Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I already have. See above. Zimmerman did not fall 911 because he saw Martin cutting between houses.Nope, you haven't a clue what was said at trial because you have proven your IGNORANCE three times now on ZIMMERMAN.I am no longer making the claim. I retract the claim. I thought that was clear. Sorry, I made a mistake. Shit happens. I can own up to it as I am an adult without a complex like some people around here.Probably? You still haven't admitted nor proven a claim you made repeatedly even after we pointed out you were wrong. You keep ignoring the history involved in each case and pretend it happened in a fucking vacuum. You don't even know what was or wasn't said at Zimmerman's trial but demand answers for simply questions.You asked for my source about the charging documents and I gave it. I then admitted I probably got it wrong.LOL that is rich you havent provided a single link to your outrageous claims and demand I do so....So you get to demand links and sources but never have to do it yourself?Nope it was in the news and it was national news, you keep not answering for your claim about the charging documents, until YOU provide proof of YOUR INITIAL claim I am not proving anything to a liar and a moron, You seem unable to understand NEITHER EVENT occurred in a vacuum.Show me the testimony that demonstrates who attacked who.God you are stupid, keep making ignorant claims.You were caught lying about the testimony.Just IGNORE the previous history of the neighborhood , I see that is a theme with you , you claim everything happens in a vacuum. And Martin WENT back he was home safe and alive, instead he chose to go back confront Zimmerman and then attack him, and yes Martin attacked him several witnesses stated so.A man stared at him from his truck, got out and chased him down an alley at night. Should I tell my kids not to be threatened by that kind of behavior?Zimmerman made no threatening move towards Trayvon.
You say a lot of what Trayvon should or shouldn't have done but offer no critique about Zimmerman. Trayvon was minding his own business when Zimmerman called the cops on a kid who was doing nothing wrong. That's just not right.
No witness saw the beginning of the fight so who attacked who remains unknown.
Are you lazy or just an asshole?
So you lied again.
You don’t know what was said at trial because you’ve already lied about it a few times.
Go ahead you claim I lied post a link to prove I lied. Quote it too.
Actually your failure to read occurs again, Zimmerman did not get out of his truck until Martin ran. Further he clearly stated thay Martin did NOT go down the normal path, I wonder what THAT could mean?I already have. See above. Zimmerman did not fall 911 because he saw Martin cutting between houses.Nope, you haven't a clue what was said at trial because you have proven your IGNORANCE three times now on ZIMMERMAN.I am no longer making the claim. I retract the claim. I thought that was clear. Sorry, I made a mistake. Shit happens. I can own up to it as I am an adult without a complex like some people around here.Probably? You still haven't admitted nor proven a claim you made repeatedly even after we pointed out you were wrong. You keep ignoring the history involved in each case and pretend it happened in a fucking vacuum. You don't even know what was or wasn't said at Zimmerman's trial but demand answers for simply questions.You asked for my source about the charging documents and I gave it. I then admitted I probably got it wrong.LOL that is rich you havent provided a single link to your outrageous claims and demand I do so....So you get to demand links and sources but never have to do it yourself?Nope it was in the news and it was national news, you keep not answering for your claim about the charging documents, until YOU provide proof of YOUR INITIAL claim I am not proving anything to a liar and a moron, You seem unable to understand NEITHER EVENT occurred in a vacuum.Show me the testimony that demonstrates who attacked who.God you are stupid, keep making ignorant claims.You were caught lying about the testimony.Just IGNORE the previous history of the neighborhood , I see that is a theme with you , you claim everything happens in a vacuum. And Martin WENT back he was home safe and alive, instead he chose to go back confront Zimmerman and then attack him, and yes Martin attacked him several witnesses stated so.A man stared at him from his truck, got out and chased him down an alley at night. Should I tell my kids not to be threatened by that kind of behavior?Zimmerman made no threatening move towards Trayvon.
