Jump to content

chicagoresident

Members
  • Posts

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

chicagoresident's Achievements

Member

Member (23/24)

  1. Here’s the gun lawsuit the McCloskey’s were involved in https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1096698.html
  2. So heres a theoryFrom other thread Scroll down to the video in the article and look at who its credited tohttps://www.revealnews.org/article/guns-at-center-of-saturday-night-special-lawsuit-to-be-destroyed/ The gun being waived around against the protestors was a Jimenez, but if you know the ring of fire guns all the companies are the same people that reincorporate after lawsuits. They likely were involved in a lawsuit against Bryco for a slamfire condition. They might of had the Jimenez to show it could have the same issue. Which would mean that merely putting the gun in condition 1, which any reasonable person would believe if you were in lethal danger, the gun would discharge or go full auto into a crowd of protestors. They knew this information would come out in the discovery. This is why they turned that gun over to their lawyer to figure out how they were going to reckon that previous case. Edit, heres the lawsuit https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1096698.html
  3. Lol https://www.ksdk.com/mobile/article/news/local/gardner-staffer-ordered-crime-lab-to-reassemble-patricia-mccloskeys-gun/63-be112149-d06c-4f54-a225-6545e74b5c2d
  4. Yeah, its been stated in several stories that the AR wasnt loaded and the handgun was non functional. I love how a serialized firearm is now being referred to as a prop in recent stories. These statements were cleared with their lawyer and the lawyer had possession of the wifes gun before turning it over to evidence. Now, theres no way to verify if the AR mag was loaded or not and if the handgun was functioning and later disabled before giving it to the lawyer. But the woman waiving the handgun around with the finger on the trigger would make me assume it wasnt able to fire a round. So whats the legal strategy here? If they were building a case for fearing for their lives why would they say they brought out non functioning guns in defense of their house? You only pull a non functioning gun on someone if you assume they dont have a gun. I dont see the McCloskeys as the type of lawyers that would cut a deal, so playing down the lethality of the force in defense of their life doesnt make sense. The layers on this case are really interesting.
  5. Meaningless, you have no idea what happened prior to the start of the video.Im not here to prove innocence or guilt, thats for the courts to decide. Just pointing out no matter how hard you want to adopt these liberal idiots as your 2nd amendment saviors theres more to it than homeowners castle doctrine vs BLM. That being said, please post more footage, Im very curious to know how the gate got destroyed. Was it the white people that always show up at peaceful BLM protests and cause it to turn into a violent mob? (as the McCloskeys claim)
  6. Sure, but at worst thats misdemeanor trespass, and if on the neighborhood associations grounds it would be the neighborhood association agreeing to bring those charges. Theres enough names and footage on social media so its not like the protestors were anonymous. Its clear that the neighborhood not only wont charge them, but welcomes them into their neighborhood. Of course the motive may be less woke SJW and more f* the McCloskeys. Which brings us up to the next point, assuming the gate and land is not the McCloskeys but neighborhood association common ground, where is the forceable felony? Their most credible witnesses are the neighbors they are using the legal system to de facto attempt to steal land from.
  7. Letter from neighbors condemning McCloskeyshttps://twitter.com/andybankertv/status/1278776726013775872?s=21 Video of the protestors walking through the undamaged gate https://twitter.com/alexiszotos/status/1277607426934616065?s=21 Supreme Court case determining you are allowed 1st amendment rights on some private property, for instance sidewalks in a private town/neighborhood that is not restricted. If the gate wasnt locked (dont know) an argument could be made for 1st amendment rights since its a sidewalk owned by the neighborhood association, not an individuals residence or yard. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama Im not determining innocence or guilt. Just pointing out its a lot more complicated than if a mob breaks down your residences door. Im also not saying that protestors can trespass into gated residences, but a residence has different legal protection than a private common area. Again, the McCloskeys have a lawsuit disputing whether the gate and sidewalk is a common area or their private property. It wasnt deeded, but they claim by personally maintaining they have squatters rights to take common area/access from the neighborhood association and block neighbors easy access to their homes. Talk about neighbors from heck.
