- 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 11:28 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:28 am to AggieHank86
quote:
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.
Your stupid argument is that he was already engaged in the potentially illegal activity when the protestors first entered and the gate was not broken. He was not. Eventually after the trash became threatening he came around to the side of the house. That is where he justifiably brandished his weapon.
Quit using the charge as substantiation if anything other than corruption.
As pos mueller showed us, you can charge a ham sandwich.
This post was edited on 7/22/20 at 11:30 am
1
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:29 am to AggieHank86
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.
What exactly did he lie about? What's incorrect about the timeline? He said they smashed though the gate. He didn't exactly say they destroyed the gate. How do we know the protestors did not damage the gate as seen in the photos? The mob could have done that at any time during or after they left the area.
What exactly did he lie about? What's incorrect about the timeline? He said they smashed though the gate. He didn't exactly say they destroyed the gate. How do we know the protestors did not damage the gate as seen in the photos? The mob could have done that at any time during or after they left the area.
This post was edited on 7/22/20 at 11:30 am
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:36 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:aaaaarrrrrgggghhhh.
Your stupid argument is that he was already engaged in the potentially illegal activity when the protestors first entered and the gate was not broken
NO.
I am saying that his DEFENSE to criminal charges is that he was in a reasonable fear. His stated BASIS for that defense is that the protesters were "Storming the Bastille" and destroying the pedestrian gate. The FACTS are that he had armed himself BEFORE the protesters entered thru an open and undamaged gate. The CONCLUSION is that his stated basis was a FABRICATION.
Now, AGAIN, it is entirely POSSIBLE that he FORMED a "reasonable fear" AFTER he had already armed himself and when the later protesters trespassed upon his lawn. And that claim would hold more water if he had not LIED about the timeline. When you have demonstrably-lied ONCE about the facts of the incident, the de facto burden shifts to YOU to prove that you are not lying a second time.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:37 am to AggieHank86
quote:No. I'm not overlooking the jury pool.
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.
It isn't a jury that charged them.
They should never have been charged because the person who is NOT an idiot juror knows the world isn't a vacuum and that ANY reasonable person would consider a mob breaking down a gate and being in front of their house to be a threat.
quote:Like I said, juries are kinda supposed to be stupid and legal idiots. DAs are not.
Disagreeing with them does not change the fact that THEY will be the jury ... not you.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:38 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I am saying that his DEFENSE to criminal charges is that he was in a reasonable fear.
This is skipping a step
There should be no need for a defense.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:38 am to TS1926
quote:His earliest statements indicated that he grew fearful and armed himself BECAUSE the mob had "Stormed the Bastille" and destroyed the "historic" iron gate.
What exactly did he lie about?
The video establishes that he was ALREADY armed when there were only 4-5 peaceful folks walking thru the open and undamaged gate.
If you cannot see the inconsistency, there really is not much I can add.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:40 am to ShortyRob
quote:I agree.
They should never have been charged
But they HAVE been charged, and they DO need a defense.
And the makeup of the jury pool is EXTREMELY important in analyzing the chances of success for that defense.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:41 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The video establishes that he was ALREADY armed when there were only 4-5 peaceful folks walking thru the open and undamaged gate.
Did he KNOW the gate wasn't destroyed, but rather was held open?
Perhaps he saw a mob coming towards his house... then checked the gate only after everything had settled down, at which time he discovered it was destroyed by the angry BLM mob.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:41 am to AggieHank86
quote:
If you are on the jury, that Defendant is now 1/12 of the way to where (s)he needs to be.
I'm confused here, why would the defendant need 12 people to agree with him/her?
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:42 am to AggieHank86
quote:
And the makeup of the jury pool is EXTREMELY important in analyzing the chances of success for that defense.
Honestly, I'm barely concerned about this.
They aren't going to jail. I'd go ahead and bet my life on that right now.
That said. The DA should be shot. And no, I'm not speaking figuratively.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:56 am to SSpaniel
quote:I can rely only upon what McCloskey HIMSELF said in various interviews. For example:
Did he KNOW the gate wasn't destroyed, but rather was held open?
