Missouri Governor Mike Parson Says He’ll Pardon the McCloskeys if They’re Prosecuted by Kim Gardner

[Parson’s comments regarded the McCloskeys start at 5:23.]

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner has a spotty record on enforcing the law. She let all of the rioters and looters go who were arrested by the St. Louis Police Department during recent civil unrest. But when two city home owners used firearms to protect themselves and their property from a crowed that had trespassed in their neighborhood and reportedly threatened them, she was outraged.

Gardner then began an investigation that is still ongoing — no charges have been brought yet — and has resulted in the confiscation of the two guns used Mark and Patricia McCloskeys used that day.

Missouri Governor Mike Parsons was interviewed by 971talk.radio.com‘s Mark Cox on Friday and was asked if he’d pardon the two if they’re ever tried and convicted.

Cox: Just hypothetically, if Kim Gardner is to try to prosecute one of these two people and tries to take them into a jury trial and gets them convicted, do you as governor have the power to pardon or commute something like that?

Parson: Oh, by all means I would and … I think that’s exactly what would happen. You know, right now, you know, that’s exactly what I feel. You don’t know until you hear all the facts and all that, but right now, if this is all about going after them because they did a lawful act, yeah, if that scenario ever happened, I don’t think they’re gonna spend any time in jail.

If charged, the McCloskeys, who are both attorneys, would have to mount a legal defense, possibly up to and including a trial by a jury of their peers. But Parsons — who stepped into the top job when Governor Eric Greitens resigned — evidently wants Missouri residents to know that he fully supports the Second Amendment and the right of people to defend themselves and their property.

Parson is on the ballot in November and very much wants to remain governor. Sending this signal should help him do that in what’s been a very red, very gun-friendly state.

comments

  1. avatar Getout says:

    As it should be

    1. avatar chuckers says:

      Finally, a politian that stands up for right and not wrong. Laws are meant to protect us but to many polititians (Democrats) feel the need to take our protection away from us and give it to the criminals. They should remember who pays the taxes, ie their salary. Wait, doesn’t the constitution say they work for us? I guess were their slaves they need to control

    2. avatar Montana Actual says:

      “BuT bRaNdiShInG”

      Haha. Suck it.

      1. avatar Missouri_Mule Esquire Emeritus says:

        Face the facts, anybody else besides a rich Democrat lawyers, would have been arrested.

    3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      From the article:

      “Parson is on the ballot in November and very much wants to remain governor. Sending this signal should help him do that in what’s been a very red, very gun-friendly state.”

      Well, if our recall petition for CA Gov. Newsom (which is running astonishingly strong) is successful, then if Parson doesn’t win the MO election in November, we’ll need someone here in CA to replace Newsom when we kick him to the curb in the special election next year.

      Just a thought… 🙂

      1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

        Realistically, in the grand scheme of things, what good is that gonna do?

        Whoever replaces him will just be a more compliant Leftist who will do whatever the cancel mob tells him to do…

      2. avatar rt66paul says:

        The problem with kicking Newsom to the curb in Ca, is that he is being groomed by the Dems for a future run as POTUS. That would be the worst thing that can happen. He will get the blame for something big in Ca and will then be a pariah to the Dems(we hope)

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Perhaps, but when Gray Davis was given the dubious honor of being CA’s very first Governor to be recalled from office back in 2003 (after 153 years of statehood), he was dumped by the Dems and quickly faded into obscurity. Newsom has high aspirations for POTUS, but if recalled, then anyone running against him will be able to point and say “even uber blue CA kicked him out…what good is he now?”

          We keep up the good fight.

    4. avatar Ric A says:

      Aren’t they sue happy lawyers?
      They still have a 2A right, I know. But they may not be the best figureheads

    5. avatar frank speak says:

      she’s scum…what else can he do?….[actually, they should sue]….

    6. avatar Missouri_Mule Esquire Emeritus says:

      Governor Parson has been on shaky ground with the 2A community after he said he would support gun control in St. Louis in the spring. Now he is putting the horse ahead of the cart by offering pardons. He should all the Soros supported radical left prosecutor’s bluff and make her try the case.

      At least that’s my the view from the capitol, Jefferson City, Missouri.

    7. avatar kevin says:

      It was clumsy and easy to make fun of their appearance and lack of gun handling skills, but if there was ever a time to brandish, that was it. No one got hurt, and the message “stay away” was effectively delivered to a mob that could have turned violent at any moment. This was no more than the porcupine’s display of its quills. For its part, the mob wisely decided that discretion was the better part of valor. Win-win.

