This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Missouri Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Enforcement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. African diaspora Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Someone who appears to be ideologically driven continues to edit this page in an attempt to cast the subject in a negative light Mycleats ( talk) 23:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Mycleats: Agreed. I find myself all too close to an edit war now. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 22:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I just visited this page, and the placement of the second and third paragraphs at the very top of the page is absolutely ridiculous. Given that this is a highly educated, decorated, long public serving black woman who championed civil rights causes and challenged the white dominated political structures of St. Louis, such a framing is simply disrespectful. Someone editing this page obviously has a clear bias against her, as also evidenced by extremely ideologically driven language of "sjws" in this discussion. 69.94.56.84 ( talk) 20:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I have again edited the section to A) focus on Gardner rather than Schmitt, B) include a full picture of why the rioters were released, and, this time, C) mention that there is a history between Schmitt and Gardner. In my edit summary, I left an edit note encouraging the person who has been edit warring to come to this page and discuss the edits. Anti-Gardner bias is rampant and it has no presence in this article. Facts and a balanced style of writing do.

There may be a misunderstanding here - I did not add the rioter release section or source. I was not trying to edit war with you - historically users had been editing the subject's infobox to only present 'certain' known for attributes; a brief survey of local media articles shows mixed headlines but all about the same things. I will not revert your edits. I have reverted several low quality or vandalism edits by other users and was not targeting you specifically. I agree that bias has no place and I was agreeing with you that the Schmitt article and quote were out of place and not worded well. Bobloblawllp ( talk) 02:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Anywhere there is an SJW topic and people are trying to inject truth into it, SJW's will start an edit war, because they cannot stand the truth. Arrest this corrupt hate group supporter immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.57.221 ( talk) 11:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply

This is not pontification. This is a new topic suggestion for the article. DA Gardner has been in national focus over an issue of her attempting to charge citizens of Saint Louis with weapons violations over an incident dealing with the defense of their house/private property.

EXPLANATION OF INCIDENT LEADING UP TO DA GARDNER'S CHARGES:

On June 28th, a couple, the McCloskey's, were on private property in front of their house, in a gated, private community, on a private, closed street when rioters stormed the gate. The street and gate on which the rioters were parading was/is private property. The McCloskey's went back into their house and retrieved two weapons, a pistol and a rifle. They held off the rioters and warned them off. The incident was captured on video and gained nationwide attention.

By 30th of June (two days later) DA Gardner made a nationally reported announcement that her office was attempting, not to prosecute any of the trespassers, but to find a way to charge the McCloskey's.

On July 20th,DA Gardner sought her indictment, and the McCloskey's were charged with felony use of a weapon. Later that day, the Governor of Missouri made a public statement, that if convicted, the McCloskey's would receive an Executive Pardon from the Governor's Office. Still later the same day, the AG (Attorney General) of the State of Missouri, Eric Schmitt, filed a brief to have the charges dropped.

This story has been all over the news for almost a month, so I'm not adding any references at the moment - there are no shortage of references. The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, NPR and pretty much every other media outlet has been on top of this story. END OF EXPLANATION.

The previous paragraph was a simplified explanation of the topic, to get any editors up to speed on this topic. I am NOT PONTIFICATING. This is NOT A FORUM WP:FORUM. I am making a suggestion for an addition to the article. The reason I'm laying this out is that another edit I made, similar to this, ON A TALK PAGE, was reverted by another editor, who did not understand that I was suggesting an addition to the article, and assumed I was pontificating and trying to start a chat room discussion. PLEASE read this carefully. This is not a discussion regarding the merits of the people involved with this incident, this is a discussion of whether or not this is of value to add to the article.

This is to discuss whether or not this news item, dealing with DA Gardner, her charges, and the fact that both the Governor and the AG of the State of Missouri both are laying out a plan to have her campaign to charge the McCloskey's revoked. This news item is unique in that it's quite unusual for a District Attorney's actions to not only gain national attention, the attention of the State Attorney General, the attention of the Governor, but to also have both the Governor and the Attorney General to publicly announce that they both intend to nullify the actions of the District Attorney (Kimberly Gardner). I'd imagine this has only happened a few times in history.

