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.