| Author | Post |
|---|
Thos.Jefferson
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 03:39 am |
|
| Wonder why the lawyer quit him? Thanx for the update.
|
KBCraig
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 1497 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18th, 2009 04:40 am |
|
Thos.Jefferson wrote: Wonder why the lawyer quit him? Thanx for the update.
Strangely enough, lawyers aren't all that fond of representing clients who skip out on court appearances.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 04:44 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.
Actually, the scenario you describe is not legal. While driving around your house several times in and of itself is legal, when you begin to think they are "up to something", it crosses the line and becomes the legal definition of Harassment in Kentucky.
But your scenario, as stated, shows the flawed expectations of the average citizens' thoughts on law enforcement.
1. 911 is for emergencies. There is no emergency in your scenario.
2. You say that the person driving around your home is doing nothing illegal. With just that information, why then, would you report a perfectly legal activity to the police? On an emergency phone line, no less.
3. While it is a highly technical issue, and I almost hesitate to bring it up, we (the police) cannot force you to provide "ID". However, if you are operating a motor vehicle on the roadway, you must provide your Operator's License upon request. However, if the person was not in his vehicle at the time of contact, this would be moot.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 04:50 pm |
|
Addiionally, I feel quite vindicated on the whole issue in this post. I have been preaching that B4M was not telling the whole story, and was trying to muster support due to his weak (read that as non-existant) defense. If he really, really thought he had been wronged, he would have pounced on his opportunity to shout to the skies his defense.
When your defense attorney decides you are so hopeless that he no longer wants to earn money from you, you have screwed up.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:29 pm |
|
superdemon wrote: Addiionally, I feel quite vindicated on the whole issue in this post. I have been preaching that B4M was not telling the whole story, and was trying to muster support due to his weak (read that as non-existant) defense. If he really, really thought he had been wronged, he would have pounced on his opportunity to shout to the skies his defense.
When your defense attorney decides you are so hopeless that he no longer wants to earn money from you, you have screwed up.
You may be right.
Yata hey
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:40 pm |
|
Additionally, here is another consideration for those of you that supported B4M.
1. He got arrested.
-We (taxpayers) paid for that.
2. He was processed at the local detention center.
-We paid for that, too.
3. He was given a court date and the CJS prepared for his day in court.
-Yup, we paid for that, as well.
4. He didn't show up.
-Not only did we pay for that, but because you can only schedule so many cases a day, we paid to have cases that could have been heard that day get put off to the next court date. (We paid for that, by the way)
5. A summons has been issued for him.
- We paid for that.
6. He will be served, most likely by the county Sheriff's office.
- We are paying for that.
7. He now has a new court date.
-We paid for that.
8. When (if) he shows up for his new court date, he will argue he now has no attorney, and will ask for a continuance so he can obtain one.
- We will pay for not only this court date, but the NEW one he will request.
9. He will probably be assinged a court appointed defense attorney.
- We will pay for that.
You may think I am using hyperbole, but I am not. When you guys gripe about your taxes, think about B4M's little stunt, and how much it cost each one of us out of pocket. As Libertation/Constitionalist as I am, I realize that sometimes it's not the big bad government making my taxes go up, it's people like B4M and his crusade that have to be paid for out of our pockets....
EDIT: I mean, really think about it. All the baliffs, prosecutors, jailers, stenographers, janitors, judges, and police officers that we paid for to be in court, and B4M decided he just didn't want to deal with it.
I guarantee you the only reason a warrant was not issue for him is his health problems, not any kind of sympathy to his cause from the court.
Last edited on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:44 pm by superdemon
|
Statesman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 07:09 pm |
|
superdemon wrote: Additionally, here is another consideration for those of you that supported B4M.
1. He got arrested.
-We (taxpayers) paid for that.
2. He was processed at the local detention center.
-We paid for that, too.
3. He was given a court date and the CJS prepared for his day in court.
-Yup, we paid for that, as well.
4. He didn't show up.
-Not only did we pay for that, but because you can only schedule so many cases a day, we paid to have cases that could have been heard that day get put off to the next court date. (We paid for that, by the way)
5. A summons has been issued for him.
- We paid for that.