  8. Its not quite that simple. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/tony-messenger/messenger-this-wasn-t-the-first-time-the-mccloskeys-pulled-a-gun-to-protect-property/article_fc2a31b1-5f7b-55d5-83e3-8b3ca1211c7c.html Obviously the pro gun vs BLM sides each have an agenda, but you also cant discount the neighbors agenda. The neighbors have a lawsuit disputing the property and the gate as common ground, the McCloskeys claim its their property. The neighbors claim the protestors are welcome to protest on the common grounds. Whether the gate was or wasnt broken by protestors it wasnt initially broken to enter the neighborhood. So of course the neighbors collectively want this to play out that the welcomed BLM protestors were threatened on the private neighborhoods common ground, not the McCloskeys private property. There is a distinct legal difference. All the people in the neighborhood have money, power, and are politically connected, including the mayor that the protestors had originally shown up to protest. Its not just a singular prosecutor on an SJW mission (although that plays well for her resume).
  9. Their poor character keeps being associated with them not deserving the right to self defense, thats not what anyone here is arguing. Its this manichaean mindset that BLM is bad and these McCloskey idiots are armed saviors standing up to the mob. Theres a lot more complexities including any malicious prosecution brought against them could easily be revenge for malicious prosecution theyve brought against others. Our legal system sucks, people get railroaded all the time. Its possible theyre getting railroaded not because of guns, but because theyre ********. Obviously I would agree, in a fair legal system even ******** deserve a fair trial.
  10. IMO they certainly deserve to lose many, if not all, of those lawsuits, but they still get to keep their 2A rights until they're convicted of a felony.Nobody is saying they dont have a right to self defense. I think many of us recognized from the beginning that these 2 liars and grifters would make bad examples to parade around the public as an argument for the common mans right to bear arms. There have been drug dealers acquitted of shooting both police and rivals that have been (rightfully) acquitted using the self defense argument. Im not expecting them to do Tucker Carlson as upstanding citizens exercising their right to self defense.
  11. And the hits keep coming. Neighbors have disassociated and condemned them. Also liberals id assume, like the MDA mayor that initially peaved off the protestors by doxing people. The neighbors have also welcomed the protestors back into their private community. The police department who theyve sued multiple times and have a current lawsuit against have been told to stand down. Private security firms dont want to get involved. All they have left is the guns they likely wanted to ban previously. Its like an episode of the Twilight Zone where the liberals get owned over and over. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8497177/Armed-St-Louis-couple-claim-300-500-BLM-protesters-broke-gate-threatened-kill-them.html Its also coming out that they previously pulled a gun on a neighbor for cutting through disputed land on the way home from his office job, this was a long time ago. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/st-louis-couple-pulled-gun-on-trespassing-neighbor-once-before-court-docs/ar-BB16h6fr
  12. Someone could argue that that it is the epitome of racism for an elitist to cause minorities to be defenseless while paying for armed security for themselves.Obviously, but this St Louis couple falls in the same category. Beyond that the claim they pointed guns at the armed white people in the group (when that was a lie) and went on to say they support the protestors which is racebaiting. All but admitting she had her finger on the trigger and gun pointed at someone the couple claimed was not a threat (black guy with the shotgun mic).http://www.illinoiscarry.com/forum/uploads/monthly_07_2020/post-16154-0-30861700-1594082234.jpeg
  13. Shannon Watts is also allowed to be protected by armed private security, I wouldnt advocate against that. Doesn't mean Im holding her up as a pillar of what the 2nd amendment is about.
  14. They came back https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8491015/Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-return-St-Louis-mansion-lawyer-couple-drew-guns.html This time the couple hired private security.
  15. Reposting again for context at who she was pointing the gun at with her finger on the trigger. https://twitter.com/tomscocca/status/1277806222977138690 These are the armed white people threatening to kill them according to their lawyer released statement. http://www.illinoiscarry.com/forum/uploads/monthly_07_2020/post-16154-0-35128800-1593709974.jpeg http://www.illinoiscarry.com/forum/uploads/monthly_07_2020/post-16154-0-45419100-1593709984.png Sues the police department to keep up their gated mansion on behalf of the community, demands to be worshipped for gentrifying (getting a really good deal on a mansion while demanding the police keep out the community that made the property cheap in the first place), cries victim when the police department doesnt show up to help them. When all else fails irresponsibly wave the guns they told us wed never need for situations that never happen. Everything reinforces these are unrepentant NIMBY limousine liberals who bend space and time so theyre always the victim deserving protection, but F all those other evil white people with guns. They will never be allies because they will always use their money and power to assure they are the last people to have both police protection and guns.
×
×
  • Create New...