Posted on 07/23/2020 6:46:09 AM PDT by Red Badger
St. Louis prosecutor ordered crime lab to reassemble Patricia McCloskeys gun
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 Gardners 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.
Crime lab workers photographed the disassembly and reassembly of the gun, according to the documents.
Patricia McCloskey and her husband, Mark McCloskey, have said the handgun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable because they had used it as a prop during a lawsuit they once filed against a gun manufacturer. In order to bring it into a courtroom, they made it inoperable.
Their attorney, Joel Schwartz, confirmed to 5 On Your Side that the McCloskeys intentionally misplaced the firing pin on the gun and that it was in that condition when Patricia McCloskey waved it at protesters and turned it into their former attorney Al Watkins.
Its disheartening to learn that a law enforcement agency altered evidence in order to prosecute an innocent member of the community, Schwartz said.
A spokeswoman for Gardner wrote: We cant comment on a pending case.
It’s still a conspiracy even if they are too stupid or too reckless to keep it a secret.
Nice of the tech to document their work. I would assume there is a email saying to do this at the tech’s personal lawyer office to prevent any misunderstandings.
IMHO that is an irrelevant technicality. Pointing a fully operational gun on a mob threatening violence when you are on your own property is NOT against the law. It is the very essence of the 2nd amendment.
We need to keep sight on the big picture here and not get dragged into side issues.
There should be a line of lawyers outside of the McCloskey household begging to take this case. There will be damages, ruined careers, and huge payouts for this.
This will be epic.
They ARE lawyers!...........I’m sure they know some...............
Understand your point. Here is what they are charged with, (4) below clearly states any weapon readily capable of lethal use. This is why the flipping of the firing pin is important in this case. Quite simply an inoperable handgun would not apply. This, I am sure, is why the state changed the condition of said firearm.
571.030. Unlawful use of weapons exceptions penalties. 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:
(1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any area where firearms are restricted under section 571.107; or
(2) Sets a spring gun; or
(3) Discharges or shoots a firearm into a dwelling house, a railroad train, boat, aircraft, or motor vehicle as defined in section 302.010, or any building or structure used for the assembling of people; or
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or
There are exceptions. Number 5 seems to apply.
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.
.... Under 18 U.S. Code § 1519 tampering with evidence is illegal ...
Is there an escape clause, like ‘Except when a liberal black female DA does it.”?.................
~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you have any indication that this case has escalated to Federal levels?
TXnMA
Gardner works for her pimp, George Soros.
Soros buys cheap.................
The problem is we don't know when the pin got flipped.
I'm not familiar with their weapon but a skilled person could probably do it pretty quickly. For instance in the back of a getaway car fleeing a robbery.
Hard to say the police should assume the gun was inoperable during the crime when the suspects had the opportunity to modify it afterwards.
You are correct, we do not know when the firing pin got flipped. But we do know when it was flipped back. Documented by the persons doing it. That alone will be enough to get them off, as well it should.
Which says nothing about the state of the pin during the incident. Law enforcement isn't going to, and shouldn't, assume the most charitable scenario for the suspects.
Washington University in St Louis - School of "Law"
Chris Hinckley is the Chief Warrant Officer with the St. Louis City Circuit Attorneys Office and co-directs the Schools Prosecution Clinic. He was previously a trial attorney in the office and General Counsel for the Missouri Gaming Commission. A former officer in the U.S. Navy, Chris has also taught classes on gaming law at Washington University and Albany Law School.
https://law.wustl.edu/faculty-staff-directory/profile/christopher-hinckley/
That's why the McCloskeys gave him the handgun beforehand.
I was trying to figure out why they did that - it didn't make sense at the time.
That's how this information came out - the minute Kimmie the Commie and her corrupt little Mini-Me Chris Hinckley brought that specific charge, the McCloskeys' attorney was on the phone to her den-of-thieves orifice.
Hinckley is sweating right now. This could easily be his whole career.
I'll bet his adult diaper is full just about now...
I don't think anyone doubts it was a brick when they gave it to law enforcement (or their attorney).
The question is was it a brick when she was waving it around?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.