The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on July 20, 2020, 09:09:39 pm
-
St. Louis couple who brandished weapons at protesters charged
by Mike Brest, Breaking News Reporter |
| July 20, 2020 05:02 PM
The St. Louis couple who made national news for brandishing firearms at protesters who were approaching their house have been charged.
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner filed charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey on Monday, including unlawful use of a weapon/flourishing, according to KSDK, local NBC affiliate. The weapons charge is a class D felony, and they are facing anywhere from one to four years in prison and fines up to $5,000 if convicted.
The McCloskeys drew their weapons on June 28 outside their home as protesters marched through their gated neighborhood, demanding the resignation of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson. They have defended themselves and claimed the protesters were threatening to kill them and take over their property.
“That couple had every right to protect their property. They had the ability to do that as private citizens, like everyone else. What they should not go through is a prosecutor attempting to take their constitutional rights away by filing charges against them for protecting their property,†Gov. Mike Parson said days before the charges were filed.
The governor also teased pardoning the couple over the weekend, saying, "I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail."
Al Watkins, the attorney for the McCloskey's, transferred one of their firearms to the police. Authorities reportedly wanted the gun in their possession to be sure that it wasn't operable.
President Trump has also weighed in on the case, calling the treatment of the McCloskeys a "disgrace."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/st-louis-couple-who-brandished-weapons-at-protesters-charged (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/st-louis-couple-who-brandished-weapons-at-protesters-charged)
-
Ubelievable. Arrested for protecting their property. This case is going to determine what happens across this country if they are convicted. It would mean that anyone defending themselves against the "noise" that is going on will be punished and the thugs will be free to do as they please.
-
Gardner needs a major legal smack down.
-
Pure idiocy, but what do we expect of a Soros-funded prosecutor?
-
the thugs will be free to do as they please.
They already are. Soros is doing his Fourth Reich thing.
Jews, when they were fighting Nazi rape/abduction/murder were portrayed as insurgents/terrorists in the press.
Once the press is dominated and controlled by politicians, up becomes down, black is white, and all 'White People' become Jews.
Including all the White People funding, controlling, and pushing the BLM agenda. We are currently reliving 1930 Germany which is exactly what Soros wants. He is at home in Nazi Germany.
-
They already are. Soros is doing his Fourth Reich thing.
Jews, when they were fighting Nazi rape/abduction/murder were portrayed as insurgents/terrorists in the press.
Once the press is dominated and controlled by politicians, up becomes down, black is white, and all 'White People' become Jews.
Including all the White People funding, controlling, and pushing the BLM agenda. We are currently reliving 1930 Germany which is exactly what Soros wants. He is at home in Nazi Germany.
:thumbsup:SOROS IS HUNGARIAN JEW. HE DID TURN IN, HIS OWN PEOPLE, to NAZI'S.
-
The man is an attorney, I hope he fights back.
-
They already are. Soros is doing his Fourth Reich thing.
Jews, when they were fighting Nazi rape/abduction/murder were portrayed as insurgents/terrorists in the press.
Once the press is dominated and controlled by politicians, up becomes down, black is white, and all 'White People' become Jews.
Including all the White People funding, controlling, and pushing the BLM agenda. We are currently reliving 1930 Germany which is exactly what Soros wants. He is at home in Nazi Germany.
The press is already dominated and controlled by the leftists (politicians as well). Right now Carlson and Hannity on Fox are being accused of sexual harassment. Once those two are forced out, it's game over.
-
St. Louis couple who brandished weapons at protesters charged
by Mike Brest, Breaking News Reporter |
| July 20, 2020 05:02 PM
The St. Louis couple who made national news for brandishing firearms at protesters who were approaching their house have been charged.
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner filed charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey on Monday, including unlawful use of a weapon/flourishing, according to KSDK, local NBC affiliate. The weapons charge is a class D felony, and they are facing anywhere from one to four years in prison and fines up to $5,000 if convicted.
>snip<
"flourishing"? I do not think that means what they think it means.
flour·ish·ing
/ˈflərəSHiNG/
adjective
adjective: flourishing
developing rapidly and successfully; thriving.
