McCloskeys plead on misdemeanor charges; pay $2750 total fines

https://www.kuow.org/stories/the-cou...o-misdemeanors

Patricia McCloskey, who menaced the marching crowd with her finger on the trigger of a handgun, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor harassment and was ordered to pay a fine of $2,000. Her husband, Mark McCloskey, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor fourth-degree assault for threatening the passersby with an AR-15 rifle. He was fined $750.

<snip>

…The couple will keep their law licenses and there's nothing stopping them from buying more guns in the future.

I thought it was a $750.00 fine.

Probably much cheaper than fighting it.

I understand why the McCloskeys did what they did—or at least I think that I do—but the principled side of me is of the belief that they should have fought until they were vindicated either in the lower court, or if necessary, in an appellate court.

I've been accused of "seeing things in black and white" in the past. It's more a function of my ''spit in the eye of the devil'' personality. I know that there is considerable expense in litigating matters like these, but were it me (and I am well aware that it isn't), my personal honor is worth more than saving a few bucks. In the end, I hope that they are satisfied with the outcome. I don't believe that they were wrong to defend their home in the presence of the ''mostly peaceful rioters'' given the widespread tendency towards violence displayed with alarming regularity by those types involved.

I saw their house. That is probably what they pay for their monthly HOA and landscaping/yard upkeep fees.

I'm glad nothing became more of it and they were unharmed in the in original fracas.

They'll skip brunch at the club on Wednesday and they'll be fine.

So there you have it. If you're going to face off with a bunch mostly peaceful protesters arm yourself with an AR. The fine will be less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the Schwartz

I understand why the McCloskeys did what they did—or at least I think that I do—but the principled side of me is of the belief that they should have fought until they were vindicated either in the lower court, or if necessary, in an appellate court.

I've been accused of "seeing things in black and white" in the past. It's more a function of my ''spit in the eye of the devil'' personality. I know that there is considerable expense in litigating matters like these, but were it me (and I am well aware that it isn't), my personal honor is worth more than saving a few bucks. In the end, I hope that they are satisfied with the outcome. I don't believe that they were wrong to defend their home in the presence of the ''mostly peaceful rioters'' given the widespread tendency towards violence displayed with alarming regularity by those types involved.

---

The big motivating factor was probably the uncertainty of the outcome at trial.

I have always thought they were legally justified but made multiple bad decisions. A judge, or the wrong jury, could easily reach a different conclusion on the issue of justification.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BillSWPA

The big motivating factor was probably the uncertainty of the outcome at trial.

I have always thought they were legally justified but made multiple bad decisions. A judge, or the wrong jury, could easily reach a different conclusion on the issue of justification.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

This. They ducked it up and got off easy. Unfortunately nobody likes a crowd. When you make yourself famous. When there were other choices.

I would note I predicted the following out nearly 1 year ago. See post #401
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....testers/page41


1. will not be felons
2. will not go to jail
3. will keep their law licenses
4. will still be millionaires and can cherry pick who they represent re personal injury and other plaintiff oriented litigation.

Standing on principles has its own costs.
a. Mr Mc is running for Sen to replace the retiring Sen Blunt. He needs this behind him
b. Mr and Mrs have millions of fees in the pipeline on pending cases and potentially tens of millions more in new business. Felony convictions mean no law licenses and potentially clients who do not get the results the want/need/deserve etc.

A 60 sec look at the docket indicates that the elected Circuit Atty and her entire staff were disqualified from the case. The Court appointed Richard G. Callahan as Special Prosecutor who billed the Court 1060 for 4.25 hours of work in resolving the case. Callahan is 30 yr plus atty who has been an atty in pvt practice, asst prosecutor, elected prosecutor, US atty and State Court judge.

https://www.lincolnu.edu/web/preside...ators/callahan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_G._Callahan

The judge who sentenced the case is a 30 year plus atty/Wash U (STL) law grad who has been on the bench for 20 + years and has taught at Wash U since 1989, albeit on an adjunct basis.
https://www.yourmissourijudges.org/j...david-c-mason/


Only slightly tongue in cheek, it seems like the adults finally got called in. They, in short order, got the same room and worked this thing out with very little muss or fuss.