Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Gun-Wielding Missouri Couple Who Attempted to Protect Home from Rioters Indicted on Two Felony Counts

Gun-Wielding Missouri Couple Who Attempted to Protect Home from Rioters Indicted on Two Felony Counts

“The government chooses to persecute us for doing no more than exercising our right to defend ourselves, our home, our property and our family and now we’re getting drug here time after time after time and for what?”

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1277415316352573440

Tuesday, Mark and Patricia McCloskey were indicted on two felony counts — unlawful use of a weapon and evidence tampering.

The Missouri couple was made famous after video showed them outside of the home, holding weapons as rioters marched through their neighborhood.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

A St. Louis grand jury on Tuesday handed down indictments against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, charged in July with brandishing weapons at protesters outside the couple’s Portland Place mansion.

The couple was indicted on felony charges of unlawful use of a weapon and evidence tampering. The indictments were filed under seal Tuesday. St. Louis Circuit Clerk Thomas Kloeppinger said a judge ordered the indictments suppressed but Kloeppinger didn’t know the reason.

The grand jury added a count of evidence tampering after the Circuit Attorney’s Office in July charged the McCloskeys each with one count of unlawful use of a weapon — exhibiting.

A spokeswoman for Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner could not be reached Tuesday.

The McCloskeys’ lawyer Joel Schwartz said he didn’t know specifics about the charges but said he’s not surprised a grand jury indicted his clients.

“I’ll certainly be interested in what was presented to the grand jury,” said Schwartz, who plans to request a transcript or recording of the proceedings, if such records were made.

Earlier Tuesday, a St. Louis judge postponed the McCloskeys’ morning court appearance until next Wednesday.

The charges filed in July say that on June 28, Mark McCloskey, 63, pointed an AR-15 rifle at protesters and Patricia McCloskey, 61, wielded a semiautomatic handgun, placing protesters in fear of injury.

Outside the Carnahan Courthouse on Tuesday, Mark McCloskey criticized the City Counselor’s Office for opting against prosecuting protesters for trespassing in Portland Place, a private, gated street. Nine protesters were initially served police summonses, but City Counselor Michael Garvin said on Sept. 29 that trespassing charges would not be pursued.

“The government chooses to persecute us for doing no more than exercising our right to defend ourselves, our home, our property and our family and now we’re getting drug here time after time after time and for what?” Mark McCloskey said. “We didn’t fire a shot. People were violently protesting in front of our house and screaming death threats and threats of rape and threats of arson. Nobody gets charged but we get charged.”

The McCloskeys spoke at the RNC this year.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I guess the McCloskeys are the ingredients of a ham sandwich.

Thou shalt kneel… and so it progresses.

And they went full Orwell with the charge of evidence tampering even though the government actually tampered with the gun.

Colonel Travis | October 6, 2020 at 10:00 pm

I’m afraid it will be an uphill battle to win this. A prosecutor with virtue wouldn’t have charged them. This prosecutor isn’t virtuous. She’s a leftist hack. But the jury pool isn’t as much of a risk for her as it is for the McCloskeys. As Andrew Branca has said, reverse the races, make it an illegal Klan march and the couple is black. You think that couple would be charged with anything? Nope. The same principles would clearly apply for a claim of self-defense.

We don’t know all the evidence yet, I hope there are piles of it on the McCloskey side and this disgusting Circuit Attorney gets it shoved back in her face.

They are one in the many “Prisoners of War” in this ongoing Insurrection or Civil war. It is time for law abiding people to leave the Leftist Antifa/BLM supporting states before you are suffering their same fate.

The McCloskeys indicated their weapons were not in operable condition when they took them outside. They further alleged the weapons were put back into operable condition by the government in order to support the original charges. If that were true, it would benefit the government to later allege (the fresh charges) the weapons were operable while the Mccloskeys were on their lawn, then made them inoperable after learning they would be seized by the government in their investigation (evidence tampering). This would essentially be the government conducting it’s own evidence tampering defense by going on the offense. Even if the weapons were operable while they were defending themselves, this case is a travesty.

    oldgoat36 in reply to CKYoung. | October 6, 2020 at 11:10 pm

    The trouble I see with this is if you had guns like these, why would you have them inoperable? Why would you put your life on the line standing out there with them when too many of these terrorists have been known to carry guns themselves?