Perhaps he saw a mob coming towards his house... then checked the gate only after everything had settled down, at which time he discovered it was destroyed by the angry BLM mob.
quote:So, his timeline is that the protesters "broke the gate," which "prompted" him to go get their guns.
During an interview Monday on local NBC affiliate KSDK, McCloskey claimed that the protesters had broken the gate in front of Portland Place, the gated community where he resides, which prompted him and his wife to retrieve their guns while ordering the demonstrators to leave.
"It was like the storming of the Bastille," Mark said. "The gate came down, and a large crowd — a very angry, shouting, aggressive people poured through."
Like it or not, the video establishes that this is NOT the order in which these things happened.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:57 am to AggieHank86
quote:
held open by the person who unlocked it for them
Uh. What?
quote:
waiving an automatic rifle in their general direction
Lol.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:58 am to SSpaniel
So in order for a person to feel they are in imminent danger, they need to be actually under assault? In this case, he needed to be out trimming the rose bush and the mob begin beating him or his wife before deciding to take any action?
So to summarize, his defense is shaky at best due to him purportedly already holding a fire arm as seen in a video clip filmed by the mob, of course video clips are ALWAYS conclusive evidence; and his exaggerations about the gate being kicked in or "smashed as he called it. Wow..hahahahaha!
So to summarize, his defense is shaky at best due to him purportedly already holding a fire arm as seen in a video clip filmed by the mob, of course video clips are ALWAYS conclusive evidence; and his exaggerations about the gate being kicked in or "smashed as he called it. Wow..hahahahaha!
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:59 am to Jcorye1
quote:Because the State has the burden of proof on the substantive crime, and the DEFENDANT has the burden of proof as to any affirmative defense.
I'm confused here, why would the defendant need 12 people to agree with him/her?
The Castle Doctrine is an affirmative defense. Thus, the McCloskeys will have the burden of proof.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 11:59 am to AggieHank86
quote:What a potential juror might (or might not) think isn't probable cause for charges. Good grief.
Another juror might see video of the first peaceful protesters walking thru an undamaged gate ...
quote:
waiving an automatic rifle in their general direction
idiot.This post was edited on 7/22/20 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:00 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
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
Several protesters were armed, as well. Yet they somehow escaped a brandishing charge.
Weird. Almost like the prosecution is political.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
So, his timeline is that the protesters "broke the gate," which "prompted" him to go get their guns.
If someone forced open the gate, is that really different than “broke the gate?”
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:05 pm to SSpaniel
quote:Don't take LiberalHanks bait. He's desparately trying to deflect. It makes no difference how the gate was opened. It was posted private property. There could have been no fence at all, and it would still be trespassing.
Did he KNOW the gate wasn't destroyed, but rather was held open?
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:05 pm to TS1926
quote:No.
So to summarize, his defense is shaky at best due to him purportedly already holding a fire arm as seen in a video clip filmed by the mob, of course video clips are ALWAYS conclusive evidence; and his exaggerations about the gate being kicked in or "smashed as he called it. Wow..hahahahaha!
If he had said "I heard the crowd approaching on the main street outside the neighborhood. I became concerned, so I retrieved my firearm. The crowd entered the neighborhood, trespassed upon my lawn and began making threatening remarks and movements toward me and my family. As such, I became afraid for my safety and that of my family and property." He would then be OK
But he LIED about when he retrieved the weapon. It is not the weapon that is the problem. It is the lie.
And he LIED about the timing of the destruction of the pedestrian gate. Again, it is the LIE that is the problem.
When you lie ... repeatedly and demonstrably ... juries tend to disbelieve every word that comes out of your mouth.
THAT is his problem.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 12:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
But he LIED about when he retrieved the weapon. It is not the weapon that is the problem. It is the lie.
And he LIED about the timing of the destruction of the pedestrian gate. Again, it is the LIE that is the problem.
When was his trial? Again... none of this matters. This post was edited on 7/22/20 at 12:07 pm
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News