• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

St. Louis prosecutor ordered crime lab to reassemble Patricia McCloskey's gun

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
17,733
Reaction score
10,667
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ST. LOUIS — The gun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable when it arrived at the St. Louis police crime lab, but a member of Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's staff ordered crime lab experts to disassemble and reassemble it and wrote that it was “readily capable of lethal use” in charging documents filed Monday, 5 On Your Side has learned.

In Missouri, police and prosecutors must prove that a weapon is “readily” capable of lethal use when it is used in the type of crime with which the McCloskeys have been charged.

Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley ordered crime lab staff members to field strip the handgun and found it had been assembled incorrectly. Specifically, the firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin, which was backward, and made the gun incapable of firing, according to documents obtained by 5 On Your Side.

Firearms experts then put the gun back together in the correct order and test-fired it, finding that it worked, according to the documents.

St. Louis news: Update on charges against McCloskeys | ksdk.com

Seems like manufacturing evidence would be a bad thing.
 
I'm pretty sure the McCloskey thing is over with. The state attorney general told the DA to drop the charges.


The McCloskeys are horrible people who sue other people for little reason. They've sued their neighbors and even his own dad.
 
I'm pretty sure the McCloskey thing is over with. The state attorney general told the DA to drop the charges.


The McCloskeys are horrible people who sue other people for little reason. They've sued their neighbors and even his own dad.

Missouri is a bit different. the district DA doesn't have to technically listen to the AG as she is an elected official.
a 100% corrupt elected official but elected none the less.
 
What a strange development.

I figured the couple would walk, or cop to a slap-on-the-wrist. But if they tried to obstruct justice by manufacturing evidence? Well, they could be in trouble. It might be difficult to prove though, IMO.
 
I'm pretty sure the McCloskey thing is over with. The state attorney general told the DA to drop the charges.


The McCloskeys are horrible people who sue other people for little reason. They've sued their neighbors and even his own dad.

So you don't care that the people responsible for trying residents of St. Louis are okay with doctoring evidence?
 
I have no idea what the point of disassembling and reassembling the handgun was but it shouldn't make any difference with regard to a brandishing charge. I'm not really up to speed on Missouri law but, as a rule, whether the firearm is functional or not isn't usually a factor in that regard.

My take on the whole thing is that the McClosky's were on their own property and in reasonable fear that the "protesters" presented a threat. Based on that, brandishing would likely be justified...whether the handgun was operational or not.

On a side note, brandishing an inoperable firearm isn't a great idea. Should someone with an operable firearm take offense to you brandishing your chunk of metal it could end quite badly for you.
 
I have no idea what the point of disassembling and reassembling the handgun was but it shouldn't make any difference with regard to a brandishing charge. I'm not really up to speed on Missouri law but, as a rule, whether the firearm is functional or not isn't usually a factor in that regard.

My take on the whole thing is that the McClosky's were on their own property and in reasonable fear that the "protesters" presented a threat. Based on that, brandishing would likely be justified...whether the handgun was operational or not.

On a side note, brandishing an inoperable firearm isn't a great idea. Should someone with an operable firearm take offense to you brandishing your chunk of metal it could end quite badly for you.

Missouri does not require the firearm to be operable in order to be charged and/or convicted.
 
Tamar Rice was killed with a toy gun!
And quick, too......
WTF is your point?

What does Tamir Rice have to do with an Assistant Circuit Attorney manufacturing evidence?
 
I'm pretty sure the McCloskey thing is over with. The state attorney general told the DA to drop the charges.


The McCloskeys are horrible people who sue other people for little reason. They've sued their neighbors and even his own dad.

Missouri AG’a have no power to tell circuit attorneys whether or not to prosecute someone.
 
I have no idea what the point of disassembling and reassembling the handgun was but it shouldn't make any difference with regard to a brandishing charge. I'm not really up to speed on Missouri law but, as a rule, whether the firearm is functional or not isn't usually a factor in that regard.

My take on the whole thing is that the McClosky's were on their own property and in reasonable fear that the "protesters" presented a threat. Based on that, brandishing would likely be justified...whether the handgun was operational or not.

On a side note, brandishing an inoperable firearm isn't a great idea. Should someone with an operable firearm take offense to you brandishing your chunk of metal it could end quite badly for you.

I think they were trying to ensure they could charge Mrs. McCluskey with a more egregious crime.