  2. avatar The NC Taxman says:

    Yeah, this prosecutor, Kim Gardner, needs to make a public apology, give the McCloskeys their guns back in a public presentation, pay their lawyers fees up to this point, give them written notice that they are not under any charges, or any suspicion of committing any crime and give them a commendation for being great citizens acting appropriately under the First, Fourth and Second Amendment.

    This all needs to be done in a very public setting where all of the world can see the prosecutor clearly overstepped her bounds and her job description.

    And invite Donald Trump to the party!

    1. avatar Scott C. says:

      And the city needs to be sued for illegal search and seizure. Their property was confiscated, by a warrant, even though they have not been charged with a crime

    2. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

      Yeah, that’s what an honest, person of integrity would do. However, she is a demokkkrat. They have no honor or integrity so we should not wait for any of this to happen. Especially the part about inviting Trump.

    3. avatar doesky2 says:

      She’s a cvnt…ain’t gonna happen.

  3. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Missouri Governor Mike Parson Says He’ll Pardon the McCloskeys if They’re Prosecuted by Kim Gardner”

    Great news, on the other side of this, IF gardner prosecutes, they need to go after her for violating the McCloskey’s civil and Constitutionally protected rights…

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      This. How it should be.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      She has already violated their rights. She is no different than george wallace denying entry to black students to a public school based only on their race.

      1. avatar Mercury says:

        Except one is a Marxist aiming for nothing less than the total destruction of the country. If every racist were that too, the world would be a smoldering ruin dotted by little colonies of cannibals.

        1. avatar WI Patriot says:

          “smoldering ruin dotted by little colonies of cannibals”

          Sounds like chicago to me…

    3. avatar B says:

      THIS! ☝️
      The DA is a political asswipe and needs to be prosecuted herself.

  4. avatar RGP says:

    The prosecutor is just another communist. She needs to be removed from office and prosecuted.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      This !

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        That!

      2. avatar B says:

        This AND That!

  5. avatar RGP says:

    I’m curious… under the law, does a pardon mean no crime was committed? Or is it saying “yes, you’re guilty, but we’re letting you go?” Either way, a pardon does NOT solve the actual problem, which is a prosecutor attempting a perversion of the law.

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      I think it means no crime was committed. Commuting a sentence means the conviction stays but there is no punishment.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      A Pardon relieves the person from punishment. It may also clear the person of a criminal record, or seal their record, but that varies by jurisdiction. The Pardon does not mean that no crime was committed and the pardoned person remains subject to any civil legal action that may be brought. Normally the granting of a Pardon means there are circumstances the law could not foresee or the courts properly weigh, which the pardoning authority may assess and decide upon.

      In this case were the Governor to Pardon the McCloskeys, or at least Mrs. McCloskey who is the one at greater peril of the law, it would be a political statement similar to the DA’s political statement.

      The wrongful actions of the McCloskeys, the wrongful acts of the trespassers would all remain and all still be open to civil legal action.

      Which nobody wants to waste any time or money on.

      1. avatar JoeyJ says:

        McCloskeys’ 2A access might be in jeopardy should a felony record exist even if pardoned????? And, there is the probable huge defense cost. Dim Wit Gardner’s expenses in this case are paid for by the working citizens among us. Gardner probably won’t care either way. She is up for re-election….in a Useful Idiot, Government Plantation Dweller, BLM (Burn/Loot/Mayhem) rich environment.

        1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies. says:

          Pardoned defendants are able to get their 2a rights back. A pardon generally “erases” the conviction. It’s as if it never happened at least according to the law.

          I find it unlikely this couple would be convicted, esp because MO law is very favorable to their specific case.

          I honestly doubt charges will be brought. Why wait so long To make a political prosecution.

          Too bad the governor can’t pardon pre conviction like POTUS. Then he could save them from the expense also.

          He should instruct the AG to appoint a special prosecutor so they dismiss the case.

        2. avatar enuf says:

          Not necessarily. There are different types of pardons and a pardon can state conditions. It can also be defined under state laws.

      2. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        “The wrongful actions of the McCloskeys”

        There were no wrongful actions by the McCloskeys!

