St louis DA's Office Caught Altering Evidence Against McCloskeys

[progressive hunter]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

yes!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

in the state of missouri they are allowed to shoot them once they broke through the gate onto private property,,,

that comes from the state AG,,,check his twitter feeed and he lays it out in detail,,,

Post the tweets.

thats been posted so look them up yourself,,,

You reference it. You post it. Don’t be a lazy asshole.

for anyone else but you I would consider it,,,

you claimed they committed a crime so you should post the law they broke,,,

Easy enough, especially since I’m not a lazy asshole.

McCloskeys charged with felonies for waving guns during protests

St. Louis prosecutors have charged a Central West End couple with a felony gun crime for their actions as protesters marched by their home.

www.stltoday.com

571.030

Unlawful use of weapons, offense of — exceptions — violation, penalties.

revisor.mo.gov

Your turn. Post the tweets.

Your own link states the AG of the State is seeking a dismissal, meaning he disagrees as does his lawyers in his office with the charges. Who do you think will win that battle?

 

[colfax_m]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

It does not matter but I assume they did in fact enter the property of the couple and yes a person has the right to defend communal property just like their own property. Be specific now and do as asked cite the law or laws that the couple broke and are charged with.

I think it does matter. Does castle doctrine apply when it’s someone else’s castle? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.

Links above with the law in question.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

yes!!!

You want me to believe they owned the street?

Hell, squatters like them may actually believe it but I doubt that’s true.

 

[progressive hunter]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

It does not matter but I assume they did in fact enter the property of the couple and yes a person has the right to defend communal property just like their own property. Be specific now and do as asked cite the law or laws that the couple broke and are charged with.

I think it does matter. Does castle doctrine apply when it’s someone else’s castle? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.

Links above with the law in question.

why are you ignoring the castle law???
if you check you will see their name is on all legal documents on the property the rioters were on,,so it was their property,,,

 

[colfax_m]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

in the state of missouri they are allowed to shoot them once they broke through the gate onto private property,,,

that comes from the state AG,,,check his twitter feeed and he lays it out in detail,,,

Post the tweets.

thats been posted so look them up yourself,,,

You reference it. You post it. Don’t be a lazy asshole.

for anyone else but you I would consider it,,,

you claimed they committed a crime so you should post the law they broke,,,

Easy enough, especially since I’m not a lazy asshole.

McCloskeys charged with felonies for waving guns during protests

St. Louis prosecutors have charged a Central West End couple with a felony gun crime for their actions as protesters marched by their home.

www.stltoday.com

571.030

Unlawful use of weapons, offense of — exceptions — violation, penalties.

revisor.mo.gov

Your turn. Post the tweets.

Your own link states the AG of the State is seeking a dismissal, meaning he disagrees as does his lawyers in his office with the charges. Who do you think will win that battle?

I doubt the charges will stick. The State AG filed an amicus, but their brief doesn’t really talk about the circumstances of that evening so I don’t see how relevant it is.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

It does not matter but I assume they did in fact enter the property of the couple and yes a person has the right to defend communal property just like their own property. Be specific now and do as asked cite the law or laws that the couple broke and are charged with.

I think it does matter. Does castle doctrine apply when it’s someone else’s castle? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.

Links above with the law in question.

why are you ignoring the castle law???
if you check you will see their name on all legal documents on the property the rioters were on,,so it was their property,,,

Not ignoring it. But I refuse to believe castle doctrine applies to the street and sidewalk. That’s just absurd.

 

[progressive hunter]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

It does not matter but I assume they did in fact enter the property of the couple and yes a person has the right to defend communal property just like their own property. Be specific now and do as asked cite the law or laws that the couple broke and are charged with.

I think it does matter. Does castle doctrine apply when it’s someone else’s castle? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.

Links above with the law in question.

why are you ignoring the castle law???
if you check you will see their name on all legal documents on the property the rioters were on,,so it was their property,,,

Not ignoring it. But I refuse to believe castle doctrine applies to the street and sidewalk. That’s just absurd.

if you actually read it you would understand why,,,

 

[colfax_m]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

It does not matter but I assume they did in fact enter the property of the couple and yes a person has the right to defend communal property just like their own property. Be specific now and do as asked cite the law or laws that the couple broke and are charged with.

I think it does matter. Does castle doctrine apply when it’s someone else’s castle? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.

Links above with the law in question.

why are you ignoring the castle law???
if you check you will see their name on all legal documents on the property the rioters were on,,so it was their property,,,

Not ignoring it. But I refuse to believe castle doctrine applies to the street and sidewalk. That’s just absurd.

if you actually read it you would understand why,,,

Post it.

 

[progressive hunter]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

It does not matter but I assume they did in fact enter the property of the couple and yes a person has the right to defend communal property just like their own property. Be specific now and do as asked cite the law or laws that the couple broke and are charged with.

I think it does matter. Does castle doctrine apply when it’s someone else’s castle? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.

