St louis DA's Office Caught Altering Evidence Against McCloskeys

[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.

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.

That does NOT say she told the Judge dumb ass. It says the weapon was non functional it also says she fixed it and then charged her, it does NOT say she put the fact it was non functional in the document, where did you learn reading comprehension from?

I assumed the document they quoted in the news story was from the charging documents. It's ambiguous what the document says. I could very well have misinterpreted it.

This is the original story.

St. Louis prosecutor ordered crime lab to reassemble Patricia McCloskey's gun

Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley stated in charging documents that the gun was "readily capable of lethal use"

www.ksdk.com

So where did you get that the judge asked for the information because of the defense? (Third time I've asked this of you without response)

Until you PROVE the judge knew I don't need to prove anything, YOUR the one that claimed it was in the charging document.

That's what I thought based on how I read the story and I admitted that I very well could have it wrong.

But you claimed that the judge had to ask about it. Did you just make that up?

NOT telling the Judge you did it until questioned because the defense told the Judge?

No but unless you can prove it was in the charging document you got nothing.

 

[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.

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.

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.

When and where has there been a legal issue of pointing a gun at someone illegally entering or breaking and entering and showing signs of aggression?

The Left does not like it because they are on the side of lawbreakers using protest and free speech as an excuse.

The “protestors” should have stood outside the gates PEACEFULLY protesting and not infringing on the rights of others. When are you people going to understand that doing otherwise is crossing the line? Your free speech and right to protest should not infringe on my rights.

"showing signs of aggression" is about as vague as one can be. Is marching down the street yelling for the mayor to resign sufficient to make you feel like your safety is threatened? It shouldn't be. That's idiotic.

Depends on the HISTORY in that case. It also depends on the previous actions of the mob and its mood. YOU ADMIT the mob was angry. You admit they forced their way onto private property.

Well, force is almost certainly a gross exaggeration. There was a gate. They opened the gate. They walked through the gate.

The mob was angry, sure. Protestors wanting the mayor to resign can be considered angry. Angry is not by itself threatening.

Were the protestors on the sidewalk and the street? Seems like it to me. I don't think the McCloskeys own the street. Not sure about the sidewalk. If they were on their lawn, different story.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That is what you are asking. "Are law abiding citizens allowed to point weapons at clear undeniable criminals?"

Okay. So let’s say I see someone litter. Shall I shove a gun in their face?

Of course not.

If the protesters were walking down the street, yes; they’re trespassing, but that does not automatically justify brandishing a weapon. In a sane society, we limit the ability to point guns at people unless it’s actually necessary for self defense.

Look retard you don't get to pretend that mobs like that one for the last month WERE IN FACT looting burning and killing in that city. Your litter analogy is pathetic on its face. Claiming an angry mob ( which you agree they were) forcing their way ONTO YOUR property in a setting that for the last month there resulted in looting fires and murder is the same as some small group strolling down a PUBLIC sidewalk is also Ludicrous .

You don't get to claim you were threatened by one person because someone else did something. The threat has to come from the actual person you start waving guns at.

NO again what would a reasonable person think, 400 angry protestors with a history of looting burning and murder. Guess what they think?

So you know those 400 angry protestors had a history of looting, burning and murdering or are you just making that up?

You're making it up.

I don't need to know those SPECIFIC people did so all I need to know as a reasonable person is that in the last month on NUMEROUS occasions angry mobs made up of BLM and antifa as this mob was, did in fact resort to looting burning and murder.

 

[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.

That does NOT say she told the Judge dumb ass. It says the weapon was non functional it also says she fixed it and then charged her, it does NOT say she put the fact it was non functional in the document, where did you learn reading comprehension from?

I assumed the document they quoted in the news story was from the charging documents. It's ambiguous what the document says. I could very well have misinterpreted it.

This is the original story.

St. Louis prosecutor ordered crime lab to reassemble Patricia McCloskey's gun

Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley stated in charging documents that the gun was "readily capable of lethal use"

www.ksdk.com

So where did you get that the judge asked for the information because of the defense? (Third time I've asked this of you without response)

Until you PROVE the judge knew I don't need to prove anything, YOUR the one that claimed it was in the charging document.

That's what I thought based on how I read the story and I admitted that I very well could have it wrong.

But you claimed that the judge had to ask about it. Did you just make that up?