    3. Had a case on point. Seems that a crime was committed but the party is excused from most consequences. Cant get a license to carry.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      …just political posturing…

  6. avatar Truckman says:

    if he can he needs to have it expunged from records period

  7. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

    If she had something, she would have charged them by now.

    Something tells me she’s not very eager to tangle with a real lawyer who will show her to be the twit she actually is…

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      She’s waiting for the investigative report on their high school term papers and old family pictures. There might be some racist/homophobic/misogynist/ stuff there.

    2. avatar Diksum says:

      Twit? How about A55WIPE?

  8. avatar anarchyst says:

    The prosecutor is a cancer that needs to be removed from office. She is but one more reason why official immunity must be abolished for all public officials.

  9. avatar birda40 says:

    Kim Gardner , Kim Fox and Lightfoot should be removed from office for letting all this carry on.

    1. avatar Jim in Oregon says:

      kate brown

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Yup.
        The “married to a guy but openly bisexual” one.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          her husband should just transgender and cut out the middleman.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Its seems that the sexually liberated are the ones who turn out to be tyrants.

  10. avatar Dave in Houston says:

    is it legal to nullify a jury?

    1. avatar Al says:

      Dave, jury nullification is absolutely an option and something that the founders had in mind as a feature of the the republic. It’s something that isn’t really taught any more because it makes the State’s job a lot harder. But Jury Nullification has been going on before there we a United States.

    2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      Do you mean jury nullification, where the jury finds the defendant(s) not guilty despite what the judge and politicians want, or do you mean if a jury finds them guilty to then nullify that verdict? That would be getting the conviction overturned on appeal, and if they are convicted I am sure there will be an appeal.

      By the time this all winds through the courts this governor may be out of office and unable to pardon them. Saying he will scores him free election points with POTG.

      1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

        He isn’t even definitively saying he will, as it depend on the facts and whether he thinks it’s clear that they were acting lawfully. There’s a lot of wiggle room in his actual statement. Reads as though he isn’t all that invested in the case, but knows the right answer he has to give to avoid upsetting his constituents.

        “You don’t know until you hear all the facts and all that, but right now, IF this is all about going after them because they did a lawful act, yeah, IF that scenario ever happened, I don’t think they’re gonna spend any time in jail.” (Emphasis added.)

        1. avatar Biatec says:

          That’s how I read it too.

  11. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    Kim Gardner is no different than our Kim Foxx. They protect their own. The rioters, the looters, the druggies that are turning their life around, the misunderstood youth. Follow the money. Tho, I’m guessing that the McCloskeys voted for Kim Gardner. It’s hard to tell, now. They’re starting to eat their own.

  12. avatar The Olympic Snorch says:

    Still worth it to prosecute them, put a conviction on their records. And whether or not the governor does it, he’s added drama. Big picture win for criminal justice reform. Might as well keep it in the news, see if he has the nuts.

  13. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Kim Gardner is today’s mike nyfong and poor, poor despicable mike is long gone.

  14. avatar Joe says:

    I’m a huge gun advocate and was taught never ever point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot and stop threat even if killing is necessary. I wasn’t there, but in my mind I would have shouldered weapon and walked my property prepared if a threat.

    1. avatar Pardon My Nuts says:

      No way man brandishing your firearm with your finger on the trigger is the way to go. That is the POTG Way of Life!!!

      1. avatar The Olympic Snorch says:

        Heh heh heh

    2. avatar The Olympic Snorch says:

      Yup. Surely details of who owns what in that neighborhood and state brandishing law will be sorted thru in the trial, I’m content to wait for that rather than armchair it myself.

      My perspective right now, based on general principle, is that there’s no way they could have fired a shot and gotten away with it. So should they have been pointing their toys at people? Nopers. A lot of these party-line tools commenting here would have agreed with me before they went all-in on the orange kool-ade and a specific event happened.

    3. avatar Montana Actual says:

      there’s no doubt it could have been done better. I think everyone will agree with that. However, it doesn’t get any more second amendment than this. As we’ve seen lately, things are changing.

    4. avatar enuf says:

      They have an iron gate and a solid front door and left both wide open to posture out on their grass. They could have remained bolted up, but out on that high balcony, looking down from an excellent position of defense. They could have had their guns at the ready but been recording video, especially the faces. They could have been recording evidence for later prosecution, been better protected by elevation with guns ready to use if needed.

      Instead they engaged with the few loud mouths in the crowd. All of whom were rapidly made to move on by others in the crowd.