6. He will be served, most likely by the county Sheriff's office.
- We are paying for that.
7. He now has a new court date.
-We paid for that.
8. When (if) he shows up for his new court date, he will argue he now has no attorney, and will ask for a continuance so he can obtain one.
- We will pay for not only this court date, but the NEW one he will request.
9. He will probably be assinged a court appointed defense attorney.
- We will pay for that.
You may think I am using hyperbole, but I am not. When you guys gripe about your taxes, think about B4M's little stunt, and how much it cost each one of us out of pocket. As Libertation/Constitionalist as I am, I realize that sometimes it's not the big bad government making my taxes go up, it's people like B4M and his crusade that have to be paid for out of our pockets....
EDIT: I mean, really think about it. All the baliffs, prosecutors, jailers, stenographers, janitors, judges, and police officers that we paid for to be in court, and B4M decided he just didn't want to deal with it.
I guarantee you the only reason a warrant was not issue for him is his health problems, not any kind of sympathy to his cause from the court.
Superdemon,
To preface my statement, I never took a position to support B4M, or have a position against him.
I would like to issue perhaps a different viewpoint on your comment regarding the government, or citizens acts, making our taxes go up.
Going back to MrMitch's original statement in this thread:
Mr Smith had locked his keys in his vehicle and could not get help. 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.
and this is where things get hairy... I don't claim to know anything about what constitutes a TT charge, however, going back to the original premise for the arrest, did the big bad government blow things out of proportion here by making a mountain out of a molehill? Did the government set off a cascade of taxpayer expenses, based on a threat that did not, in fact, exist?
There isn't always a substantial amount of common sense in what government does (see: The Death of Common Sense: How Law Suffocates America, by Philip K. Howard). Instead, there are rules and regulations, that by design, replace thinking and common sense. This problem extends to those who must follow those rules and regulations as well, because they are under the threat of financial hardship, or force, if they do not comply.
I believe a "reasonable person" would interpret B4Ms comment to be one of frustration, not of substantial threat. Perhaps that's just me, but we'd have to take his comments into context. However, it appears the government in this case, felt "compelled" by some rule or regulation to initiate an act of force against B4M (the arrest).
My premise is that I believe it is the initiator of force that cost the taxpayers. Based on that premise, we should decide who "initiated" the force:
1) B4M issued an alleged threat (assuming we have the correct quotation)
OR
2) The government overreacted, and arrested B4M
Since I have yet to be convinced B4M issued a credible threat to a victim (a person; the state is not a victim, IMHO), I believe the government in this case overreacted, and based on a flawed premise, initiated force against B4M. Taxpayers suffer.
What do you think about this?
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 11:19 pm |
|
Statesman wrote: superdemon wrote: Additionally, here is another consideration for those of you that supported B4M.
1. He got arrested.
-We (taxpayers) paid for that.
2. He was processed at the local detention center.
-We paid for that, too.
3. He was given a court date and the CJS prepared for his day in court.
-Yup, we paid for that, as well.
4. He didn't show up.
-Not only did we pay for that, but because you can only schedule so many cases a day, we paid to have cases that could have been heard that day get put off to the next court date. (We paid for that, by the way)
5. A summons has been issued for him.
- We paid for that.
6. He will be served, most likely by the county Sheriff's office.
- We are paying for that.
7. He now has a new court date.
-We paid for that.
8. When (if) he shows up for his new court date, he will argue he now has no attorney, and will ask for a continuance so he can obtain one.
- We will pay for not only this court date, but the NEW one he will request.
9. He will probably be assinged a court appointed defense attorney.
- We will pay for that.
You may think I am using hyperbole, but I am not. When you guys gripe about your taxes, think about B4M's little stunt, and how much it cost each one of us out of pocket. As Libertation/Constitionalist as I am, I realize that sometimes it's not the big bad government making my taxes go up, it's people like B4M and his crusade that have to be paid for out of our pockets....
EDIT: I mean, really think about it. All the baliffs, prosecutors, jailers, stenographers, janitors, judges, and police officers that we paid for to be in court, and B4M decided he just didn't want to deal with it.
