| Author | Post |
|---|
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:04 pm |
|
Grapeshot: I just got back from a wonderful breakfast and you beat me to the suggestion. I will not continue in this manner. No problem.
I may be checked out at 270 358 9876 ....Deputy Mitchell, should anyone wish.
This site is too good to be in any argumentive status. Thanks.
Last edited on Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:07 pm by TheMrMitch
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:30 pm |
|
TheMrMitch wrote: Grapeshot: I just got back from a wonderful breakfast and you beat me to the suggestion. I will not continue in this manner. No problem.
I may be checked out at 000 000 0000 ....Deputy Mitchell, should anyone wish.
This site is too good to be in any argumentative status. Thanks.
Just me but I see posting phone numbers as a potential problem - might want to edit and handle such contacts as you decide by PMing your phone or email to those of whom you approve.
I promise to not call you after 3:00AM  
Yata hey
|
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:34 pm |
|
That's the 24 hour open jail number for Larue County. HehHeh
Thanks for the concern.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:39 pm |
|
TheMrMitch wrote: That's the 24 hour open jail number for Larue County. HehHeh
Thanks for the concern.
TheMrMitch,
I have no doubt that you are who and what you say you are, please look at my last post on the last page and if you don't care to, answer those questions.
Thansk.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:40 pm |
|
TheMrMitch wrote: That's the 24 hour open jail number for Larue County. HehHeh
Thanks for the concern.
Should have known better - but I'm one to look for problems - only then can solutions be found. 
Yata hey
|
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:46 pm |
|
SD....No....He is NOT the best canditate for a rally, and that is why I issued the question about rallying around him.
However....he is one that needs help....like him or not. He made a mistake in his words, and we shall see how it does work out. I do not mind answering your questions at all. Thank you Sir.
|
BB62
State Researcher
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20th, 2009 10:24 pm |
|
superdemon wrote: ...
To all: I apologize for not following this whole matter, but from what I've read, I agree with SuperDemon.
To SD: For someone in LE, I like the way you present your case. I do not detect this "us vs them" mentality that too frequently raises its ugly head here.
I'm glad you're here.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 12:59 am |
|
TheMrMitch wrote: SD....No....He is NOT the best canditate for a rally, and that is why I issued the question about rallying around him.
However....he is one that needs help....like him or not. He made a mistake in his words, and we shall see how it does work out. I do not mind answering your questions at all. Thank you Sir.
That begs the question, why help him? You say he made a mistake in words? Why do you assume it was a mistake? It sounds like he wasn't getting what he wanted on the phone (help with his car) so he threw a fit like a toddler and ran his mouth, and it got him in trouble. Like him or not, he made conscious choice to act like a petulant child, and he should pay the price.
Secondly, like I have said before...
Knowing that police were coming to him, he didn't have the sense of mind to make sure his weapon stayed in a legal conditiion. Again, blame his attitude, his physical pain, or his pain meds, but he still should have focused on the one task at hand...making sure the LEOs that responded found nothing to for which to take him to jail...
Another thing, how do we know the LEO wasn't already in route to arrest him for the statement he made on the phone, and just happened upon his CC condition when she got there? She may have fully been intent on taking him into custody for the remarks he made on the phone, and only discovered the weapon as an affect of the arrest...SHe may have even been ordered by her supervisor to make the arrest... Not saying any of the above conditions are accurate, but you never know, lets think for ourselves here...
B4M doesn not, I repeat, does not need our help. He wants our help. He needs to learn do deal with the mess he made himself. He called the cops to rescue him with his automobile situation, and now he wants his "friends" to rescue him with his legal situation. He is not a person to be martyred. He should face whatever music he has to face.
If he wants to be adult enought to OC, he should be adult enough to conduct himself in a manner that will not lead to his arrest when he is doing so.
A rally in his favor is a rally AGAINST open carry.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 01:01 am |
|
BB62 wrote: superdemon wrote: ...
To all: I apologize for not following this whole matter, but from what I've read, I agree with SuperDemon.
To SD: For someone in LE, I like the way you present your case. I do not detect this "us vs them" mentality that too frequently raises its ugly head here.
I'm glad you're here.
Thank you.