    At this point it’s their word against the government forces as to the working order of the guns, and it seems like an unlikely tale from the McClotskey’s, unless they have some documentation and a reason why they would have guns like those rendered inoperative.

    I can see this case going further than just the local level, as it is a second amendment issue, and you know that jury pool there is tainted and biased. As is the DA. A Soros plant.

      Milhouse in reply to oldgoat36. | October 7, 2020 at 12:13 am

      The guns had been rendered inoperable because they were used as exhibits in a court case. So why brandish them? Because it seemed better than doing nothing. The mob didn’t know they were in no danger, and the threat kept the couple safe. Gary Kleck found that in the majority of cases in which weapons are used for self-defense brandishing them is sufficient and there’s no need to fire them.

      CKYoung in reply to oldgoat36. | October 7, 2020 at 1:32 am

      oldgoat36, I’m not saying wielding an inoperable weapon is a good tactic, certainly not saying I would ever wield an inoperable weapon or recommend anyone do so. That wasn’t the point of my post.

      The point was the McCloskeys may very well have been on their lawn with weapons missing firing pins etc. etc. etc.

      I’m not sure if you believe the government has never tainted, planted, altered, or made from whole cloth evidence against someone, but all of the above has absolutely happened.

      The government currently has virtually unlimited resources in prosecuting who they want to, and defending themselves against those they have wronged, making the legal process itself the punishment.

      Some government officials, mostly district attorneys, have become the ‘super police,’ a pay grade above the foot soldiers of law enforcement (the cops), picking and choosing the winners and losers of our “justice” system not by any merits of a particular case, but completely on politics.

      Our checks and balances are being eroded, and eroded rapidly.

    That is *exactly* what the prosecution will attempt to argue, that the defendants knew they were going to be charged, and intentionally rendered the pistol inactive (I never heard anything about the rifle except they had no ammunition) in order to beat the charges. They won’t have any evidence of that other than telepathy, space aliens, and time travel, but they’ll hammer the table and accuse, which the media will pick up and run 24/7 until everybody accepts it as the truth. Totally ignored in the media stories will be the fact that the defendants used that pistol as a *prop* in trials, and that it had to be rendered inactive for the court to permit it.

    They plan on prosecuting this case in the media.

    Mac45 in reply to CKYoung. | October 7, 2020 at 11:41 am

    Let me put this into perspective.

    The police did NOT tamper with evidence by reinstalling the firing pin, which was installed backwards at the time that they received it, in the pistol, and then function testing it. The examiners fully documented what they did to make the weapon functional.

    Now, in Missouri, the statute requires that the firearms be functional, in order to support the charge leveled. The McCloskey’s claim that the pistol was rendered inoperable for use as a prop in a a courtroom presentation. Fine. Now, the state has to prove that the pistol was operational at the time of the charged incident. It is entire possible that the pistol had been rendered inoperable, for the court presentation, by simply removing the firing pin and after the presentation, the firing pin was accidentally replaced backwards. But, the defendant does not have to prove this to be true. It is also possible that one of the defendants stripped the weapon and reinserted the firing pin backwards, or had it done for them. This would have to be proven by the prosecution. And, as the weapon was seized from an attorney for the McCloskeys, this might prove difficult to do.

    All reports indicate that the rifle was operable at the time of the incident. Whether or not it was loaded is not really material to its operational status. Though it can be argued that it was.

