grayfox Wrote: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.

Double Naught Spy Wrote: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.

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

redhat Wrote: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

LR1955 Wrote: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