Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
pepperonikkid

Grand jury indicts McCloskeys with gun exhibiting charges, adds charge of tampering with evidence

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

pepperonikkid

Grand jury indicts McCloskeys with gun exhibiting charges, adds charge of tampering with evidence

 

https://www.theblaze.com/

CARLOS GARCIA

OCTOBER 06, 2020

 

Article:

 

A grand jury indicted a St. Louis couple on charges of exhibiting guns, and added one charge each of tampering with evidence.

The indictment was announced Tuesday.

The McCloskeys became material for memes nationally when they waved their guns in June at Black Lives Matter protesters who had trespassed into a private neighborhood on their way to protest at the mayor's home. The McCloskeys said that they feared for their lives and they reacted by protecting their property with their weapons.

The charges of tampering with evidence relate to a gun that their lawyer turned over to investigators. It was inoperable at the time they handed it over, but prosecutors had it re-assembled to be operable.

The McCloskey's attorney, Joel Schwartz, said that the indictment was not a surprise and that he was confident they would be exonerated of the charges.

"Once all the facts are out, it will be clear the McCloskeys committed no crime whatsoever," Schwartz said.

"Frankly because the grand jury is not an adversarial process and defense counsel are not allowed in there and I have no idea what was stated to the grand jury and what law was given to the grand jury," he added.

Nine protesters were charged with trespassing over the incident, but local officials refused to prosecute them.

 

Full Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

And then sue the police department for tampering with evidence.

Then sue the nine protestors for mental anguish due to the trauma they inflicted by trespassing and menacing.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin
11 minutes ago, Ticked@TinselTown said:

And then sue the police department for tampering with evidence.

Then sue the nine protestors for mental anguish due to the trauma they inflicted by trespassing and menacing.

 

Driven by the Soros AG. This is what awaits us all folks, unless...

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin
13 minutes ago, Ticked@TinselTown said:

And then sue the police department for tampering with evidence.

Then sue the nine protestors for mental anguish due to the trauma they inflicted by trespassing and menacing.

 

And the AG for harassment. Then delve into her election campagn

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash

The McCloskeys are defense attorneys. The kind that George Soros would pay to defend trespassers, rioters, and looters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

The Soros bought bimbo AG just doesn't know when to quit.

They should sue the bitch for harassment 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

I'm sure this is probably a super unpopular opinion, but I think the displaying/brandishing charges belong for the wife at a minimum.  The gun isn't holstered.  It isn't at her side.  It isn't even at low ready.  She's pointing it, and in at least one photo it looks like her finger is inside the trigger guard - on the trigger.

The tampering charges sound bogus, but I doubt anyone knows enough about the evidence to say either way.  All of the earlier charges or claims of hate crimes or other nonsense doesn't belong for sure.  But I think the one charge belongs on the wife.

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones
2 hours ago, Moderator T said:

I'm sure this is probably a super unpopular opinion, but I think the displaying/brandishing charges belong for the wife at a minimum.  The gun isn't holstered.  It isn't at her side.  It isn't even at low ready.  She's pointing it, and in at least one photo it looks like her finger is inside the trigger guard - on the trigger.

The tampering charges sound bogus, but I doubt anyone knows enough about the evidence to say either way.  All of the earlier charges or claims of hate crimes or other nonsense doesn't belong for sure.  But I think the one charge belongs on the wife.

Well you might have a point, but I think they can make "brandishing" cover anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
2 hours ago, Moderator T said:

I'm sure this is probably a super unpopular opinion, but I think the displaying/brandishing charges belong for the wife at a minimum.  The gun isn't holstered.  It isn't at her side.  It isn't even at low ready.  She's pointing it, and in at least one photo it looks like her finger is inside the trigger guard - on the trigger.

The tampering charges sound bogus, but I doubt anyone knows enough about the evidence to say either way.  All of the earlier charges or claims of hate crimes or other nonsense doesn't belong for sure.  But I think the one charge belongs on the wife.

That seems nitpicky and less important because she’s got one thing over the charges and the rioters.

She’s still alive. Thus, any charges are a small price to pay for doing the right thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grimreefer
Just now, zurg said:

That seems nitpicky and less important because she’s got one thing over the charges and the rioters.

She’s still alive. Thus, any charges are a small price to pay for doing the right thing. 

:yeahthat: Even with all the handling errors they made, they held the mob off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown
6 hours ago, Moderator T said:

I'm sure this is probably a super unpopular opinion, but I think the displaying/brandishing charges belong for the wife at a minimum.  The gun isn't holstered.  It isn't at her side.  It isn't even at low ready.  She's pointing it, and in at least one photo it looks like her finger is inside the trigger guard - on the trigger.

The tampering charges sound bogus, but I doubt anyone knows enough about the evidence to say either way.  All of the earlier charges or claims of hate crimes or other nonsense doesn't belong for sure.  But I think the one charge belongs on the wife.

How does the old saying go?  Don't pull a gun unless you're willing to use it?

Their property was being trespassed upon and they felt their safety was at risk.

