Missouri governor pardons couple who aimed guns at BLM protesters

[Dill]

(08-08-2021, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed, and yet the vast majority of the content of my posts, which you have still not addressed, are nothing like that.

And here's where you enter peak inanity.  I have done so, explicitly, numerous times in this thread.  This is becoming extremely boring.

A gross fabrication on your part.  You've literally become what you purport to despise.  I guess you stared too long into the abyss.  

                                                                                   

(08-08-2021, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:And let's NOT "flip the script" if that means treating a case in which no one served jail time and or showed repentance for the crime
to which he/she pled guilty as one which rises to the level of pardon application.

I'm not treating the circumstances as equal, and never have.  You're arguing against a point I never made.

The cases are "unequal" for a number of reasons, if one follows the usual criteria for pardon consideration, such as gross injustice beyond ready legal repair and sincere repentance.  The Strickland case--a FELONY conviction for a murder involving 43 years wrongly taken from a man's life--has gone through the pardon process and parole board along with many other worthy cases, and so meets the usual criteria. 

The McCloskey case--a MISDEMEANOR conviction of people who indeed committed the crime for which they were accused, never went to jail, and would "do it again"--does not meet any of the usual criteria for pardons. (Has a MISDEMEANOR conviction EVER been pardoned in Missouri?)

The McCloskey case does, however, meet the UNUSUAL criteria of a pardon for political purposes.

 If you argue "the governor did the right thing by them" in raising their misdemeanor to the level of a pardon, then I am not "arguing against a point you never made."

(08-08-2021, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:I've already explained why I don't agree with burning a pardon on a misdemeanor case, which didn't require a pardon,
while ignoring so many more deserving cases which do require one. (And the pardon is "burned" because the time and effort spent on it could have been spent on serious cases involving decades of lost freedom for innocents.) 

There was minimal "time and effort" expended as the governor had previously stated he would pardon them if convicted.  So, another Dill point shot down.

Lol Who would defend a pardon on the grounds "minimal time and effort" were expended in granting it, rather than the ethical/legal merits of the individual pardon itself vis a vis others that might have been granted?  ("Sure Mr. Strickland, you lost 43 years of your life, and sure, you have gone through the proper channels, but signing the McCloskey pardon simply took less time than signing yours would have. Just because you are in the news doesn't mean you should be bumped ahead of the line. The McCloskeys suffered prosecutorial misconduct too!")

How does that "shoot down" the fact that the misdemeanor conviction could have been voided without a pardon?