I guarantee you the only reason a warrant was not issue for him is his health problems, not any kind of sympathy to his cause from the court.
Superdemon,
To preface my statement, I never took a position to support B4M, or have a position against him.
I would like to issue perhaps a different viewpoint on your comment regarding the government, or citizens acts, making our taxes go up.
Going back to MrMitch's original statement in this thread:
Mr Smith had locked his keys in his vehicle and could not get help. 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.
and this is where things get hairy... I don't claim to know anything about what constitutes a TT charge, however, going back to the original premise for the arrest, did the big bad government blow things out of proportion here by making a mountain out of a molehill? Did the government set off a cascade of taxpayer expenses, based on a threat that did not, in fact, exist?
There isn't always a substantial amount of common sense in what government does (see: The Death of Common Sense: How Law Suffocates America, by Philip K. Howard). Instead, there are rules and regulations, that by design, replace thinking and common sense. This problem extends to those who must follow those rules and regulations as well, because they are under the threat of financial hardship, or force, if they do not comply.
I believe a "reasonable person" would interpret B4Ms comment to be one of frustration, not of substantial threat. Perhaps that's just me, but we'd have to take his comments into context. However, it appears the government in this case, felt "compelled" by some rule or regulation to initiate an act of force against B4M (the arrest).
My premise is that I believe it is the initiator of force that cost the taxpayers. Based on that premise, we should decide who "initiated" the force:
1) B4M issued an alleged threat (assuming we have the correct quotation)
OR
2) The government overreacted, and arrested B4M
Since I have yet to be convinced B4M issued a credible threat to a victim (a person; the state is not a victim, IMHO), I believe the government in this case overreacted, and based on a flawed premise, initiated force against B4M. Taxpayers suffer.
What do you think about this?
I am sure that even if he made the statement, that only hastened the police response, only not in the way he wanted. He called the police for a free service, and was upset at how long it took to get that free (read that as taxpayer provided) service. Once the police arrived, and found him to be in violation of OC law, he was arrested, then the TT charge was tacked on as the reason for the initial contact. It's the same principle of this:
Let's say I pull you over in your MV for Disregarding a Traffic Control Device. Before and during my contact with you, I am fully prepared to simply give you a warning, and we will both go about our business. However, upon contact, I find that your license is suspended. Now I have to write (or arrest) you for the misdemeanor of Operating on a Suspended/Revoked License, but I now need to charge you with the pitience of the DTCD. If I don't, then I havent justified my charging you with the latter.
That is what has stunned me about this whole situation. B4M KNEW THE POLICE WERE IN ROUTE, AND DID NOT TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO ENSURE HE WAS CARRYING PROPERLY. That is wholesale arrogance and disregard for law and society.
You want to pin the overreaction on the LEO, but B4M overreacted and made the statement he made. Everyquestion you ask about "making a mountain our of a mole hill" could (and should be) turned back on B4M for the same analysis. He managed to both overreact with his statmement on the phone, then managed to underreact in preparing himself to have a weapon in in possession in the presence of an LEO.
And back to your quoting of Mr.Mitch's statement that B4M made his comment out of frustration...are you saying citizens have carte blanche to lose their cool with LE and make such statements (the statement itself is the TT charge, not the intention behind it), but LEOs can't get frustrated at a scene dealing with an idiot like B4M? Are you serious?
B4M made his bed, and now he can lie in it. Additionally, he is now a fugitve from justice, and no one here has denounced that except me.
|
Statesman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 04:05 am |
|
I am sure that even if he made the statement, that only hastened the police response, only not in the way he wanted. He called the police for a free service, and was upset at how long it took to get that free (read that as taxpayer provided) service.
Why should his statement have hastened the police response though? Maybe I am missing something here. I can appreciate not having all available contextual information to make a judgement call. They do have to bear the burden of making a mistake if B4M were indeed making threats.
However, we know that the service isn't free here. Since B4M is an involuntary taxpayer, like the rest of us, I think he is in a position to make a "reasonable" demand for services, even though the "right" to services isn't recognized for the individual. His demands may not have been reasonable, but in his mind it was apparently taking too long. Many people would agree that they do not receive sufficient services from government for the taxes they pay, local, state and federal.
