colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
The question in my mind isn’t whether they were trespassing, but whether pointing a gun at them is justified. Although the McCloskeys have a right to defend their property, where that right ends is really important.Hard to believe that the right to defend one's property extends to the entire subdivision.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.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.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.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?
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 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 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.
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.
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.