Discuss. Thanks for participating. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 ( talk) 04:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The McCloskey story received national attention before Gardner said a thing about pressing charges, so it's not Gardner's actions exclusively that make this a national story. Before we continue to discuss, please do two things: 1. Cite those sources with links so we can review them. 2. Consider making a user account rather than editing from an IP. It'll give people more confidence in your intentions here (the article has seen much vandalism from IP editors in the past few days and likely will continue to see such). Thanks, DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 11:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks, DiamondRemley39! Thanks for the feedback. Here's another detail to the case, that I overlooked, with a reference from The Washington Post, which will include a citation of the major points that were laid out. On the 16th of July, the Senator of Missouri, Josh Hawley, has begun the process of a civil rights investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, of DA Gardner's conduct regarding the McCloskey situation: Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) asked the Justice Department on Thursday to investigate the St. Louis city prosecutor overseeing the case against a couple who pointed guns. The Wall Street Journal has noted that Governor Mike Parson announced preemptively that the McCloskey's are going to be pardoned: Missouri Gov. Parson has vowed to pardon couple seen in widely shared video. Please review these citations by clicking on the links that are provided here. As I point out in the original explanation, there are abundant media resources that refer to this case and there is no struggle to find reliable sources. There are many more details in this case that I'm not laying out here.
I find it interesting that instead of addressing the issue of whether this topic is pertinent to this Wikipedia page which focuses on DA Gardner, you've asked for citations and for me to make a user account. I've now provided a few citations, so please address the issue. Is this or is it not, in your perspective, of value to the Wikipedia page that focuses on Kimberly Gardner? I've laid out the major details. My opinion? This case is of interest to the article. What is your opinion?
I do not presently intend to make a user account. Again, thanks for the feedback. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 ( talk) 13:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply

"I find it interesting that instead of addressing the issue of whether this topic is pertinent to this Wikipedia page which focuses on DA Gardner, you've asked for citations". Well, yeah. If you're familiar with the subject, and you want changes made, I (and editors in general) don't have the time or knowledge to find the sources necessary.

"and for me to make a user account". That's just a suggestion. Creating an account (just picking a name and not necessarily doing anything with a user page) makes talk pages easier to read and, more importantly, allows editors to communicate with you better. There are other benefits, like being able to edit protected pages, but it's also fine to continue as an IP editor.

I'll review what you posted tomorrow. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 15:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply

It does appear that the developments are relevant to the article. I think renaming the section 2020 rioter release to 2020 unrest in St. Louis, or something like that, would be where it would go. Then a brief (2-3 sentence) background on the events, then information on the move to prosecute, and finally the national response to decision. One of the sources was behind a paywall, so I couldn't view it. You may draft a paragraph, with citations, here if you like and we can iron it out and get it added to the article. Thanks for contributing! DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 01:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to add two new items. The second item is extremely important because there is national news everyday about this event. I want to keep this very factual and reserved so it does not create animosity. There are many incorrect claims circulated regarding the following events. If we can add this second event factually, then it will allow future updates in the same manner without problem. There is also a possibility of Item 2 becoming its own Wikipedia page in the future.

Item 1........................................ At the beginning of the section "Civil rights lawsuit", add that on December 23, 2019, Kim Gardner was pulled over by St. Louis downtown police on Market Street for a traffic stop. In January 2020, Gardner made numerous news interviews and public claims stating that: the stop was on December 24, 2019 (Christmas Eve), police had held her for 15 minutes without stating why, and that these were "intimidation tactics used by the police to stop reform". Police records state that the stop occurred on December 23, 2019 instead. KMOV4 news also published video evidence from a camera across the street revealing that St. Louis downtown police had pulled Gardner over when her car was shown driving without headlights on at night, and that the stop lasted for only 6 minutes. When confronted with the video evidence, Gardner continued to claim that the stop lasted 15 minutes and was without reason. In addition, the Circuit Attorney's Office sent an email statement that "According to the police it was a 15 minute stop. In addition, the officer's statement is different than the one shared by Jeff Roorda." This claim is also false as a St. Louis Police Sergeant issued a follow-up statement that the police never stated Gardner was detained for 15 minutes. The St. Louis Police statement also reveals that an Investigator from the Circuit Attorney's Office attempted to involve himself into the traffic investigation, which is an illegal act and he could have been arrested for it. The St. Louis Police did not arrest the Investigator. The Circuit Attorney's Office continued to assert Garner's false allegations. Source: https://www.kmov.com/kim-gardner-doubles-down-on-claim-about-15-minute-traffic-stop-despite-surveillance-video-proving/video_95496012-a1d1-5545-a741-df4b71f1a255.html

Item 2........................................ Request to make a brand new section at the end, following the section "2020 rioter release". The new section will be titled "Prosecution of Mark and Patricia McCloskey". The section will state "On June 28, 2020, a crowd of at least 100 Black Lives Matter protesters entered a private community in order to gather around the home of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson, and demand her resignation after she publicly read names and addresses of protesters during one of her briefings. Krewson has since apologized and took down the Facebook Live video.