    As for the charge of unlawful use of a firearm to threaten another person, in any normal times, this would be a slam dunk self defense case. You have a large group of people willfully trespassing on posted land, after entering through a gate which was at least closed, who refused to leave upon being told to do so by a property owner and then threatening said property owner with harm. Due to the disparity in force, the use of a threat to use a deadly weapon in self defense would be justified. Add to that the possibility that one or more of the trespassers was armed with a deadly weapon [gun, knife, club or stick] and self defense becomes even stronger.

    Just more lawfare against law abiding citizens by the totalitarian forces in this nation.

      randian in reply to Mac45. | October 7, 2020 at 11:53 am

      The argument will be that there was no trespassing. Do you see anybody charged with such an offense?

        Mac45 in reply to randian. | October 7, 2020 at 12:26 pm

        Whether anyone is charged with trespass or not is not material. If signage was prominently posted and none of thee people who passed the signage can present any invitation or authority to be on the private property, trespass still occurred. Now, the PD attempted to give cover to the McCloskeys in this case. It issued 9 NTAs to demonstrators for trespass. Even though the prosecutor decided not to pursue charges against these people, he officers responsible can be subpoenaed and asked on what PC such summonses were issued.

The rights God gave ya, the States will prosecute you for.

Has OJ offered any legal acumen to the story? Any word from the various reverends? Surely Larry Flynt has made his journal available to Pinky and the panther.

This continues the narrative of “peaceful” protests necessarily extending beyond the limits of the law. Trespassing was the issue with mob intimidation ….sacred to the Left. I wonder who is shepherding the DA in this one? The former U.S. AG?

So the moral of the story is invest in a one point or two point sling? I suppose if one is only making a demonstration that ‘hey we have weapons’ then ok sure that would work.

State Jas a burden of proof that if fought against I don’t think the state can make. Fortunately the couple seems well funded and Jas counsel. Some average income couple in the same situation would be likely to plead for financial reasons.

    CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | October 7, 2020 at 12:59 am

    How did Jas substitute for has?

    healthguyfsu in reply to CommoChief. | October 8, 2020 at 10:41 am

    Brandishing technically means “wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.”

    You don’t technically have to have a gun ready to fire for it to be considered brandishing. And if the legal system decides to use that definition to convict you, then they will. A guy here in my home state of VA was convicted simply for having his open carry gun holstered and visible (open carry is technically legal in this state, but it is an unfriendly environment right now). According to the party he was arguing with, he displayed it on his hip in a threatening manner. He was convicted of brandishing without ever putting his hand on the gun.

    I hated this when I learned of it, but it

      freddy33 in reply to healthguyfsu. | October 8, 2020 at 10:47 am

      He is charged under rsmo 571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

      (4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;

      But:

      5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031, RSMo.

Nine protesters were initially served police summonses, but City Counselor Michael Garvin said on Sept. 29 that trespassing charges would not be pursued

Of course charges weren’t pursued. It’s a lot harder to pursue brandishing charges if the people you’re charging were doing so versus convicted trespassers. Now the DA can tell the jury “nobody threatened them, if they had we would have charged them”.

When you’ve been selected to be sacrificed, resistance is sacrilege.

caseoftheblues | October 7, 2020 at 6:03 am

So the DHS just came out and said that white supremacists are the biggest threat to peace and security the US faces….so I guess add DHS to list of FBI and CIA as utterly corrupt political organizations.

“The McCloskeys’ lawyer Joel Schwartz said he didn’t know specifics about the charges but said he’s not surprised a grand jury indicted his clients.”

OK, I’m not a lawyer, but how can someone be indicted without a lawyer being involved? Doesn’t someone accused of a crime have a right to legal representation at all stages of the process?

    CommoChief in reply to Evil Otto. | October 7, 2020 at 9:30 am

    Otto,

    They were represented by counsel. The Grand Jury proceedings take place in the absence of defense counsel. Only the prosecutor presents to the Grand Jury.

    That’s why there is an old phrase that ‘a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich’. It’s easy to score without anyone playing defense.

      Given the frequency with which the process is abused, and the trouble and expense people are put to as a result of these phony-baloney indictments, it’s high time grand-jury reform became an issue in American politics.

