Mr. M. was on Tucker tonight, against advice of his lawyer because they believe he will be indicted tomorrow.
He said the police officers were top cops, polite and really did not want to be there but had a job to do. They even let Mrs. M. take a photo to prove the rifle was surrendered per the warrant. She asked the officers to turn the backs on the camera so they would not face any heat from their department or DA.
Most likely, she released all the looters and rioters.Wonder if the looney city attorney will make a “hate crime” out of it?
BSWonder if the looney city attorney will make a “hate crime” out of it?
While it is secondhand info ... the “rest of the story” lends more to their self defense storyline. The couple’s general narrative is they were sitting on there patio Sunday afternoon having a drink when the crap started. The protesters broke in thru the community gate (not the couple’s). The protesters made threats ranging from property damage to physical assault of the couple ... they even supposedly threatened the couple’s dog. The couple went inside, armed themselves and came back out to protect their property. I do not have any problem with what they did ... but legally I wonder what the coming back out part and made comments will be spun as? If they had stayed inside and watched thru a window with guns in hand I think they’d have been golden.BS
Their gate was knocked down, they had weapons for defensive use and didnt even use them. No one was hurt, just scared. BFD
I could see someone trying to use GATTOP, but, again, they were being encroached upon by a mob of people. ANd there is lots of evidence of this
Did that job involve anything about defending the constitution?...He said the police officers were top cops, polite and really did not want to be there but had a job to do. ...
They had a warrant. Warrants are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.Did that job involve anything about defending the constitution?
As always, I don't advocate violence... but I also don't necessarily go boohooing when somebody does what they feel they have to do.
Top cops or not, i'd really like to know what the warrant was and how it was justifiable enough to get a judge's signature...
Indicted for WHAT?????
so is protection against unreasonable search and seizure. the question is "was the warrant any good?"They had a warrant. Warrants are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
That is the question. And it's a question that isn't decided by the officer on the street but by the court. I would like to see the warrant.so is protection against unreasonable search and seizure. the question is "was the warrant any good?"
A local gun store gave them a new, free AR-15.And thanks to great reporting all the "protesters" now know that they are unarmed.
They havent been charged, so there is no crime, right? So why take the gun?
This is more BS that is happening during this time/these times of the pendulum being swung FAR left and people scared to uphold the law and what is right
Anybody seen a statement or action taken by the NRA concerning the couples defense. Talk about a missed opportunity for popularity gain.
Much like BLM is a fundraising wing of the democrats the NRA is the same for the Republicans. They serve no purpose but fear mongering and money for politicians.Anybody seen a statement or action taken by the NRA concerning the couples defense. Talk about a missed opportunity for popularity gain.
And the city attorney has offer the couple a diversion program option so they will not have to go to trial or have a conviction on their record ... she “seems” sure they’ll be convicted OR is talking out of her ass. Good thing is the couple and their attorney both say no way to the deal.Couple was indicted today and charged wit felony use of a weapon.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ouple-who-brandished-guns-protesters-n1234410
LOL she offered them a deal, that’s rich right there!!! I hope this [woman] is destroyed legally and politically for this BS.And the city attorney has offer the couple a diversion program option so they will not have to go to trial or have a conviction on their record ... she “seems” sure they’ll be convicted OR is talking out of her ass. Good thing is the couple and their attorney both say no way to the deal.
I would not want the AG to get the charges dismissed ... go to trial! Their not hurting for money (plus possible suit ... some form of wrongful prosecution or such) plus their attorney is doing this for headlines so he’ll be going for the city attorney’s throat all resources ahead. If somehow and miracle the city attorney stacks the jury you have the Governor’s pardon as your ace in the hole. That’s just my thoughts but it ain’t my ass sitting at the defense table.In case anybody missed it...
The AG is moving to dismiss the charges:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri...rges-against-couple-who-pointed-guns-at-crowd
The Governor plans to pardon them anyway:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/missouri-mike-parson-mccloskeys-st-louis-pardon-prosecutor
I would not want the AG to get the charges dismissed ... go to trial! Their not hurting for money (plus possible suit ... some form of wrongful prosecution or such) plus their attorney is doing this for headlines so he’ll be going for the city attorney’s throat all resources ahead. If somehow and miracle the city attorney stacks the jury you have the Governor’s pardon as your ace in the hole. That’s just my thoughts but it ain’t my ass sitting at the defense table.
I hope this [woman] is destroyed legally and politically for this BS.
A poetic ending would be the state BAR revoking her license while reminding her of the oath she took and the meaning behind lady justice.
And keep a tally of the expenses to the taxpayer and plaster it all over the place until she is defeated by election or removed from office.This. Make the DA take it to the bitter end.
The AG should have one of his people represent the Mccloskies against the DA. That would be fun.This. Make the DA take it to the bitter end.
But the problem is she is the city attorney in a St. Louis city elected position. The demographics of the city are over 45% black along with about another 10% being other minorities so her being a liberal black female means you’d have to really have a hard time rallying enough “Straight Ticket Dems” to vote her out of office in the upcoming election ... especially after she stands up for the peaceful social justices seekers who were terrorized by some rich white people ... no matter the cost. Liberal St. Louis almost has fairly conservative Missouri by the ‘nads ... almost ... not yet but it’s coming.And keep a tally of the expenses to the taxpayer and plaster it all over the place until she is defeated by election or removed from office.
That too, and thanks I could not remember the name of that charge.How about;
Charging her with, Prosecutorial Misconduct