St. Louis couple charged with felony Unlawful Use of Weapon

[FJC11]

What is clear is the BLM broke into a gated community , those roads are private in which these people pay for the upkeep in turn makes them co-owners with the other residents of this community .

I want this racist piece of shit to take it as far as her dumb ass can , and then they can sue the living shit out of her the city and so on .

 

[KarlVP]

I think this is a case where you really would have to prove your innocence, as in prove that you assembled the gun to be inoperable deliberately.

Otherwise, she was waving a gun around that she thought was operable. Why would she bring an inoperable gun outside and risk incensing a crowd that they are claiming was threatening to kill them and burn their house down? They haven't made the claim the gun was a dummy.

You don't point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy. Period.

Brandishing a firearm while you are standing on your own property which has an angry mob next to it? Perfectly acceptable.

Whether or not the firearm works is a non issue. What's to say they didn't take it apart and put it together incorrectly just before they turned it over to the authorities? Most firearms enthusiasts could do that in seconds.

 

[Provience]

Doesn't make a difference. Intent etc.

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

last line of the story, does make a difference. intent can apparently be fuckall if there was never a threat of lethal force from the weapon

 

[ExWrench]

Why would she bring an inoperable gun outside and risk incensing a crowd that they are claiming was threatening to kill them and burn their house down?

Quite often, the mere presentation of a firearm precludes violence or victimization.

It's like taking a few of the 10 Commandments & adding "or you'll get shot"

 

[Johann]

You don't point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy. Period.

Brandishing a firearm while you are standing on your own property which has an angry mob next to it? Perfectly acceptable.

Whether or not the firearm works is a non issue. What's to say they didn't take it apart and put it together incorrectly just before they turned it over to the authorities? Most firearms enthusiasts could do that in seconds.

Certainly could meet the definition of brandishing if self defense wasn't a proper reason to have it out. I have not seen any pics of him actually pointing the AR at anyone. At the ready, sure. But likely at least swept the mob. She looks to have pointed it but knew it was nonfunctional, allegedly. She was clearly scared shitless and needs lessons badly.

Also noticed he has a sling on it so he could have carried it in a different manner. Simple shoulder carry sling so could not get his operator menace on like a single point. He also only had the mag in the well it appears. Need to be better prepared than that...

 

[Johann]

I think this is a case where you really would have to prove your innocence, as in prove that you assembled the gun to be inoperable deliberately.

Otherwise, she was waving a gun around that she thought was operable. Why would she bring an inoperable gun outside and risk incensing a crowd that they are claiming was threatening to kill them and burn their house down? They haven't made the claim the gun was a dummy.

Lawyer would attempt to cast doubt. Doubt they intended to harm only defense of the castle. They do not have to prove anything about the firearm. The DA does.

If that fails the claim they actually knew it was nonfunctional but it was the only other firearm they had and they brought it out in the hopes that a nonfunctional gun would deter the mob. Kinda like pointing a single shot at more than one person hoping nobody wants to be first.

 

[evernoob]

Lawyer would attempt to cast doubt. Doubt they intended to harm only defense of the castle. They do not have to prove anything about the firearm. The DA does.

If that fails the claim they actually knew it was nonfunctional but it was the only other firearm they had and they brought it out in the hopes that a nonfunctional gun would deter the mob. Kinda like pointing a single shot at more than one person hoping nobody wants to be first.

Yes, the Prosecution has to prove the case, that's right.

But if the Defenses wants to say "but she used an inoperable firearm and so meant no harm" then indeed they have to prove that she deliberately disabled the gun.

Number one, it would be insane to confront a crowd you claimed was endangering your life, with an inoperable pistol. That blows their Defense and use of the Castle Doctrine right there.

Number two, they haven't made that claim, and if they make that claim now, it will look like they're lying, and the Jury and Judge are likely to punish them for it by finding them guilty then imposing a stiffer sentence if they're convicted, which they could be in St. Louis, either by Bench trial (diversity-hire judges) or a Jury 'of their peers' (vengeful and angry minorities and Leftists).

I get what you're saying, I'm not trying to troll you guys into defending gun rights here. I'm sincere above, they would have to prove that she deliberately disabled the gun, and literally no one is going to buy that cockamamey story.

 

[evernoob]

Quite often, the mere presentation of a firearm precludes violence or victimization.

It's like taking a few of the 10 Commandments & adding "or you'll get shot"

Ok, well, we all agree with that, but that's not the issue. Do the Judges and Juries in St. Louis agree? I say no.

 

[ExWrench]

Ok, well, we all agree with that, but that's not the issue. Do the Judges and Juries in St. Louis agree? I say no.

