| Author | Post |
|---|
dtabb
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | Louisville, KY |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 02:06 pm |
|
Grapeshot wrote:
snip...
Fact - cars kill more people than guns do; so should LE stop every person seen in possession of one? Perhaps we need to judge people by their actions. 
Please don't preach to the choir, especially with well-worn euphamisms. I thought you were the most intelligent poster throughout these threads...please don't tarnish that image.
The point I'm trying to make is that police are in a quandary. The must respond to dispatches, in essence orders, and they never know what they're going to roll up on. The politicos who are the executive heads of all LEOs need to make the decision that "Person With A Gun" calls will not be addressed unless the person with the gun is wielding it in a threatening or irrational manner.
Will that decision be made? Who are we kidding? These guys are always running for the next election. We as proponents of Open Carry need to know and understand that we are always going to be questioned, and educate ourselves accordingly.
I'm afraid that in this case Mr. Smith did not handle himself well, and is not a good example of the people we really are.
I just heard on the radio another LMPD officer has been shot...
Later.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 02:12 pm |
|
dtabb wrote: Grapeshot wrote:
snip...
Fact - cars kill more people than guns do; so should LE stop every person seen in possession of one? Perhaps we need to judge people by their actions.
Please don't preach to the choir, especially with well-worn euphamisms. I thought you were the most intelligent poster throughout these threads...please don't tarnish that image.
The point I'm trying to make is that police are in a quandary. The must respond to dispatches, in essence orders, and they never know what they're going to roll up on. The politicos who are the executive heads of all LEOs need to make the decision that "Person With A Gun" calls will not be addressed unless the person with the gun is wielding it in a threatening or irrational manner.
Will that decision be made? Who are we kidding? These guys are always running for the next election. We as proponents of Open Carry need to know and understand that we are always going to be questioned, and educate ourselves accordingly.
I'm afraid that in this case Mr. Smith did not handle himself well, and is not a good example of the people we really are.
I just heard on the radio another LMPD officer has been shot...
Later.
Perhaps I am guilty of judging your exposure to our thinking by the number of your postings. My bad. 
Carry on.
Yata hey
|
dtabb
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | Louisville, KY |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 02:46 pm |
|
I just want to update my last post for those outside of Louisville who may be concerned about our officer who was shot this morning.
As of now, the reports are of "non-life-threatening" injuries.
I hope this is true.
Please forgive this off-topic post. Updates can be viewed at the Courier-Journal web site:
http://www.courier-journal.com
I'll get back to Mr. Smith soon.
|
PT111
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 03:11 pm |
|
Grapeshot wrote: dtabb wrote: snip........
Nobody has any way of knowing, under Kentucky's open carry right, whether that person is allowed to possess any weapon.
Fact - cars kill more people than guns do; so should LE stop every person seen in possession of one? Perhaps we need to judge people by their actions.
LEOs are often in tough situations - I do not envy them but I do respect them with very few exceptions.
Yata hey
If the police get a 911 call that someone had driven by my house several times and I think they are up to something should the police be able to stop that car and ask the driver for identification? The driver has not done anything other than drive around the block a dozen times and looked the house over carefully which are both totally legal. I do not know the answer about can they stop and aks for ID but I think it compares to the MWAG call.
|
dtabb
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | Louisville, KY |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 03:37 pm |
|
Grapeshot wrote:
Perhaps I am guilty of judging your exposure to our thinking by the number of your postings. My bad.
Thanks. I never judge anybody's knowledge by their number of posts. In astronomy we have a thousand amateurs for every pro. They cannot be underestimated. Just a few years ago an amateur in western Kentucky discovered a nebula never seen before, but apparently was always there. Every year amateurs discover asteroids and comets not seen by their professional counterparts who are dedicated and paid for seeking out these objects. The only photo of 2007's Earth-near-miss asteroid was taken by an amateur.
The point is newcomers on the scene often have relative points and observations. Astronomy is probably the largest worldwide discipline where amateurs are treated as pros. Virtually everything they post is investigated.
I'd like to see that mindset spill over into politics, where elected representatives understand that public opinion and knowledge are valuable assets. We should, as a group, work toward that end.
Open Carry is not a law in Kentucky...it is a right granted by the commonwealth's constitution.
I wish Mr. Smith had expressed that right in a more convincing manner without the theatrics, but I will still support him. Schedule willing, I will attend his June trial.
Take care.
|
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 03:43 pm |
|
I also support Mr Smith and will help him as I can.
To get off topic for a moment: I have a Celestron Ultima 8 that I sometimes piggyback my Nikon.