NOT telling the Judge you did it until questioned because the defense told the Judge?

No but unless you can prove it was in the charging document you got nothing.

So you're going to continue to make claims and then refuse to back them up?

Just admit you made it up. Be an adult. Suck it up.

 

[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.

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.

That does NOT say she told the Judge dumb ass. It says the weapon was non functional it also says she fixed it and then charged her, it does NOT say she put the fact it was non functional in the document, where did you learn reading comprehension from?

I assumed the document they quoted in the news story was from the charging documents. It's ambiguous what the document says. I could very well have misinterpreted it.

This is the original story.

St. Louis prosecutor ordered crime lab to reassemble Patricia McCloskey's gun

Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley stated in charging documents that the gun was "readily capable of lethal use"

www.ksdk.com

So where did you get that the judge asked for the information because of the defense? (Third time I've asked this of you without response)

Until you PROVE the judge knew I don't need to prove anything, YOUR the one that claimed it was in the charging document.

That's what I thought based on how I read the story and I admitted that I very well could have it wrong.

But you claimed that the judge had to ask about it. Did you just make that up?

NOT telling the Judge you did it until questioned because the defense told the Judge?

No but unless you can prove it was in the charging document you got nothing.

So you're going to continue to make claims and then refuse to back them up?

Just admit you made it up. Be an adult. Suck it up.

You are the one that made a claim I am responding to that claim which YOU can not prove at all and I got my info from this thread.

 

[colfax_m]

That is what you are asking. "Are law abiding citizens allowed to point weapons at clear undeniable criminals?"

Okay. So let’s say I see someone litter. Shall I shove a gun in their face?

Of course not.

If the protesters were walking down the street, yes; they’re trespassing, but that does not automatically justify brandishing a weapon. In a sane society, we limit the ability to point guns at people unless it’s actually necessary for self defense.

Look retard you don't get to pretend that mobs like that one for the last month WERE IN FACT looting burning and killing in that city. Your litter analogy is pathetic on its face. Claiming an angry mob ( which you agree they were) forcing their way ONTO YOUR property in a setting that for the last month there resulted in looting fires and murder is the same as some small group strolling down a PUBLIC sidewalk is also Ludicrous .

You don't get to claim you were threatened by one person because someone else did something. The threat has to come from the actual person you start waving guns at.

NO again what would a reasonable person think, 400 angry protestors with a history of looting burning and murder. Guess what they think?

So you know those 400 angry protestors had a history of looting, burning and murdering or are you just making that up?

You're making it up.

I don't need to know those SPECIFIC people did so all I need to know as a reasonable person is that in the last month on NUMEROUS occasions angry mobs made up of BLM and antifa as this mob was, did in fact resort to looting burning and murder.

Hell yes you do. You don't get to threaten someone with a gun without a good reason. Saying they looked like someone else is not a good reason.

 

[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.

That does NOT say she told the Judge dumb ass. It says the weapon was non functional it also says she fixed it and then charged her, it does NOT say she put the fact it was non functional in the document, where did you learn reading comprehension from?

I assumed the document they quoted in the news story was from the charging documents. It's ambiguous what the document says. I could very well have misinterpreted it.

This is the original story.

St. Louis prosecutor ordered crime lab to reassemble Patricia McCloskey's gun

Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley stated in charging documents that the gun was "readily capable of lethal use"

www.ksdk.com

So where did you get that the judge asked for the information because of the defense? (Third time I've asked this of you without response)

Until you PROVE the judge knew I don't need to prove anything, YOUR the one that claimed it was in the charging document.

That's what I thought based on how I read the story and I admitted that I very well could have it wrong.

But you claimed that the judge had to ask about it. Did you just make that up?

NOT telling the Judge you did it until questioned because the defense told the Judge?

No but unless you can prove it was in the charging document you got nothing.

So you're going to continue to make claims and then refuse to back them up?

Just admit you made it up. Be an adult. Suck it up.

You are the one that made a claim I am responding to that claim which YOU can not prove at all and I got my info from this thread.

I quoted the claim you made. You said the judge had to ask because the defense told them. That never happened.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That is what you are asking. "Are law abiding citizens allowed to point weapons at clear undeniable criminals?"

Okay. So let’s say I see someone litter. Shall I shove a gun in their face?

Of course not.