You say a lot of what Trayvon should or shouldn't have done but offer no critique about Zimmerman. Trayvon was minding his own business when Zimmerman called the cops on a kid who was doing nothing wrong. That's just not right.
No witness saw the beginning of the fight so who attacked who remains unknown.
Are you lazy or just an asshole?
So you lied again.
You don’t know what was said at trial because you’ve already lied about it a few times.
Go ahead you claim I lied post a link to prove I lied. Quote it too.
I can’t prove a negative. You claim that witness testimony saw Martin attack Zimmerman. We don’t know how the fight started. No one saw that. If we had testimony on who started it, it would be a lot easier but it doesn’t exist.
Funny how you ignore that Martin called his girlfriend and said he was going to beat up Zimmerman. Had Martin not doubled back and attacked Zimmerman, he wouldn’t have been shot.Chased? He followed him. I've been followed. You just talk.
Yes, chased. Zimmerman ran after him. Martin ran away. That’s being chased.
That’s threatening behavior and he did to in response to Martin who had nothing wrong.
It was wrong to call the cops on Martin.
Based on the testimony from Martin’s girlfriend, he was freaked out by a dude staring him down.Actually your failure to read occurs again, Zimmerman did not get out of his truck until Martin ran. Further he clearly stated thay Martin did NOT go down the normal path, I wonder what THAT could mean?I already have. See above. Zimmerman did not fall 911 because he saw Martin cutting between houses.Nope, you haven't a clue what was said at trial because you have proven your IGNORANCE three times now on ZIMMERMAN.I am no longer making the claim. I retract the claim. I thought that was clear. Sorry, I made a mistake. Shit happens. I can own up to it as I am an adult without a complex like some people around here.Probably? You still haven't admitted nor proven a claim you made repeatedly even after we pointed out you were wrong. You keep ignoring the history involved in each case and pretend it happened in a fucking vacuum. You don't even know what was or wasn't said at Zimmerman's trial but demand answers for simply questions.You asked for my source about the charging documents and I gave it. I then admitted I probably got it wrong.LOL that is rich you havent provided a single link to your outrageous claims and demand I do so....So you get to demand links and sources but never have to do it yourself?Nope it was in the news and it was national news, you keep not answering for your claim about the charging documents, until YOU provide proof of YOUR INITIAL claim I am not proving anything to a liar and a moron, You seem unable to understand NEITHER EVENT occurred in a vacuum.Show me the testimony that demonstrates who attacked who.God you are stupid, keep making ignorant claims.You were caught lying about the testimony.Just IGNORE the previous history of the neighborhood , I see that is a theme with you , you claim everything happens in a vacuum. And Martin WENT back he was home safe and alive, instead he chose to go back confront Zimmerman and then attack him, and yes Martin attacked him several witnesses stated so.A man stared at him from his truck, got out and chased him down an alley at night. Should I tell my kids not to be threatened by that kind of behavior?Zimmerman made no threatening move towards Trayvon.
You say a lot of what Trayvon should or shouldn't have done but offer no critique about Zimmerman. Trayvon was minding his own business when Zimmerman called the cops on a kid who was doing nothing wrong. That's just not right.
No witness saw the beginning of the fight so who attacked who remains unknown.
Are you lazy or just an asshole?
So you lied again.
You don’t know what was said at trial because you’ve already lied about it a few times.
Go ahead you claim I lied post a link to prove I lied. Quote it too.
I can’t prove a negative. You claim that witness testimony saw Martin attack Zimmerman. We don’t know how the fight started. No one saw that. If we had testimony on who started it, it would be a lot easier but it doesn’t exist.
I didn’t ignore that because that never happened.Funny how you ignore that Martin called his girlfriend and said he was going to beat up Zimmerman. Had Martin not doubled back and attacked Zimmerman, he wouldn’t have been shot.Chased? He followed him. I've been followed. You just talk.
Yes, chased. Zimmerman ran after him. Martin ran away. That’s being chased.
That’s threatening behavior and he did to in response to Martin who had nothing wrong.
