Video of the trespassers passing through the gate showed that, as the trespassers were passing through, the gate was intact and undamaged. By the end of the trespassers passing through, the gate was damaged.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
A Lefty Mob Trespassed on Their Property
- Thread starter Rick Mason
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
You said it was 100% legal. Well obviously not, hence why they were they've been convicted.
1. Obviously not, hence their conviction
2. “Walkthrough“ trespassing it rarely, prosecuted. The trespassers were not specifically seeking to encroach on the couple’s property. They were primarily in a private housing edition; in the street and sidewalk.
3. I don’t know why it condition of the firearm makes a difference. The “rendered inoperable” appears to be because some idiot put the spring on the firing pin on backwards. Just because the firearm can’t fire, does not diminish the perceived threat. Holding up a liquor store with a toy gun that looks real, is still armed robbery.
rugertoter
Master
Had to laugh at the way his wife was holding her handgun...like it was a magic wand or something.
Since CM made us move here to talk about it.
After I had a nice cheese popcorn spread and drinks and the proper social distancing setup over there.
Yes muzzle displince was bad and the lady pointing with sidearm in hand is eewww. However that mob was trespassing. They broke thru a gate to get into this area. The mob had come from the mayor's house after vandalising that place.
+1 for wearing pink.
Siri, show me what begging the question logical fallacy looks like...
Wrong. The trespassers were on real property owned by the McCloskeys. In a Private Street in St. Louis, the homeowners own the street and sidewalk. The land is clearly plotted as such.
The condition of the firearm matters because "readily capable of lethal use" is an explicit element of the crime with which she was charged (RSMo 571.030). An inoperable firearm does not meet that element.
Even when we disagree, you're usually better-informed than this, Kut.
The inoperable gun matters because of the way one of the laws they were charged with breaking was written. That’s why the prosecutor ordered the gun to be restored to functioning condition. So that she could charge them with breaking that law. But the couple had proof the gun wasn’t functional. At least that’s what was reported at the time.
The police lab report stated that it was received in an inoperable state, and that it had to be disassembled and reassembled with the firing pin installed correctly, in order for the lab to perform a test fire.
In other words: the police lab report admitted to tampering with evidence, and that the gun was received by the police in a state that did not meet the "readily capable of lethal use" criterion for the crime with which she was charged.
Mea culpa on #3. Count me as informed. Not that it has bearing, but it is a noteworthy to question as to if they knew the gun was inoperable, believed it was and had just assembled it wrong themselves, or rendered it that way after the event. Whichever it is, doesn’t paint them in a good light.
Belief of the operability of the gun is irrelevant to the statutory requirement of the crime with which she was charged. As for the suggestion that they rendered it that way after the fact: the State would have to prove that. And they had a very good explanation for why it was intentionally rendered inoperable (because it was used as evidence in a prior trial, and had been rendered inoperable for the purpose of taking into the courtroom).
It WAS a magic wand, she knew it wouldn't fire...
I suspect that she knew. Ultimately, in terms of culpability/criminality, it is irrelevant.
I don't think it speaks one way or the other regarding the reasonableness of their claim of fear.
Probably so. If you legitimately feel threatened, and a known-inoperable firearm is all you have available, that's what you grab. Whether operable or inoperable, any reasonable person would hope that the firearm would not need to be discharged, regardless. (And that's the outcome in 2/3 of defensive gun uses, so it is not an unreasonable hope.)
A known inoperable firearm that only had a backwards spring. That not exactly something you need a armorer to fix.
Further, if you do legitimately feel threatened, and all you have is a non-working firearm, conventional wisdom isn't to leave your home, then your porch, and run out into the lawn pointing it a mass of people.
It is certainly subjective; I acknowledge that. However, applicable MO statutes don't require fear, reasonable or otherwise, in order for deadly force to be justifiable in response to trespassing on one's private property. So, at the end of the day, it still doesn't matter.
I think it’s okay not to think highly of the McCloskey’s and still recognize a malicious prosecution when you see it. I mean, how dare they try to protect their property from an angry, racist mob known to damage property?
They were the ones that had it made inoperable.
Patricia McCloskey's gun was inoperable when seized, so a St. Louis prosecutor ordered crime lab to reassemble it and make it operational | Blaze Media
The St. Louis couple says the gun was a 'prop' for a court case and has been disabled ever since
www.theblaze.com
Exactly. It's okay to disagree with their tactics. It is righteous to point out her horrible trigger discipline. Regardless: their actions were 100% lawful, and they were prosecuted maliciously.
