Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 07/21/2020 View Mon 07/20/2020 View Sun 07/19/2020 View Sat 07/18/2020 View Fri 07/17/2020 View Thu 07/16/2020 View Wed 07/15/2020
1
2020-07-21 -PC Follies
St L files charges against the McCloskeys
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by lord garth 2020-07-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ]  Top
 File under: Commies 

#1 I think some St L officials need to be charged for this.
Posted by gorb 2020-07-21 01:29||   2020-07-21 01:29|| Front Page Top

#2 Recently received an additional $78,000 from a Soro funded organization
Posted by Sherry 2020-07-21 03:25||   2020-07-21 03:25|| Front Page Top

#3 Have the right-of-center political players held demonstrations in front of Gardner's house yet?

Why doesn't the governor immediately pardon the McCloseys for precisely the crimes they're being charged with?

The legal issues concerning a preemptive pardon aside, this would be a strong political statement against a systematical politically motivated violation of civil rights under the color of law.
Posted by Elmerert Hupens2660 2020-07-21 04:24||   2020-07-21 04:24|| Front Page Top

#4 Both of them (McCloskey's) are attorneys.

Before it's all over, the McCloskey's will be multi-millionaires at the expense of the taxpayers of St. Louis County. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Posted by Besoeker 2020-07-21 04:30||   2020-07-21 04:30|| Front Page Top

#5 The pistol Patricia McCloskey is seen holding in the video may not be real.

Not a valid argument. Already established is that if anyone felt it was a 'gun' it was a gun by its consequences. How many real criminals have used replicas in hold ups and been prosecuted as though it was a real gun. Those criminals were not operating under the protection of the 2d Amendment of defending life and property.
Posted by Procopius2k 2020-07-21 04:46||   2020-07-21 04:46|| Front Page Top

#6 State AG is already filing in court against the local DA on the grounds that this is a violation of their rights under the Missouri Constitution and the US 2nd Amendment. State AG wull be in court demanding dismissal, and possibly sanctions against the DA
Posted by Marilyn Tojo7566 2020-07-21 05:09||   2020-07-21 05:09|| Front Page Top

#7 FYI the local DA is a Soros funded DA implant.
Posted by Marilyn Tojo7566 2020-07-21 05:10||   2020-07-21 05:10|| Front Page Top

#8 Lawfare at work against the McCloskeys. The McCloskeys ought to counter sue St. Louis and Gardner for any number of issues. (Gardner's 2016 campaign was funded in large part by George Soros.)
Posted by JohnQC 2020-07-21 07:58||   2020-07-21 07:58|| Front Page Top

#9 Ms. Gardner has a lot of other way more serious cases (homicides, kidnappings, rapes, etc.) she could be attending to. Instead she picked this one.

Trolling for the 'National Stage' à la Marilyn Mosby.
Posted by Mullah Richard 2020-07-21 08:01||   2020-07-21 08:01|| Front Page Top

#10 I remember something about DA Gardner's case conviction rate being near 20% - that's minor league at best.
Posted by Raj 2020-07-21 08:26||   2020-07-21 08:26|| Front Page Top

#11 If she was actively colluding with the rioters what would she do differently?
Posted by Elmerert Hupens2660 2020-07-21 08:44||   2020-07-21 08:44|| Front Page Top

#12 I have seen it written that their handling of their firearms in that incident pretty clearly met the definition of brandishing, and thus 'improper use.' Elsewhere I have seen it written that, like warning shots, brandishing/threatening with a firearm implies the person was not in fear for their life, which is the legal hurdle for showing the firearm in some jurisdictions, so if you show it, shoot it to kill...
Posted by Glenmore 2020-07-21 09:16||   2020-07-21 09:16|| Front Page Top

#13 Typically self defense is considered a defense against brandishing and what I saw would not be considered brandishing given they stand on their property telling people to go away.
Posted by Silentbrick 2020-07-21 09:48||   2020-07-21 09:48|| Front Page Top

#14 brandishing/threatening with a firearm implies the person was not in fear for their life

I have a hard time with this logic. Situations like this don't normally go from 0-100 instantly, and invoking a serious threat to the perps' health can make the situation go from 50-0 very quickly whereas otherwise the victims could very well end up dead. How many lives could have been saved over the years if brandishing were to have been allowed if they were actually being threatened?
Posted by gorb 2020-07-21 11:27||   2020-07-21 11:27|| Front Page Top

#15 For reference here's another example of BLM related brandishing that so far hasn't had significant MSM news coverage.

Granted it's another state but BLM has turned into an international disgrace.
Posted by Elmerert Hupens2660 2020-07-21 12:09||   2020-07-21 12:09|| Front Page Top

#16 The wife positioned herself closer to the percieved threat and proceeded to threaten people by randomly waving a gun.
That is textbook brandishing.
Posted by DepotGuy 2020-07-21 14:08||   2020-07-21 14:08|| Front Page Top

#17 If there was just a few people, maybe. When there's a mob, no.
Posted by Silentbrick 2020-07-21 17:13||   2020-07-21 17:13|| Front Page Top

23:58 KBK
23:55 KBK
23:31 Sgt. D.T.
23:30 SteveS
23:18 trailing wife
22:58 Procopius2k
22:51 trailing wife
22:50 Jan
22:50 SteveS
22:43 SteveS
22:40 SteveS
22:39 SteveS
22:23 Skidmark
22:20 Skidmark
21:59 Alaska Paul
21:58 Ununter Omotch2809
21:57 swksvolFF
21:42 Regular joe
21:37 SteveS
21:04 Airandee
20:43 trailing wife
20:38 KBK
20:29 Alistaire Omarong4061
20:27 swksvolFF









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com