      Nobody was interested in the McCloskeys or their mansion. They were there for the mayor, who lives down the street.

      There was never any danger to anyone.

      1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        So dense, so slow, so sad.

      2. You can only make such statements if you were there. Why were you there?

      3. avatar Someone says:

        Stop the investigation, go ask enuf. He knows exactly what happened.

        This is the same pocture we all saw, with the lady clumsily aiming her pistol, except uncropped.

        https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/107961759_762341571178237_8148032558620178769_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_sid=110474&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_ohc=s4ghFGIBBjIAX8n511z&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&tp=14&oh=76c290fbbfc4f6e216cf3452a4c47433&oe=5F38A532

        But enuf knows ther was no danger.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          It is important to watch the many videos available. While watching them it is even more important to filter them according to your politics, so you do not hear or see anything that may run contrary to your politics.

          Instead of commenting here, try searching for the videos on YouTube that show the community gate intact during the McCloskey’s time outside, that show other trespassers and protesters moving the few loud mouth idiots along.

          Spend a little time doing that research, so that you can get all the practice you need ignoring it.

          Similar to practicing your shooting skills, it’s like muscle memory. Only it’s for your politics instead.

          Enjoy! 🙂

      4. avatar The Olympic Snorch says:

        Found the Soros/Bloomberg-funded Russian troll-bot

      5. avatar Lonnie Nolan says:

        The crowd was rioters who broke through a locked gate and were intent on doing harm. When in fear for your life or property you have a right to defend. Give the McCloskey’s their guns back and a Medal.

      6. avatar Lonnie Nolan says:

        The crowd was rioters who broke through a locked gate and were intent on doing harm. When in fear for your life or property you have a right to defend. Give the McCloskey’s their guns back and a Medal. Enough2

  15. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Perhaps he should prosecute by Kim Gardner,at the very least she has violated her oath.

  16. avatar former water walker says:

    Saw Pink shirt guy jabbering away on Watter’s World last night…he seems amused by the whole thing. I’m not losing sleep over the pair.

  17. avatar just-the-facts says:

    St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, is also seeking another term in office. She faces a vote on August 14th, as I understand it.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      If the McCloskeys are prosecuted by the DA, it will be political. If they are pardoned by the Governor, that too will be political.

      The actual events are of no importance to any of the politicians currently posturing, preening and parading about for the enjoyment of their supporters, and the votes they seek.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Its good to see you supporting the KKK burning crosses on black private property. Since the grass will always grow back correct??? A persons front lawn isn’t “real property” correct???

        1. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          This guy is stealing your property, I just witnessed it. Go get him!

          Hope both of you end up in jail, it’s where you both belong.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to TheBSonTTAG
          I’m glad that you and people like you in the Libertarian Liberal and the Leftist groups are honest and come out to support cross burning on another persons private property. I’ve been saying that the three L’s have never supported the concept of private property. That’s why they support the invasion of the McCloskeys private land. Thanks to you and many others for helping to re-enforce my point.

          btw
          Please don’t go away. I like having intolerant people like you here. The world needs examples of poor human behavior like yours. This way younger folks will learn what not to do.

  18. Why wait? Pardon them now, Gov. Parsons. Pull the rug out from under that dog Gardner.

  19. avatar kevin says:

    They were not protecting their home they were escalating a situation like most of their kind does. Had the protestors tried to break in then thats a whole different situation. They just wanted to be aholes and seek attention attention and they got it.

    1. Ah. You must have been there, too. Did you carpool with @enuf?

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Patrick McGoohan was a fine actor, and “The Prisoner” was a brilliant bit of work on his part. All his doing you know, started on in 1961 or ’62 and it took five years to bring it to television.

        Would have made an excellent Bond after Connery left the role. Instead we wound up with Roger Less, and his cartoonish portrayal.

        Hell of a shame.

        1. We are in vehement agreement!

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      They live in a private gated community. The protesters broke and entered. It seems to me they were within their rights, being that the protesters who broke in were a threat.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Nope, the video shows they walked right in through an open gate.

      2. avatar enuf says:

        There was no break in. Videos show hundreds of people walking thru a pedestrian gate that is unlocked and wide open. There are four pedestrian gates, two at each end of the street. One of those gates was vandalized after the big crowd went past the McCloskey’s mansion.

        1. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          Even if that is true, it’s still very clearly marked private property. This does not mean you just walk in and do whatever you want.

