St louis DA's Office Caught Altering Evidence Against McCloskeys

[hadit]

Correct me if I’m wrong but it looks like the facts of the operation of the gun and what they did to it were accurately disclosed to the court. If that’s the case, what’s the problem?

The problem comes should the prosecution then try to claim that the gun was a lethal weapon, instead of presenting no threat beyond that of a rock in a person's hand. IOW, the case against her just got a lot weaker.

 

[colfax_m]

So stupid isn't it? And we already know that even if you were attacked, they would still side with the criminals. Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon, and only shot him in self defense, and they still sided with Trayvon the criminal.

The thing that pisses me off about Trayvon was how stupid it was. Totally senseless. Calling the cops on a kid for what?

And we have no idea how the fight started. We know that Zimmerman followed Trayvon down an alleyway and only one of them survived. Is Trayvon allowed to feel threatened by someone chasing him? Is he allowed to defend himself?

You did not actually read the testimony did you, Travon's girlfriend specifically said he was going back after reaching his house. Which jives with Zimmerman saying he was returning to his car when Travon jumped him.

That's actually not what he said, but it's not relevant either. Saying Trayvon jumped him implies that he attacked him by surprise and both accounts indicate there was a verbal exchange before any fight broke out. His girlfriend's testimony does back up that Trayvon felt threatened by a weird dude chasing after him for no reason.

 

[colfax_m]

Correct me if I’m wrong but it looks like the facts of the operation of the gun and what they did to it were accurately disclosed to the court. If that’s the case, what’s the problem?

The problem comes should the prosecution then try to claim that the gun was a lethal weapon, instead of presenting no threat beyond that of a rock in a person's hand. IOW, the case against her just got a lot weaker.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what constitutes a lethal weapon. An unloaded gun isn't a threat beyond that of a rock too, but I doubt that matters much.

What constitutes readily lethal is beyond my knowledge.

 

[Andylusion]

So stupid isn't it? And we already know that even if you were attacked, they would still side with the criminals. Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon, and only shot him in self defense, and they still sided with Trayvon the criminal.

The thing that pisses me off about Trayvon was how stupid it was. Totally senseless. Calling the cops on a kid for what?

And we have no idea how the fight started. We know that Zimmerman followed Trayvon down an alleyway and only one of them survived. Is Trayvon allowed to feel threatened by someone chasing him? Is he allowed to defend himself?

You are acting as if misunderstanding should never happen. I had the cops called on me.

How did I respond to having the cops called on me? I talked politely with the officer, and then went on with my life.

Get over it.

I had a police officer pull a gun on me. How did I handle it? I obeyed the officer, answered his questions as they were asked, and went on with my life.

And especially if you live in a place where crime is being committed, get over it.

I remember going to a neighbors house, to ask about a car that was illegally parked.... but more importantly, had their lights on.

Guy came to the door with a gun in his hand. I politely explained why I was there, and asked if they had left their lights on.

You know what happened zero times in my life? I never went all Ape-like, and attacked people for suspecting me of being a criminal.

I never attacked someone. Never started cussing out the police. Never instigated a problem. Never screamed and yelled, or whined about anything.

Could I have? Sure, and I would end up shot. And rightly so.

Is Trayvon allowed to feel threatened by someone chasing him? Is he allowed to defend himself?

Zimmerman left, and called police. Zimmerman didn't violate any laws, in walking around the neighborhood.

If Trayvon had actually not been involved in anything illegal, he should have just gone on home. If the police arrived, he could do what any law abiding citizen should do, the same thing I have done.... which is you talk to the police, answer their questions, and then go on about your life.

Instead, Trayvon choose to attack someone. Feel threatened? Zimmerman made no threatening move towards Trayvon.

The only one who felt threatened, was Zimmerman after Trayvon attacked him.

If Trayvon felt threatened at all, it could only be because Zimmerman said he was calling police. Now why would calling the police make you feel threatened, if you are law abiding citizen? It would not. Never has me.

The only way you feel threatened by someone calling the police, is if you are in the wrong. Yeah, you should feel threatened if you are criminal, and someone calls the police....

And rightly so.

Trayvon was a criminal either way, and he got exactly what he deserved. Anyone who denies that is just an evil person.

 

[colfax_m]

Zimmerman made no threatening move towards Trayvon.

