Missouri governor pardons couple who aimed guns at BLM protesters

[Dill]

(08-11-2021, 02:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Irrelevant.  The "usual criteria" is just that, the usual.  It does not, and can not, cover all instances in which one is allowable.  You have yet to make a cogent argument for why a pardon was unjustified in this instance other than it does not fit the "usual criteria".  The very statement allows for instances that fall outside the norm.

Looks like you are granting that I have made the case the McCloskey pardon does not fit the "usual criteria." 

Why is that NOT sufficient?  What "falls outside the norm" are political and partisan criteria. 

Such as those stated by the governor.  

(08-11-2021, 02:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: His stated reason is also irrelevant.  The facts are the facts.  The couple was treated with extreme corruption and misconduct.  This is why you are squirming to avoid this point.  Also, prosecutorial misconduct absolutely can be grounds for a pardon.  Such misconduct irrevocably taints the entire case.  

Sez who? You're the one who used the phrase "actual reason." If the governor stated he was pardoning the couple to defend the Castle Doctrine, and then he pardoned them, you are saying THAT STILL CAN"T BE THE ACTUAL REASON? 

They were pardoned because of YOUR REASON, not the governors? Does anyone in Missouri know this? 

No one is saying "prosecutorial misconduct" can't be grounds for a pardon or "taint" a whole case. It certainly COULD BE if it led to a false conviction landing an innocent person in prison for 43 years. 

But not all cases of "prosecutorial misconduct" have such great harm--like ones that result in only misdemeanor fines and no jail time. 

That's why there are many cases of such conduct uncovered in every state and few actually lead to pardons--which are finally about harm to the defendant. 

Amongst the 3,000 cases shoved aside for the McCloskeys', you don't suppose there are many equally bad and equally worse cases of prosecutorial misconduct? Yet those cases continue to languish, and statistically, less than a third will actually granted anyway.

(08-11-2021, 02:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: Should I have BOLDED the entire paragraph on your "actual reason" so you'd notice? 

The misconduct was advanced as to why I thought the pardon was warranted.  Read my first response in this thread.

Jeezus. Everyone knows WHY you thought the pardon was "warranted." My last five posts have been attempts to get you to place your impression on some legal foundation other than simple repetition.

I was responding to your claim that I avoid your big point about misconduct--even as I address it directly in every post. You don't respond to the refutation, then insist I'm "dodging" while my counter argument remains unrefuted. (And you don't refute it by repeating that "prosecutorial misconduct CAN lead to a pardon.") Impossible to know if you are just unable to follow the argument or "squirming" out of it by repeatedly claiming it hasn't been made. So I was musing whether BOLDING such argument from now on would force acknowledgment. 

[Dill]

(08-11-2021, 02:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:So no one is arguing that "prosecutorial misconduct" wasn't "real." No need to. But you don't appear to understand why that is the case.

Looks like you cannot follow the legal argument I've presented, let alone refute it. And changing that perception would be too "boring."
  
No, you cannot follow the logic of how it taints the entire case.  Again, you do so because you have no argument other than the case does not fit the "usual criteria".  
I call you boring and smarmy, because you are indeed both those things.
Yes, anyone who has followed this "discussion" can see you've got nothing and you're projecting your failures onto me.  And with that, I'm done arguing in circles with you on this subject.  Feel free to win internet points to be redeemed later.  

Ha, ha--that the McCloskey case does not fit the USUAL CRITERIA is a pretty strong argument. 

After all, that is what pardon cases are SUPPOSED to do. 

And when they don't, that's when problems arise--as they do with Parson's politically motivated pardon. 

No one disputes that prosecutorial misconduct taints cases, or that it hasn't tainted this one. 

But it could taint this case all the way to hell, and it would still be over a MISDEMEANOR FINE,

while who knows how many dozens or hundreds of other worse tainted cases involving innocents serving decades in prison remain on the back burner.

If the McCloskey pardon doesn't fit the usual criteria--as you grant--then it's your task to explain why "tainted" should lever the McCloskey case to the head of the line, past all those other tainted cases involving prosecutorial misconduct and serious harm. 

If you cannot do that, then it's you who's "got nothing," not the person who explains why the McCloskey case doesn't fit the usual criteria.

PS arguments go in circles when one participant keeps repeating a claim without addressing refutations. That happens when people 
beg the question, expect people to accept claims without evidence, and/or find proof "boring." 

[Dill]

I missed this interesting tidbit about the McCloskey's from last Oct.

Apparently they were using the photo graph gone viral of their standoff with BLM protestors as greeting cards for friends, but suing UPI for the "infamy" they'd suffered because of it.

The St. Louis McCloskeys Have a Lot of Feelings About the Gun Photo That Made Them Famous
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvxz34/st-louis-mccloskeys-sue-photographer-viral-gun-photo-black-lives-matter

On one hand, the photo landed the couple—personal injury lawyers in their 60s—an invitation to speak at the Republican National Convention, where they issued a stark warning about Democrats’ plan to “abolish the suburbs.” They’ve also turned their moment of viral fame into a greeting card and handed out signed copies of it to friends and family with captions like “Still Standing!” or “Mark and Patricia McCloskey v. The Mob,” according to the St. Louis Tribune.

On the other hand, they say the “significant national recognition and infamy” they’ve gained as a result of the photo has caused them “humiliation, mental anguish, and severe emotional distress,” according to a lawsuit they filed Monday against photo agency United Press International and photographer Bill Greenblatt, who captured the iconic moment in June, St. Louis Tribune reported. The litigation accuses him of trespassing and demanding that they transfer ownership of the image to them.

The McCloskeys have also sued RedBubble, an online marketplace that creates products like phone cases, bath mats, and mugs based on user-submitted artwork. In this instance, the couple says that RedBubble has been selling products emblazoned with their photo, often accompanied by unflattering captions.

Meanwhile, United Press International has reportedly been mulling its own “cease and desist” order against the McCloskeys for their greeting card over possible copyright violations. The photo agency said they were considering taking legal action against the couple after a protester filmed them leaving a print store with a box of the greeting cards in September.

[Rotobeast]

Fyi...
McCloskey is running for US Senate and he's sending out the autographed photos to anyone who requests them.


Sent from my SM-S515DL using Tapatalk

[GMDino]

(08-30-2021, 11:26 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Fyi...
McCloskey is running for US Senate and he's sending out the autographed photos to anyone who requests them.


Sent from my SM-S515DL using Tapatalk

I'd complain to them but I'd probably have a gun waved at me unsafely.