.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Says the dumbass trying to rationalize falsifying evidence.

You deserve everything you are going to get when that karmic bitchslap catches up to you.

I explained how the evidence wasn’t falsified but you idiots just love ignoring that.

Sheep.

actually retard making a non functioning firearm into one, a process that requires tools and a bench and a bit of time, then claiming it was a threat IS tampering with evidence and then NOT telling the Judge you did it until questioned because the defense told the Judge? Ya you keep claiming that dumb ass.

 

[Mac-7]

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

400 angry mobsters is a threat

but if the cops were doing their job none of that would have happened

 

[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.

Says the dumbass trying to rationalize falsifying evidence.

You deserve everything you are going to get when that karmic bitchslap catches up to you.

I explained how the evidence wasn’t falsified but you idiots just love ignoring that.

Sheep.

actually retard making a non functioning firearm into one, a process that requires tools and a bench and a bit of time, then claiming it was a threat IS tampering with evidence and then NOT telling the Judge you did it until questioned because the defense told the Judge? Ya you keep claiming that dumb ass.

Where did you get that the judge had to question them because of the defense?

That’s not what the original article says. They say it was in the charging documents.

 

[Mac-7]

actually retard making a non functioning firearm into one, a process that requires tools and a bench and a bit of time, then claiming it was a threat IS tampering with evidence and then NOT telling the Judge you did it until questioned because the defense told the Judge? Ya you keep claiming that dumb ass.

I’m not worried

the handgun is not damning evidence

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Says the dumbass trying to rationalize falsifying evidence.

You deserve everything you are going to get when that karmic bitchslap catches up to you.

I explained how the evidence wasn’t falsified but you idiots just love ignoring that.

Sheep.

actually retard making a non functioning firearm into one, a process that requires tools and a bench and a bit of time, then claiming it was a threat IS tampering with evidence and then NOT telling the Judge you did it until questioned because the defense told the Judge? Ya you keep claiming that dumb ass.

Where did you get that the judge had to question them because of the defense?

That’s not what the original article says. They say it was in the charging documents.

REALLY link and quote.

 

[colfax_m]

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

400 angry mobsters is a threat

but if the cops were their job none of that would have happened

Not unless there’s a reason to believe their anger is putting you in danger. Being angry does not justify pointing guns at people.

 

[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.

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.

Says the dumbass trying to rationalize falsifying evidence.

You deserve everything you are going to get when that karmic bitchslap catches up to you.

I explained how the evidence wasn’t falsified but you idiots just love ignoring that.

Sheep.

The memo describes how it was. Unlike you I AM an officer of the Court. I DO know how evidence is supposed to be maintained.

The memo indicates exactly what condition the firearm was in and what they did to it. It’s not falsifying evidence if there is no intent to deceive.

They had to modify it to make it criminal, dumbass.

Let's put it even more simply. You have a dummy gun. Everything on it is real except for the barrel. It is solid. But, to make it illegal the DA changes the barrel. Now it is functional. But you never had a live barrel.

That is the equivalent. What they did IS a crime.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

400 angry mobsters is a threat

but if the cops were their job none of that would have happened

Not unless there’s a reason to believe their anger is putting you in danger. Being angry does not justify pointing guns at people.

Which would entail knowing the HISTORY of mobs in the area, clearly the history shows that an angry mob did in fact over the last month in that area burn loot and murder.

 

[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.

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.

Huh? What are you even talking about? If you are on private property, at one point does that become legal to trespass?

You are not legal again, until you are back on public property.

If you are elsewhere on private property, that doesn't magically make it legal. So what you are asking, doesn't matter.

Stay off private property is the solution.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Yeah, who is suprised by this kind of partisan cheating from Dims?

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

The pistol Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters who broke down a gate to trespass on their private street was a non-operable 'prop' used during a lawsuit they were involved in, so a member of Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's staff ordered the crime lab to disassemble and reassemble the gun - allowing them to classify it as "capable of lethal use" in charging documents filed Monday, according to KSDK5. ​

​

​

In Missouri, police and prosecutors must prove that a weapon is “readily” capable of lethal use when it is used in the type of crime with which the McCloskeys have been charged.​

Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley ordered crime lab staff members to field strip the handgun and found it had been assembled incorrectly. Specifically, the firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin, which was backward, and made the gun incapable of firing, according to documents obtained by 5 On Your Side.​

Firearms experts then put the gun back together in the correct order and test-fired it, finding that it worked, according to the documents. -KSDK5​

​

​

According to the report, crime lab workers photographed the disassembly and reassembly of the pistol.​

​

The McCloskeys attorney, Joel Schwartz, told KSDK that the St. Louis couple intentionally misplaced the firing pin on the gun, rendering it inoperable. They turned the pistol in to their former attorney Al Watkins following the incident last month.​

View attachment 366150

This is what you get when you elect Democrats.... Activist Judges and Prosecutors. Remember this in November. From the top-down, don’t vote Democrat.

 

[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.

Says the dumbass trying to rationalize falsifying evidence.

You deserve everything you are going to get when that karmic bitchslap catches up to you.

I explained how the evidence wasn’t falsified but you idiots just love ignoring that.

Sheep.

actually retard making a non functioning firearm into one, a process that requires tools and a bench and a bit of time, then claiming it was a threat IS tampering with evidence and then NOT telling the Judge you did it until questioned because the defense told the Judge? Ya you keep claiming that dumb ass.

Where did you get that the judge had to question them because of the defense?

That’s not what the original article says. They say it was in the charging documents.

REALLY link and quote.

I guess you didn’t read the original post article? because it’s literally the first sentence.

“The pistol Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters who broke down a gate to trespass on their private street was a non-operable 'prop' used during a lawsuit they were involved in, so a member of Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's staff ordered the crime lab to disassemble and reassemble the gun - allowing them to classify it as "capable of lethal use" in charging documents filed Monday, according to KSDK5.

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Now, if you could please reciprocate and give me a link and a quote showing where the judge asked for this info.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The same people defending the actions of the prosecutor’s office here are the same ones crying over cops planting drugs on innocents.