A man stared at him from his truck, got out and chased him down an alley at night. Should I tell my kids not to be threatened by that kind of behavior?

You say a lot of what Trayvon should or shouldn't have done but offer no critique about Zimmerman. Trayvon was minding his own business when Zimmerman called the cops on a kid who was doing nothing wrong. That's just not right.

 

[Polishprince]

Defending yourself against an angry mob isn't a "violation of the law".

Self defense requires a threat. Whether there was a threat or not remains to be seen.

A angry radical mob threatening to shoot your dog and burn down your home is a threat. And I've seen no proof to PROVE that didn't happen.

I’ve seen no proof it did happen.

The proof is the testimony of the McCloskeys. Now the DA has to prove there was no threat. Remember they are presumed Innocent.

This elderly couple facing down a huge mob that was where they had no business being, that was very angry and very threatening. Their response was very moderate, no one was shot, and the mob gave up their plans for pillage and looting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If true the DA just lost....not like they were going to win anyway

If she's culpable in an attempt to tamper with and misrepresent evidence, she's going to do a lot more than lose the case. That's grounds for being disbarred, at the very least.

I wish I were the optimist that you are.

 

[colfax_m]

Defending yourself against an angry mob isn't a "violation of the law".

Self defense requires a threat. Whether there was a threat or not remains to be seen.

A angry radical mob threatening to shoot your dog and burn down your home is a threat. And I've seen no proof to PROVE that didn't happen.

I’ve seen no proof it did happen.

The proof is the testimony of the McCloskeys. Now the DA has to prove there was no threat. Remember they are presumed Innocent.

This elderly couple facing down a huge mob that was where they had no business being, that was very angry and very threatening. Their response was very moderate, no one was shot, and the mob gave up their plans for pillage and looting.

Ha! If testimony from the accused is all it takes to prove innocence, then everyone would walk.

 

[Polishprince]

Defending yourself against an angry mob isn't a "violation of the law".

Self defense requires a threat. Whether there was a threat or not remains to be seen.

A angry radical mob threatening to shoot your dog and burn down your home is a threat. And I've seen no proof to PROVE that didn't happen.

I’ve seen no proof it did happen.

The proof is the testimony of the McCloskeys. Now the DA has to prove there was no threat. Remember they are presumed Innocent.

This elderly couple facing down a huge mob that was where they had no business being, that was very angry and very threatening. Their response was very moderate, no one was shot, and the mob gave up their plans for pillage and looting.

Ha! If testimony from the accused is all it takes to prove innocence, then everyone would walk.

Innocence doesn't have to be proven. Guilt is what has to be proven, and the St. Louis persecutor would be required to prove this couple didn't have cause for self defense. Not vice versa.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yeah, who is suprised by this kind of partisan cheating from Dims?

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

The pistol Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters who broke down a gate to trespass on their private street was a non-operable 'prop' used during a lawsuit they were involved in, so a member of Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's staff ordered the crime lab to disassemble and reassemble the gun - allowing them to classify it as "capable of lethal use" in charging documents filed Monday, according to KSDK5. ​

​

​

In Missouri, police and 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.​

Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley ordered crime lab staff members to field strip the handgun and found it had been assembled incorrectly. Specifically, the firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin, which was backward, and made the gun incapable of firing, according to documents obtained by 5 On Your Side.​

Firearms experts then put the gun back together in the correct order and test-fired it, finding that it worked, according to the documents. -KSDK5​

​

​

According to the report, crime lab workers photographed the disassembly and reassembly of the pistol.​

​

The McCloskeys attorney, Joel Schwartz, told KSDK that the St. Louis couple intentionally misplaced the firing pin on the gun, rendering it inoperable. They turned the pistol in to their former attorney Al Watkins following the incident last month.​

View attachment 366150

Zero Hedge is a conspiracy theory "pseudo-science" website with ZERO credibility.

• Overall, we rate Zero Hedge an extreme right biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left.

ZeroHedge - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[colfax_m]

Defending yourself against an angry mob isn't a "violation of the law".

Self defense requires a threat. Whether there was a threat or not remains to be seen.

A angry radical mob threatening to shoot your dog and burn down your home is a threat. And I've seen no proof to PROVE that didn't happen.

I’ve seen no proof it did happen.

