Missouri governor pardons St. Louis couple Mark, Patricia McCloskey after guilty pleas in gun-waving incident

[Bucky]

The St. Louis couple who was famously pictured wielding guns as Black Lives Matter demonstrators marched outside their property last year received a pardon from Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, his office announced Tuesday.

The pardons for Mark and Patricia McCloskey, two attorneys in their 60s, were granted July 30. In total, Parson, a Republican, granted 12 pardons and two commutations.

Mark McCloskey, who has since announced a GOP run for a Missouri U.S. Senate seat, said his case was part of a trend where conservatives are being prosecuted for minor incidents while criminals such as looters and rioters are not.

Missouri governor pardons St. Louis couple Mark, Patricia McCloskey after guilty pleas in gun-waving incident

The St. Louis couple who was famously pictured wielding guns as Black Lives Matter demonstrators marched outside their property last year received a pardon from Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, his office announced Tuesday.

www.foxnews.com

Who on earth is going to vote for this nutjob in the Senate? Oh wait, we are talking about Missouri.

 

[VySky]

Good. They should have never been charged in the first place.

 

[TurtleDude]

Good. They should have never been charged in the first place.

agreed, the charges were filed by a racist gun hating leftwing turd

 

[Lord of Planar]

All the BLM people who protested inside the gated community should have been arrested instead.

 

[Lord of Planar]

 

[Nickyjo]

Good. They should have never been charged in the first place.

They pointed guns at unarmed people. Look at their record. All they do is sue over little shit. Would those whom they threatened have been justified in shooting them, if armed? Point your weapon at a demonstrators passing by your house. See what happens.

 

[VySky]

They pointed guns at unarmed people. Look at their record. All they do is sue over little shit. Would those whom they threatened have been justified in shooting them, if armed? Point your weapon at a demonstrators passing by your house. See what happens.

Demonstrators lol…. They had just ripped the gates off their neighborhood entrance. How do you know they were unarmed people.? I think the couple showed restraint

 

[Nickyjo]

View attachment 67346089

Ok, so you call the cops and have them arrested, if indeed it is a private street. A sign doesn’t make it private. Those two were chronic complainers about everything. They could have been shot justifiably, if the demonstrators were as big idiots as they were.

 

[VySky]

. They could have been shot justifiably, if the demonstrators were as big idiots as they were.

Not really. They were making verbal threats to the couple. The violent mob had just busted through the security gates at the complex. The way America was burning at the time the couple was justifiably shaken. The rioters are lucky it wasn’t someone else in the yard they were dealing with.

 

[Port & Starboard]

They pointed guns at unarmed people. Look at their record. All they do is sue over little shit. Would those whom they threatened have been justified in shooting them, if armed? Point your weapon at a demonstrators passing by your house. See what happens.

Unarmed people? Did you check them yourself?

They broke through a gate to gain access to private property, and they were directly or indirectly involved with recent rioting, burning, assaults, and other mayhem.

The character of the Mcloskey's has nothing to do with it.

Sweet call by the Governor!

 

[Irredentist]

Not really. They were making verbal threats to the couple. The violent mob had just busted through the security gates at the complex. The way America was burning at the time the couple was justifiably shaken. The rioters are lucky it wasn’t someone else in the yard they were dealing with.

The part about the gate is a lie. Video shows the gate was intact and open when the first protestors walked through it, and when the McCloskeys came out waving guns.

 

[Port & Starboard]

The part about the gate is a lie. Video shows the gate was intact and open when the protestors walked through it.

Which part of of the term " private property " are you having a hard time understanding?

 

[VySky]

The part about the gate is a lie. Video shows the gate was intact and open when the protestors walked through it.

That’s what the looters always say. Oh, but the store was open

 

[Irredentist]

Which part of of the term " private property " are you having a hard time understanding?

If you think that "private property" by itself is sufficient justification to threaten protestors with guns, then you shouldn't need to lie in order to embellish your story.

