What's new

St. Louis couple charged with felony Unlawful Use of Weapon

So the video of the weapons is LATER in the night, at another location, and the McCloskey's claim to have seen magazines during their confrontation. :shaking:

These guys really are slimy lawyers. I think they're well within their rights, but they are slimy lawyers, and as Provience said, there's no more appropriate couple to be involved in this :lmao:

Again, this backs up my warning: This type of charge is a life-ruining charge for all of you guys out there. These Lawyers are terrible representatives for gun owners.

Is there a part of (in front of my house) you cannot grasp?

"St. Louis homeowner Mark McCloskey, who was charged with unlawful use of a weapon after he brandished a firearm at protesters in his neighborhood last month, told "Hannity" Thursday that police "have video of people in the crowd in front of my house armed with guns."
 
Is there a part of (in front of my house) you cannot grasp?

"St. Louis homeowner Mark McCloskey, who was charged with unlawful use of a weapon after he brandished a firearm at protesters in his neighborhood last month, told "Hannity" Thursday that police "have video of people in the crowd in front of my house armed with guns."

This will be an important lesson for you.

Read the sentence.
  • St. Louis homeowner Mark McCloskey told Hannity that police "have video of people in the crowd in front of my house armed with guns."
It means the same thing as this:
  • Police have video of the people in front of my house. Those people were armed with guns.
That sentence and two-sentence breakdown do not say WHERE the people were armed with guns. Now read the part I highlighted:
  • "Did you see the guns at that time?" Hannity asked.

    "We saw the weapons at the time ... " McCloskey confirmed. "One fellow in particular pulled out two loaded magazines and showed me them so I could see the shells in the magazines, clicked them together and said, 'You're next.'"
McClosky did NOT say either:
  • He saw the crowd with GUNS in front of his house
OR:
  • Police have video of the crowd WITH guns WHILE in front of his house
What this means is ONLY this:
  • McClosky saw the crowd with weapons, he specified loaded magazines.
  • The police have video of the same crowd with guns, somewhere.
That's. All. It. Says.

This lesson in Reductionism brought to you by: Jaded asshole.
 
This will be an important lesson for you.

Read the sentence.
  • St. Louis homeowner Mark McCloskey told Hannity that police "have video of people in the crowd in front of my house armed with guns."
It means the same thing as this:
  • Police have video of the people in front of my house. Those people were armed with guns.
That sentence and two-sentence breakdown do not say WHERE the people were armed with guns. Now read the part I highlighted:
  • "Did you see the guns at that time?" Hannity asked.

    "We saw the weapons at the time ... " McCloskey confirmed. "One fellow in particular pulled out two loaded magazines and showed me them so I could see the shells in the magazines, clicked them together and said, 'You're next.'"
McClosky did NOT say either:
  • He saw the crowd with GUNS in front of his house
OR:
  • Police have video of the crowd WITH guns WHILE in front of his house
What this means is ONLY this:
  • McClosky saw the crowd with weapons, he specified loaded magazines.
  • The police have video of the same crowd with guns, somewhere.
That's. All. It. Says.

This lesson in Reductionism brought to you by: Jaded asshole.

Damn...you will split a hair to keep from acknowledging the numbnut you are.

But you go right ahead...most of us see through your veil attempt.
 
Is there a part of (in front of my house) you cannot grasp?

"St. Louis homeowner Mark McCloskey, who was charged with unlawful use of a weapon after he brandished a firearm at protesters in his neighborhood last month, told "Hannity" Thursday that police "have video of people in the crowd in front of my house armed with guns."

To expand, the Reporter's questions are answered by McClosky thus:

Who: The crowd
What: Guns
Where: ---
When: ---
Why: Intimidation, politics, race, etc.

Your mind answered them this way:

Who: The crowd
What: Guns
Where: In front of McClosky's house (that's where the action was, and the context)
When: Before McClosky got his gun out
Why: To racially intimidate McClosky for politics

As you can see, the first two questions are answered, and they are a distraction. The human mind then 'fills in the blanks', that is literally the definition of Intelligence (that and Discrimination).

The next two are implied, BUT NOT ANSWERED. Your mind fills in the blanks with the previous information from the running story.

The last is a subtextual context, and is sufficiently answered depending on perspective.

This is how you lie without lying. The above is not Perjury. But a Judge or opposing counsel will tear you an asshole for it. You can get away with this on TV and in real life.
 
Soooo, if someone takes a photo of you and your spouse together and that photo ends up in the news as well as all over the web, is it a violation of copyright laws if you print out postcards of thIs photo, autograph some and hand them out to the general public for free?
 
Stupid news outlet is calling our governor a democrat :homer:
 
All riots have gone virtual due to delta variant of COVID 19 and President Joe Biden fact checking Facebook and other social media along with SMS messages.
 
so new riots then?
I doubt it, no one black was shot

the St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner is under investigation for multiple things she’s done or lack of doing. She just recently let a murder go because she didn’t want to prosecute the case so the murder walked. As all democrat run cities go, the city of St. Louis is a Democratic utopia shit hole.

unfortunately St. Louis county isn’t far behind either. St. Louis county is not part of St. Louis city.
 
Wonder if these faggots got their pardon because of their status.

Hard to think that Cletus keeping people off of his .15 acres he rents from the trailer park would have been offered a pardon.
Sure have a lot of pent up hate stuck up your asshole dontcha. :lmao:
 
Wonder if these faggots got their pardon because of their status.

Hard to think that Cletus keeping people off of his .15 acres he rents from the trailer park would have been offered a pardon.
You may be right, despite your classist rhetoric.

They undoubtedly got pardoned because they're 1) rich and 2) high profile.

The plight of poor Cletus doesn't change that they deserved a pardon. It's sad that justice isn't blind and evenhanded, but it's a win when it does work right for anyone.
 
You may be right, despite your classist rhetoric.

They undoubtedly got pardoned because they're 1) rich and 2) high profile.

The plight of poor Cletus doesn't change that they deserved a pardon. It's sad that justice isn't blind and evenhanded, but it's a win when it does work right for anyone.
No its not.

Thats how you get a group of dumb cletuses burning down cities.

Blm has a point. Wrong conclusions, wrong way of doing things, but they have a point.
 
Good for them, nice of the governor to recognize the injustice and right it. It was a sham of a charge, should have arrested the trespassing rioters, not these two. Charges should have never been filed, they should never even been looked at by cops or a DA.
 
No its not.

Thats how you get a group of dumb cletuses burning down cities.

Blm has a point. Wrong conclusions, wrong way of doing things, but they have a point.
So in your simple brain what is blm’s point? Clearly government data indicates that UNARMED black males are not killed disproportionately to any other race. California governor candidate Larry Elder quotes many stats that show there is no systemic racism in the USA.
 
So in your simple brain what is blm’s point? Clearly government data indicates that UNARMED black males are not killed disproportionately to any other race. California governor candidate Larry Elder quotes many stats that show there is no systemic racism in the USA.
Try to follow long, young lad, before you shoot yourself in the foot again.

That point being that there are definitely tdifferent sets of rules for different sets of people.
But rather than being based on skin color, it's the haves and the have nots. How connected you are and how important you are to important people determines what brand of justice you may get.


Unless you think that federal prosecutor that pled epstein down to solicitation of prostitution was doing his hardest work and that's all he could come up with :lmao:

Not sure where you're going about black males and all that shit. Was the language that I used, from my "simple mind" too complex to read where I said BLM has come to the wrong conclusions?

Quit being so emotional, Betty.
 
Top Back Refresh