Links above with the law in question.

why are you ignoring the castle law???
if you check you will see their name on all legal documents on the property the rioters were on,,so it was their property,,,

Not ignoring it. But I refuse to believe castle doctrine applies to the street and sidewalk. That’s just absurd.

if you actually read it you would understand why,,,

Post it.

its your claim so you should have already posted it,,,thats how it works in this country,,,

 

[colfax_m]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

It does not matter but I assume they did in fact enter the property of the couple and yes a person has the right to defend communal property just like their own property. Be specific now and do as asked cite the law or laws that the couple broke and are charged with.

I think it does matter. Does castle doctrine apply when it’s someone else’s castle? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.

Links above with the law in question.

why are you ignoring the castle law???
if you check you will see their name on all legal documents on the property the rioters were on,,so it was their property,,,

Not ignoring it. But I refuse to believe castle doctrine applies to the street and sidewalk. That’s just absurd.

if you actually read it you would understand why,,,

Post it.

its your claim so you should have already posted it,,,thats how it works in this country,,,

You’re the one that brought it up claiming it excused their behavior.

So post it.

Don’t be a lazy asshole.

 

[progressive hunter]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

It does not matter but I assume they did in fact enter the property of the couple and yes a person has the right to defend communal property just like their own property. Be specific now and do as asked cite the law or laws that the couple broke and are charged with.

I think it does matter. Does castle doctrine apply when it’s someone else’s castle? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.

Links above with the law in question.

why are you ignoring the castle law???
if you check you will see their name on all legal documents on the property the rioters were on,,so it was their property,,,

Not ignoring it. But I refuse to believe castle doctrine applies to the street and sidewalk. That’s just absurd.

if you actually read it you would understand why,,,

Post it.

its your claim so you should have already posted it,,,thats how it works in this country,,,

You’re the one that brought it up claiming it excused their behavior.

So post it.

Don’t be a lazy asshole.

I said its the law that proves you wrong,,,

please stop lying about what I said,,,,

 

[colfax_m]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

It does not matter but I assume they did in fact enter the property of the couple and yes a person has the right to defend communal property just like their own property. Be specific now and do as asked cite the law or laws that the couple broke and are charged with.

I think it does matter. Does castle doctrine apply when it’s someone else’s castle? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.

Links above with the law in question.

why are you ignoring the castle law???
if you check you will see their name on all legal documents on the property the rioters were on,,so it was their property,,,

Not ignoring it. But I refuse to believe castle doctrine applies to the street and sidewalk. That’s just absurd.

if you actually read it you would understand why,,,

Post it.

its your claim so you should have already posted it,,,thats how it works in this country,,,

You’re the one that brought it up claiming it excused their behavior.

So post it.

Don’t be a lazy asshole.

I said its the law that proves you wrong,,,

please stop lying about what I said,,,,

Ah! So if you claimed it proves me wrong, you should have no problem posting it.

At least, if you aren’t a lazy asshole. But you are so, it’s not going to happen.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

It does not matter but I assume they did in fact enter the property of the couple and yes a person has the right to defend communal property just like their own property. Be specific now and do as asked cite the law or laws that the couple broke and are charged with.

I think it does matter. Does castle doctrine apply when it’s someone else’s castle? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.

Links above with the law in question.

why are you ignoring the castle law???
if you check you will see their name on all legal documents on the property the rioters were on,,so it was their property,,,

Not ignoring it. But I refuse to believe castle doctrine applies to the street and sidewalk. That’s just absurd.

if you actually read it you would understand why,,,

Post it.

its your claim so you should have already posted it,,,thats how it works in this country,,,

You’re the one that brought it up claiming it excused their behavior.

So post it.

Don’t be a lazy asshole.

I said its the law that proves you wrong,,,

please stop lying about what I said,,,,

Ah! So if you claimed it proves me wrong, you should have no problem posting it.

At least, if you aren’t a lazy asshole. But you are so, it’s not going to happen.

What your dainty fingers and eyes incapable of looking up the law?

 

[jc456]

You sounds like you're willing to bet someone else's life on it.

Nah. I try to stay away from violent people.

As an example, the McCloskey’s are now claiming they own part of the common land in the subdivision, squatters rights. Not joke. There’s a lawsuit in progress because this couple is absolute garbage.

Apparently, according to their own court filings, they’ve pointed a gun at someone cutting across this contested land. That’s right. They threatened someone for walking on common area.

These people are trash. No one in their neighborhood wants them there.

Fk off

 

[jc456]

Sure. But what's "their property" is actually a bit in dispute. The McCloskey's think property belongs to them just because they say so.

If people are walking in the street, the McCloskey's have no right to threaten them with firearms.

Hmmm...

Almost everyone in that photo is in the street.

Serious question. Do the McCloskey’s have a right to point a gun at anyone walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.

"Almost everyone".

You're dismissed.

You never answered the question.

Walking on the sidewalk is trespassing now? You’re not serious.

They entered read his post by law IN THAT STATE, per the AG of the State they had a right to fire on them, THUS a right to have arms present

For walking on the sidewalk?

For entering through the gate to private property, the street in question is probably not city property it is probably the gated communities property.

Was the street the property of the McCloskey’s? Was the gate the property of the McCloskey’s?

It does not matter but I assume they did in fact enter the property of the couple and yes a person has the right to defend communal property just like their own property. Be specific now and do as asked cite the law or laws that the couple broke and are charged with.

I think it does matter. Does castle doctrine apply when it’s someone else’s castle? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.

Links above with the law in question.

why are you ignoring the castle law???
if you check you will see their name on all legal documents on the property the rioters were on,,so it was their property,,,

Not ignoring it. But I refuse to believe castle doctrine applies to the street and sidewalk. That’s just absurd.

if you actually read it you would understand why,,,

Post it.

its your claim so you should have already posted it,,,thats how it works in this country,,,

You’re the one that brought it up claiming it excused their behavior.

So post it.

Don’t be a lazy asshole.

I said its the law that proves you wrong,,,

please stop lying about what I said,,,,

Ah! So if you claimed it proves me wrong, you should have no problem posting it.

At least, if you aren’t a lazy asshole. But you are so, it’s not going to happen.

Son, you’re fking toast already

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The real question is whether he was justified in feeling threatened. I don’t know if he was or not.

A potentially violent mob of reportedly up to 500 people crashing a private gate is reason enough to fell threatened

"Potentially violent" is a cop out. Everyone can be considered "potentially violent" if you want.

Crashing a gate is hyperbolic. They opened the gate and walked through.

Mobs have been looting, burning and assaulting people all over the country for weeks. What’s more, some have been threatening to bring these protests to the suburbs.

Knowing this (as pretty much every American does, including you), the couple felt justifiably threatened when yet another of these mobs appeared in their neighborhood.

The mob is a mindless, unpredictable animal that operates solely on instinct and has no regard for individual rights when it comes to property and personal safety.

I for one - in the same situation and given recent events - would not have trusted this mob NOT to become violent and also would have armed myself.

 

[jc456]

What your dainty fingers and eyes incapable of looking up the law?

He cannot, he’s incapable

 

[jc456]

The real question is whether he was justified in feeling threatened. I don’t know if he was or not.

A potentially violent mob of reportedly up to 500 people crashing a private gate is reason enough to fell threatened

"Potentially violent" is a cop out. Everyone can be considered "potentially violent" if you want.

Crashing a gate is hyperbolic. They opened the gate and walked through.

Mobs have been looting, burning and assaulting people all over the country for weeks. What’s more, some have been threatening to bring these protests to the suburbs.

Knowing this (as pretty much every American does, including you), the couple felt justifiably threatened when yet another of these mobs appeared in their neighborhood.

The mob is a mindless animal that operates solely on instinct and has no regard for individual rights when it comes to property and personal safety.

I for one - in the same situation and given recent events - would not have trusted this mob NOT to become violent and also would have armed myself.

He’s never heard of arson. That’s all you need

 

[gmeyers1944]

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 adds falsifying evidence to add to the other charges against her.
I hope the State AG files charges against Kim Gardner soon, and disbars her.

Whether they were defending their property or not remains to be seen. The judge and jury will decide. There’s nothing illegal about the charges, that’s absurd.

As I’ve already pointed out, the evidence was not falsified.

You guys aren’t actually thinking here, just following a narrative.

There won't be a jury trial for the McCloskys' but there will be one for Kim Gardner.
The governor and State AG already said that the McClosky's did not commit any crime, period.

Missouri Gov. Parson to pardon McCloskeys 'without a doubt,' saying prosecutor's actions 'defy common sense'

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson told "Hannity" on Monday that "without a doubt," he will pardon Mark and Patricia McCloskey, hours after St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner filed felony charges against them.

www.foxnews.com

Whether they committed a crime is for the judge and jury to decide. Not the governor. He may pardon them but that doesn’t mean they’re law abiding.

This is getting to be a pattern with right wing crime. Just claim the prosecution was politically motivated. Doesn’t matter what you did.

But back to the topic of the thread, no evidence was falsified. Y’all got that one wrong.

1. What part of "there is no crime" don't you get? The DA wrongly filed charges against law-abiding homeowners. There will not be a trial, unless its for Kim Gardner.
2. The gun doesn't matter if there was no crime. Generally speaking tampering with evidence is a crime.
3. We'll see who broke MO law.

1. Who the hell appointed you arbiter of what is and isn't a crime. Thanks for your opinion but don't go pretending it's any more than that.
2. There was no tampering with evidence, there was no crime.
3. Sure we will. If someone starts waving a gun around at people walking on the sidewalk in front of their house, that'd be a crime, wouldn't it?

The people you claim were " walking on the sidewalk in front of their ( McCloskey's ) house" had torn down a gate and were tresspassing on prvate property and threatening the McCloskeys. I viewed the reporter standing by the repaired gate, probably the next day. I cannot find it now, but there was a video that proved that the gate had been broken.