I guess thriving is against the law now.
What will the Marxists think of next?
-
Well, the governor of Missouri went on the record in the past day or so, saying that he would pardon the McCloskeys if Gardner charged them.
Well... ok sir... she made her move, now it's time to make YOURS.
Pardon them NOW, before this goes one step further.
No trial, no nuthin'.
Your use of the pardon NOW will demonstrate to Mrs. Gardner and her ilk that such leftist politically/racially-motivated actions will not be tolerated under your administration (nor any subsequent Republican governorship).
And make sure you give sufficient support to the Second Amendment while doing it...!
-
"flourishing"? I do not think that means what they think it means.
I guess thriving is against the law now.
What will the Marxists think of next?
They meant to say 'brandishing'.
But since our media outlets have been taken over by 8th grade high school dropouts...nothing means nothing anymore if you read it in media or hear it on TV. Any time I hear some 'BREAKING NEWS' the very first thing I always think is, "I wonder if that is actually true?" Everything is just bullshit these days. I am a mushroom.
-
They meant to say 'brandishing'.
But since our media outlets have been taken over by 8th grade high school dropouts...nothing means nothing anymore if you read it in media or hear it on TV. Any time I hear some 'BREAKING NEWS' the very first thing I always think is, "I wonder if that is actually true?" Everything is just bullshit these days. I am a mushroom.
For those of us who are "mushrooms" this is our time to flourish!
(see! i knew I could use that word in a sentence!)
-
Actually, she needs to be criminally charged by the state AG for unlawfully violating their rights.
-
Actually, she needs to be criminally charged by the state AG for unlawfully violating their rights.
That could go Federal, really, depriving someone of their rights under color of law.
-
For those of us who are "mushrooms" this is our time to flourish!
(see! i knew I could use that word in a sentence!)
...he says with a flourish.... :laugh:
-
That could go Federal, really, depriving someone of their rights under color of law.
State level is the first stop.
There needs to be serious consequences for her actions.
-
...he says with a flourish.... :laugh:
:thumbsup:
-
State level is the first stop.
There needs to be serious consequences for her actions.
Go big or go home..
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both...
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law (https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law)
-
Go big or go home..
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law (https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law)
It is better if she gets smacked down by the state government.
It needs to go up the chain. If the state drops the ball then the feds should jump in.
-
It is better if she gets smacked down by the state government.
It needs to go up the chain. If the state drops the ball then the feds should jump in.
Is there a state statute that can be brought to bear?
-
Ubelievable. Arrested for protecting their property. This case is going to determine what happens across this country if they are convicted. It would mean that anyone defending themselves against the "noise" that is going on will be punished and the thugs will be free to do as they please.
Worse - Their property was taken away from them when their guns were confiscated.
There are goons waiting to take them out of their house for daring to defy them, and now they have no way to protect themselves.
This is justice St. Louis style?
What's next? Take away their home, the stage they used to commit their crime?
-
Worse - Their property was taken away from them when their guns were confiscated.
There are goons waiting to take them out of their house for daring to defy them, and now they have no way to protect themselves.
This is justice St. Louis style?
What's next? Take away their home, the stage they used to commit their crime?
I'm sure there are provisions in RICO to do that. Instead they'll do it old school and run up the legal expenses sky high until they're bankrupted.
-
That could go Federal, really, depriving someone of their rights under color of law.
They have the right to bear arms. I am surprised. If a mob like that was at my door believe me I would have a gun. What are you supposed to do? Let them destroy your home? Maybe even assault you?
-
They have the right to bear arms. I am surprised. If a mob like that was at my door believe me I would have a gun. What are you supposed to do? Let them destroy your home? Maybe even assault you?
Pointing the muzzles at the protestors is probably the problem here. That was really sloppy gun safety, as I had learnt from the NRA classes of my yute. Don't even get me started on her lack of trigger finger discipline.
-
Is there a state statute that can be brought to bear?
The state AG just moved to dismiss the charges.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-ag-moves-to-dismiss-charges-against-couple-who-pointed-guns-at-crowd (https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-ag-moves-to-dismiss-charges-against-couple-who-pointed-guns-at-crowd)
-
For those of us who are "mushrooms" this is our time to flourish!