      While a prosecutor can abuse the grand jury process, and it does happen, grand juries are a lot more savvy than most people know.

      I have given witness testimony before several grand juries, during my career. A newly seated GJ is much more likely to be guided and controlled by a prosecutor than one which has been seated for a while. Members of a GJ can directly question witnesses. And, once they realize this and do it a few times, they seem to enjoy it. And, they ask pertinent and, often, probing questions. It becomes increasingly hard for a prosecutor to slip anything by them. That is one reason you see certain interested parties calling for a new GJ to be seated to hear a politically charged case.

      Now, most states allow the prosecutor to directly file most criminal charges without obtaining a true bill from the GJ. Usually, a case goes to a GJ because the law requires the specific charge sought to be handed down by a GJ or because the case is politically charged and the prosecutor wants cover for whatever decision should be made. And, a GJ charge still has to be approved by a magistrate or other judge and does not indicate any thing other than probable cause, not adjudication of guilt or innocence.

2smartforlibs | October 7, 2020 at 7:26 am

Again proving the Soros AG is a hack. Mo has a castle law and they were in fear for their lives. More wasted tax dollars.

It’s getting time to stop showing, and start shooting.

    henrybowman in reply to MAJack. | October 7, 2020 at 3:46 pm

    When real Americans start “protesting,” they aren’t going to be targeting AutoZones and police cars. They’re going to be targeting Marxist DAs, Marxist AGs, and Marxist mayors.

    We’ve all see how fast officially condoned “summer of love” rioting gets shut down when it reaches the actual residences of the Marxist condoners. These Marxists need to think about what they plan to do when the patriots’ “summer of love” activity starts there.

This is what life will look like, across the U.S., if vile, dim-witted, dotard-marionette, Biden, and, his greasy, Machiavellian, would-be caudillo, comrade-in-arms, the equally-vile Kamala Harris, take power. Goose-stepping, totalitarian jackboots roam free, while citizens who avail themselves of their God-given and Constitutional rights to defend their lives, will be prosecuted, vilified and punished. A nightmarish, totalitarian dystopia, come-to-life.

The countersuit should be EPIC.

Seriously? Thought this was over with, WTH do they actually think they have to go forward with? Nothing here, nothing…

The McCloskeys need to accept that they are being given a great opportunity here, and decide which way they want to take their new position as poster children of the war of the Left against Normals.

I’m of two minds on this. First, they were within their rights to defend themselves and the prosecutor is a nutjob making political hay (which is why she went after the ex-governor). But, these folks have made their fortune subjecting companies to the litigation hell that is the City of St. Louis court system. It is a well known plaintiff’s paradise. They have profited from the system and are now being subjected to the it.

So, while I don’t support the idea of the prosecution, I have absolutely no sympathy for the McCloskeys.

    MarkSmith in reply to freddy33. | October 7, 2020 at 2:47 pm

    Yea, it is kinda hard to have sympathy for the Ferrari Club member. Even more so now knowing the the guns were not functional.

    He represents a “victim” that evaded the police and ran a car in to a police car and resisting arrest. He is assisting making a mess of a police officers life.

    The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that indictment identifies the victim by the initials “I.F.” The allegations match those made in a 2019 civil lawsuit by Isaiah Forman. Forman is serving a seven-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to second-degree assault on a special victim for crashing into a St. Ann police car during the chase.

    The lawsuit against Maas and others says Forman had “surrendered peaceably.”

    Police at the time said Forman, then 21, was driving a car that had been taken by another man at gunpoint.

    “I’m glad that the law enforcement agencies are subject to the same standard as everybody else,” Forman’s lawyer, Mark McCloskey, said.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/10/gun-wielding-missouri-couple-who-attempted-to-protect-home-from-rioters-indicted-on-two-felony-counts/?replytocom=1094650#respond

These defendants should be able to sue all nine tresspassers civilly for tresspassing. The results should be admissable at their criminal trial.

I’m confused. Which laws did they violate?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend