- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This should be a bigger story: Evidence Tampered With In McCloskey Gun Case
Posted on 7/27/20 at 9:31 am to CleverUserName
Posted on 7/27/20 at 9:31 am to CleverUserName
quote:Only because you have embraced one of the dozens of possible series of events and refuse to even examine any of the others.
Which kinda damages any notion of hammering home they remained invitees.
Let's say that a sympathetic resident unlocked the gate and that 20 protesters entered the neighborhood before ten of their buddies destroyed the gate.
Arguably, the destructive fellows either lose invitee status or even never acquired it. The first twenty, however, do not lose their status due to the actions of OTHER persons. This is 1-L stuff.
This post was edited on 7/27/20 at 9:33 am
3
Posted on 7/27/20 at 9:41 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Of course, the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments here would have been epic, if law enforcement HAD taken possession of the weapon at the scene.
You mean people would have been upset if the mccloskey’s constitutional rights were violated earlier than they already were? Yea, that’s probably a safe bet.
Posted on 7/27/20 at 9:42 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
It tried to forget about the McMichaels
You should stick to obsessing over high school sports and pretending Mitchell Robinson gives a frick about you.
Posted on 7/27/20 at 9:46 am to Open Your Eyes
quote:Good Lord.
You mean people would have been upset if the mccloskey’s constitutional rights were violated earlier than they already were? Yea, that’s probably a safe bet.
Taking possession of evidence in a criminal investigation does not violate anyone's Constitutional rights.
Posted on 7/27/20 at 9:47 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Only because you have embraced one of the dozens of possible series of events and refuse to even examine any of the others.
Why do we need to consider alternative, fanciful series of events? We have you to do that for us.
Posted on 7/27/20 at 9:48 am to AggieHank86
Should this have been a criminal case?
They were on THEIR property, a private street where the mob had broken in, and had told them to leave.
No shots fired. The pistol the wife had wasn’t even operable.
If the lawyers had gone out looking for a confrontation, it would be a case. The mob trespassed and brought it to them.
They were on THEIR property, a private street where the mob had broken in, and had told them to leave.
No shots fired. The pistol the wife had wasn’t even operable.
If the lawyers had gone out looking for a confrontation, it would be a case. The mob trespassed and brought it to them.
Posted on 7/27/20 at 9:50 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Good Lord. Taking possession of evidence in a criminal investigation does not violate anyone's Constitutional rights.
Persecuting US citizens by illegally confiscating their guns and arresting them because of a bogus charge that is debunked by very clear, publicly available evidence is most certainly a violation of their constitutional rights.
Posted on 7/27/20 at 9:51 am to teke184
quote:that’s exactly what they did. No one was coming for the McCloskeys. They were going to the mayor’s house
If the lawyers had gone out looking for a confrontation
Posted on 7/27/20 at 9:51 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Let's say that a sympathetic resident unlocked the gate and that 20 protesters entered the neighborhood before ten of their buddies destroyed the gate. Arguably, the destructive fellows either lose invitee status or even never acquired it.
Ok. Who was who in the crowd in front of the house?
Posted on 7/27/20 at 9:52 am to chalmetteowl
PRIVATE STREET dumbfrick!
The mob was trespassing on a clearly posted and gated area.
The mob was trespassing on a clearly posted and gated area.
Posted on 7/27/20 at 9:55 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
that’s exactly what they did. No one was coming for the McCloskeys. They were going to the mayor’s house
Why did they stop?
Posted on 7/27/20 at 9:57 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
that’s exactly what they did. No one was coming for the McCloskeys. They were going to the mayor’s house
The McCloskeys were eating dinner outside when the rioters broke into their property. They were threatened by the rioters, including a threat to kill their dog.
And the mayor doesn't live on their private street.
But keep being wrong.
Posted on 7/27/20 at 10:00 am to Open Your Eyes
quote:
Persecuting US citizens by illegally confiscating their guns and arresting them because of a bogus charge that is debunked by very clear, publicly available evidence is most certainly a violation of their constitutional rights.
And as a taxpayer in the city of St Louis, it's only going to end up costing me, either in higher taxes or reduced city services due to the settlements that will be owed to the McCloskey's.
Posted on 7/27/20 at 10:01 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
that’s exactly what they did. No one was coming for the McCloskeys. They were going to the mayor’s house
Oh. My. God.
Posted on 7/27/20 at 10:07 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
that’s exactly what they did. No one was coming for the McCloskeys. They were going to the mayor’s house
Let’s have some fun here.
When noodle arms like you are ran over on the interstate. The vehicle driver was just lawfully trying to get home right??
This post was edited on 7/27/20 at 10:08 am
Posted on 7/27/20 at 10:09 am to AggieHank86
quote:
This forum has spent PAGES scoffing at the notion that the protesters might be invitees, but SOMEONE unlocked that gate for them.
You keep saying this as if it's a proven fact, when it's not. Nobody - including protesters themselves - is claiming that the gate was ever unlocked for them. Nobody but you.
It's just as likely that the first "set" of protesters bashed through the old gate like a battering ram and it swung open, appearing undamaged. After the last person in the first "round" of protesters passes through, the gate swings back closed and re-engages the locking mechanism, locking itself.
Then the second round of protesters tries to enter the locked gate by using force, and THAT finally destroys it the way you see later in the videos.
That makes more logical sense than protesters feeling the need to destroy an already-open gate anyway.
As an attorney, I would hope you could point out the logical flaws in what you espouse fairly easily. But here you are still arguing something that only you are shouting, as if you're smarter and more connected to this case than people actually present. It's laughable.
*Edited to change wording after seeing pics of the gate for the first time in a while. I thought I remembered it being a different style, but it doesn't change the argument at all.
This post was edited on 7/27/20 at 10:31 am
Posted on 7/27/20 at 10:10 am to RazorBroncs
That gate was probably never locked in the first place
Posted on 7/27/20 at 10:11 am to chalmetteowl
Then why was it broken in half?
Your options are “it was locked” or “rioters did it for the lulz”.
Neither helps your argument.
Your options are “it was locked” or “rioters did it for the lulz”.
Neither helps your argument.
Posted on 7/27/20 at 10:13 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
That gate was probably never locked in the first place
There is is guys!! Case Closed!! He nailed us!!
ROFL
This post was edited on 7/27/20 at 10:14 am
Posted on 7/27/20 at 10:15 am to AggieHank86
Whether the gate was broken or not is irrelevant. Still on private property.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News