You have commented 340 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-PC Follies
St L files charges against the McCloskeys
2020-07-21
[PostMillennial] St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner
...one of the many recipients of the Soros-led Progressive district attorney placement project, for which they clearly chose the most like-minded instead of the brightest or cleverest....
filed the charges of unlawful use of a weapon/flourishing according to Channel 5 in St. Louis.

Channel 5 reports that the "unlawful use of a weapon charge is a class D felony and could result in one to four years in prison as well as fines up to $5,000" and that "Gardner's office will be issuing a summons for the couple to appear in court."

Prosecutors File Charges Against McCloskeys But Their 'Case' May Have Already Fallen Apart

[PJMedia] Gardner simply never mentions the Second Amendment or the state’s Castle Doctrine, both of which are relevant.

Also relevant: The pistol Patricia McCloskey is seen holding in the video may not be real.

(Former McCloskey defense attorney Al) Watkins told reporters the pistol Patricia McCloskey used was only a prop from a federal trial that the couple used in a case. Both of them are attorneys.

A source familiar with the investigation told 5 On Your Side that police did not find any ammunition at the McCloskeys’ home and the rifle was not loaded when they seized it.

If it’s not a real gun, it’s no more weapon than a small club. If the rifle was never loaded, then the McCloskeys were bluffing the protesters at the most.

If one “gun” was a prop and the other wasn’t loaded, neither were capable of meeting the definition of flourishing as described in Missouri state law above. Neither was “readily capable of lethal use.”

UDPATE: Missouri’s Attorney General has moved to drop the charges, Fox News reports:

Within hours of the ruling, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a brief seeking to dismiss Gardner’s charges against the McCloskeys on the grounds that their Second Amendment rights are being violated.

“The right to keep and bear arms is given the highest level of protection in our constitution and our laws, including the Castle Doctrine, which provides broad rights to Missourians who are protecting their property and lives from those who wish to do them harm,” Schmitt said in a prepared statement provided to Fox News.

“Despite this, Circuit Attorney Gardner filed suit against the McCloskeys, who, according to published reports, were defending their property and safety. As Missouri’s Chief law enforcement officer, I won’t stand by while Missouri law is being ignored,” Schmitt said.
Related:
Kim Gardner: 2020-07-13 Defeat the radical St. Louis prosecutor, support Mary Pat Carl.
Kim Gardner: 2020-06-17 St. Louis Police: Second Man Charged in Murder of David Dorn
Kim Gardner: 2020-06-08 Man charged with murder of retired St. Louis police captain David Dorn
Related:
Eric Schmitt: 2020-07-02 New York Times Deploys Heavy Gun to Back ‘Intel' on Russian Bounties
Eric Schmitt: 2020-05-24 Dems Block China Investigation Even After Communist Regime Threatens U.S. Senators by Name
Eric Schmitt: 2020-02-28 We should applaud the Syrian military's actions in Idlib, not deplore them
Posted by:lord garth

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

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

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

#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  

#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  

#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  

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

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

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

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

00:00