McCloskey Gun Inoperable When Police Seized It

[Double Naught Spy]

What???? Political persecution has nothing to do with going before the court and having charges dropped because of the purported information. It is still a legal matter.

[VASCAR2]

It is common for crime lab firearms sections to have various weapons in the inventory for comparison purposes. There are times firearms used in crimes are recovered in a non functional state. The firearms lab technician will use parts from inventory weapons to get the weapon to function for evidentiary purposes.

A lot of seized firearms that can not be returned to the owner are ordered by the court to be turned over to the lab firearms section. Having access to these firearm helps the lab to complete their required testing/analysis on non functional weapons in a prompt manner without having to buy or source parts.

[pinetreebbs]

Something stinks, unless they had it around the house for a throw down gun.

[LR1955]

What???? Political persecution has nothing to do with going before the court and having charges dropped because of the purported information. It is still a legal matter.

DNS:

They are called 'activist' judges and they openly say they will not follow legal precedent because of their radical views. Yesterday in Seattle a bunch of judges announced that anyone who attacks a police officer will not be prosecuted for assault because the mere presence of the police man or woman is the cause of their being assaulted. And that is just one many examples where activist judges are judging someone based on their political bigotry.

LR-55

[grayfox]

What???? Political persecution has nothing to do with going before the court and having charges dropped because of the purported information. It is still a legal matter.

The scene may play out in a courtroom but since there is little, if any, basis in law or in fact, it is not strictly speaking, a legal matter.
As part of my position in the NRC I saw and was involved in several cases filed before the courts that ultimately had no basis in law or fact, (among other tests to see is it indeed was a "legal" matter) and so they were dismissed. My point is merely that the DA, and perhaps the court itself, is/are pursuing a political persecution and playing it out in a courtroom scenario. This is stifling power exercised by the "state" to suppress citizens, not "legal" power to suppress wrongdoing.

Afaik the judge has not ruled or spoken up yet, so my views at this point are primarily of the DA's actions. She is clearly, IMO, attempting to throw a chill effect upon Mo citizens from believing they have any 2A rights, or other ones under the Mo Constitution. Since the Mo AG, who is the chief law enforcement officer in Mo and by definition an authority on Mo constitution, has intervened it is pretty clear that if the DA attempts to move this forward then it is purely on a political, ideological basis.
Again, that she has no regard for law is evident in her failures to prosecute or contain all the murder and violence in her district, St. Louis.

I might also add that attempts to deprive citizens of their rights is not the sole province of a leftist DA; it can also show up in even federal courts, witness the US judge Sullivan in the Flynn case. I don't actually know his "politics" but I can deduce from his actions that he is anti-rights of citizens, particularly those who might have served this President (which as far as I can tell, is the only "crime" he did). And btw, a coerced "confession", ala Russian or Chinese torture, is not a confession here in the US. Distortion of, extorting, or twisting of the law to get what the state wants, is the express reason why our country enshrined prohibitions against such in our BoR.
This distortion is also occurring in this St Louis case.

[montana]

The scene may play out in a courtroom but since there is little, if any, basis in law or in fact, it is not strictly speaking, a legal matter.
As part of my position in the NRC I saw and was involved in several cases filed before the courts that ultimately had no basis in law or fact, (among other tests to see is it indeed was a "legal" matter) and so they were dismissed. My point is merely that the DA, and perhaps the court itself, is/are pursuing a political persecution and playing it out in a courtroom scenario. This is stifling power exercised by the "state" to suppress citizens, not "legal" power to suppress wrongdoing.

Afaik the judge has not ruled or spoken up yet, so my views at this point are primarily of the DA's actions. She is clearly, IMO, attempting to throw a chill effect upon Mo citizens from believing they have any 2A rights, or other ones under the Mo Constitution. Since the Mo AG, who is the chief law enforcement officer in Mo and by definition an authority on Mo constitution, has intervened it is pretty clear that if the DA attempts to move this forward then it is purely on a political, ideological basis.
Again, that she has no regard for law is evident in her failures to prosecute or contain all the murder and violence in her district, St. Louis.