As someone said of Joe Biden's - Take a Psychiatrist to a 911 call suggestion, it seems rather absurd. 

Are you gonna try to reason with them while they burn the house down around you or are you going to keep them from setting the fire?  

They had no business trespassing.  The fact that they didn't get shot shows restraint.

  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones

I have driven by that home a hundred times. I don’t think they did anything illegal but they could have handled it better. 

They could have walked inside, retrieved their weapons and simply laid them at their feet as the freak show passed by. If any member of that circus approached them on their property that would be the time to pick them up and let the Huckleberries make the first move.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
2 hours ago, Ticked@TinselTown said:

How does the old saying go?  Don't pull a gun unless you're willing to use it?

Their property was being trespassed upon and they felt their safety was at risk.

As someone said of Joe Biden's - Take a Psychiatrist to a 911 call suggestion, it seems rather absurd. 

Are you gonna try to reason with them while they burn the house down around you or are you going to keep them from setting the fire?  

They had no business trespassing.  The fact that they didn't get shot shows restraint.

Was THEIR property being trespassed on?  Were the protesters on their land or just in their gated community?  Regardless, trespassing is not a case where you can point a gun at a person.  You should only point before you're willing to shoot.  Seriously, go look at any 2A site about self defense or CCW and they'll tell you the same thing.  You don't wave your gun around and you don't point it at a person unless you're about to use it.  

I'm not going to bother addressing the nonsense about burning a house down.  That wasn't happening, there was no evidence it was about to happen, and it is a strawman argument.

As for them not being shot, I don't know if deciding not to commit murder is "restraint."  It is what most people do, and shooting those people would be exactly that - murder.

6 hours ago, zurg said:

That seems nitpicky and less important because she’s got one thing over the charges and the rioters.

She’s still alive. Thus, any charges are a small price to pay for doing the right thing. 

Judged by 12 vs carried by 6 is a real thing for sure.  While I think she could have handled it better, I do respect her for protecting her property.

7 hours ago, Buckwheat Jones said:

Well you might have a point, but I think they can make "brandishing" cover anything.

To a grand jury, sure, but to an actual jury and court?  The term has a specific legal meaning that must be adhered to in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
52 minutes ago, Buckwheat Jones said:

I have driven by that home a hundred times. I don’t think they did anything illegal but they could have handled it better. 

They could have walked inside, retrieved their weapons and simply laid them at their feet as the freak show passed by. If any member of that circus approached them on their property that would be the time to pick them up and let the Huckleberries make the first move.

 

Slinging the rifle over the shoulder and holstering the handgun would have been totally fine.  I'd even argue that holding the weapons at low ready would probably be appropriate (unsure if legal or not based on state law, but that's another matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
9 hours ago, Moderator T said:

I'm sure this is probably a super unpopular opinion, but I think the displaying/brandishing charges belong for the wife at a minimum.  The gun isn't holstered.  It isn't at her side.  It isn't even at low ready.  She's pointing it, and in at least one photo it looks like her finger is inside the trigger guard - on the trigger.

The tampering charges sound bogus, but I doubt anyone knows enough about the evidence to say either way.  All of the earlier charges or claims of hate crimes or other nonsense doesn't belong for sure.  But I think the one charge belongs on the wife.

No, not even close, they were on their property, and were being threatened by people. They have a right in that state to stand their ground. Thus the entire theory of brandishing goes out the window. This was breaking and entering, and tresspassing. They broke a gate and entered the property illegally.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown
23 minutes ago, Moderator T said:

Was THEIR property being trespassed on?  Were the protesters on their land or just in their gated community?  Regardless, trespassing is not a case where you can point a gun at a person.  You should only point before you're willing to shoot.  Seriously, go look at any 2A site about self defense or CCW and they'll tell you the same thing.  You don't wave your gun around and you don't point it at a person unless you're about to use it.  

I'm not going to bother addressing the nonsense about burning a house down.  That wasn't happening, there was no evidence it was about to happen, and it is a strawman argument.

As for them not being shot, I don't know if deciding not to commit murder is "restraint."  It is what most people do, and shooting those people would be exactly that - murder.

Judged by 12 vs carried by 6 is a real thing for sure.  While I think she could have handled it better, I do respect her for protecting her property.

To a grand jury, sure, but to an actual jury and court?  The term has a specific legal meaning that must be adhered to in court.

Because the BLM protesters don't burn things?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
1 hour ago, Buckwheat Jones said:

I have driven by that home a hundred times. I don’t think they did anything illegal but they could have handled it better. 

They could have walked inside, retrieved their weapons and simply laid them at their feet as the freak show passed by. If any member of that circus approached them on their property that would be the time to pick them up and let the Huckleberries make the first move.

 

For anyone that says they could have handled it better, I am curious what your reaction will be like when hundreds of people that have in the past burned down buildings suddenly arrives at your home. They did just fine. They stood their ground and no one was killed. Seems like a win win to me.

  • Best Post (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
5 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

No, not even close, they were on their property, and were being threatened by people. They have a right in that state to stand their ground. Thus the entire theory of brandishing goes out the window. This was breaking and entering, and tresspassing. They broke a gate and entered the property illegally.