If the protesters were walking down the street, yes; they’re trespassing, but that does not automatically justify brandishing a weapon. In a sane society, we limit the ability to point guns at people unless it’s actually necessary for self defense.

Look retard you don't get to pretend that mobs like that one for the last month WERE IN FACT looting burning and killing in that city. Your litter analogy is pathetic on its face. Claiming an angry mob ( which you agree they were) forcing their way ONTO YOUR property in a setting that for the last month there resulted in looting fires and murder is the same as some small group strolling down a PUBLIC sidewalk is also Ludicrous .

You don't get to claim you were threatened by one person because someone else did something. The threat has to come from the actual person you start waving guns at.

NO again what would a reasonable person think, 400 angry protestors with a history of looting burning and murder. Guess what they think?

So you know those 400 angry protestors had a history of looting, burning and murdering or are you just making that up?

You're making it up.

I don't need to know those SPECIFIC people did so all I need to know as a reasonable person is that in the last month on NUMEROUS occasions angry mobs made up of BLM and antifa as this mob was, did in fact resort to looting burning and murder.

Hell yes you do. You don't get to threaten someone with a gun without a good reason. Saying they looked like someone else is not a good reason.

An angry MOB is all you need or are you claiming one must wait until they are physically attacked to act in self defense? Kinda defeats the whole self defense idea.

 

[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.

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.

That does NOT say she told the Judge dumb ass. It says the weapon was non functional it also says she fixed it and then charged her, it does NOT say she put the fact it was non functional in the document, where did you learn reading comprehension from?

I assumed the document they quoted in the news story was from the charging documents. It's ambiguous what the document says. I could very well have misinterpreted it.

This is the original story.

St. Louis prosecutor ordered crime lab to reassemble Patricia McCloskey's gun

Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley stated in charging documents that the gun was "readily capable of lethal use"

www.ksdk.com

So where did you get that the judge asked for the information because of the defense? (Third time I've asked this of you without response)

Until you PROVE the judge knew I don't need to prove anything, YOUR the one that claimed it was in the charging document.

That's what I thought based on how I read the story and I admitted that I very well could have it wrong.

But you claimed that the judge had to ask about it. Did you just make that up?

NOT telling the Judge you did it until questioned because the defense told the Judge?

No but unless you can prove it was in the charging document you got nothing.

So you're going to continue to make claims and then refuse to back them up?

Just admit you made it up. Be an adult. Suck it up.

You are the one that made a claim I am responding to that claim which YOU can not prove at all and I got my info from this thread.

I quoted the claim you made. You said the judge had to ask because the defense told them. That never happened.

You don't know that and where is YOUR proof it was in the charging documents?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If it was not in the charging document, then exactly who do you think got the Judge to ask about it? Either prove it was in the charging document or go away.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow, the lengths that the Left will go to convict an innocent person is stunning. I would think somebody has broken the law here, no? Is it legal to alter evidence like that?

I don't know a great deal about the operations of crime labs, so maybe there was a valid reason for them to find out if the gun was capable of firing when assembled correctly.

If it happened because the DA was planning to say the gun was operable when Mrs. McCloskey held it in her front yard, then it's VERY illegal.

 

[toobfreak]

St louis DA's Office Caught Altering Evidence Against McCloskeys

Well, Jim, you have to remember that Democrats believe they are ordained to rule, lead, win and be right. Doesn't matter how just so long as they GET THE JOB DONE. They will LIE, CHEAT, STEAL, even MURDER, to get their point across. If they will destroy a nation to win an election, what's a couple of rich white people in St. Louis?

JUST BEING CONSERVATIVE is guilt enough for them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If true the DA just lost....not like they were going to win anyway

If she's culpable in an attempt to tamper with and misrepresent evidence, she's going to do a lot more than lose the case. That's grounds for being disbarred, at the very least.

 

[justinacolmena]

charging documents

Interesting. We no longer have indictments or formal criminal accusations or the due process to deal with them.

We have "charging documents," mass trials without legal representation, with cruel and unusual punishments inflicted on an arbitrary lifelong basis by professional state actors.

 

[Andylusion]

That is what you are asking. "Are law abiding citizens allowed to point weapons at clear undeniable criminals?"

Okay. So let’s say I see someone litter. Shall I shove a gun in their face?

Of course not.

If the protesters were walking down the street, yes; they’re trespassing, but that does not automatically justify brandishing a weapon. In a sane society, we limit the ability to point guns at people unless it’s actually necessary for self defense.

