Just put your name here in place of McCloskey

[Robert]

Gardner Staffer Ordered Crime Lab To Reassemble Patricia McCloskey’s Gun

ST. LOUIS — The gun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable when it arrived at the St. Louis police crime lab, but a member of St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Kim Gardner’s staff ordered crime lab experts to find out why and wrote that it was “readily capable of lethal use,” in charging documents filed Monday, 5 On Your Side has learned.

In Missouri, police and prosecutors must prove that a weapon is “readily” capable of lethal use when it used in the type of crime with which the McCloskeys have been charged.

At the request of Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley, crime lab staff members field stripped the handgun and found it had been assembled incorrectly. Specifically, the firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin, which was backward, and made the gun incapable of firing, according to the documents.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/gardner-staffer-ordered-crime-lab-to-reassemble-patricia-mccloskeys-gun/63-be112149-d06c-4f54-a225-6545e74b5c2d?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

[Farside]

  Scary to think but my pistol can shoot.  I wonder if she or her husband knew wether if could fire or if either had ever shot it?

[Bighead]

I saw a video yesterday of the govenor vowing to pardon them if convicted.

[Robert]

Patricia McCloskey and her husband, Mark McCloskey, have said the handgun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable because they had used it as a prop during a lawsuit they once filed against a gun manufacturer. In order to bring it into a courtroom, they made it inoperable.

Their attorney, Joel Schwartz, confirmed to 5 On Your Side that the McCloskeys intentionally misplaced the firing pin on the gun and that it was in that condition when Patricia McCloskey waved it at protesters and turned it into their former attorney Al Watkins.

“It’s disheartening to learn that a law enforcement agency altered evidence in order to prosecute an innocent member of the community,” Schwartz said.



I hope that the AG gets prosecuted along with others responsible, and the attorneys statement says it all. In pursuit to stop the ordinary citizen from protecting themselves in order to promote the rioting and looting going on they have lost this case.

It exposes the intent that the ordinary citizen will be prosecuted for stopping rioting, and they have no protection from prosecution or self protection, or the ability to protect monuments or any property. Im sure that this display of people using their rights as put forth in the constitution and local laws yet prosecuted for it put the check in many peoples minds that they may be held responsible for protecting their own property.

Gun control advocates along with BLM and the agenda want to make public displays of these people for two reasons.

One so that they think they cannot protect their own property or anothers.

Two so that the protesters will not be shot and be able to have free reign to pillage as they have been told and designed to do. 

[Robert]

According to Findlaw.com, Missouri's law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual. This means that if someone illegally enters your front porch or backyard, you can use deadly force against them without retreating first.

More specifically, a person does not have a duty to retreat:

  (1)  From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;

  (2)  From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or

  (3)  If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.

[Jess from VA]

Whether that gun was or was not operable at the time she waved it around cannot be known.

Whether the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt they disabled it themselves after the event but before the warrant was executed is exceeding doubtful.

It would not shoot when the lab got it.  

If they did disable it, they should avoid admitting this in any legal proceeding (or even to friends).

Of course, and regardless of this issue, the state still has to prove holding (showing) firearms (but not shooting) was not justifiable self defense beyond any reasonable doubt (once this defense is validly raised).

[scooperhsd]

Like I said - I see Jury Nullification if they have any brains.

[Willow]

...
Of course, and regardless of this issue, the state still has to prove holding (showing) firearms (but not shooting) was not justifiable self defense beyond any reasonable doubt (once this defense is validly raised).

I do understand the meaningfulness of brandishing laws in public space but not on one's private property.   

[3fan4life]

It looks like the Attorney General of Missouri has ordered the charges to be dropped:

https://headlineusa.com/missouri-drop-charges-mccloskeys/?utm_source=HUSAemail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HUSAemail

[Jess from VA]

...
Of course, and regardless of this issue, the state still has to prove holding (showing) firearms (but not shooting) was not justifiable self defense beyond any reasonable doubt (once this defense is validly raised).

I do understand the meaningfulness of brandishing laws in public space but not on one's private property.   

Well Carl, a brandishing law (depending on each particular law) would generally still apply on your own property.  It's just that the reasonableness of your actions would then include the much better defense of self/family/home/property together with any Castle Doctrine applicable. 

If you think about it, there's probably thousands of cases where a homeowner shows (or points) a firearm at an intruder/trespasser (but doesn't shoot) that are judged entirely lawful by the cops and the DA (after about 20 minutes of consideration), and you never hear about them.  Esp since the MSM doesn't like to provide any favorable coverage to private firearm ownership (for any reason).

[Oss]

Good for Eric Schmitt !

I predict good things for him in the future and coal in the sock of the prosecutor really soon

[Bighead]

 

[old2soon]

            Much like a lot of Illinois wants to dump chicago folks in Know here in Missouri would like to disown St. Louis. I M H O the prosecutor in st louis was attempting to go directly against the U S Constitution. I believe-our in house barristers will correct or agree with me-we here in Missouri have Castle Doctrine. I can NOT carry Legally where my Brother now resides-illinois. But I digress and I apoligize. RIDE SAFE.