It was wrong to call the cops on Martin.
Too bad the court and the facts both disagree with you.I didn’t ignore that because that never happened.Funny how you ignore that Martin called his girlfriend and said he was going to beat up Zimmerman. Had Martin not doubled back and attacked Zimmerman, he wouldn’t have been shot.Chased? He followed him. I've been followed. You just talk.
Yes, chased. Zimmerman ran after him. Martin ran away. That’s being chased.
That’s threatening behavior and he did to in response to Martin who had nothing wrong.
It was wrong to call the cops on Martin.
Great. Then post the testimony that says what you claim.Too bad the court and the facts both disagree with you.I didn’t ignore that because that never happened.Funny how you ignore that Martin called his girlfriend and said he was going to beat up Zimmerman. Had Martin not doubled back and attacked Zimmerman, he wouldn’t have been shot.Chased? He followed him. I've been followed. You just talk.
Yes, chased. Zimmerman ran after him. Martin ran away. That’s being chased.
That’s threatening behavior and he did to in response to Martin who had nothing wrong.
It was wrong to call the cops on Martin.
Funny how you ignore that Martin called his girlfriend and said he was going to beat up Zimmerman. Had Martin not doubled back and attacked Zimmerman, he wouldn’t have been shot.Chased? He followed him. I've been followed. You just talk.
Yes, chased. Zimmerman ran after him. Martin ran away. That’s being chased.
That’s threatening behavior and he did to in response to Martin who had nothing wrong.
It was wrong to call the cops on Martin.
As wielded by Mrs. McCloskey, the handgun was a small and relatively useless club.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
Fascinating. You claim to care about the facts but have no factual basis for claiming he ran away to ditch something. It’s like you don’t even consider your own statements before accusing others of doing exactly what you do in the same damn paragraph.Funny how you ignore that Martin called his girlfriend and said he was going to beat up Zimmerman. Had Martin not doubled back and attacked Zimmerman, he wouldn’t have been shot.Chased? He followed him. I've been followed. You just talk.
Yes, chased. Zimmerman ran after him. Martin ran away. That’s being chased.
That’s threatening behavior and he did to in response to Martin who had nothing wrong.
It was wrong to call the cops on Martin.
they always pretend that Saint Trayvon didn't run away and then came back. Of course, he ran away to ditch something he didn't want to get caught with, then came back and and jumped Martin. these scum don't care about facts, though, so no need to treat anything they say as serious discussion; they're just here to peddle racist propaganda. The only unanswered question in the case is what it was he had to ditch; burglary tools? Shoplifted items?
Maybe. Maybe not. If it was unloaded, it would similarly be a “club”. Is it legal to brandish an unloaded firearm? I seriously doubt it.As wielded by Mrs. McCloskey, the handgun was a small and relatively useless club.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
Holding a club is not a violation of firearm laws.
Well, let's see what Missouri law says.Maybe. Maybe not. If it was unloaded, it would similarly be a “club”. Is it legal to brandish an unloaded firearm? I seriously doubt it.As wielded by Mrs. McCloskey, the handgun was a small and relatively useless club.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
Holding a club is not a violation of firearm laws.
2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
...
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
The whole liberal media and Democratic Party is based on propaganda produced by communist college professoriate that are bored and disappointed with their lives because they never done anything outside of academics (mommy and daddy were probably professors too) so now they stir-up anarchy so they feel good about doing something. Complete disregard for our Republic.Well, let's see what Missouri law says.Maybe. Maybe not. If it was unloaded, it would similarly be a “club”. Is it legal to brandish an unloaded firearm? I seriously doubt it.As wielded by Mrs. McCloskey, the handgun was a small and relatively useless club.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
Holding a club is not a violation of firearm laws.
2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
...
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
The rioters were repeatedly warned by the McCloskeys that they were intruding on private property and they weren't welcome. The McCloskeys didn't arm themselves until the rioters trespassed and then threatened the couple with harm.