 

[Irredentist]

That’s what the looters always say. Oh, but the store was open

The video proves it. The McCloskeys were lying when they said the protestors broke the gate to get in.

 

[VySky]

If you think that "private property" by itself is sufficient justification to threaten protestors with guns, then you shouldn't need to lie in order to embellish your story.

The veteran girl was shot in the throat for trespassing at the capital.

 

[Port & Starboard]

If you think that "private property" by itself is sufficient justification to threaten protestors with guns, then you shouldn't need to lie in order to embellish your story.

There are pictures of the damaged gate.



There are disputes as to whether the gate was damaged before or after.

You have no idea what threats were being made during the confrontation

 

[Irredentist]

The veteran girl was shot in the throat for trespassing at the capital.

I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure the capitol riot was more complicated than a simple case of trespassing.

 

[Irredentist]

There are pictures of the damaged gate.

View attachment 67346090

There are disputes as to whether the gate was damaged before or after.

You have no idea what threats were being made during the confrontation

That is correct. But the video evidence proves that the gate was intact when the protestors first started entering, and that it was still intact when the McCloskeys came out with their guns. Which means that the protestors did not "break it down" in order to gain entry.

 

[Port & Starboard]

That is correct. But the video evidence proves that the gate was intact when the protestors first started entering, and that it was still intact when the McCloskeys came out with their guns. Which means that the protestors did not "break it down" in order to gain entry.

And you still cannot prove whether the crowd directed any threats towards the Mckloskey's or not. Mr. Mckloskey said that they did make threats.

It is private property, and the couple had no way of knowing what the protesters end game was given the recent burnings, violence, and other chaos going on.

 

[Irredentist]

And you still cannot prove whether the crowd directed any threats towards the Mckloskey's or not. Mr. Mckloskey said that they did make threats.

It is private property, and the couple had no way of knowing what the protesters end game was given the recent burnings, violence, and other chaos going on.

If you want to argue that the McCloskeys had a right to threaten the protestors with guns simply for being on a private street, then you can do that. But then you shouldn't need to lie about a gate in order to make the story sound better.

Oh, and any threats from the protestors would have happened only after the McCloskeys initiated the confrontation with their guns.

 

[Port & Starboard]

If you want to argue that the McCloskeys had a right to threaten the protestors with guns simply for being on a private street, then you can do that. But then you shouldn't need to lie about a gate in order to make the story sound better.

Oh, and any threats from the protestors would have happened only after the McCloskeys initiated the confrontation with their guns.

I didn't lie about the gate at all and you know it. Your video doesn't show how the gate was opened, and the pictures show a damaged gate.

You don't know if threats were made or not before they armed themselves.

Mr. Mckloskey said there were threats being made

It's you that is defending criminals entering private property in the first place.

 

[Irredentist]

I didn't lie about the gate at all and you know it. Your video doesn't show how the gate was opened, and the pictures show a damaged gate.

You don't know if threats were made or not before they armed themselves.

Mr. Mckloskey said there were threats being made

It's you that is defending criminals entering private property in the first place.

Then you are also defending criminals, because the McCloskeys plead guilty.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Then you are also defending criminals, because the McCloskeys plead guilty.

Oh geee.

I guess we both support criminal activities then because 9 of the protesters were also charged for trespassing on private property, even if the DA refused to prosecute them.

St. Louis officials won't prosecute trespassing cases in protest on Portland Place

The protest triggered a response from Portland Place residents Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who have been accused of pointing guns at protesters.

www.stltoday.com

 

[Irredentist]

Oh geee.

I guess we both support criminal activities then because 9 of the protesters were also charged for trespassing on private property, even if the DA refused to prosecute them.

St. Louis officials won't prosecute trespassing cases in protest on Portland Place

The protest triggered a response from Portland Place residents Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who have been accused of pointing guns at protesters.

www.stltoday.com

If the McCloskeys actions were criminal, then that means they were not justified in pointing guns at the protestors, regardless of whether they were on private property.