Once the police arrived, and found him to be in violation of OC law, he was arrested, then the TT charge was tacked on as the reason for the initial contact. It's the same principle of this:
Was it really Terrorist Threatening? This is my main concern here. Are we proceeding to the scene based on a flawed premise for the initial contact? If the quotations are correct, he did not actually say he was going to fire his gun in the air in order to receive service that he was not getting otherwise.
Let's say I pull you over in your MV for Disregarding a Traffic Control Device. Before and during my contact with you, I am fully prepared to simply give you a warning, and we will both go about our business. However, upon contact, I find that your license is suspended. Now I have to write (or arrest) you for the misdemeanor of Operating on a Suspended/Revoked License, but I now need to charge you with the pitience of the DTCD. If I don't, then I havent justified my charging you with the latter.
I understand your point here. The reason for the initial contact is clear to me in your example, DTCD. That would clearly warrant charging for the latter. However, in B4M's case, TT "seems" to be a trumped up charge so they can charge him for concealing without a license. I understand that officers have much discretion in these circumstances, and it's difficult for me to form an opinion without knowing exactly how they arrived at a TT charge. As a Libertarian who distrusts those who wield state sanctioned power, due to the nature of mankind, I remain highly suspicious of the officers in this case.
That is what has stunned me about this whole situation. B4M KNEW THE POLICE WERE IN ROUTE, AND DID NOT TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO ENSURE HE WAS CARRYING PROPERLY. That is wholesale arrogance and disregard for law and society.
If I remember correctly, his sweatshirt was partially covering the firearm? It would certainly be a good idea to make sure things are in order. However, a sweatshirt, or even a shirt, is not an appendage that provides a sense of presense like arms and legs. We cannot inherently feel where it is situated over the firmarm, or not. If his sweatshirt flopped over part of the firearm on accident, I think the officers should have issued a warning here.
You want to pin the overreaction on the LEO, but B4M overreacted and made the statement he made. Everyquestion you ask about "making a mountain our of a mole hill" could (and should be) turned back on B4M for the same analysis. He managed to both overreact with his statmement on the phone, then managed to underreact in preparing himself to have a weapon in in possession in the presence of an LEO.
I don't have the intention of pinning anything on LEO here. I just think a TT charge was either an overreaction or possibly malicious. LEO seems to be the initiator of force in the TT charge. I would be wrong! B4Ms overreaction on the phone may not have been justified, and was probably a bad idea, but he was still not the initiator of force here. The officers could have simply issued him a warning, and saved taxpayers loads of money.
And back to your quoting of Mr.Mitch's statement that B4M made his comment out of frustration...are you saying citizens have carte blanche to lose their cool with LE and make such statements (the statement itself is the TT charge, not the intention behind it), but LEOs can't get frustrated at a scene dealing with an idiot like B4M? Are you serious? B4M made his bed, and now he can lie in it. Additionally, he is now a fugitve from justice, and no one here has denounced that except me.
It depends on what you mean by lose their cool. If it means making threats of violence against an officer, no. However, LEO should also recognize freedom of speech, where no real threat exists. I still would like to see the officers justification for the TT charge, and why they believed it represented a credible threat. I just don't like seeing someone's life turned upside down when there was clearly no malicious intent, or initiation of force against someone else.
I understand LEOs are human too, and cannot be expected to act like robots in making their judgement calls. Frustration is OK, however using the power of the state to abritrarily punish people for making stupid comments, is crossing the line to a form of tyranny (abuse of power).
B4M made a minor carry mistake, and clearly didn't excercise sound judgement when making the remarks about shooting in the air. I would not have said that. It should also be noted that the air is not a victim here, and he didn't say "What do I have to do to get service around here, shoot someone?". One cannot terrorize the air. A threat by definition represents an intent to do harm, based on some possible criteria being met.
