Prosecutor Gardner Kicked Off Mark McCloskey Case

[DaveTN]

https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/prosecutor-gardner-kicked-off-mark-mccloskey-case/386867

Prosecutor Gardner Kicked Off Mark McCloskey Case
December 15, 2020
By Mark Chesnut
We’ve reported for months how George Soros-funded St. Louis Circuit Prosecutor Kim Gardner wrongfully prosecuted St. Louis attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey for political purposes rather than in the name of law and order. Now, months after the incident where the McCloskeys protected their property from a large mob loudly marching down the private sidewalk of their home, a judge has kicked her and her staff off Mark McCloskey’s case.

Thomas Clark II, the St. Louis circuit judge hearing the case, dismissed Gardner, citing two campaign fundraising emails around the time she filed felony gun charges against the couple in July. “In short, the Circuit Attorney’s conduct raises the appearance that she initiated a criminal prosecution for political purposes,” Clark wrote.

The dismissal brought a quick response from one of the couple’s attorneys, Al Watkins. “Prosecutors are held to a higher standard legally, ethically and politically,” Watkins said in a text reported in The Washington Times. “When you swing and miss on all three, you have to hit the lockers.”

The dismissal of Gardner from the case was a long time in coming. Not only was the prosecution always about a liberal, anti-gun prosecutor trying to make an example of the McCloskeys, Gardner’s malfeasance concerning in case from the very beginning has been noteworthy.

As Judge Clark mentioned, in early August, Gardner used the case in a fund-raising effort to raise money for her reelection campaign. According to court records, the fundraising email to Gardner supporters read, “You might be familiar with the story of the couple who brandished guns during a peaceful protest outside their mansion. In the last 24 hours, there has been a lot of national attention surrounding Kim’s decision to press charges against a couple that brandished guns at a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest.” The email then prompted supporters to “rush a donation today” to signal their support for her in the case.

At the time, Joel Schwartz, attorney for the couple, wrote in a court motion: “Ms. Gardner, via her campaign mailers, linked the criminal proceedings against [the McCloskeys] to her personal, financial and political interests. The standard for disqualification of a prosecutor is the same as that for a judge. A prosecutor (and a prosecutor’s office as a whole when appropriate), should be disqualified where a reasonable person would have factual grounds to find an appearance of impropriety.”

Not long after that, a group of 16 congressmen signed on to a letter to U.S. Attorney General William Barr asking that Gardner be removed from the politically motivated case.

“Our constitution is clear, ‘… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,’” the letter said. “The state of Missouri goes even further and gives, ‘… the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property …’

“Sadly, these God-given rights bestowed upon all citizens of the United States were trampled by the McCloskey’s very own local officials, who are responsible for upholding the law. This decision (to prosecute) is not only an abuse of power, it is reckless assault on all citizens’ right to bear arms.”

While the dismissal is a positive step forward, it currently only applies to the case against Mark McCloskey, not his wife Patricia’s case. Attorneys are likely to ask the court to apply the ruling to her case also sometime soon.

 

[Chucktshoes]

This is a positive development. I suspect that the prosecution will end up being ended altogether before too long. 

[BHunted]

That's great but wtf not the wife?

[DaveTN]

12 minutes ago, BHunted said:

That's great but wtf not the wife?

I believe their cases were separated. The Judge can’t rule on what’s not before him.

The state AG said there was no evidence that their actions weren’t justified. And the Governor said he would pardon them if they were convicted. That should have been the end of it.

 It’s a good thing the Judge is doing. But its another case of someone getting exactly as much justice as they can afford. Most normal folks would have been offered a plea bargain that involved them pleading guilty and getting probation; or fighting it and possibly being financially destroyed.

[Blitzen]

One of the ways the democrats are attacking the 2nd Amendment is essentially making it a crime to protect yourself with a firearm without having the specific legislation in place to do so. We can look at Great Britain for a recent example of what can happen. Pass some sweeping gun control legislation and make it a crime to use a firearm for self defense. Then a Gov't is good to go. On a side note I think the case does show how an AR15 commands a certain level of respect.  A M1A with a 20 round mag would have made a similar statement while a five shot revolver would not have. This self defense case IMO strongly shows that semi auto weapons are paramount for civilian personal defense use under the 2nd. 

[NwoSlave]

im a relatively new gun owner but not gun ignorant of tennessee laws and responsibilities.

with that said i would like to express an opinion and let me know if im wrong on this sentiment. regardless of the circumstance for picking up their guns i take exception to how they brandished them. aside from the wife having no obvious training and could have easily put a round in her husband's head, the way they were pointing their sidearms and rifle stuck me as breaking the rule "never point your gun at something your not willing to destroy"*. i was educated not to point a gun at someone unless you are willing and need to shoot.  i personally would have kept the barrel pointed down only to avoid accidental shooting and they were not being attacked and having them on display may have dissuaded any harm to them but  i understand the situation they felt they were in danger. however i feel had they kept them on display and not pointing them at the people it might have saved them legal issues later on. 

i do hope all charges are dismissed for the couple and they get proper training cause they looked so untrained it hurt my eyes. 

opinions?

*i understand they would want to destroy the protestors had they attacked.

Edited January 9, 2021 by NwoSlave
clarification

[hipower]

11 minutes ago, NwoSlave said:

 

*i understand they would want to destroy the protestors had they attacked.

First, trained or untrained, and while it was bad form, the McCloskeys were acting in fear of their lives. They can be forgiven for bad form.

While they attempted to remain calm in the face of a stated threat from the trespassers shouting for their(McCloskeys) injury or death, I do not believe they broke any law.

Second, I don't quite know how to react to your statement "i understand they would want to destroy the protestors had they attacked."

I don't think that's correct. The McCloskeys should and would have been only able to reply in kind from an attack...perceived or actual. Wouldn't any escalation above that result in further charges against them? Assault to attempted murder?

So, perhaps I'm not understanding you, or just putting my own thoughts into your comments. As you can tell, I'm not an attorney, nor did I stay at any hotel to give me any specialized knowledge.

I'm just questioning your comment. I think it shows an intent not proven.

BTW...welcome to TGO. We're not all like me.

[NwoSlave]

13 hours ago, hipower said:

First, trained or untrained, and while it was bad form, the McCloskeys were acting in fear of their lives. They can be forgiven for bad form.

While they attempted to remain calm in the face of a stated threat from the trespassers shouting for their(McCloskeys) injury or death, I do not believe they broke any law.

Second, I don't quite know how to react to your statement "i understand they would want to destroy the protestors had they attacked."

I don't think that's correct. The McCloskeys should and would have been only able to reply in kind from an attack...perceived or actual. Wouldn't any escalation above that result in further charges against them? Assault to attempted murder?

So, perhaps I'm not understanding you, or just putting my own thoughts into your comments. As you can tell, I'm not an attorney, nor did I stay at any hotel to give me any specialized knowledge.

I'm just questioning your comment. I think it shows an intent not proven.

BTW...welcome to TGO. We're not all like me.

For me pointing a gun at someone means im going to shoot them no if and's or buts about it. I believe just having it displayed would have been enough to keep the protestors at bay and may have led to the fallacious charges. this is of course arm chair quarterbacking on my part.  the protestors did break into private property and threaten the mccloskey's.

one of the rules of fire arm safety is dont point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy. pointing a gun at possible threat does mean you are willing to destroy them. i just wanted it known i understood the application of that rule did apply to this scenario.