The proof is the testimony of the McCloskeys. Now the DA has to prove there was no threat. Remember they are presumed Innocent.

This elderly couple facing down a huge mob that was where they had no business being, that was very angry and very threatening. Their response was very moderate, no one was shot, and the mob gave up their plans for pillage and looting.

Ha! If testimony from the accused is all it takes to prove innocence, then everyone would walk.

Innocence doesn't have to be proven. Guilt is what has to be proven, and the St. Louis persecutor would be required to prove this couple didn't have cause for self defense. Not vice versa.

Just pointing out that the testimony from the accused can in no way be considered proof. That’s absurd.

I doubt the prosecutor would be able to prove their case but I’m at least open to the testimony fr others present which I imagine will conflict with the McCloskey’s testimony.

 

[Dragonlady]

2013 Missouri Revised Statutes :: TITLE XXXVIII CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS :: Chapter 575 Offenses Against the Administration of Justice :: Section 575.100 Tampering with physical evidence.

law.justia.com

.

Universal Citation: MO Rev Stat § 575.100 (2013)

Tampering with physical evidence.

575.100. 1. A person commits the crime of tampering with physical evidence if he:

(1) Alters, destroys, suppresses or conceals any record, document or thing with purpose to impair its verity, legibility or availability in any official proceeding or investigation; or

(2) Makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false with purpose to mislead a public servant who is or may be engaged in any official proceeding or investigation.

2. Tampering with physical evidence is a class D felony if the actor impairs or obstructs the prosecution or defense of a felony; otherwise, tampering with physical evidence is a class A misdemeanor.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)

Effective 1-1-79

They need to go to jail and lose their license to practice law.

But they didn’t tamper with evidence. Everything that was done with the firearm was documented and submitted to the court. Therefore it could not be considered false or misleading.

They had someone come in and change a nonfunctional firearm to a functional one, in order to file the charge, dumbass...

Which means they can also be sued for knowingly filing a bogus criminal charge...

It also brings in the possibility of a perjury charge if they said the firearm they picked up was functional in the criminal complaint!!!

The question is whether moving the spring is sufficient to count as readily functional. It’s a question for the court to decide.

The point is that all relevant facts are presented to the court so the idea that there’s some perjury here is stupid.

The point is that in the State of MO homeowners do have the right to defend their "castle".
The felony charges brought by the crooked DA (Kim Gardner) against the McClosky's are illegal.
Kim Gardner now has falsifying evidence to add to the other charges against her.
I hope the State AG files charges against Kim Gardner soon, and disbars her.

"Brandishing" a weapon is a crime. Nothing that happened would have allowed the McCloskeys to use deadly force. No evidence was falsified by the DA or the police. The condition of the weapon was disclosed by the property department after they re-assembled it.

It's McCloskey who is more likely to be disbarred. Threatening peaceful protestors is not "defending their home. The "castle doctrine" does not allow you to use deadly force unless threatened with deadly force.

 

[Obiwan]

2013 Missouri Revised Statutes :: TITLE XXXVIII CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS :: Chapter 575 Offenses Against the Administration of Justice :: Section 575.100 Tampering with physical evidence.

law.justia.com

.

Universal Citation: MO Rev Stat § 575.100 (2013)

Tampering with physical evidence.

575.100. 1. A person commits the crime of tampering with physical evidence if he:

(1) Alters, destroys, suppresses or conceals any record, document or thing with purpose to impair its verity, legibility or availability in any official proceeding or investigation; or

(2) Makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false with purpose to mislead a public servant who is or may be engaged in any official proceeding or investigation.

2. Tampering with physical evidence is a class D felony if the actor impairs or obstructs the prosecution or defense of a felony; otherwise, tampering with physical evidence is a class A misdemeanor.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)

Effective 1-1-79

They need to go to jail and lose their license to practice law.

But they didn’t tamper with evidence. Everything that was done with the firearm was documented and submitted to the court. Therefore it could not be considered false or misleading.

They had someone come in and change a nonfunctional firearm to a functional one, in order to file the charge, dumbass...

Which means they can also be sued for knowingly filing a bogus criminal charge...

It also brings in the possibility of a perjury charge if they said the firearm they picked up was functional in the criminal complaint!!!