In order to reach the Krewson's home, protesters had trespassed into a private community without permission, through a gate located directly next to the home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey. Twitter livesteam video shows that protesters entered through the gate and were then walking on a sidewalk next to the McCloskey home. Despite being a sidewalk, this was legally private property as it was inside a private neighborhood. As the crowd approached, Mark McCloskey is seen shouting "private property" and "get out" multiple times at protesters from his nearby home. Protesters are seen marching both past his home and some closer near to his home. Mark and Patricia are then seen standing outside their front door, with a rifle and handgun respectively. Several protesters are seen confronting Mark and Patricia directly in front of their home, only several yards apart, exchanging heated words. At a point, Patricia is seen walking onto the grass between her home and the sidewalk where protesters were marching by. Some protesters are heard asking others to leave and move on. Other protesters are heard threatening the McCloskeys. During this time, Mark and Patricia pointed their guns towards the crowd. No shots were fired. There were no injuries. Mark and Patricia McCloskey are both attorneys and later did news interviews stating they are supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement and civil rights. Source: https://www.fox23.com/news/trending/white-st-louis-lawyers-pull-weapons-peaceful-protesters-marching-through-neighborhood/X4NWWE7MRFESTLQKTIBX473XZY/ Source: https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1277448317388099586 Source: https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1277415316352573440 Source: https://www.kmov.com/news/mccloskeys-say-they-support-blm-and-fight-for-civil-rights-but-were-victim-of-a/article_a0e263a6-bba7-11ea-810c-1f8dc2032ec7.html

On July 20, 2020, Kim Gardner filed charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey for unlawful use a weapon, which is a class E felony, and can carry a sentence of up to four years in prison and a fine of $10,000. This decision drew national attention. Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/20/893345005/st-louis-prosecutor-charges-white-couple-with-threatening-protesters-with-guns Source: https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/charges-filed-against-mccloskeys-st-louis-couple-who-pointed-guns-toward-protesters#stream/0 Source: https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/mccloskeys-charged-missouri-attorney-general-files-brief/63-6a1c4b9f-f3e7-433b-ab89-900eb91d4c94

On July 10, 2020, St. Louis police seized the rifle of Mark McCloskey. The McCloskey's previous attorney, Al Watkins, was in possession of the handgun which was held by Patricia McCloskey, to ensure that it wasn't tampered with. Watkins claimed that the handgun was not functional and could not be fired, and that Patricia knew it was not functional when she held it during the confrontation with the protestors. Watkins then turned over the handgun to the authorities. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-seize-rifle-st-louis-couple-who-pulled-guns-black-n1233583 Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mark-patricia-mccloskey-guns-seized-at-st-louis-home-couple-who-pointed-weapons-at-protesters/

On July 22, 2020, KMOV4 news published an article stating that the news outlet had received the supposed prosecutor's lab report for firearms analysis in the case. The prosecutor's lab tested both the rifle and handgun. The rifle fired when tested, but the handgun was not functional and could not be fired. At the request of prosecutor Chris Hinkley, the handgun was stripped and found to be assembled incorrectly. The prosecutor then requested it to be re-assembled correctly and test fired again. The handgun then fired properly. The prosecutor's charging documents stated that the handgun was capable of lethal use. The McCloskey's current attorney Joel Schwartz stated that if the lab report was authentic, then this action would be considered tampering with evidence. In addition, if the handgun was truely inoperable at the time of the confrontation with protestors, then the prosecutor's charges would be invalid because the handgun was not readily capable of lethal use. Source: https://www.kmov.com/news/report-patricia-mccloskeys-handgun-inoperable-when-seized-by-police/article_dfd6a4e6-cb8d-11ea-a521-43ba7e819c88.html KeenHorizon ( talk) 04:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

 Not done. Article is no longer protected, so you should be able to edit it (with no comment on the merits of the request). – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 14:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Not only is this section incoherent nonsense, all claims are attributed to a single source, KSDK. WHatever this controversy is (the wording makes it impossible to make heads or tails of it), it doesn't seem like it's of any real notability. 46.97.170.112 ( talk) 12:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply