- 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: Missouri State AG Schmitt requests McClosky charges be dropped.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 10:47 am to SSpaniel
Posted on 7/22/20 at 10:47 am to SSpaniel
quote:No.
Hank think that it's not only possible but highly probably that the McClosky's damaged the gatequote:. I mean.... there's no video that doesn't show them doing this... therefore... they did this
to make the protestors look bad
I think that it is one (entirely reasonable) possibility that SOMEONE (perhaps the McCloskeys and perhaps supporters) damaged the gate in order to provide physical evidence in support of their claim that they armed themselves when they saw and heard "the Storming of the Bastille" over at the pedestrian gate.
Is it also possible that later protesters were overcome by the irresistible need to destroy an open gate and stopped their progress to the mayor's house in order to destroy that highly-offensive piece of wrought iron, after the video was filmed? I suppose so.
Either way, it seems apparent that the gate was damaged by someone PULLING from the inside, rather than someone PUSHING from the outside. That would fit either scenario.
But the video link certainly creates some reasonable doubt about the McCloskey's ORIGINALLY STATED motivation for arming themselves (remember the "Bastille"), correct?
This post was edited on 7/22/20 at 11:01 am
1
Posted on 7/22/20 at 10:49 am to AggieHank86
quote:
St. Augustine
You keep saying St. Augustine. Very doubtful that it's St. Augustine. Likely won't grow that far north.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 10:50 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Is it also possible that later protesters were overcome by the irresistible need to destroy an open gate and stopped their progress to the mayor's house in order to destroy that highly-offensive piece of wrought iron, after the video was filmed? I suppose so.
Alternatively, the protestors got pissed off at the McCloskeys and decided to destroy the gate because the McCloskeys dared to defend themselves against a perceived threat.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 10:50 am to SSpaniel
quote:I have never SAID that the video shows the unlocking.
I certainly don't see anyone unlocking the gate for them. I see one BLM protestor holding it open for everyone else. But no unlocking.
But ALL photos of the gate show that access was controlled by a physical key and deadbolt, along with the drop-rod into the concrete.
If it was kept locked (as has been asserted in all the news reports), it was clearly opened by someone with a key, because it was undamaged at the time of the earliest video ... giving rise to a presumption that the protesters acquired the status of "invitees," in the common areas at least.
If someone just forgot to lock the gate, one could certainly argue that they were "trespassers" even in the street (common areas).
This post was edited on 7/22/20 at 11:02 am
Posted on 7/22/20 at 10:55 am to SSpaniel
quote:Sure.
Alternatively, the protestors got pissed off at the McCloskeys and decided to destroy the gate because the McCloskeys dared to defend themselves against a perceived threat.
In which case, the damage to the gate CONTINUES to fail to provide a justification for McCloskey's decision to arm himself and continues to fail to provide a basis for his claims of "reasonable fear." Because he armed himself BEFORE the gate was damaged, even in your scenario.
Did the chanting protesters (regardless of how they passed the gate) ALONE provide a basis for "reasonable fear?" That is a different question, and not one I have addressed.
McCloskey lied about the timing of the damage to the gate. That is the ONLY issue that I have been addressing.
But that lie DOES bring his credibility into question in a more general sense.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 10:56 am to AggieHank86
I see the protestors holding open what appears to be an undamaged gate to a private neighborhood. The gate's condition is irrelevant to whether the McClosky's felt they were in imminent danger.
So Aggie Hank, you agree that the charges should stick. If the McClosky's refuse the plea deal, you agree that it's fair they face the maximum penalty of up to four years in prison?
So Aggie Hank, you agree that the charges should stick. If the McClosky's refuse the plea deal, you agree that it's fair they face the maximum penalty of up to four years in prison?
Posted on 7/22/20 at 10:57 am to TS1926
quote:You've not read this thread, have you?
So Aggie Hank, you agree that the charges should stick. If the McClosky's refuse the plea deal, you agree that it's fair they face the maximum penalty of up to four years in prison?
Posted on 7/22/20 at 10:59 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The question of whether they committed a trespass by stepping onto the McCloskey St. Augustine
They committed trespass by entering private property by going through the gate.
But you already knew that.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:01 am to AggieHank86
You are filth.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:02 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Do you want to wager your freedom on the hope that you draw the "correct" jury?
Im not sure how you decide to protect yourself and your loved ones but damn straight Im pointing a gun at anyone who threatens my life or family. I dont care about the jury. The facts are that these people threatened the mcloskeys life and property. If you like your freedoms taken from you by thugs then thats your right to allow that.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:03 am to AggieHank86
quote:
was already standing on his porch and waiving his automatic rifle.
Nowhere in the video does he waive his rifle. He has it barrel up the whole time when in the porch. Did he come around to the side after the scum destroyed the gate?
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:03 am to BuckyCheese
quote:NOT if someone with a key opened the gate and granted them access. In that instance, they become "invitees" rather than "trespassers."
They committed trespass by entering private property by going through the gate.
But you already knew that.
But you probably did NOT know that. And I am not so naive as to think you will accept a simple statement of black-letter law ... because you don't like it.
That refusal to acknowledge reality is one of the things that makes this place so amusing.
This post was edited on 7/22/20 at 11:24 am
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:04 am to AggieHank86
quote:
In which case, the damage to the gate CONTINUES to fail to provide a justification for McCloskey's decision to arm himself and continues to fail to provide a basis for his claims of "reasonable fear." Because he armed himself BEFORE the gate was damaged, even in your scenario.
Arming yourself isn’t a crime dipshit.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:05 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You've not read this thread, have you?
Yes I have. I asked your opinion about the charges.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:09 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:At NO point have I asserted otherwise.
Arming yourself isn’t a crime dipshit.
But they HAVE been charged with "illegally brandishing a weapon" or some such thing under Missouri law. Apparently, that IS a crime of there, regardless of whether you or I think it SHOULD be a crime.
So, do the McCloskeys have a DEFENSE to that crime? They are setting-up a defense under the local version of the Castle Doctrine. For that defense to apply, they must have been experiencing "reasonable fear" as I understand Missouri law.
AGAIN, McCloskey claims that he was in fear because he watched the crowd "Storm the Bastille" and destroy the pedestrian gate. The video refutes his timeline. He was armed LONG before the gate was damaged and when only four or five people had even entered the neighborhood.
I do NOT understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:11 am to AggieHank86
quote:
But they HAVE been charged with "illegally brandishing a weapon"
To be fair... the wife should be charged with "stupidly brandishing a weapon."
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:12 am to TS1926
quote:Then you have not read the thread, because I have answered that question twice.
Yes I have. I asked your opinion about the charges.
No, I do not think they should be charged, though the way that the wife waived that purse gun around comes damned close to the statutory definition.
But if the case against them DOES proceed, I don't think that their Castle defense will be very persuasive, precisely because the husband clearly lied about the timeline. It puts his credibility under a microscope as to the entire story.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:13 am to SSpaniel
quote:Agreed. I thought she was gesturing with a mimosa glass.
To be fair... the wife should be charged with "stupidly brandishing a weapon."
The elements of the crime (in relevant part) are met when the Defendant:
quote:"Self Defense" will be the controlling issue ... and we are right back to "reasonableness."
Exhibits or displays a lethal weapon in an angry or threatening manner in front of one or more persons.
Possesses a firearm or projectile weapon capable of lethal use while in an intoxicated state or handles the weapon in a negligent or unlawful manner unless acting in self-defense.
This post was edited on 7/22/20 at 11:17 am
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:24 am to AggieHank86
quote:
If someone walks across your front lawn shouting unkind things about you and your ancestors, it is a much closer cal
fricking retarded
The world isn't a vacuum. Anyone alive in the last few months seeing that mob come walking across their lawn shouting unkind things has an absolute reasonable fear. Any pretence otherwise is just that. Pure pretense
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:27 am to ShortyRob
quote:Shorty, it is you who is "thinking in a vacuum" You are overlooking the jury pool. To large portion of them, that was not a mob, but instead a group of civil rights heroes.
The world isn't a vacuum. Anyone alive in the last few months seeing that mob come walking across their lawn shouting unkind things has an absolute reasonable fear. Any pretence otherwise is just that. Pure pretense
Disagreeing with them does not change the fact that THEY will be the jury ... not you.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News