Missouri governor pardons couple who aimed guns at BLM protesters

[Dill]

(08-06-2021, 12:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I guess GM's lack of reading comprehension is contagious.  Do you think you know everything there is to know about the other case?  Do you think there just might be more to the story than what is contained in a probably page and a half article?  If it was as cut and dry as stated why wouldn't the governor pardon the man?  I'm sure someone like you will immediately go to racism, but maybe, just maybe, there's more to this story?  

As for ranking tiers of injustice, we can definitively prove the McClosky's were the victims of gross prosecutorial misconduct.  We know that because the DA's office admitted to it.  Maybe that's the issue, and not your little buddy's outrage that someone would point out that victim's of gross prosecutorial misconduct should have their charges dropped.  I guess when the facts aren't on your side outrage and thinly veiled accusation of racism is all you've got left in your arsenal.

Lastly, if the man in prison is indeed innocent then I hope he is released, but that has no bearing on the correct decision made in the McClosky case.

"Might be" is not a particularly strong argument, nor an explanation for why the governor would/did pardon in one case that didn't require it, but wouldn't/didn't in the other, which was a strong candidate for it. 

And "maybe more to the story" is not a good principle for defending one-sided political and legal decisions in a liberal democracy, especially in such one-sided fashion.

We should indeed be able to 'rank' injustice, in this case the difference between 43 years in prison on a false conviction and a case in
which defendants pled guilty to misdemeanor charges. Dismiss charges, fine. Overturn the convictions. I am sure that happens often enough in Missouri--but I am not sure that pardons for misdemeanors are a regular occurrence.

So how does "pardon" become the "correct decision" in this MISDEAMEANOR case? It cannot simply be because of "prosecutorial misconduct" that could easily overturn the conviction, leaving nothing to pardon.

Perhaps the distinction between "dismissal/overturn" and "pardon" has always been material to the issue here, and why the latter was chosen in the McCloskey case. Pretty sure THAT'S what my ugly little buddy's "outrage" turns around right now.