I personally think Mr Smith will prevail.
|
dtabb
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | Louisville, KY |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 04:14 pm |
|
Mr. Mitch,
You are one lucky person. That is my favorite telescope...an 8" catadioptric in a meadow late at night is the perfect blend of affordability, portability, and light-gathering bliss one could experience.
Unfortunately, most of my data is gathered remotely from Australia and New Mexico and is shipped to me via the web for assembly and analysis. I long for the old days, which are still here, thankfully, via the Louisville Astronomical Society and its Curby, Indiana observatory. It can't be beat for $30 a year membership.
We should think about this relative to Mr. Smith's travails. Everything we know is through the Web, which is not a bad thing per-se. But I intend to get hands-on when I can. I'll report back.
Take care.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 04:30 pm |
|
PT111 wrote: Grapeshot wrote: dtabb wrote: snip........
Nobody has any way of knowing, under Kentucky's open carry right, whether that person is allowed to possess any weapon.
Fact - cars kill more people than guns do; so should LE stop every person seen in possession of one? Perhaps we need to judge people by their actions.
LEOs are often in tough situations - I do not envy them but I do respect them with very few exceptions.
Yata hey
If the police get a 911 call that someone had driven by my house several times and I think they are up to something should the police be able to stop that car and ask the driver for identification? The driver has not done anything other than drive around the block a dozen times and looked the house over carefully which are both totally legal. I do not know the answer about can they stop and aks for ID but I think it compares to the MWAG call.
Absolutely no comparison.
With what might be RAS of casing for a break-in (more so at 3:00 AM) is in no way comparable to OCing peacefully while eating dinner, shopping at Wal-Mart or walking your dog.
If the vehicle only drove by once or twice in a one hour period, I would concur.
Yata hey
|
dtabb
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | Louisville, KY |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 05:43 pm |
|
Grapeshot wrote:
Absolutely no comparison.
With what might be RAS of casing for a break-in (more so at 3:00 AM) is in no way comparable to OCing peacefully while eating dinner, shopping at Wal-Mart or walking your dog.
If the vehicle only drove by once or twice in a one hour period, I would concur.
I believe the main points in contention to be "Why should law enforcement respond to legal activity?" vs. "Why not go after someone acting suspiciously?"
I believe law enforcement will respond regardless. Why do I say that? Because the nature of political leaders is to respond to every request for LE assistance, whether the activity is legal or not, and our rights are constantly trampled. Unfortunately, that includes open carry.
My continuous "call to arms" in this forum is to "deal with it" responsibly.
While we are doing that, our focus needs to be political. We know what that means.
In the meantime, we need to support people who may not have the faculties (for whatever reason) to engage successfully in an initial confrontation or effectively support their defense later in court. They may, in fact, fall outside of our own ideals for OC citizens.
I don't know if Mr. Smith falls under the above, but every one of these cases we lose is a step toward limiting our rights.
Let's support Mr. Smith. From what I know, he is not a criminal and had no criminal intent.
Take care...
|
dtabb
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | Louisville, KY |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 06:06 pm |
|
TheMrMitch wrote:
He called the police and made a comment (in frustration) about what does one have to do to get help "Fire A Gun In The Air"?.....or something similar. That is the TT charge.
Mr. Mitch,
I realize I'm a month behind the times, although I've read every post on this case in two threads, but I truly do not understand this. I've been quizzing my lawyer cousin, and he says:
Rhetorical questions, such as "Should I fire a gun in the air?" are not threats.
Conditional statements, such as "If you do this, then I'll do that." are not threats.
What are we missing here? It has to be something we don't know...
|
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 06:43 pm |
|
I've gleaned as much info as I can and simply think it was a series of small errors on Mr Smith's part as well as an attitude of a certain officer at the scene. It has been inferred I'm being suckered in by his lawyer to boot.
From my conversations with Mr Smith I have gotten the impression he his basically a decent person I wouldn't mind knowing, though he lacks an ability to BLOG his thoughts to a certain degree as are a lot of us. Of course, it's been inferred he has suckered me there also. I don't believe so or I wouldn't back him.
Only time will tell.
|
gutshot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 08:56 pm |
|
TheMrMitch wrote: I've gleaned as much info as I can and simply think it was a series of small errors on Mr Smith's part as well as an attitude of a certain officer at the scene. It has been inferred I'm being suckered in by his lawyer to boot.
From my conversations with Mr Smith I have gotten the impression he his basically a decent person I wouldn't mind knowing, though he lacks an ability to BLOG his thoughts to a certain degree as are a lot of us. Of course, it's been inferred he has suckered me there also. I don't believe so or I wouldn't back him.