(see! i knew I could use that word in a sentence!)
Shrooms of the World, Unite???? :silly:
-
The state AG just moved to dismiss the charges.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-ag-moves-to-dismiss-charges-against-couple-who-pointed-guns-at-crowd (https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-ag-moves-to-dismiss-charges-against-couple-who-pointed-guns-at-crowd)
I guess we'll find out what kind of POS the Judge is if he/she refuses to drop the charges, ala Emmett Sullivan.
-
For those of us who are "mushrooms" this is our time to flourish!
(see! i knew I could use that word in a sentence!)
I thought that flourish was what an undercooked chocolate omelette tasted like?
-
Shrooms of the World, Unite???? :silly:
Who would you rather spend time with?
Bad guys?
Or a fungi?
-
Missouri AG moves to dismiss charges against couple who pointed guns at crowd
https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-ag-moves-to-dismiss-charges-against-couple-who-pointed-guns-at-crowd (https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-ag-moves-to-dismiss-charges-against-couple-who-pointed-guns-at-crowd)
-
This hearkens back to the Mike Nifong scandal at Duke. Like St. Louis, the voter base in Durham is tribal and stooooh-ped. Our governor and a Dim at the time, so the persecution was allowed to continue for months. I hope the McCloskeys will bring a suit against the circuit attorney as well as the city.
-
Yabbut will they return their property? (Firearms)
-
Yabbut will they return their property? (Firearms)
Probably. Unless it turns out he had a sketchy lower in the AR15 or something.
-
Soros-Backed Prosecutor: How Dare You Use Guns To Defend Your Lives, McCloskys! Have Some Felony Charges! Missouri AG: Slow Your Roll
Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog
https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=45080 (https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=45080)
Incompetent, George Soros backed St. Louis Democratic prosecutor Kim Gardner announced that she’s filing felony charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the St. Louis couple who defended their home against #BlackLivesMatter intruders by merely brandishing their weapons on their own property. In fact, Gardner charged the couple with both a felony and misdemeanor count, evidently intending to pressure the couple into pleading guilty to the misdemeanor charges to avoid jail time.
Enter Missouri Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt: Homey don’t play that (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/missouri-ag-moves-to-dismiss-charges-against-couple-who-pointed-guns-at-crowd/ar-BB16YOPR):
Within hours of the ruling, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a brief seeking to dismiss Gardner’s charges against the McCloskeys on the grounds that their Second Amendment rights are being violated.
“The right to keep and bear arms is given the highest level of protection in our constitution and our laws, including the Castle Doctrine, which provides broad rights to Missourians who are protecting their property and lives from those who wish to do them harm,†Schmitt said in a prepared statement provided to Fox News.
“Despite this, Circuit Attorney Gardner filed suit against the McCloskeys, who, according to published reports, were defending their property and safety. As Missouri’s Chief law enforcement officer, I won’t stand by while Missouri law is being ignored,†Schmitt said.
The brief filing says the attorney general “respectfully requests that the Court dismiss this case at the earlier possible opportunity.â€
More at link
-
At least one protester at McCloskey altercation was armed with firearm, sources say
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/mccloskey-police-report-allegedly-contained-notes-confirming-claims-armed (https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/mccloskey-police-report-allegedly-contained-notes-confirming-claims-armed)
Mark and Patricia McCloskey made national headlines at the end of June when they confronted a mob of protesters outside of their home on Portland Place, a wealthy private street west of downtown St. Louis.
Photos and videos of the couple holding firearms and in some cases brandishing those firearms at the crowd went globally viral. St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner charged the pair on July 20 with "flourishing" their guns in an unlawful manner.
Yet sources in the St. Louis Police Department have told Just the News that video evidence from the altercation indicates that at least one member of the crowd of protesters was armed with a gun during the confrontation.
That allegation, if true, could be a key assertion in the McCloskeys' defense. The pair's lawyer has cited the state's "castle doctrine" law, which stipulates that an individual may use deadly force without the need to retreat if he or she "reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary" to protect his or her own life.