This prosecution is politically motivated and is NOT based on the law.
Why bother? Dumbfucks like you don’t accept proof. Martin went back and attacked Zimmerman. Proven and undeniable. Per doctors and witnesses. Ttayvon thought he was a big bad thug going to beat up somebody and didn’t think the guy would defend himself. Well ,maybe he should have just gone wherever he was going and the next he’d have lived.Great. Then post the testimony that says what you claim.Too bad the court and the facts both disagree with you.I didn’t ignore that because that never happened.Funny how you ignore that Martin called his girlfriend and said he was going to beat up Zimmerman. Had Martin not doubled back and attacked Zimmerman, he wouldn’t have been shot.Chased? He followed him. I've been followed. You just talk.
Yes, chased. Zimmerman ran after him. Martin ran away. That’s being chased.
That’s threatening behavior and he did to in response to Martin who had nothing wrong.
It was wrong to call the cops on Martin.
You won’t. None of you ever do anything like that. You just say whatever you want and expect everyone else to believe you.
Add in tampering with evidence and this gets thrown out instantly. This DA needs to face penalties including disbarment for trying this stunt.Well, let's see what Missouri law says.Maybe. Maybe not. If it was unloaded, it would similarly be a “club”. Is it legal to brandish an unloaded firearm? I seriously doubt it.As wielded by Mrs. McCloskey, the handgun was a small and relatively useless club.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
Holding a club is not a violation of firearm laws.
2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
...
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
The rioters were repeatedly warned by the McCloskeys that they were intruding on private property and they weren't welcome. The McCloskeys didn't arm themselves until the rioters trespassed and then threatened the couple with harm.
This prosecution is politically motivated and is NOT based on the law.
This isn't the first time Gardner has been involved in shady dealings.Add in tampering with evidence and this gets thrown out instantly. This DA needs to face penalties including disbarment for trying this stunt.Well, let's see what Missouri law says.Maybe. Maybe not. If it was unloaded, it would similarly be a “club”. Is it legal to brandish an unloaded firearm? I seriously doubt it.As wielded by Mrs. McCloskey, the handgun was a small and relatively useless club.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
Holding a club is not a violation of firearm laws.
2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
...
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
The rioters were repeatedly warned by the McCloskeys that they were intruding on private property and they weren't welcome. The McCloskeys didn't arm themselves until the rioters trespassed and then threatened the couple with harm.
This prosecution is politically motivated and is NOT based on the law.
Fascinating. You claim to care about the facts but have no factual basis for claiming he ran away to ditch something. It’s like you don’t even consider your own statements before accusing others of doing exactly what you do in the same damn paragraph.Funny how you ignore that Martin called his girlfriend and said he was going to beat up Zimmerman. Had Martin not doubled back and attacked Zimmerman, he wouldn’t have been shot.Chased? He followed him. I've been followed. You just talk.
Yes, chased. Zimmerman ran after him. Martin ran away. That’s being chased.
That’s threatening behavior and he did to in response to Martin who had nothing wrong.
It was wrong to call the cops on Martin.
they always pretend that Saint Trayvon didn't run away and then came back. Of course, he ran away to ditch something he didn't want to get caught with, then came back and and jumped Martin. these scum don't care about facts, though, so no need to treat anything they say as serious discussion; they're just here to peddle racist propaganda. The only unanswered question in the case is what it was he had to ditch; burglary tools? Shoplifted items?
Yes it did dumb ass.I didn’t ignore that because that never happened.Funny how you ignore that Martin called his girlfriend and said he was going to beat up Zimmerman. Had Martin not doubled back and attacked Zimmerman, he wouldn’t have been shot.Chased? He followed him. I've been followed. You just talk.
Yes, chased. Zimmerman ran after him. Martin ran away. That’s being chased.
That’s threatening behavior and he did to in response to Martin who had nothing wrong.
It was wrong to call the cops on Martin.
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?