I am truly, truly one with the cause. I will admit that I give the other side of the coin in some debates, and I also attempt to foster a little free thought, but I am a brother in the cause.
I am a member of the Constitution Party. Check my profile, and look at the Pledge of Allegiance that I recite.
Last edited on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 01:05 am by superdemon
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 01:33 am |
|
I'll even make a prediction right now...
I will say the B4M's case MAY, JUST MAY be dismissed without prejudice, conditional on him staying out of trouble for one year. Here is why..
From what I can gather, he is not in the physical condition to do any kind of community service. He is not going to be picking up trash on the highway.
He seems to be in rather poor financial shape, so I doubt he will get a fine. If he has a private attorney (and I haven't read back far enough to find out) he may have killed this option. The court will assume that if he has the money for an attorney, he has the money to pay a fine. This one I am still on the fence about. I try not to judge other court systems like my local one, so this one is tough.
He will not get his weapon back. It will be ordered either remanded to the department that arrested him, or it will be ordered destroyed. EVEN IF THE CASE IS DISMISSED.
So you see, even if the case is "dismissed", it doesn't mean that B4M wins. He still has to pay an attorney (maybe), and he will still loose his weapon.
The most damning testimony will be from B4M himself, when they play the recording of his message to the police dispatcher.
Last edited on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 01:45 am by superdemon
|
hotrod
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 04:55 am |
|
superdemon wrote: I'll even make a prediction right now...
I will say the B4M's case MAY, JUST MAY be dismissed without prejudice, conditional on him staying out of trouble for one year. Here is why..
From what I can gather, he is not in the physical condition to do any kind of community service. He is not going to be picking up trash on the highway.
He seems to be in rather poor financial shape, so I doubt he will get a fine. If he has a private attorney (and I haven't read back far enough to find out) he may have killed this option. The court will assume that if he has the money for an attorney, he has the money to pay a fine. This one I am still on the fence about. I try not to judge other court systems like my local one, so this one is tough.
He will not get his weapon back. It will be ordered either remanded to the department that arrested him, or it will be ordered destroyed. EVEN IF THE CASE IS DISMISSED.
So you see, even if the case is "dismissed", it doesn't mean that B4M wins. He still has to pay an attorney (maybe), and he will still loose his weapon.
The most damning testimony will be from B4M himself, when they play the recording of his message to the police dispatcher.
Judge can't order the weapon destroyed. It must be put up for sale by the department. If the case is dismissed his weapon must be returned. Any legally owned property used as evidence can not be with held after aquittal or dismissal.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 06:00 pm |
|
hotrod wrote: superdemon wrote: I'll even make a prediction right now...
I will say the B4M's case MAY, JUST MAY be dismissed without prejudice, conditional on him staying out of trouble for one year. Here is why..
From what I can gather, he is not in the physical condition to do any kind of community service. He is not going to be picking up trash on the highway.
He seems to be in rather poor financial shape, so I doubt he will get a fine. If he has a private attorney (and I haven't read back far enough to find out) he may have killed this option. The court will assume that if he has the money for an attorney, he has the money to pay a fine. This one I am still on the fence about. I try not to judge other court systems like my local one, so this one is tough.
He will not get his weapon back. It will be ordered either remanded to the department that arrested him, or it will be ordered destroyed. EVEN IF THE CASE IS DISMISSED.
So you see, even if the case is "dismissed", it doesn't mean that B4M wins. He still has to pay an attorney (maybe), and he will still loose his weapon.
The most damning testimony will be from B4M himself, when they play the recording of his message to the police dispatcher.
Judge can't order the weapon destroyed. It must be put up for sale by the department. If the case is dismissed his weapon must be returned. Any legally owned property used as evidence can not be with held after aquittal or dismissal.
That is not correct.
A dissmissal without prejudice is not the same thing as "not guilty". It's like saying, "This is a warning. You screwed up, but we are going to give you one more chance." The last time I arrested someone for CCDW, the exact same thing happened. DWP, and the judge ordered the weapon not to be returned to the owner.
|
hotrod
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 08:27 pm |
|
| The judge may have ordered it held, but illegally. Personal property can not be held with out due process. No government agency may with hold any property with out due process. If the defendent in your case appeals, he will prevail. A dropped charge with or without prejudice is a dropped charge.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 01:13 am |
|
hotrod wrote: The judge may have ordered it held, but illegally. Personal property can not be held with out due process. No government agency may with hold any property with out due process. If the defendent in your case appeals, he will prevail. A dropped charge with or without prejudice is a dropped charge.