The question is whether moving the spring is sufficient to count as readily functional. It’s a question for the court to decide.

The point is that all relevant facts are presented to the court so the idea that there’s some perjury here is stupid.

The point is that in the State of MO homeowners do have the right to defend their "castle".
The felony charges brought by the crooked DA (Kim Gardner) against the McClosky's are illegal.
Kim Gardner now has falsifying evidence to add to the other charges against her.
I hope the State AG files charges against Kim Gardner soon, and disbars her.

"Brandishing" a weapon is a crime. Nothing that happened would have allowed the McCloskeys to use deadly force. No evidence was falsified by the DA or the police. The condition of the weapon was disclosed by the property department after they re-assembled it.

It's McCloskey who is more likely to be disbarred. Threatening peaceful protestors is not "defending their home. The "castle doctrine" does not allow you to use deadly force unless threatened with deadly force.

I think McCloskey is safe on that one, since brandishing a firearm that won't even fire can hardly be considered "using deadly force"....

Unless some of the rioters died from shitting their pants!!!!

 

[Polishprince]

2013 Missouri Revised Statutes :: TITLE XXXVIII CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS :: Chapter 575 Offenses Against the Administration of Justice :: Section 575.100 Tampering with physical evidence.

law.justia.com

.

Universal Citation: MO Rev Stat § 575.100 (2013)

Tampering with physical evidence.

575.100. 1. A person commits the crime of tampering with physical evidence if he:

(1) Alters, destroys, suppresses or conceals any record, document or thing with purpose to impair its verity, legibility or availability in any official proceeding or investigation; or

(2) Makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false with purpose to mislead a public servant who is or may be engaged in any official proceeding or investigation.

2. Tampering with physical evidence is a class D felony if the actor impairs or obstructs the prosecution or defense of a felony; otherwise, tampering with physical evidence is a class A misdemeanor.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)

Effective 1-1-79

They need to go to jail and lose their license to practice law.

But they didn’t tamper with evidence. Everything that was done with the firearm was documented and submitted to the court. Therefore it could not be considered false or misleading.

They had someone come in and change a nonfunctional firearm to a functional one, in order to file the charge, dumbass...

Which means they can also be sued for knowingly filing a bogus criminal charge...

It also brings in the possibility of a perjury charge if they said the firearm they picked up was functional in the criminal complaint!!!

The question is whether moving the spring is sufficient to count as readily functional. It’s a question for the court to decide.

The point is that all relevant facts are presented to the court so the idea that there’s some perjury here is stupid.

The point is that in the State of MO homeowners do have the right to defend their "castle".
The felony charges brought by the crooked DA (Kim Gardner) against the McClosky's are illegal.
Kim Gardner now has falsifying evidence to add to the other charges against her.
I hope the State AG files charges against Kim Gardner soon, and disbars her.

"Brandishing" a weapon is a crime. Nothing that happened would have allowed the McCloskeys to use deadly force. No evidence was falsified by the DA or the police. The condition of the weapon was disclosed by the property department after they re-assembled it.

It's McCloskey who is more likely to be disbarred. Threatening peaceful protestors is not "defending their home. The "castle doctrine" does not allow you to use deadly force unless threatened with deadly force.

Standing guard isn't "deadly force". Unless you want to say the Arabs on the roof of Boost Mobile in Chicago with AR 15's or Korean shopkeepers in the door of their bodegas shouldn't be allowed either.

BTW, they were threatened with deadly forces.

 

[Andylusion]

Zimmerman made no threatening move towards Trayvon.

A man stared at him from his truck, got out and chased him down an alley at night. Should I tell my kids not to be threatened by that kind of behavior?

You say a lot of what Trayvon should or shouldn't have done but offer no critique about Zimmerman. Trayvon was minding his own business when Zimmerman called the cops on a kid who was doing nothing wrong. That's just not right.

Chased? He followed him. I've been followed. You just talk.

Because I would have done the same thing as Zimmerman. Absolutely I would. We have a string of break ins, and you are walking behind the houses in the dark?

Hello... suspicious? Yes. I'm going to ask you what you are doing too. And there is nothing wrong with calling the cop on someone acting suspicious in an area where crime has been happening.

Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Is there anything wrong with talking to someone? No. Is there anything wrong with following someone? No. Is there anything wrong with going behind the house where the other person is, and asking what they are doing?