I think it's getting to be time to investigate whether Gardner is abusing her authority by using a frivolous prosecution so that the process necessary to clear their names - probably a year or two if this goes to trial - punishes the McCloskeys.
-
McCloskeys' attorney files motion to disqualify St. Louis prosecutor Gardner
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/holdprelim-write-soros-funder-prosecutor-kim-gardner-accused (https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/holdprelim-write-soros-funder-prosecutor-kim-gardner-accused)
The attorney for the McCloskeys, charged in connection with defended their home against protesters in their private community, on Wedneday filed motions to disqualify St. Louis Circuit Prosecutor Kim Gardner from pursuing their cases.
The attorney, Joel Schwartz, has also asked that Gardner be disqualified from prosecuting the McCloskeys' case, based upon conflicts of interest.
Gardner "monitized and politicized this case," Schwartz tells Just the News, following revelations that the prosecutor's reelection campaign has fundraised off the high-profile case.
-
At least one protester at McCloskey altercation was armed with firearm, sources say
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/mccloskey-police-report-allegedly-contained-notes-confirming-claims-armed (https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/mccloskey-police-report-allegedly-contained-notes-confirming-claims-armed)
I think it's getting to be time to investigate whether Gardner is abusing her authority by using a frivolous prosecution so that the process necessary to clear their names - probably a year or two if this goes to trial - punishes the McCloskeys.
Yahbutt!!! Was the weapon fireable? Did the crack crime-lab/gunsmiths make sure it could be fired by tampering with the evidence again?
-
Yahbutt!!! Was the weapon fireable? Did the crack crime-lab/gunsmiths make sure it could be fired by tampering with the evidence again?
You mean like the BATF "Reconstructing" weapons recovered from the ashes of Mt. Carmel at Waco so they were full auto (no small feat, that)?
-
You mean like the BATF "Reconstructing" weapons recovered from the ashes of Mt. Carmel at Waco so they were full auto (no small feat, that)?
The law they 'broke' states that you cannot brandish a firearm or weapon in the face of another, with malice.
-
The law they 'broke' states that you cannot brandish a firearm or weapon in the face of another, with malice.
There is also Castle Doctrine in Missouri. They were perfectly within their rights to brandish and even USE firearms in the defense of their property after the mob broke down the iron gate and invaded their property.
-
There is also Castle Doctrine in Missouri. They were perfectly within their rights to brandish and even USE firearms in the defense of their property after the mob broke down the iron gate and invaded their property.
They are lucky in the heat of the moment that they didn't pull the trigger.
-
The law they 'broke' states that you cannot brandish a firearm or weapon in the face of another, with malice.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that, had the crime lab not tampered with her pistol, she could not have been charged with the crime she's facing. A weapon had to be capable of firing at the time she brandished it to support the charge, and it wasn't until the lab got their tampering hands on it.
The crime lab created the charge.
-
They are lucky in the heat of the moment that they didn't pull the trigger.
Had they done so, they would have been overrun in short order and likely killed.
What made the threat effective is that no one wanted to be first.
-
Let's not lose sight of the fact that, had the crime lab not tampered with her pistol, she could not have been charged with the crime she's facing. A weapon had to be capable of firing at the time she brandished it to support the charge, and it wasn't until the lab got their tampering hands on it.
The crime lab created the charge.
Just like the BATF tampering with the rifles at Waco. Semi-autos were converted (often no easy feat) during 'reconstruction and restoration' to be capable of things the conflict did not indicate were possible (no full auto fire from inside the complex).
-
NEW INFORMATION
McCloskey Case: Lead Detective TWICE Refused to Sign Prosecution Docs
P. Gardner Goldsmith
August. 4. 2020
New information has surfaced revealing a schism between St. Louis police and Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner regarding her attempt to prosecute Mark and Patricia McCloskey after they pointed firearms at armed property invaders on June 28.
According to Christine Byers, of KSDK, TV 5: The lead St. Louis police detective investigating the McCloskey case refused to sign at least two versions of court documents prosecutors drafted, according to a review of those documents…
Yet Gardner’s office – specifically, Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley -- applied pressure. ...