Mothfukle, you asked a specific question & I gave you a slam-dunk answer.
Beyond that, you can kiss half my ass (the middle half )
Troll someone else, I believe I'm over your bullshit for the day

 

[evernoob]

last line of the story, does make a difference. intent can apparently be fuckall if there was never a threat of lethal force from the weapon

Welllll.... that's what a TV station is saying and quoted in a newspaper article published on the internet.

I'd have to see some proof that Judges are throwing out cases of Brandishing just because a firing-pin is installed incorrectly. I think that depends on the mood of the judge and jury. This is not a Constitutional precept, it sounds like a precedent to me. Precedents can be and are ignored all of the time. It might be an Appeal, though, if they're convicted.

Which just builds on my entire point of this thread, which is to say that the penalty of being charged with a felony crime, pardoned, found innocent, or dismissed on Appeal, is still such a huge punishment that it effectively makes firearms use illegal.

At this point, anyone on this board with an anonymous face not in the spotlight would already have their life ruined.

These people are going to profit from it because they're sue-happy lawyers and shysters, who sued their own family multiple times and brought frivolous lawsuits against former employers and others in the community multiple times.

I think that would make people want to convict them, and that counts at trial.

 

[AK_F250]

But if the Defenses wants to say "but she used an inoperable firearm and so meant no harm" then indeed they have to prove that she deliberately disabled the gun.

If there's one thing I took away from being a juror on a murder trial for 10+ weeks last summer, it's that the defense doesn't have to prove shit. It's 100% up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did not deliberately disable the gun, and I don't see how that would be possible.

 

[evernoob]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-fights.html

REVEALED: Long history of suing their neighbors and own family how they fought anti-gay accusations within their private estate

• Mark and Patricia McCloskey on June 28 'guarded' their home with guns
• Images of them outside their home during a Black Lives Matter march went viral
• It now emerges the husband and wife lawyers have a long history of legal rows
• The pair have been in court over evicting tenants, a bee colony and a Maserati
• He has sued his sister, father and his father's caretaker for defamation
• The couple also sued a German Shepherd breeder over a dog's paperwork

Select gems:

They moved into the palazzo at One Portland Place having filed a lawsuit in 1988 to obtain the property.

They sued a man who sold them a Maserati they claimed was supposed to come with a box of hard-to-find parts, the paper reported.

In November 1996, Mark McCloskey filed two lawsuits, one against a dog breeder whom he said sold him a German Shepherd without papers and the other against the Central West End Association for using a photo of their house in a brochure for a house tour after the McCloskeys had told them not to.

'I guess we were saving gas,' he joked in a deposition in another case, when asked why he filed two lawsuits at once.

Nice, that'll be quoted at trial if they go

For years the couple have been at war over the rights to a small patch of land bordering their property.

In 2013, Mark McCloskey destroyed bee hives placed just outside of the mansion's northern wall by the neighboring Jewish Central Reform Congregation and left a note saying he did it, and if the mess wasn't cleaned up quickly he would seek a restraining order and attorneys fees.

The congregation had planned to harvest the honey and pick apples from trees on its property for Rosh Hashanah.

'The children were crying in school,' Rabbi Susan Talve said. 'It was part of our curriculum.'

They pissed off some Jews, and now they're about to walk into a meat-grinder in a Liberal city with a huge Jewish lawyer community

Also, that's the patch of land one of the videos was filmy from on the other side of the wall next to the 'Pizzao' (palace).

The McCloskeys, according to the paper, have constantly sought to force their neighborhood trustees to maintain the exclusivity of Portland Place.

They accused the trustees of selectively enforcing the written rules for living in the neighborhood, known as the trust agreement, and in particular failing to enforce a rule about unmarried couples living together.

Their insistence was seen as an attempt to force gay couples from the community.

The trustees voted to impeach Patricia McCloskey as a trustee in 1992 when she fought an effort to change the trust indenture, accusing her of being anti-gay.

If they get convicted, they're going to NEED a pardon!

In 2002, the Portland Place Association sued to foreclose on the McCloskeys’ house because they were refusing to pay dues.

One former Portland Place trustee told the paper he had nothing good to say about the couple.

'They've always been part of the problem, never part of the solution,' Robert Dolgin said.

On a second property, in Franklin County, the couple had disputes with their neighbors over a gravel path, and sued for squatters rights to a section of land.

The McCloskeys also evicted two tenants from a modular home on their property in a period of just over two years.

Evil slumlords

He sued his employers for wrongful dismissal, and then turned on his own family, in particular after his father largely wrote him out of the will in 2008, sparking a family feud that would last eight years.

Sued his former boss

Mark McCloskey filed a defamation case against his father and sister in 2011, dismissed it in 2012, and refiled it in 2013. By the time of the final filing, Bruce McCloskey was living in a memory care unit in Ballwin; he died in 2014.

In March 2013 McCloskey sued his father and his father's trust over a gift of five acres, promised in 1976, which never materialized.

A judge ruled against him in 2016.

