Tuesday, August 11, 2020

Political Pressure to Persecute McCloskys Gun Charges, Details of Gate Entry

Screen shot from video, just as the gate is being opened by lead agitators of the mob of protestors. In this screen shot , the gate is about a foot open, likely no more than a half second after the latch was jimmied.

Christine Byers of KSDK in Misouri has uncovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's office. Kim is one of the radical prosecutors who has been elected with money from George Soros linked radical leftist "Justice & Public Safety" political action committee.

Gardner has drawn national attention with her decision to prosecute a St Louis couple for defending their home against an angry mob of Black Lives Matter agitators. 

The document obtained by 5 On Your Side (KDSK) show pressure was applied by Gardner's office to structure the police report, so as to alter the evidence to justify a warrant, and then, criminal charges.

Gardner's Assistant Circuit Attorney, Chis Hinckley, had pushed the lead investigator, Sgt. Curtis Burgdorf, into signing a charging document that Hinckley wrote.

Burgdorf was unwilling to sign onto a document he disagreed with, but finally signed off, after revisions, under the political pressure from Hinckley. Here are the findings by KDSK:
Hinckley also wrote the document the lead detective did sign, known as the probable cause statement.
But it went through at least two revisions after Burgdorf outlined 14 concerns he had about the document, 5 On Your Side has learned.
Among those concerns:
  • Hinckley characterized the protest as “peaceful and organized” and that it was “calling attention to racial inequities in the criminal justice system.” Burgdorf wrote that the evidence he gathered showed the protest was to call for the resignation of Mayor Lyda Krewson. The final document called it “a protest march.”
  • Hinckley wrote that Patricia McCloskey’s was “armed with a semi-automatic handgun.” Burgdorf wrote the phrase should read, “What appears to be a semi-automatic handgun.” Hinckley responded, in part, “You cannot be serious with this one. Again, this is really problematic.” Ultimately, the document read: “What was later determined to be a semi-automatic handgun.”
  • Hinckley called Mark McCloskey’s gun an “assault” rifle. Burgdorf called the word “assault” a propaganda term. Hinckley disagreed, but it was left out of the final document.
  • Hinckley wrote that the protesters passed through an “open gate” onto private property. Burgdorf said he didn’t know whether the gate guarding the private street was open when protesters went through it, but that, at some point, it was damaged. Hinckley responded: “Your points here are really problematic. It seems to go beyond oversight and into purposeful ignorance. I suggest you very quickly re-assess this evidence.” Ultimately the document Burgdorf signed reads, “protesters walked through a gate.”
  • Hinckley wrote that Mark McCloskey’s gun was “visibly loaded with an ammunition clip.” Burgdorf wrote that he would have to verify that detail because it wasn’t mentioned in his report or interviews with them. Hinckley wrote back “Seriously??!!” Ultimately, the document did not include the phrase Hinckley wrote.
  • Hinckley wrote that both victims, identified only by their initials, “feared that the defendant might fire her weapon due to her finger being on the trigger and her highly agitated demeanor.” Burgdorf wrote that the term “angrily” was subjective and he didn’t like it. Hinckley wrote, “It’s a fact and an element of the offense.” The final document did not include the word "angrily".
Hinckley is reportedly the official who, when the pistol brandished by Patricia McCloskey was found to be non-functional by the forensic lab, ordered the pistol to be made functional when it was put back together by the lab.

Detective Sgt. Burgdorf has continued to investigate the case. He was able to discover recorded evidence of threats by people in the mob of agitators, toward the McCloskeys.
  • “You own a business. Your business is gone.”
  • “We coming back baby.”
  • “You ain’t the only (expletive) with a gun.”
  • “They coming back to your house.”
One recording seems particularly significant. One of the leaders of the mob makes this disclosure:
In another livestream video, Burgdorf wrote a man was heard saying, “I was in front so I was the one who opened the gate. The gate was broken after they pulled a gun. What law did we break? We keep guns there but not for show though. Not to look a certain way, but for use. If they would’ve shot then they would’ve been put down.”
Both the threat and the information is damning. The man admits the gate was closed. There is video of the gate showing it was closed.