More at MRCTV (https://www.mrctv.org/blog/mccloskey-case-lead-detective-twice-refused-sign-st-louis-prosecution-docs)
-
Just a reminder that a few good people, doing the right thing, here and there, cn stand in the way of this crap.
(https://s.abcnews.com/images/International/tiananmen-square-tank-man-01-file-ap-jef-190529_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg)
-
Yahbutt!!! Was the weapon fireable? Did the crack crime-lab/gunsmiths make sure it could be fired by tampering with the evidence again?
@Cyber Liberty
Maybe this makes me a "bad person",but I can live with that as long as these leftist anti-gun for thee and me goobers are hit with maximum charges.
Let this send a message to all the other wealthy Dims who are radical anti-gunners for everyone but themselves that "Those who live by their anti-gun for poor people elitism,die due to their anti-gun position for the less fortunate" because criminals don't give a damn if they are for abortion or not. All the criminals care about is getting the loot and making sure there are no witnesses to testify against them.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Maybe this makes me a "bad person",but I can live with that as long as these leftist anti-gun for thee and me goobers are hit with maximum charges.
Let this send a message to all the other wealthy Dims who are radical anti-gunners for everyone but themselves that "Those who live by their anti-gun for poor people elitism,die due to their anti-gun position for the less fortunate" because criminals don't give a damn if they are for abortion or not. All the criminals care about is getting the loot and making sure there are no witnesses to testify against them.
You don't see a problem with the crime lab turning an inoperable weapon into a functioning one, just so they could charge the leftist woman? I must be strange, I believe the laws should apply to people equally, regardless of their politics.
-
You don't see a problem with the crime lab turning an inoperable weapon into a functioning one,just so they could charge the leftist woman?
@Cyber Liberty
I don't know anything about that,but if they do it to "regular people",I have no problem with them also doing it to wealthy leftist hypocrits that want working people to go to prison for doing what THEY expect to get a pass on.
I must be strange, I believe the laws should apply to people equally, regardless of their politics.
EXACTLY! If the crime lab there does it to "regular people",I want them doing it to the wealthy suburb set.
-
@Cyber Liberty
I don't know anything about that,but if they do it to "regular people",I have no problem with them also doing it to wealthy leftist hypocrits that want working people to go to prison for doing what THEY expect to get a pass on.
EXACTLY! If the crime lab there does it to "regular people",I want them doing it to the wealthy suburb set.
If they do it to other people. There is no indication of that. I think it's likely that they did it so they can charge the woman with a Crime against OBLM and Antifa. A political crime.
-
If they do it to other people. There is no indication of that. I think it's likely that they did it so they can charge the woman with a Crime against OBLM and Antifa. A political crime.
@Cyber Liberty
I dunno. I read that both she and her husband are "country club liberals". IOW,they have enough money they don't think any of the laws they support will affect them.
-
There were stories when this first happened that they both donated sizable chunks of cash to BLM. I have no doubt they were hard-core leftists, and while it's delicious to see them hug out to dry, I have trouble with the crime lab tampering with the evidence in order to charge her with brandishing a deadly firearm.
Wrong is wrong, doesn't matter who the victims are.
-
Let's not lose sight of the fact that, had the crime lab not tampered with her pistol, she could not have been charged with the crime she's facing. A weapon had to be capable of firing at the time she brandished it to support the charge, and it wasn't until the lab got their tampering hands on it.
The crime lab created the charge.
And NO one is surprised by this.
-
Had they done so, they would have been overrun in short order and likely killed.
What made the threat effective is that no one wanted to be first.
I doubt it. Unless you have a degree of training, when gun fire happens 90+% of the population turns and runs.
-
Trump / Barr....
Bring up charges on Gardner for abridging people's 2A rights. Giving this bitch a soap box only makes her bolder.
-
catfish wrote:
"Bring up charges on Gardner for abridging people's 2A rights. Giving this bitch a soap box only makes her bolder."
She just won the primary (for re-election) there by thoroughly trouncing her opponent. She ain't goin' nowhere...
(unless powers "higher-up" take her down...)
-
catfish wrote:
"Bring up charges on Gardner for abridging people's 2A rights. Giving this bitch a soap box only makes her bolder."