Only time will tell.
TheMrMitch,
Is Mr. Smith's trial still on for Monday?
|
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 09:02 pm |
|
| Sorry to say, I'm not sure.
|
dtabb
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | Louisville, KY |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 11:14 pm |
|
Yes.
It's in courtroom 304 sometime Monday (after 12:00 AM). It's a jury trial for concealed carry and terroristic threatening.
http://apps.kycourts.net/dockets/DocketResults.aspx?pageIndex=1&CountyCourt=0561&Division=DI&EventDate=6/15/2009&courtRoom=304
|
gutshot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 11:29 pm |
|
TheMrMitch wrote: Sorry to say, I'm not sure.
Does that mean you haven't heard anything lately or you've lost interest in assisting him?
I'd like to attend, but don't want to make the effort only to find out there will be no show.
If you have lost interest would you mind telling us why? I'm not trying to belittle you. You seemed to have had more (intelligent) information than anyone else and I'm interested, for myself. Often these things create quite a stir at first then, after time passes, are forgotten. The powers that be know this and stall to avoid the spot light and have more time to intimidate the defendant. The clock keeps running on attorney bills, lots of pressure to settle.
|
gutshot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 11:31 pm |
|
dtabb wrote: Yes.
It's in courtroom 304 sometime Monday (after 12:00 AM). It's a jury trial for concealed carry and terroristic threatening.
http://apps.kycourts.net/dockets/DocketResults.aspx?pageIndex=1&CountyCourt=0561&Division=DI&EventDate=6/15/2009&courtRoom=304
Thanks, I'll be there.
|
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 11:37 pm |
|
OK. I was hoping all would be well.....but it "ain't".
I received an e mail (I still have it) that convinces me that Mr Smith has crossed the line and I no longer wish to assist him. The mail was from him.
Possibly a small loss of temper (not at me), but he needs to verify that.
Basically, he does not plan on being there on his court date and has contempt for the entire system. I do wish him the best. I thought he had a good chance, but now will wait and see.
I am against some things the police and or citizens do, but do not revert to threats.
If it comes to it, I will print the mail.
No I have not lost interest and I understand what you say. There is a time to stand back, and I have arrived there in this instance.
Thanks all.
Last edited on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 11:41 pm by TheMrMitch
|
gutshot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 01:44 am |
|
TheMrMitch wrote: OK. I was hoping all would be well.....but it "ain't".
I received an e mail (I still have it) that convinces me that Mr Smith has crossed the line and I no longer wish to assist him. The mail was from him.
Possibly a small loss of temper (not at me), but he needs to verify that.
Basically, he does not plan on being there on his court date and has contempt for the entire system. I do wish him the best. I thought he had a good chance, but now will wait and see.
I am against some things the police and or citizens do, but do not revert to threats.
If it comes to it, I will print the mail.
No I have not lost interest and I understand what you say. There is a time to stand back, and I have arrived there in this instance.
Thanks all.
I understand your frustration. I guess we all knew that Mr. Smith was not the stable foundation we all had hoped to build our gun rights on. He was (and is) a man entangled in a system he doesn't fully comprehend and he is ilequiped to fight off a over reactive police presence.
|
Thos.Jefferson
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 02:26 am |
|
| Does anyone know the outcome of this fiasco?
|
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 02:34 am |
|
Thos.Jefferson wrote: Does anyone know the outcome of this fiasco?
This is what I (MrMitch) received about the subject :
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:34:31 -0400 (From Counsel)
.ExternalClass .EC_shape
{;}
.ExternalClass p.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass div.EC_MsoNormal
{margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';}
.ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
.ExternalClass a:visited, .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
.ExternalClass p
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';}
.ExternalClass span.EC_EmailStyle18
{font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D;}
.ExternalClass .EC_MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;}
.ExternalClass div.EC_Section1
{page:Section1;}
Wayne,
I appeared in Court on your behalf today as we have been discussing.
We had a new judge in the court room, just FYI. It was Judge Don Armstrong. I presented your material to him and, as I told you, I moved to withdraw as your counsel.
The prosecutor asked for a bench warrant, but did it in a way that was (I believe) intended to indicate that he didn’t care if the judge ordered you arrested or merely summoned to court.
The Court denied the motion for a bench warrant and ordered that you be summoned to appear in the courtroom for trial on July 27, 2009.
The Court granted my motion to withdraw as your counsel.
REMEMBER, you have court scheduled for July 27 at 9:00 a.m.
|
Current time is 02:58 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