In the video, you can see a masked agitator going up to the gate. It appears he has some sort of tool, perhaps a jimmy bar of some kind. He is partially obscured by the crowd.  Someone to the left of the gate is working with him, and pulls open the left side of the gate, shortly after he arrives.

It seems the gate was spring loaded, probably with a spring latch that could not be legitimately opened from the street side. The easiest way to jimmy it would be from the right side. Only the left side of the gate was opened.
The person who pulled the left side of the gate open after the latch was defeated, held the gate open for others to enter.   This implies the gate was spring loaded with a bias toward closure.

 Link to video

The first person through the gate and the person in the sport coat appear to be members of the leadership. The mob would probably not have gone through the gate, without their lead. They appear to have a plan, and execute the plan. 

Image of gate being held open, showing what is likely a spring latch and the guard plate, where the thumb of the person holding it open is.  Spring latches are the easiest to jimmy.

Link to video

On the recording, the agitator leader asks, rhetorically "What law did we break?"

 There are four obvious ones:
Other laws that seem likely to have been violated:
  • Criminal conspiracy
  • Deprivation of Constitutional rights
The gate was severely damaged as the mob left.

Screen shot from Fox story, cropped by Dean Weingarten
Why was the gate damaged on the way out? Looking at the gate, notice the side which was opened has been pulled inward ( on the right from the inside). It is meant to open outward. The broken side was never opened at all.  It was just broken and bent inward.

Some informed speculation:

It seems likely, when the mob had all gone inside, the springs on the gate closed the left hand side (viewed from the street) and the lock latched. The inside appears to be keyed. It may not have a lever to open it.

When the McCloskeys defended their property, the mob rapidly retreated back the way they had come.  
The last in were the first out. They found themselves trapped by the locked gate. The man with the jimmy was probably not there to open it, so the mob just broke it, with many hands pulling on it.

We have not seen any video of the gate being broken.

Testimony about this is important. It would show the gate was locked when the mob arrived. The latch did not lock itself, after the mob was let into the private street by the ringleaders. 

The evidence is likely to show the gate was locked.  There is video evidence it was closed when the mob arrived.  That contradicts assistant prosecutor Hinckley's assertion the gate was open.
If the gate was locked, it becomes clear the mob were trespassers, not "peaceful protestors".  Most of the mob were being used by the leadership. The jimmy was done fast, shielded for the most part from the mob, as it was done.  With a little practice, such a jimmy is faster than using a key. 
Investigators in St. Louis can easily confirm if the gate is/was spring loaded, and if it was locked with a spring latch.

It is unlikely any but a few of the leadership knew the route planned for the action.

Mobs are easy to lead around. Everyone just follows those in front. A small cadre of activists do exactly that. The leadership knew radical prosecutor Kim Gardner could be counted on not to prosecute them. 
She prosecuted the McCloskeys, no matter what the facts.

Prosecutors are shielded from nearly all lawsuits by absolute immunity created by the Supreme Court in 1983.

There are means to remove prosecutors who abuse their power.  It is very difficult to remove an elected prosecutor by anyone but the voters.  
Prosecutors have enormous power. It is a weak point in the system of ordered liberty in the United States.

The far left is exploiting that vulnerability. The Supreme Court removed many checks and balances when they gave prosecutors absolute immunity.  The left is using that power against the democratic system. They don't have a further plan. 
Their plan has devolved into one goal: tear down the system.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


One of Many said...

looks like it is time to vote in a republican prosecutor... the evidence is obvious this was not a peaceful anything, the actions of the defendants was legal and this is criminal harassment.

Anonymous said...

A peaceful protest does not break and enter and destroy property.

Anonymous said...

Will Hinckley face perjury charges and a peer review board?