No. By the way, if you think that is wrong, then Trayvon was in the wrong, because he went behind the houses first.

Why is wrong for Zimmerman to go back there, and not Trayvon?

It's only wrong if people who actually own houses in the area, go behind the house? But not some random kid who doesn't own a house?

Really?

Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong. Trayvon attacked an innocent man, and got shot for it... and rightly so.

Where do you people get this idea that no one anywhere is allowed to ask you what you are doing?

I've never thought that way. I can remember twice in my life, where i was stopped by a citizen, and asked what I was doing. I just answered them, and went on my way.

And I guarantee you if I attacked someone because they asked me what the heck I was doing, my family would be fully in support of me getting my face beaten in, or shot.

But of course that's because my family and relatives are good people, and they don't stand up for criminals. Neither do I. We're better people than that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If true the DA just lost....not like they were going to win anyway

If she's culpable in an attempt to tamper with and misrepresent evidence, she's going to do a lot more than lose the case. That's grounds for being disbarred, at the very least.

I wish I were the optimist that you are.

I didn't say she WOULD be disbarred, just that it was grounds for it.

Although it appears the Missouri AG is all kinds of not impressed with her act, so I think he might have something to say about this not getting brushed off and ignored.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, who is suprised by this kind of partisan cheating from Dims?

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

The pistol Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters who broke down a gate to trespass on their private street was a non-operable 'prop' used during a lawsuit they were involved in, so a member of Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's staff ordered the crime lab to disassemble and reassemble the gun - allowing them to classify it as "capable of lethal use" in charging documents filed Monday, according to KSDK5. ​

​

​

In Missouri, police and 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.​

Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley ordered crime lab staff members to field strip the handgun and found it had been assembled incorrectly. Specifically, the firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin, which was backward, and made the gun incapable of firing, according to documents obtained by 5 On Your Side.​

Firearms experts then put the gun back together in the correct order and test-fired it, finding that it worked, according to the documents. -KSDK5​

​

​

According to the report, crime lab workers photographed the disassembly and reassembly of the pistol.​

​

The McCloskeys attorney, Joel Schwartz, told KSDK that the St. Louis couple intentionally misplaced the firing pin on the gun, rendering it inoperable. They turned the pistol in to their former attorney Al Watkins following the incident last month.​

View attachment 366150

Zero Hedge is a conspiracy theory "pseudo-science" website with ZERO credibility.

• Overall, we rate Zero Hedge an extreme right biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left.

ZeroHedge - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

"That's a biased right-wing site, because LOOK! This biased left-wing fact checker says so!"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Zimmerman made no threatening move towards Trayvon.

A man stared at him from his truck, got out and chased him down an alley at night. Should I tell my kids not to be threatened by that kind of behavior?

You say a lot of what Trayvon should or shouldn't have done but offer no critique about Zimmerman. Trayvon was minding his own business when Zimmerman called the cops on a kid who was doing nothing wrong. That's just not right.

Just IGNORE the previous history of the neighborhood , I see that is a theme with you , you claim everything happens in a vacuum. And Martin WENT back he was home safe and alive, instead he chose to go back confront Zimmerman and then attack him, and yes Martin attacked him several witnesses stated so.

 

[colfax_m]

Chased? He followed him. I've been followed. You just talk.

Yes, chased. Zimmerman ran after him. Martin ran away. That’s being chased.
That’s threatening behavior and he did to in response to Martin who had nothing wrong.

It was wrong to call the cops on Martin.

 

[colfax_m]

Zimmerman made no threatening move towards Trayvon.

A man stared at him from his truck, got out and chased him down an alley at night. Should I tell my kids not to be threatened by that kind of behavior?

You say a lot of what Trayvon should or shouldn't have done but offer no critique about Zimmerman. Trayvon was minding his own business when Zimmerman called the cops on a kid who was doing nothing wrong. That's just not right.

Just IGNORE the previous history of the neighborhood , I see that is a theme with you , you claim everything happens in a vacuum. And Martin WENT back he was home safe and alive, instead he chose to go back confront Zimmerman and then attack him, and yes Martin attacked him several witnesses stated so.

You were caught lying about the testimony.

No witness saw the beginning of the fight so who attacked who remains unknown.