Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the wealthy couple from St. Louis who were slapped with criminal charges for brandishing their guns at mostly Black nonviolent protesters in their neighborhood, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges and will turn in the guns they waved at protesters.
The McCloskey’s insolent behavior speaks volumes.
Is someone proof reading these articles…there are parts that need some editing.
They are quite militant and vocal about showing no remorse so the prosecutors should rescind the plea agreement and go back to charging them with felonies.
This is a “wealthy white persons” punishment - tap on wrist that would be hard time for someone poor and dark.
Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) previously said that he plans to pardon the couple if they are convicted.
Exactly what I have come to expect from the party of law and order.
If any culture ever deserved being cancelled…
Waved guns, not waived.
But Karen is such an inspiration to Karen’s everywhere. How can she still be a Karen without her cure little pop gun?
Say it ain’t so… 
In court: what I did was bad.
Minutes later, outside the courthouse: I’d do it again.
I’d have to think a judge would find this sort of two-facedness to be contemptible (small C).
“I’d do it again,” he said from the courthouse steps in downtown St. Louis, according to the AP. “Any time the mob approaches me, I’ll do what I can to put them in imminent threat of physical injury because that’s what kept them from destroying my house and my family.”
I believe there are a couple of vacancies in the US Capitol Police that this guy could fill and where he could put his crowd-control beliefs into action.
Like…
However, the AP noted that Mark McCloskey — who launched a bid for a Senate eat in Missouri — did not exhibiting remorse after the hearing.
they can still own guns, she just has to give up her pop gun
she’ll be wearing a .50 cal Desert Eagle on her hip in her campaign adds for the local school board I am sure
Waived Guns?
i think the i don’t belong there.
Weird part is the headline states they have to give up their guns-- while the article states the opposite.
Did like the comment:
Callahan said, according to the AP. “I don’t think people should view this case as some type of betrayal or assault on the Second Amendment. We still have the Second Amendment rights. It’s just that the Second Amendment does not permit unreasonable conduct.”
Pitch perfect on his pushback.
We still have the Second Amendment rights. It’s just that the Second Amendment does not permit unreasonable conduct.”
I certainly hope you’re right, sir, because many of us think carrying long guns into a Starbucks is unreasonable, to say the least. Also into grocery stores, bars, restaurants, schools, offices, etc. I only wish “reasonableness” was the standard. That way, we can also require liability insurance, among other measures.
I took it to mean they only have to turn in those two weapons used in commission of the crime. They can keep the rest of their arsenal.
There was an article in the local St. Louis newspaper about how they were a constant nuisance and cataloged a number of incidents including harassing the synagogue behind their residence because of their beehive which they used for producing honey.
Hahahaha! But, they should be in jail!
Asked whether he acknowledged that he and his wife’s waving of their guns at protesters put people at risk of personal injury, Mark McCloskey replied that he “sure did, your honor.”
“I’d do it again,” he said…
I don’t see a necessary contradiction between these statements. Think of them together, as if he told the judge devil-take-the-hindmost style: “I sure did (know I was putting people at risk), and I’d do it again, Your Honour.”
See how that works?
Sir, the only President who would do you the favor of a pardon when your time comes … is no longer President.