Mark McCloskey dismissed the defamation case, but he sued his sister and his two brothers and their father's trust again in 2016, accusing all of them of 'tortious interference' for pressing their father to cut him out of an inheritance.

The siblings settled, with their father's trust paying Mark McCloskey $400,000, with all of them agreeing to drop all claims and never have contact with him again.

Sued his own family multiple times, including their dad with Dementia, over a will.

If they go to trial they're going to have to request a Bench Trial because any urban jury in this country is going to want blood on them.

Plus, they turned out to be dirtbags on a gun-rights case. These are the people we're defending: Shyster-lawyer scum. :rolleyes:

 

[Johann]

Yes, the Prosecution has to prove the case, that's right.

But if the Defenses wants to say "but she used an inoperable firearm and so meant no harm" then indeed they have to prove that she deliberately disabled the gun.

Number one, it would be insane to confront a crowd you claimed was endangering your life, with an inoperable pistol. That blows their Defense and use of the Castle Doctrine right there.

Number two, they haven't made that claim, and if they make that claim now, it will look like they're lying, and the Jury and Judge are likely to punish them for it by finding them guilty then imposing a stiffer sentence if they're convicted, which they could be in St. Louis, either by Bench trial (diversity-hire judges) or a Jury 'of their peers' (vengeful and angry minorities and Leftists).

I get what you're saying, I'm not trying to troll you guys into defending gun rights here. I'm sincere above, they would have to prove that she deliberately disabled the gun, and literally no one is going to buy that cockamamey story.

I'm not a lawyer so I am just gaming out arguments that could be made. Honestly not sure if the defense has to prove their intent with a claimed nonfunctional firearm or if that would end up on DAs plate. It certainly would have been better if the crime lab couldn't make it operable.

Could claim defense with a nonfunctional firearm was the only option to support her brave husband facing the mob to show how desperately scared they were or at least mitigate the responsibility. Any port in a storm.

Since the Gov is going to pardon it is academic. Thankfully! Next time different State, who knows?

Appreciate when you seek dialog and not hyperbole.

 

[evernoob]

I'm not a lawyer so I am just gaming out arguments that could be made. Honestly not sure if the defense has to prove their intent with a claimed nonfunctional firearm or if that would end up on DAs plate. It certainly would have been better if the crime lab couldn't make it operable.

Could claim defense with a nonfunctional firearm was the only option to support her brave husband facing the mob to show how desperately scared they were or at least mitigate the responsibility. Any port in a storm.

Since the Gov is going to pardon it is academic. Thankfully! Next time different State, who knows?

Appreciate when you seek dialog and not hyperbole.

Next time, private citizen who doesn't make it on FoxNews and they suffer a de facto $50,000 fine (legal defense and lost wages, lost job, lost friends, arrest record, ruined credit, etc etc etc).

 

[Provience]

If there's one thing I took away from being a juror on a murder trial for 10+ weeks last summer, it's that the defense doesn't have to prove shit. It's 100% up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did not deliberately disable the gun, and I don't see how that would be possible.

and hell, for all we know they are well aware of that law and 'disabled' the gun afterwards, police didn't swing by until the next day to collect them. they don't have to say shit and it is impossible to "prove" she didn't just make a mistake putting it together previously

 

[evernoob]

If there's one thing I took away from being a juror on a murder trial for 10+ weeks last summer, it's that the defense doesn't have to prove shit. It's 100% up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did not deliberately disable the gun, and I don't see how that would be possible.

The problem is, the Defense has to make the Jury aware that the gun was disabled. The Jury doesn't have to buy that just because the Prosecution has to prove their case. I wouldn't believe that and I don't think most of a St. Louis jury will believe it either.

Depending on the Judge in a bench trial, the judge might get hostile with them if they are making that claim.

The Prosecution is not going to bring up "but the gun was accidentally disabled", the Defense is going to make the claim "she deliberately disabled the gun".

I wouldn't believe that, and I would look down on them for making the claim. Then I would want to convict them.

So yes, the Defense would have to prove to the Jury that she deliberately disabled the gun. Judges are not going to order a Jury to accept a Defense statement of intent as fact. No.

All a Prosecutor would have to do is ask her what I've already said:

"Are you making the claim that you deliberately disabled a firearm to confront a crowd that you claimed multiple times was making violent threats to you, and which you are claiming the [castle doctrine] defense for?"

Then I would bring up the two points I made above in the closing arguments, which is where they belong. This has the effect of prejudicing the jury just before they make their decision, and human beings remember the most recent points last.

Nope, I wouldn't even make that claim, it would backfire depending on the Jury. I guess if the Defense is completely confident they have a sympathetic jury... but the Prosecution gets 6 picks in a felony 12 person jury in my State, and in Missouri too I bet. That's 6 people who now want to convict the scummy lawyers because they tried to lie to them.