No.
"Dismissed with prejudice" means the charge can be brought back at a later time (within the statute of limitations) for whatever reason. It's kind of like being on parole. If you get paroled, and let's say you have 5 years of parole time. If you go back to jail for an unrelated crime, they can tack that 5 years (or whatever is left of it) onto the sentence for the new crime.
Yes, when it is dismissed without prejudice, you have had your due process. In the case I mentioned, the defendant had an option...dismissed without prejudice and surrender the handgun, or go to trial. He chose the former. Therefore, he had his due process.
|
smoking357
Banned
|
Posted: Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 01:33 am |
|
superdemon wrote:
"Dismissed with prejudice" means the charge can be brought back at a later time (within the statute of limitations) for whatever reason.
Actually, no. "Dismissed with prejudice" means the cause is dismissed in its entirety, with disfavor, and cannot again be brought before the forum absent a showing of a material change in circumstance.
"For whatever reason" is legally insufficient to revive a cause dismissed with prejudice.
"Dismissed without prejudice" gives the filer a much lower hurdle for refiling.
|
hotrod
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 02:29 am |
|
You did not say he surrendered the weapon. That puts a different spin on it. The system used negotiation to come to a mutual conclusion. Give up your weapon, we will not charge. If the charge was dismissed without negotiation, and I was the party to the complaint, I would have retrieved my weapon via the courts. They would have to return it.
Dismissed without prejudice means the county prosecutor or commonwealth attorney can refile at a later time, that doesn't mean he can retain evidence. If that were so, they would charge anyone for anything, dismiss without prejudice and retain property without due process indefinitely
Last edited on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 02:33 am by hotrod
|
intellavore
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 24th, 2009 12:10 am |
|
| First and foremost, I open carry... And There is no way that my shirt or jacket can cover up my gun. As I carry it in a drop leg holster. But the real point here is, it shouldn't matter whether it was covered up or not. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE "INFRINGED" What part of infringed do politicians not understand? Open carry or Concealed it makes no difference. If I commit a crime with a gun then prosecute me. If I don't then leave me the hell alone. Seems logical to me.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28th, 2009 01:20 pm |
|
intellavore wrote: First and foremost, I open carry... And There is no way that my shirt or jacket can cover up my gun. As I carry it in a drop leg holster. But the real point here is, it shouldn't matter whether it was covered up or not. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE "INFRINGED" What part of infringed do politicians not understand? Open carry or Concealed it makes no difference. If I commit a crime with a gun then prosecute me. If I don't then leave me the hell alone. Seems logical to me.
Um, he did commit a crime with a gun, and he his being prosecuted...
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28th, 2009 01:22 pm |
|
smoking357 wrote: superdemon wrote:
"Dismissed with prejudice" means the charge can be brought back at a later time (within the statute of limitations) for whatever reason.
Actually, no. "Dismissed with prejudice" means the cause is dismissed in its entirety, with disfavor, and cannot again be brought before the forum absent a showing of a material change in circumstance.
"For whatever reason" is legally insufficient to revive a cause dismissed with prejudice.
"Dismissed without prejudice" gives the filer a much lower hurdle for refiling.
Whoops.
I hate when I say exactly the oppostite of what I mean.
Thanks for catching it.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28th, 2009 01:27 pm |
|
hotrod wrote: You did not say he surrendered the weapon. That puts a different spin on it. The system used negotiation to come to a mutual conclusion. Give up your weapon, we will not charge. If the charge was dismissed without negotiation, and I was the party to the complaint, I would have retrieved my weapon via the courts. They would have to return it.
Dismissed without prejudice means the county prosecutor or commonwealth attorney can refile at a later time, that doesn't mean he can retain evidence. If that were so, they would charge anyone for anything, dismiss without prejudice and retain property without due process indefinitely
I love the conspiracy notion here.
It would take one hell of a plan to do that to obtain property like that. I am telling you that it happens. A lot. I'm usually in court about 6 days a month.
It happens.
It is legal.
|
Current time is 03:44 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