Regarding being a fugitive from "justice", he should certainly go to court when called to do so. I will join you in denouncing this. However, I think our system of legal defense stinks. If people cannot afford a good attorney, they will probably not receive a fair shot at anything. Public defenders are usually overworked, and may lack sufficient motivation to defend their clients. I can't speak for others, but I have not denounced B4M for what he did, because I do not see him as the initiator of force against a real victim.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 08:40 pm |
|
Statesman wrote: I am sure that even if he made the statement, that only hastened the police response, only not in the way he wanted. He called the police for a free service, and was upset at how long it took to get that free (read that as taxpayer provided) service.
Why should his statement have hastened the police response though? Maybe I am missing something here. I can appreciate not having all available contextual information to make a judgement call. They do have to bear the burden of making a mistake if B4M were indeed making threats.
However, we know that the service isn't free here. Since B4M is an involuntary taxpayer, like the rest of us, I think he is in a position to make a "reasonable" demand for services, even though the "right" to services isn't recognized for the individual. His demands may not have been reasonable, but in his mind it was apparently taking too long. Many people would agree that they do not receive sufficient services from government for the taxes they pay, local, state and federal.
Once the police arrived, and found him to be in violation of OC law, he was arrested, then the TT charge was tacked on as the reason for the initial contact. It's the same principle of this:
Was it really Terrorist Threatening? This is my main concern here. Are we proceeding to the scene based on a flawed premise for the initial contact? If the quotations are correct, he did not actually say he was going to fire his gun in the air in order to receive service that he was not getting otherwise.
Let's say I pull you over in your MV for Disregarding a Traffic Control Device. Before and during my contact with you, I am fully prepared to simply give you a warning, and we will both go about our business. However, upon contact, I find that your license is suspended. Now I have to write (or arrest) you for the misdemeanor of Operating on a Suspended/Revoked License, but I now need to charge you with the pitience of the DTCD. If I don't, then I havent justified my charging you with the latter.
I understand your point here. The reason for the initial contact is clear to me in your example, DTCD. That would clearly warrant charging for the latter. However, in B4M's case, TT "seems" to be a trumped up charge so they can charge him for concealing without a license. I understand that officers have much discretion in these circumstances, and it's difficult for me to form an opinion without knowing exactly how they arrived at a TT charge. As a Libertarian who distrusts those who wield state sanctioned power, due to the nature of mankind, I remain highly suspicious of the officers in this case.
That is what has stunned me about this whole situation. B4M KNEW THE POLICE WERE IN ROUTE, AND DID NOT TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO ENSURE HE WAS CARRYING PROPERLY. That is wholesale arrogance and disregard for law and society.
If I remember correctly, his sweatshirt was partially covering the firearm? It would certainly be a good idea to make sure things are in order. However, a sweatshirt, or even a shirt, is not an appendage that provides a sense of presense like arms and legs. We cannot inherently feel where it is situated over the firmarm, or not. If his sweatshirt flopped over part of the firearm on accident, I think the officers should have issued a warning here.
You want to pin the overreaction on the LEO, but B4M overreacted and made the statement he made. Everyquestion you ask about "making a mountain our of a mole hill" could (and should be) turned back on B4M for the same analysis. He managed to both overreact with his statmement on the phone, then managed to underreact in preparing himself to have a weapon in in possession in the presence of an LEO.
I don't have the intention of pinning anything on LEO here. I just think a TT charge was either an overreaction or possibly malicious. LEO seems to be the initiator of force in the TT charge. I would be wrong! B4Ms overreaction on the phone may not have been justified, and was probably a bad idea, but he was still not the initiator of force here. The officers could have simply issued him a warning, and saved taxpayers loads of money.
And back to your quoting of Mr.Mitch's statement that B4M made his comment out of frustration...are you saying citizens have carte blanche to lose their cool with LE and make such statements (the statement itself is the TT charge, not the intention behind it), but LEOs can't get frustrated at a scene dealing with an idiot like B4M? Are you serious? B4M made his bed, and now he can lie in it. Additionally, he is now a fugitve from justice, and no one here has denounced that except me.
It depends on what you mean by lose their cool. If it means making threats of violence against an officer, no. However, LEO should also recognize freedom of speech, where no real threat exists. I still would like to see the officers justification for the TT charge, and why they believed it represented a credible threat. I just don't like seeing someone's life turned upside down when there was clearly no malicious intent, or initiation of force against someone else.