Juries punish for cockamamey lies. Nobody likes being lied to, it angers and offends them.

 

[Johann]

Next time, private citizen who doesn't make it on FoxNews and they suffer a de facto $50,000 fine (legal defense and lost wages, lost job, lost friends, arrest record, ruined credit, etc etc etc).

It's always a concern for a firearm owner. That is why the good ones are usually polite in public!

Guess step one is to make sure of Fox coverage so at least the go fund me goes well. Not worried about lost friends they all know my beliefs and gun ownership or they would not be my friends.

The rest would suck at least in the short term. But being alive counts for something...;)

 

[Yota Up]

This case made me wonder. If you have fenced property and a gate. If someone threatens you and jumps over your fence/gate, what is the law on your use of force at that moment? Vary state to state I'm sure, but curious if CA would fry you while ID would give you a medal.

 

[Stuck]

Why does any of your bullshit matter when the State AG and Governor said that prosecuting them was a non starter? Plus the State AG said he was going to open an investigation into the local prosecutor.

 

[Thefishguy77]

This case made me wonder. If you have fenced property and a gate. If someone threatens you and jumps over your fence/gate, what is the law on your use of force at that moment? Vary state to state I'm sure, but curious if CA would fry you while ID would give you a medal.

I assume most of that depends on the state and if they have a sort of castle doctrine. Either way if you cant prove you were honestly in fear for you life your probably fucked.

 

[evernoob]

Why does any of your bullshit matter when the State AG and Governor said that prosecuting them was a non starter? Plus the State AG said he was going to open an investigation into the local prosecutor.

Really, you have $50,000 and 8 months to throw away on a felony defense so the Governor can pardon you?

You know the Governor of your State? He's going to pardon you?

Well, the rest of us aren't famous on FoxNews and we don't know the Governor, and we don't have $50,000 laying around, and we don't have 8 months to throw away (minimum).

So I'm not seeing why you're mad at ME. There's a problem here, and it ain't Everboob.

You need to pay attention to this.

 

[Provience]

Really, you have $50,000 and 8 months to throw away on a felony defense so the Governor can pardon you?

You know the Governor of your State? He's going to pardon you?

Well, the rest of us aren't famous on FoxNews and we don't know the Governor, and we don't have $50,000 laying around, and we don't have 8 months to throw away (minimum).

So I'm not seeing why you're mad at ME. There's a problem here, and it ain't Everboob.

You need to pay attention to this.

that's why this couldn't have happened to a nicer couple of people. they'll certainly spend more than $50k over this. This is the kind of shit that needs to get ran up to a federal court to establish some civil rights shit at the multi-state level.

 

[Provience]

Why does any of your bullshit matter when the State AG and Governor said that prosecuting them was a non starter? Plus the State AG said he was going to open an investigation into the local prosecutor.

because this prosecutor and whatever judge signed off on the gun warrant are both violating these folks basic human civil rights. the courts might actually do something useful

 

[Filthy McChevy]

Really, you have $50,000 and 8 months to throw away on a felony defense so the Governor can pardon you?

You know the Governor of your State? He's going to pardon you?

Well, the rest of us aren't famous on FoxNews and we don't know the Governor, and we don't have $50,000 laying around, and we don't have 8 months to throw away (minimum).

So I'm not seeing why you're mad at ME. There's a problem here, and it ain't Everboob.

You need to pay attention to this.

No, I don't live in an area with a Soros sponsored racist black District attorney so I don't have to care about someone who who thinks he's having a Matlock moments opinion.

Your middle name ain't Perry Mason either.

I quoted your drivel just to keep you guessing, but no I give no shits.

 

[evernoob]

When they came for the McCloskeys, I didn't say anything.

When they came for Everboob, I didn't say anything.

When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything.

Enjoy your de-lousing.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

-Benjamin Franklin
-In the Continental Congress just before signing the Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Patriot much guy?

 

[Filthy McChevy]

5th amendment. knowutImeanVern? You should go vote from the rooftops for us all.

 

[evernoob]

5th amendment. knowutImeanVern? You should go vote from the rooftops for us all.

I have to admit, I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to, Obscuro. What the hell does self incrimination have to do with this conversation?

 

[BUCKLAND]

Haha, insulting me is going to give you immunity to DAs who charge you for using your gun! It's magic!

Here's what you need to know, gunboi:

Use your gun in self-defense, get a minimum of $50,000 in lost wages and legal bills, all the way to life in prison.

Have fun! Make sure you buy plenty of ammo!

Or don’t use your gun and possibly lose your life and or family?
You really shouldn’t post anything else about firearms and laws associated with such.

 

[Poke]

So why did the DA reassemble the gun to make it function?

 

[Johann]

So why did the DA reassemble the gun to make it function?

Probably to head off any claim that it was non functional...