The gate was not to their property, it was to the neighborhood.  Second, in Missouri the stand your ground law means you can use deadly force only if you reasonably believe that someone is about to use unlawful lethal force against you or another.  It cannot be used to defend property, just people, and nothing in the law or relevant cases says you can point a firearm at a person as a threat.  

In MO the castle doctrine only means you don't have to retreat and can defend yourself.  Even then it is just an affirmative defense towards the use of force.  Pointing a gun is not use of force.  Brandishing or displaying a gun is not use of force.  Shooting a gun is use of force.  It would only apply if they were charged for using those firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
39 minutes ago, Ticked@TinselTown said:

Because the BLM protesters don't burn things?

Did they burn things here?

Did they threaten to burn things here?

Were they carrying or displaying incendiary devices here?

Did they try to burn things here?

Have the couple said that their belief was that the protesters/rioters were going to burn something here?

 

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
14 minutes ago, Moderator T said:

The gate was not to their property, it was to the neighborhood.  Second, in Missouri the stand your ground law means you can use deadly force only if you reasonably believe that someone is about to use unlawful lethal force against you or another.  It cannot be used to defend property, just people, and nothing in the law or relevant cases says you can point a firearm at a person as a threat.  

In MO the castle doctrine only means you don't have to retreat and can defend yourself.  Even then it is just an affirmative defense towards the use of force.  Pointing a gun is not use of force.  Brandishing or displaying a gun is not use of force.  Shooting a gun is use of force.  It would only apply if they were charged for using those firearms.

Well they didn't use lethal force now did they? However they could reasonably believe that this protest was going to turn violent.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones
56 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

For anyone that says they could have handled it better, I am curious what your reaction will be like when hundreds of people that have in the past burned down buildings suddenly arrives at your home. They did just fine. They stood their ground and no one was killed. Seems like a win win to me.

I’m monday morning quarterbacking, no doubt. And they didn’t have time to prepare. But from my vantage point, I wouldn’t want to give the progs anything they could use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
2 minutes ago, Buckwheat Jones said:

I’m monday morning quarterbacking, no doubt. And they didn’t have time to prepare. But from my vantage point, I wouldn’t want to give the progs anything they could use. 

Understood, but they executed a intentionally provocative action. And if you are a member of a HOA then you are part of the property ownership of the entire property. You have a right to be there, whereas the trespassers do not. 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones
1 minute ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Understood, but they executed a intentionally provocative action. And if you are a member of a HOA then you are part of the property ownership of the entire property. You have a right to be there, whereas the trespassers do not. 

Agreed

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown
20 minutes ago, Moderator T said:

Did they burn things here?

Did they threaten to burn things here?

Were they carrying or displaying incendiary devices here?

Did they try to burn things here?

Have the couple said that their belief was that the protesters/rioters were going to burn something here?

 

Are you able to divine or intuit the intent of a group of people that has trespassed on your property?

If so, that's a great gift to have.

For others who may not be so blessed, perhaps to err on the side of protecting one's property and family is the go to choice in that situation.

When a large group of people comes onto my property uninvited when there is civil unrest in my town, I would not be inclined to offer wine and cheese.

If YOU want to risk yourself and your family by not being cautious and vigilant, then you're free to do so. 

Me?  I am inclined to protect MY family and MY property before anyone else, but you clearly have a different opinion.

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
1 hour ago, Ticked@TinselTown said:

Are you able to divine or intuit the intent of a group of people that has trespassed on your property?

If so, that's a great gift to have.

 

I'll take that as a no.  There is zero evidence here that there was any intention to commit arson in this case.  Making up things that didn't happen to justify something that did happen isn't how the law works.

Quote

 

For others who may not be so blessed, perhaps to err on the side of protecting one's property and family is the go to choice in that situation.

When a large group of people comes onto my property uninvited when there is civil unrest in my town, I would not be inclined to offer wine and cheese.

If YOU want to risk yourself and your family by not being cautious and vigilant, then you're free to do so. 

Me?  I am inclined to protect MY family and MY property before anyone else, but you clearly have a different opinion.

 

Again, as far as I've seen they weren't ON the McCloskey's property.  They were in the street after breaking the neighborhood's gate.  That doesn't matter much though as in MO you can't kill people for trespass.

Believe it or not, it is possible to defend your family without breaking the law.  People do it all the time.  Would they have been less safe if they stayed in their house armed?  Would they have been less safe if they had their guns holstered/shouldered on the lawn?  The standard is what a reasonable person would do.  Is it your belief that a reasonable person would draw a gun and point it at people not on their property as a threat?  Even ignoring MO law which is clear, do you believe it is reasonable to kill someone strictly for trespassing on property?

You want to pretend I wouldn't defend my family.  I would.  But like any intelligent gun owner and like the advice commonly given throughout the 2A community, no one's going to see my gun until its time for them to be shot.  Waving a gun around does no good.  Pointing a gun when you don't intend to shoot someone does no good and is a crime.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...