In Missouri, police and prosecutors must prove that a weapon is “readily” capable of lethal use when it is used in the type of crime with which the McCloskeys have been charged.
 
So you don't care that the people responsible for trying residents of St. Louis are okay with doctoring evidence?

"Doctoring" suggests an effort to deceive. The re-assembling the weapon is part of their report - with photos. Not the actions of someone trying to deceive.
 
I think they were trying to ensure they could charge Mrs. McCluskey with a more egregious crime.

Perhaps. I mean, the whole prosecution is rather stupid so when you're on a roll and all...
 
What does Tamir Rice have to do with an Assistant Circuit Attorney manufacturing evidence?

Your post states that the handgun the woman was waving around was “assembled” incorrectly and could not fire. How does that factor into the equation? The people that were on the wrong end of the weapon are supposed to know that it was inoperable as assembled?
 
"Doctoring" suggests an effort to deceive. The re-assembling the weapon is part of their report - with photos. Not the actions of someone trying to deceive.

The guns needed to be "capable of lethal force" to support the charges that were filed according to the article I linked. Obviously, the handgun did not have that capability until it was "fixed" by the prosecutor.
 
Your post states that the handgun the woman was waving around was “assembled” incorrectly and could not fire. How does that factor into the equation? The people that were on the wrong end of the weapon are supposed to know that it was inoperable as assembled?

The guns needed to be "capable of lethal force" to support the charges that were filed according to the article I linked. Obviously, the handgun did not have that capability until it was "fixed" by the prosecutor.
 
The guns needed to be "capable of lethal force" to support the charges that were filed according to the article I linked. Obviously, the handgun did not have that capability until it was "fixed" by the prosecutor.

You are forgiven for taking what the author of the article said as the truth but that’s simply not the case. There is NO need for the prosecution to prove the firearm was operable in order to convict.
 
The guns needed to be "capable of lethal force" to support the charges that were filed according to the article I linked. Obviously, the handgun did not have that capability until it was "fixed" by the prosecutor.

Perhaps someone should enlighten the prosecutor to this law.

Meanwhile, the right-wing conspiracy machine has simply spun out of control.
 
The guns needed to be "capable of lethal force" to support the charges that were filed according to the article I linked. Obviously, the handgun did not have that capability until it was "fixed" by the prosecutor.

Actually no one knows that. The woman. Or her husband both know the laws and after the protestors left could have easily diassaembled the firearm and intentionally reassembled it so that it was not operational. Not rocket science folks.
Now IF she really was waving an inoperable firearm at people she proves that she really ain't all that bright, point a gun at someone else that has one and you better know yours works or you may find yourself taking a dirt nap.
 
Actually no one knows that. The woman. Or her husband both know the laws and after the protestors left could have easily diassaembled the firearm and intentionally reassembled it so that it was not operational. Not rocket science folks.
Now IF she really was waving an inoperable firearm at people she proves that she really ain't all that bright, point a gun at someone else that has one and you better know yours works or you may find yourself taking a dirt nap.

It doesn’t even matter either way, the entire premise is incorrect.
 
Meh, if the owners say the gun wouldn't fire, wouldn't it be correct to document what steps would need to be taken to make it fire.

Guessing the OP wouldn't be so sad if they found the firing pin and spring missing altogether.

As they say, thats the way the cookie crumbles.
 
Actually no one knows that. The woman. Or her husband both know the laws and after the protestors left could have easily diassaembled the firearm and intentionally reassembled it so that it was not operational. Not rocket science folks.
Now IF she really was waving an inoperable firearm at people she proves that she really ain't all that bright, point a gun at someone else that has one and you better know yours works or you may find yourself taking a dirt nap.

That's quite the conspiracy theory.
 
You are forgiven for taking what the author of the article said as the truth but that’s simply not the case. There is NO need for the prosecution to prove the firearm was operable in order to convict.

The article didn't say it was necessary to convict, it was necessary in order for the prosecutor to charge the wife as he did.
 
Meh, if the owners say the gun wouldn't fire, wouldn't it be correct to document what steps would need to be taken to make it fire.

Guessing the OP wouldn't be so sad if they found the firing pin and spring missing altogether.

As they say, thats the way the cookie crumbles.

Why would that be correct? Shouldn't prosecutors have to present the evidence in the condition it was discovered, and not alter it to fit their own agenda?

Who is sad? I personally don't like any prosecutors who engage in misconduct, even when I don't like the defendant.
 
Back
Top Bottom