Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The McCloskey Frameup
Falsified evidence? It’s only a problem if you get caught!
The latest on the St. Louis couple facing weapons charges for defending their home after protestors charged through their gates, from KSDK Channel 5:
The gun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable when it arrived at the St. Louis police crime lab, but a member of Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s staff ordered crime lab experts to disassemble and reassemble it and wrote that it was “readily capable of lethal use” in charging documents filed Monday, 5 On Your Side has learned.
I’m glad to hear someone is on our side. Also, the Missouri Governor has condemned the prosecution and said he would pardon the McCloskeys if needed.
Published in Law
Yea, that works every time. I guarantee it.
Exactly, if it is done illegally. If someone is attacking you and you brandish a firearm at them, that’s not illegal.
But, but Kozak, the charging document said the protesters walked through the gate, not broke it down. they were like totally peaceful.
So whatda YOU know about this DUI stuff?
Oh, wait, yea … umm … er … uh…
The prosecutor, she not he, is already under investigation for the wrongful prosecution of the former Republican governor. Gov. Eric Greitens was forced out by this lawfare, since the establishment GOP did not want the integrity and strength of a former Navy SEAL.
The prosecutor is already under criminal investigation for another high profile prosecution.
Actually, the real evidence in full context is that this prosecutor, a Democrat, is already under investigation for prosecutorial misconduct in the prosecution of the former Republican governor. There are others involved in that prosecution also facing criminal charges. So, it is more likely that her crooked team is continuing its crooked conduct.
It worked at least 1 time I know of.
Yeah. Totally.
If there was no prior court case in which the pistol was an exhibit…, wouldn’t the prosecutors have charged the McCloskeys with making false statements?
And if the McCloskeys were going to tamper, wouldn’t they tamper with both?
clearly, Patricia lacked the skill to field strip her pistol. Mark should have disabled his own rifle and re-enabled the pistol. Then, while Patricia was serving her prison sentence, Mark could be banging his 25-year-old secretary.
As presented in the charging documents, there was no justification for the McCloskeys to threaten to use force.
According to the charging documents, the McCloskeys “immediately” confronted two individuals (and “other protestors” – no mention that the “other” was hundreds) who had merely walked through the gate (as others noted, no mention that the protestors first tore down the gate) and were walking along the street. No mention of the physical and verbal threats by the protestors. No mention that some protestors may have left the street and walked onto the McCloskey’s property. The charging documents imply but do not explicitly state that Mr. McCloskey went to the street to confront the protestors (a false implication).
On its own, that the prosecutor had to reassemble the pistol to make it operable might not be a big deal. But, combined with other details, it becomes part of a pattern of conduct by the prosecutor that illustrates bad motives in the charging process.
Really? I thought it sounded stupid but you never know with law.
I agree. It’s dumb not to be ready for the worst.
Using an unloaded or non-functioning weapon or replica is illegal and should be. Just because a bank reobber uses a replica doesn’t mean the tellers and customers aren’t terrified, and doesn’t get him off the hook for committing a crime. In the McCloskey’s case, their “brandishing” weapons was justified because they were responding to a direct threat. If they did have to use dealy force, brandishing the weapon first shows they gave the rioters an opportunity to back off, which they did.
The prosecutor who files charges against these two should be publically tarred and feathered (actually a very painful punishment) and run out of town. Better yet, DOX his address . . .
Was it a case where the prosecutors wanted it to work?
I read where the McCloskeys had used the pistol in court as a prop and had to get the firing pin disabled to do so.
Based on their handling skills or, rather, the lack thereof, neither one of them is capable of doing that on their own. (Note: Keep your booger picker off the bang switch!)
And speaking of being picky… one does not “field strip” a firearm in one’s home. When you disassemble a weapon for routine post-fire cleaning or repair it’s just stripping. When you’re away from that environment, it’s a field strip.
Maybe they like to practice in their back yard?
I am woeful butterfingers when it comes to everything, including guns.
Fortunately, I married me an army girl and she can field strip an M-16.
Nope. Dude had an accident, left the scene, went to a bar. When the cops arrived he was drinking, said he had anxiety and needed a drink to “calm him down”. They did get him for the accident and leaving the scene, had to drop the drunk driving charge because they couldn’t prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” he was over the limit when he was behind the wheel.
Not surprised. I had to testify in a drunk driving case ( which was on Court TV). Guy was driving drunk lost control hit and hit a tree, causing his dad to die. In the hospital he clearly stated he was driving. When he was told his dad had died the A hole said ” thats how dad would have wanted to go”. (Uh, huh. I’m sure as his dad was ejected from the vehicle though the windshield the last thought he had was “this is how I want to die”).
Was offered a plea deal for 1 year in prison. He decided to fight it. At the trial the guy claimed his dad was driving. All the physical evidence pointed to sonny as the driver. Witness statements from me and a nurse. A key point in my testimony was noting he had a bruise on his L shoulder, across his abdomen and to his L hip, indicated a seat belt mark on the L side of the vehicle. Prosecution also had a photo from the next day clearly demonstrating the bruise. Apparently a couple of the jurors watched too much TV and wanted to know why the cops didn’t take fingerprints or DNA from the steering wheel to prove who was driving. So the jury let him walk.
Good to know. I will not go into surgery or the foxhole with you then.
Foxhole with my wife.
Hearings set for August 31.
I don’t believe I’ve ever received such an offer before. But on the safe side we better stick with our own wives…
No wonder you’re such a good husband. Hehe . . .
I confess, I don’t even know what it means.
Hey! Aren’t you that Dos Equis guy?
A lot of mouthwash these days is no-alcohol, and in any event, how would that fool a blood test, vs a breath test?
Our corresemblance is uncanny, my friend.
I guess we’ll both stay thirsty then . . .