lead counsel for Mark and Patricia McCloskey in defamation matters arising out of the false publicity concerning acts of self-defense at their house in St. Louis, Missouri.
Goes on to describe the correlation of my iq to the question posed about his emotions
Hey bud, I didn't mean to offend you, and you're still lacking the reading comprehension to understand what I initially wrote. Nobody is justifying anything, this is just another thing you've correlated to my initial response, which is kind of odd for you to do, because I didn't say that and you should stop drawing inferences and correlations to things that weren't said. Again sorry you lack the capability to read thoroughly and practice proper reading comprehension skills
I believe the pistol she had was disabled. Meaning it could not fire. This is not a crime to demilitarize your own weapon if in fact they did it. Apparently, rumor is the police FIXED it while it was in their custody. This leads me to believe it wasn't the McClosky's tampering with the weapon.
Regardless defending your property from a degenerate mob of communist arsonists, murderers, and vandals is not a crime. They should be commended.
Because you said even though it is unconstitutional you can still see the exhibiting a weapon charge.... The fact that you acknowledge it is unconstitutional is irrelevant if you can still see the charge.
Correlation has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are talking about. Do you even know what that word means?
I didn't infer you weren't that bright from your first comment, with that I just questioned how you could justify the charge. I determined you weren't that bright from your response when your excellent reading comprehension skills led you to believe that the only reason why I would question you is because I just wanted to be mad, an emotion I wasn't feeling in the slightest.
Maybe you guys don't know who the AG is down there. I do.
I know these charges are wrong, and they will be acquitted
That doesn't change the fact that I can still see the charge, based on WHO IS PROSECUTING THEM
This isn't about what u think is right or wrong, it's obviously wrong. I'm saying these corrupt politicians are prosecuting them so I can see it happening
They will already be pardoned
They were only indicted for appearing as a speaker at the RNC.
Nasty stuff, thank heavens they are attorneys, is Lin Woods involved with them?
lead counsel for Mark and Patricia McCloskey in defamation matters arising out of the false publicity concerning acts of self-defense at their house in St. Louis, Missouri.
Thanks, I read the article too quickly, missed that
That paragraph's off Lin woods website
Thanks again!
You spelled "rioters" wrong.
Correlation has nothing to do with this
Goes on to describe the correlation of my iq to the question posed about his emotions
Hey bud, I didn't mean to offend you, and you're still lacking the reading comprehension to understand what I initially wrote. Nobody is justifying anything, this is just another thing you've correlated to my initial response, which is kind of odd for you to do, because I didn't say that and you should stop drawing inferences and correlations to things that weren't said. Again sorry you lack the capability to read thoroughly and practice proper reading comprehension skills
I can see exhibiting a weapon charge, even though the law itself is unconstitutional, but tampering with evidence?
What did they tamper with? The state sponsored destruction of their lives?
Edit: Jesus people I know it's not right, but the AG down there is a Soros bitch so yeah I can see the charge
I believe the pistol she had was disabled. Meaning it could not fire. This is not a crime to demilitarize your own weapon if in fact they did it. Apparently, rumor is the police FIXED it while it was in their custody. This leads me to believe it wasn't the McClosky's tampering with the weapon.
Regardless defending your property from a degenerate mob of communist arsonists, murderers, and vandals is not a crime. They should be commended.
Like I said, maybe you guys didn't see the part where I said even tho it's unconstitutional
Or maybe you did and you just wanna be mad too
The Police Department Crime Lab recorded that they made the weapon functional at the instruction from the prosecutor.
You can see the exhibiting a weapon charge? They didn't go to a protest, they were on their front steps.
Oh maybe you didn't read the part where I said even tho it's unconstitutional
Or maybe you just wanna be mad
I'm not mad, I just don't see how you can see justifying that charge. I can think you are not that bright without being emotional.
Why are you intentionally leaving out the part where I said it was unconstitutional
I'm sorry you lack reading comprehension skills, no need for insults simply because you lack the capability to read thoroughly
Because you said even though it is unconstitutional you can still see the exhibiting a weapon charge.... The fact that you acknowledge it is unconstitutional is irrelevant if you can still see the charge.
Correlation is not causation
Even though I can see the murder charges against many police officers I know most will have their charges dropped
That stems from previous knowledge about the insane justice systems temperament right now, so even though it's not right, I can still see it happening
You could draw no inference from this statement regarding anything about me
Yet here we are
So the point still stands, it's not right, I can still see it happening, and you still lack reading comprehension skills
Correlation has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are talking about. Do you even know what that word means?
I didn't infer you weren't that bright from your first comment, with that I just questioned how you could justify the charge. I determined you weren't that bright from your response when your excellent reading comprehension skills led you to believe that the only reason why I would question you is because I just wanted to be mad, an emotion I wasn't feeling in the slightest.
Missouri has The Castle Doctrine. What they did was legal according to State Law.
Again, I'm not arguing that.
Maybe you guys don't know who the AG is down there. I do.
I know these charges are wrong, and they will be acquitted
That doesn't change the fact that I can still see the charge, based on WHO IS PROSECUTING THEM
This isn't about what u think is right or wrong, it's obviously wrong. I'm saying these corrupt politicians are prosecuting them so I can see it happening