          The disconnect with reality is about as good as Chris with you.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      once again…WHERE WERE THE COPS?…..

  20. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Perfect
    This is what needs to happen

  21. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    I guess he took my advice.

  22. avatar Hannibal says:

    If you look at what he said carefully, he didn’t say he would pardon them… just that he certainly has the power and that’s what he feels like he would do right now.

    Always be cautious about what a politician says…

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Yes. He states that he’d pardon them if their actions were lawful, dependent on the facts yet to be shown. He’s in no way declaring that he’s confident at this time that they were within their rights. But, being a politician, he knows how to answer the question.

  23. there needs to be an investigation into communist comrade Kim Gardner reguarding her many issues with contempt for the law and the legal process. and since she let all of the crimminals go she needs to be crimminally charged as an acessary after the fact. and why not add treason to it as well. communist do not belong in a democratic form of government, and there only reason for being in it is to infultrate and destroy from within.

  24. avatar Nelson says:

    HA HA

  25. avatar Dennis says:

    The fact that it might even get to that point should pizz off and scare the s**t outta everybody!

  26. avatar W says:

    One would hope that US Attorney Jensen, who played a key role in the Flynn case, would be looking closely at Gardner for deprivation of rights under color of law.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      That would be a dramatic action that would probably be voided immediately by the courts. Absolute prosecutorial immunity has been used as a hold-over from common law and would almost certainly take major legislation to be defeated… possibly even a Constitutional Amendment.

      1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        Wow, how many times can someone be wrong and keep commenting? There is no immunity in deprivation of rights cases that’s exactly why the law was written.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      (Imbler v. Pachtman)

      1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        Says that she cannot be criminally prosecuted but does not say she can’t be removed from office.

      2. avatar W says:

        Imbler v Pachtman applied to civil suits, doesn’t it? I am not a lawyer but I saw this somewhere.

        1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Yeah, basically it says J. Q. public can’t sue for damages. Does not say U.S. Attorney cannot bring charges and have her removed from office. I’m not sure she can be criminally prosecuted By the US Attorney but I would imagine so. I’m also not sure there’s a “deprivation of rights” issue since the confiscation of the weapons does not prohibit them from buying more. Not an attorney either though.

  27. avatar James W Crawford says:

    While I believe that these two residents should have been somewhat more restrained in their actions, the incident needs to be evaluated in context. Liberal politicians have been allowing BLM rioters to run rampant for years. Protesters were allowed to loot or burn hundreds of buildings in Minneapolis Wisconsin with impunity. Protestors were not only permitted to destroy portions of Ferguson Missouri, the politicians agreed to neuter the police. These protesters broke through the gate to enter this community.

    It is my understanding that this couple have a reputation for being fecal brained liberals. It is even possible that they were posturing to discredit gun owners. However; it is more probable that they were having a serious “Oh Shit” moment that inspired them to reevaluate their political philosophy. Barring some evidence of serious malfeasance, they need to walk but urged to learn something about gun safety, handling and use of force.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      I share… er… ‘reservations’ about these two but agree with you.

      When you get rid of the police (or stop them from doing anything) and eliminate law and order, this is what you get. Private people taking the law into their own hands. People who may not have training. People who may not know the law. And almost always people who are not unbiased about the situation.

      There are reasons that professional policing became a thing in cities. People are going to be reminded of those reasons. Unchecked crime is one. But the response to crime is another.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Taxpayer funded police are not there to protect the sanctity of your gated community.

        That’s why the association hired private security guards who were on scene at the time and chose not to respond.

        I would be interested in examining the 911 logs to see exactly who called the police, when and what did they report regarding the incident at Portland place.

  28. avatar sound awake says:

    the upshot:
    hes going to get reelected in a landslide
    shes going to prison in a jumpsuit

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      In Chicago? Not a chance.

      You don’t get put in a jumpsuit unless you’re so obvious with your corruption that the feds can’t ignore it. And then you get pardoned by Trump (see the former governor of Illinois).

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Sorry, st. louis. I was confusing political hack prosecutors.

        Still probably no chance… Prosecutors have absolute immunity.

  29. avatar Top says:

    YAY Governor!

  30. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Its good to see a politician who understands that morality has almost nothing to do with sex. The McCloskeys have already spent enough money on defending themselves in lawyer fees.

    Now how long will it take to get their guns back???????

  31. avatar borg says:

    They now have been charged. Can the governor pardon them now or does he have to wait until the trial is over?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email