I might also add that attempts to deprive citizens of their rights is not the sole province of a leftist DA; it can also show up in even federal courts, witness the US judge Sullivan in the Flynn case. I don't actually know his "politics" but I can deduce from his actions that he is anti-rights of citizens, particularly those who might have served this President (which as far as I can tell, is the only "crime" he did). And btw, a coerced "confession", ala Russian or Chinese torture, is not a confession here in the US. Distortion of, extorting, or twisting of the law to get what the state wants, is the express reason why our country enshrined prohibitions against such in our BoR.
This distortion is also occurring in this St Louis case.

Black Lives Matter is not a group of kids with more time on their hands than brains in their skulls; it is a cluster of American-haters with a commitment to destroy America and replace it with a Marxist-style government. Antifa and BLM are only two of more than twenty communist groups who are using the unreasonable treatment of a black man as an excuse to loot, burn, and destroy our cities and nullify our Constitution.This case is pure political, with leftist on this forum trying to legitimize their tactics. For people to say this is about a legal matter and not political persecution insults common sense...https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/lo...f-05c2c2882b78 https://www.foxnews.com/us/philly-da...storm-protests https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mccl...uns-cal-thomas

[FarmerDave]

Tainted evidence/no chain of custody from the time of the event and seizure. Was not seized at the time of the event. May have been rendered inoperable after the fact by the McCloskeys for that very purpose, to "prove" that it was not operable. They are lawyers who have proven skilled at working the system in the past. In other words, it may have been 100% operable at the time.

Lots of wiggle room here. .

I once sat on a jury for a DUI case. No doubt the guy was intoxicated when he pulled into a parking lot and hit another car. Witness smelled alcohol on his breath. Know why we couldn't in good conscience convict him? The cops lost him for an hour. Yep, I said lost. Responding officer initially interviewed the suspect, then told him to sit on a curb while he walked across the parking lot to look in the car for some sort of paperwork. As soon as the officer turned, the suspect ran. No handcuffs, nothing. Ran away.


An hour in which he ran to a buddies apartment that was having the party he just came from and answered the door with a bottle of booze in his hand. Prosecution couldn't prove that he was over at he time of the accident, only at the time of arrest. A lot of booze can be consumed in an hour - and this dude knew it. Used it to his advantage.

You bet your ass they tampered with the weapon, knowing the chain of custody didn't exist and the loophole in the law did.

[redhat]

Something stinks, unless they had it around the house for a throw down gun.

The (somewhat plausible) story they're going with is that it was a courtroom prop, deliberately disabled to render it acceptable to bring into a courtroom.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/gun-couple-mccloskey-inoperable-st-louis-prosecutor

[Double Naught Spy]

The (somewhat plausible) story they're going with is that it was a courtroom prop, deliberately disabled to render it acceptable to bring into a courtroom.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/gun-co...uis-prosecutor

That would mean that the McCloskeys are idiots. I don't believe they are idiots. Using a gun manipulated to be inoperable (that you could change back) as a lethal force bluff in a situation where you think there may be violence is just plain stupid. The McCloskeys are personal injury lawyers. I would want to know exactly which case it was in which the firearm was used in court for this purpose.

[grayfox]

Interesting comments and thoughts, but in a criminal case where the state must have evidence and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt... those points are all conjecture.
The crux of the issue is, can the DA prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the alleged incident, that gun was capable of lethal force. If the DA cannot prove that, and the burden is on the state not on the defendant, then any other points about that gun are moot.

Besides, as I mentioned before, the DA should have sent social workers to their house, not police with a warrant, since no harm was done to anyone. That's their mantra right? Oh! except when they are trying to intimidate citizens into submission!!

I might even conjecture that their attorney disassembled and rendered it that way since it was in his possession when the police got it. Who's to prove otherwise?? The final analysis is that the state, and we, don't know what the condition of that gun was at the time of the alleged incident. All they know is the condition of the gun when they obtained it.

[Keef]

I'm not saying it's the same thing, but would you agree with dropping the gun charges in gas station robbery because the gun was inoperable and just charge with the theft?

[grayfox]

Not sure. It may depend on what the state law is.
but a good question.

[montana]

https://m.theliontimes.com/politics/missouri-ag-eric-schmitt-will-dismiss-case-against-st-louis-couple-charged-with-brandishing-gun.html

Missouri attorney general dismissing case against St Louis couple charged with brandishing gun

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

Attorney General Eric Schmitt, thank you for a breath of fresh air.

[biodsl]

Good news. Elections do matter.