I understand LEOs are human too, and cannot be expected to act like robots in making their judgement calls. Frustration is OK, however using the power of the state to abritrarily punish people for making stupid comments, is crossing the line to a form of tyranny (abuse of power).
B4M made a minor carry mistake, and clearly didn't excercise sound judgement when making the remarks about shooting in the air. I would not have said that. It should also be noted that the air is not a victim here, and he didn't say "What do I have to do to get service around here, shoot someone?". One cannot terrorize the air. A threat by definition represents an intent to do harm, based on some possible criteria being met.
Regarding being a fugitive from "justice", he should certainly go to court when called to do so. I will join you in denouncing this. However, I think our system of legal defense stinks. If people cannot afford a good attorney, they will probably not receive a fair shot at anything. Public defenders are usually overworked, and may lack sufficient motivation to defend their clients. I can't speak for others, but I have not denounced B4M for what he did, because I do not see him as the initiator of force against a real victim.
You, sir need to educate yourself on the difference between free speech and TT.
If you threaten to do something that is likely to cause injury to another person, or another peson's property, you are guilty of TT. You do not have to direct the threat to a particular person, only the general populace.
Here is the KRS for what he did...
You could also get into the technicalities of firing a weapon in city limits, etc.
See, when you build the basis for the initial contact piece by piece, you realize that every step B4M has taken has been wrong here.
And you can disagree with our justice system all you want; I disagree with large parts of it as well; but when you are summoned to court, you go. Period.
You say you can't see him as the initiator of force, but he was the initiator of the idiocy that lead to re force reaction.
As a police officer, I don't have to WAIT for force to be used before I use force. He made the mistake of this equation:
I may shoot my gun in the air+actually having a gun when the LEO got there+ carrying in an illegal way= your sorry ass goes to jail.
And I am tired of you guys arguing the techicality of how his sweatshirt covered the weapon or not. IF AT ANY TIME, YOU WEAPON BECOMES CONCEALED, even inadvertantly, THEN IT IS CONCEALED. Period.
Maybe it was not intentional, or reckless, but it was negligent on his part, and that is still legal standing for the arrest.
I was saying a long time ago it was wrong to hold this guy up as some sort of martyr for concealed carry, and now he has proven it.
Quit defending this idiot. Quit making excuses for this idiot. Quit trying to pin this on the LEO that showed up, or LEOs in general. Quit blaming the justice system.
None of the above told this moron to not show up in court, or to do what he did.
Let's all start acting like grown men and start taking accountability for our own actions; 5 year olds blame others for their troubles; men tack accountability.
508.080 Terroristic threatening in the third degree.
(1) Except as provided in KRS 508.075 or 508.078, a person is guilty of terroristic threatening in the third degree when:
(a) He threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or serious physical injury to another person or likely to result in substantial property damage to another person; or
(b) He intentionally makes false statements for the purpose of causing evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation.
(2) Terroristic threatening in the third degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective: June 21, 2001
History: Amended 2001 Ky. Acts ch. 113, sec. 3, effective June 21, 2001. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 72, effective January 1, 1975.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 09:34 pm |
|
I'll make this very simple, since you want to fall back on tired, empty statements about tyranny and LEO overreaction.
You tell me this;
How many laws should B4M have either been able to violate or threaten to violate before he faced some sort of consequences for his actions?
Also;
You tell me which laws the LEOs should simply ignore or give warnings to. I guarantee that if you had been victimized by something like this, you would be screaming that LEOs were not doing enough, rather than too much.
|
smoking357
Banned
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 09:40 pm |
|
At the end of this long thread, it's clear that the cops overreacted, trumped up a charge and are clearly in the wrong.
It's time to do the right thing and dismiss the charges.
|
8th ID
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon May 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | Lexington KY |
| Posts: | 299 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 10:31 pm |
|
| Well, I've been reading this thread since its beginning. I know I don't have access to all the facts. BUT, from what I've read, I feel like the comment made "What does a person have to do, shoot a gun up in the air" IF this is what was really said, well it was stupid. What would you do if you were taking that call? A man on the phone says the words gun and shoot in a call? I'm not saying there wasn't an overreaction by LEO, but who knows what is really going on with the caller? And NOT showing up for his court date? How else would he stand up for himself and prove that he was in the right here? I'm still waiting for my CC, so when I OC, I tuck my shirt in and leave NOTHING to chance...