She just won the primary (for re-election) there by thoroughly trouncing her opponent. She ain't goin' nowhere...
(unless powers "higher-up" take her down...)
She is being scrutinized for some questionable travel paid for by some high powered libs. Maybe she'll be slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again. :)
-
There is also Castle Doctrine in Missouri. They were perfectly within their rights to brandish and even USE firearms in the defense of their property after the mob broke down the iron gate and invaded their property.
I believe some of those terrorists were threatening these people's lives . "We are going to kill you". Yes, broke down the iron gate that protected that community. WHAT WAS THE TERRORISTS....INTENTION? TEA PARTY?
-
I believe some of those terrorists were threatening these people's lives . "We are going to kill you". Yes, broke down the iron gate that protected that community. WHAT WAS THE TERRORISTS....INTENTION? TEA PARTY?
They weren't there to sell Avon...
-
Just another reason to vote for the R's. This would become the rule of the land if Democrats are elected.
-
catfish wrote:
"Bring up charges on Gardner for abridging people's 2A rights. Giving this bitch a soap box only makes her bolder."
She just won the primary (for re-election) there by thoroughly trouncing her opponent. She ain't goin' nowhere...
(unless powers "higher-up" take her down...)
I really can't decide if people that vote for these @$$hats are morally bankrupt or Brain dead
-
I really can't decide if people that vote for these @$$hats are morally bankrupt or Brain dead
Both..........
-
They weren't there to sell Avon...
But did they have copies of "Awake!" and "Watchtower" magazines? wink777
-
But did they have copies of "Awake!" and "Watchtower" magazines? wink777
LOLOLOL
-
Soros-backed St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner loses bid to stay on McCloskey case
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/missouri-supreme-court-upholds-ruling-booting-kim-gardner-mccloskeys (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/missouri-supreme-court-upholds-ruling-booting-kim-gardner-mccloskeys)
The Missouri Supreme Court upheld a ruling from a circuit court judge removing St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner from the case against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, a couple who made national headlines after they brandished weapons at protesters outside of their home in a gated St. Louis neighborhood.
The decision was made following an appeal by Gardner, whose 2016 campaign was bankrolled by left-wing billionaire George Soros as part of an effort to place Democrats opposed to "tough on crime" policies in top law enforcement jobs, that was rejected by the Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals.
The prosecutor was disqualified from the case by Judge Thomas Clark after counsel for the McCloskeys argued Gardner's fundraising emails saying former President Donald Trump and Gov. Mike Parson were "fighting for the two who pointed guns at citizens during the Black Lives Matter protests" amounted to a personal interest in the case that would jeopardize a fair trial.
Gardner's politicization proved she is not interested in justice and cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the community and justice.
-
Soros-backed St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner loses bid to stay on McCloskey case
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/missouri-supreme-court-upholds-ruling-booting-kim-gardner-mccloskeys (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/missouri-supreme-court-upholds-ruling-booting-kim-gardner-mccloskeys)
Gardner's politicization proved she is not interested in justice and cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the community and justice.
One good win but why is this couple even being charge? We need to expose a lot of these radical DAs and AGs.
-
One good win but why is this couple even being charge? We need to expose a lot of these radical DAs and AGs.
They're charged because white people aren't supposed to defend themselves against the Brownshirts, aka the Sturmabteilung, aka the (b)lack Lies Matter street thug arm of the DNC.
-
They're charged because white people aren't supposed to defend themselves against the Brownshirts, aka the Sturmabteilung, aka the (b)lack Lies Matter street thug arm of the DNC.
That lady Gardner needs to be jailed for attempted fraudlent imprisonment of some patriots who decided to defend their domicle against an armed mob who busted the lock and gate off the entrance of a gated community. Then stormed the subdivision trying to incite a riot.
-
That lady Gardner needs to be jailed for attempted fraudlent imprisonment of some patriots who decided to defend their domicle against an armed mob who busted the lock and gate off the entrance of a gated community. Then stormed the subdivision trying to incite a riot.
@catfish1957
Yes,but that ain't gonna happen in 21st Century 'murika.