Um, if I break in to your house and litter, you would be justified in my opinion, of shoving a gun in my face.

Understand, that break into someone's house, is the equivalent in my opinion, to breaking through a gated community.

Private property with a stone fence around it it, and signs around it, is the same as a house that doesn't have a roof.

You don't get to walk onto their property.

As for littering, I think you should be able to hold them until police arrive and issue that $500 citation for littering. It is really sickening how the left-wing constantly pretends they care about cleaning up the Earth, and then they go around everywhere, making a complete mess of the planet, in the name of protesting.

 

[WEATHER53]

According to liberals “protestors” can intimidate but if they feel intimidated in return then that’s a no no

 

[Andylusion]

That is what you are asking. "Are law abiding citizens allowed to point weapons at clear undeniable criminals?"

Okay. So let’s say I see someone litter. Shall I shove a gun in their face?

Of course not.

If the protesters were walking down the street, yes; they’re trespassing, but that does not automatically justify brandishing a weapon. In a sane society, we limit the ability to point guns at people unless it’s actually necessary for self defense.

Look retard you don't get to pretend that mobs like that one for the last month WERE IN FACT looting burning and killing in that city. Your litter analogy is pathetic on its face. Claiming an angry mob ( which you agree they were) forcing their way ONTO YOUR property in a setting that for the last month there resulted in looting fires and murder is the same as some small group strolling down a PUBLIC sidewalk is also Ludicrous .

You don't get to claim you were threatened by one person because someone else did something. The threat has to come from the actual person you start waving guns at.

NO again what would a reasonable person think, 400 angry protestors with a history of looting burning and murder. Guess what they think?

So you know those 400 angry protestors had a history of looting, burning and murdering or are you just making that up?

You're making it up.

I don't need to know those SPECIFIC people did so all I need to know as a reasonable person is that in the last month on NUMEROUS occasions angry mobs made up of BLM and antifa as this mob was, did in fact resort to looting burning and murder.

Hell yes you do. You don't get to threaten someone with a gun without a good reason. Saying they looked like someone else is not a good reason.

An angry MOB is all you need or are you claiming one must wait until they are physically attacked to act in self defense? Kinda defeats the whole self defense idea.

So stupid isn't it? And we already know that even if you were attacked, they would still side with the criminals. Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon, and only shot him in self defense, and they still sided with Trayvon the criminal.

So really, the bottom line is, they will only care about you if you are actually dead.

Oh but they really don't care that much about your death either, because we can't put murderers to death, and then they'll release them back into the public anyway.

Murderer released after being deemed too old to kill again, kills again

It took a Maine jury less than an hour to find Albert Flick guilty of murdering Kimberly Dobbie with her twin sons nearby in July 2018.

www.nbcnews.com

So honestly, the left-wing doesn't care at all about anything but the promotion of death, and the safety of criminals.

That is really all there is to this.

And they wonder why we hate them... when they are just flat out evil people.

 

[colfax_m]

So stupid isn't it? And we already know that even if you were attacked, they would still side with the criminals. Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon, and only shot him in self defense, and they still sided with Trayvon the criminal.

The thing that pisses me off about Trayvon was how stupid it was. Totally senseless. Calling the cops on a kid for what?

And we have no idea how the fight started. We know that Zimmerman followed Trayvon down an alleyway and only one of them survived. Is Trayvon allowed to feel threatened by someone chasing him? Is he allowed to defend himself?

 

[JimBowie1958]

According to liberals “protestors” can intimidate but if they feel intimidated in return then that’s a no no

These Dimocrat apparatchiks are actively protecting ANTIFA and BLM Marxist hooligans.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So stupid isn't it? And we already know that even if you were attacked, they would still side with the criminals. Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon, and only shot him in self defense, and they still sided with Trayvon the criminal.

The thing that pisses me off about Trayvon was how stupid it was. Totally senseless. Calling the cops on a kid for what?

And we have no idea how the fight started. We know that Zimmerman followed Trayvon down an alleyway and only one of them survived. Is Trayvon allowed to feel threatened by someone chasing him? Is he allowed to defend himself?

You did not actually read the testimony did you, Travon's girlfriend specifically said he was going back after reaching his house. Which jives with Zimmerman saying he was returning to his car when Travon jumped him.