That "they" were protesters is what is in question. There was no protest at the time. There was shooting in the vicinity a few minutes earlier, so the actual events that led up to the shootings are murky. That would be a good reason to wait until the police finish conducting their investigation before making wild claims.
It's somewhat of a similar situation to the tragic shooting in Atlanta of the 8 year old girl. Right wingers have jumped to conclusions with little evidence, but the police Lieutenant in charge of the investigation admitted he had no idea of what the armed individuals were doing at the location or why they were there.
If you don't believe me, check out his comments at about 4:45 in the video at the bottom of this page: https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/breaking-atlanta-police-release-footage-suspect-year-old-shooting-death/2zQeUA3HiSsPCUEjnTdKEK/
@no1maraudersaid Again the baseless claim that "protesters" shot someone despite the fact that no arrests have been made and the details of the shootings remain murky. There were shootings in Seattle before any protests and there will certainly be more in the future.
This is typical of your ceaseless attempts at simple minded propaganda.
Your own position is that the McCloskeys could have opened firing whenever they felt "afraid".
No police were allowed into CHOP territory. They are responsible.
This is not propaganda. It is the truth.
As far as what I think the McCloskeys could have done, that does not enter the
equation, as I was not there and my opinion means nothing. What matters
is, what did the McCloskeys do to harm anyone?
@earl-of-trumpssaid No police were allowed into CHOP territory. They are responsible.
This is not propaganda. It is the truth.
As far as what I think the McCloskeys could have done, that does not enter the
equation, as I was not there and my opinion means nothing. What matters
is, what did the McCloskeys do to harm anyone?
No shots fired.
Goalpost moving. First, it was protesters did the shooting; now they are somehow "responsible".
Again, I prefer to await the results of the investigation but it is fairly obvious there was not a protest at 3 AM.
Missouri law considers it harm to point a lethal weapon at someone and makes it a Class D Felony. It also considers it harmful to make false allegations in a police report. So if those allegations are true, the McCloskeys did harm multiple persons and the proper administration of the law.
It sounds like the McCloskeys already realize they're culpable for their actions under Missouri state law, as they now say "The White House and federal government are on our side." By "White House" they mean Trump, of course -- the top criminal in the nation many times over.
Speaking to Kim Guilfoyle, campaign adviser and partner to Donald Trump, Jr. in a campaign livestream, Mark McCloskey echoed President Trump in painting a picture of a complete breakdown of law and order.
Such reptilian little snowflakes:
“I thought that within seconds we’d be overrun, they’d be in the house, they’d be setting fires, they’d be killing us,” he said of the protesters marching past on their way to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s home last month.
Look, a lie! Oh, but it's Kim Guilfoyle, campaign adviser to Donald Trump, Jr. So of course it's a lie:
Bizarrely, Guilfoyle repeatedly insisted, without evidence, that protesters were “trying to burn down your house” and that the McCloskey’s were defending themselves against “potentially death,” echoing President Trump’s own baseless claim made in support of the gun-toting couple.
"St. Louis’ top prosecutor told The Associated Press on Monday that she is charging a white husband and wife with felony unlawful use of a weapon for displaying guns during a racial injustice protest outside their mansion.
Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced the charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who are both personal injury attorneys in their 60s. They also face a misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree assault.
Gardner said in an interview with the AP ahead of more broadly announcing the charges that the McCloskeys’ actions risked creating a violent situation during an otherwise nonviolent protest."
@no1maraudersaid The McCloskeys have been charged:
"St. Louis’ top prosecutor told The Associated Press on Monday that she is charging a white husband and wife with felony unlawful use of a weapon for displaying guns during a racial injustice protest outside their mansion.
Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced the charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who are both personal ...[text shortened]... apnews.com/85e4f25f10b73e8926f6602b6a76bfef?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP
I hope they get the book thrown at them. Since these are not federal charges there are no worries over a Trump pardon, but...
Missouri Governor Mike Parson will consider pardoning a couple who sparked outrage after brandishing guns at racial justice protesters marching past their home should they be charged with a criminal offence.
It must be great being a Republican politician: you can not only scream for "LAW & ORDER," you also get to choose which laws and which notion of order are allowed to prevail.
Interestingly, there's some discussion about the possibility that the Soros funded DA tampered with evidence:
In order for charges to be placed against the McCloskeys, the weapon had to be shown in working condition, according to KSDK. It was NOT in such condition when the crime lab received it from Al Watkins, the former attorney for the McCloskeys. Did the prosecution tamper with the evidence?
@philokaliasaid Interestingly, there's some discussion about the possibility that the Soros funded DA tampered with evidence:
[quote]In order for charges to be placed against the McCloskeys, the weapon had to be shown in working condition, according to KSDK. It was NOT in such condition when the crime lab received it from Al Watkins, the former attorney for the McCloskeys. Did the pro ...[text shortened]... ps://news.unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/did-the-prosecution-tamper-with-evidence-in-mccloskey-case/
Actually they don't, so the article is complete BS.
While the author isn't a lawyer, he convincingly cites Missouri court decisions that support the conclusion that a "firearm" is "readily capable of lethal use" whether it is operable or not under Missouri law.
Sorry, I had to get home to find an article I had seen. I didn't find the one I previously saw, but the one I cite uses the same Missouri court decisions esp. State v. Williams and State v. Wright.
It makes sense to me that it would somehow qualitatively change the nature of the charges if it was known by the person wielding a gun that it is not functioning or unloaded.
However, it would also make sense for it to still be a crime to threaten people with it in such a condition but, again, it would seem to be different.
Of course, what I am just throwing out is completely irrelevant as to what the law really is.
It's also a very different thing then the accusation of tampering with the weapon.
It makes sense to me that it would somehow qualitatively change the nature of the charges if it was known by the person wielding a gun that it is not functioning or unloaded.
However, it would also make sense for it to still be a crime to threaten people with it in such a condition but, again, it would seem to be different.
...[text shortened]... aw really is.
It's also a very different thing then the accusation of tampering with the weapon.
Why? From the point of view of the victim of the crime, it is just as bad to be threatened with a gun either way since you have no way of knowing whether it is operable or not. And from the standpoint of the criminal justice system, it would make little sense to put the burden of proving a firearm was operable in all firearm and related offenses; it would be an easy matter for the alleged perpetrator to alter the weapon after the incident to make it inoperable.
The accusation of "tampering" makes no sense; A) It makes no legal difference and B) there doesn't seem to have been any effort to hide the fact that the gun was reassembled. Perhaps they wanted to see if they gun could have been conveniently made inoperable (hey, maybe the McCloskeys' haven't read Williams and Wright - they are personal injury, not criminal, lawyers).
12 Jul '20 19:48
The McCloskeys: Scumbags Extraordinaire
Back to Top