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 4629 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 10:55 pm |
|
superdemon wrote: SNIP Once the police arrived, and found him to be in violation of OC law, he was arrested, then the TT charge was tacked on as the reason for the initial contact. It's the same principle of this:
Let's say I pull you over in your MV for Disregarding a Traffic Control Device. Before and during my contact with you, I am fully prepared to simply give you a warning, and we will both go about our business. However, upon contact, I find that your license is suspended. Now I have to write (or arrest) you for the misdemeanor of Operating on a Suspended/Revoked License, but I now need to charge you with the pitience of the DTCD. If I don't, then I havent justified my charging you with the latter.
That is what has stunned me about this whole situation. B4M KNEW THE POLICE WERE IN ROUTE, AND DID NOT TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO ENSURE HE WAS CARRYING PROPERLY. That is wholesale arrogance and disregard for law and society.
You want to pin the overreaction on the LEO, but B4M overreacted and made the statement he made. Everyquestion you ask about "making a mountain our of a mole hill" could (and should be) turned back on B4M for the same analysis. He managed to both overreact with his statmement on the phone, then managed to underreact in preparing himself to have a weapon in in possession in the presence of an LEO.
And back to your quoting of Mr.Mitch's statement that B4M made his comment out of frustration...are you saying citizens have carte blanche to lose their cool with LE and make such statements (the statement itself is the TT charge, not the intention behind it), but LEOs can't get frustrated at a scene dealing with an idiot like B4M? Are you serious?
B4M made his bed, and now he can lie in it. Additionally, he is now a fugitve from justice, and no one here has denounced that except me. SUPERDEMON: I have a question about the above example. In the example I certainly understand why you would have to charge the DTCD. However, it seems to me that this example would not apply to the subject matter, wherein lies my question. Wouldn't the fact that B4M called the police at least twice and requested their presence give the requisite legal basis for LEO being there and seeing the OC/CC violation without the TT issue ever arising? In other words, if say the LEO had just shown up based on his first call for assistance with unlocking his door and seen an OC/CC violation wouldn't there be grounds at that point to ask for a CCW or other inquiries leading to a charge or would KY law not allow such requests/demands in such circumstances?
Also, under KY law, is he really a fugitive being that a warrant was not issued?
I'm not asking to support B4M but rather for better comprehension of the legal aspects of KY law.
ANYONE: Do we (Mr. Mitch?) know for sure why his attorney dropped him? Was it because of his refusal to appear or was there something else going on with it?
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 12:53 am |
|
In defense of no one - assume this and assume that - makes Johny a very dull boy. 
Yata hey
|
Liberty4Ever
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 02:34 am |
|
superdemon wrote:508.080 Terroristic threatening in the third degree.
(1) Except as provided in KRS 508.075 or 508.078, a person is guilty of terroristic threatening in the third degree when:
(a) He threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or serious physical injury to another person or likely to result in substantial property damage to another person; or
(b) He intentionally makes false statements for the purpose of causing evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation.
(2) Terroristic threatening in the third degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective: June 21, 2001
History: Amended 2001 Ky. Acts ch. 113, sec. 3, effective June 21, 2001. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 72, effective January 1, 1975.
I've read all the info posted on this topic. I'll certainly agree that the reality may be very different from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand info we've been discussing, but assuming the quote that B4M allegedly made was accurate, according to the law quoted above, there is no way I'd find him guilty of terroristic threatening. The law is clear, and it makes sense in this case. If B4M said, "If someone isn't helping me in five minutes, I'm going to start shooting people", THAT would be terroristic threatening. His comment threatened nobody, and was obviously born of his frustration with services promised but not delivered in a timely manner.
I'm 100% with Statesman on this one. The police handled this badly. B4M shouldn't have called 911 at all, and he shouldn't have said what he said. There's no law against stupidity or 98% of us would be incarcerated.
I do not appreciate the police initiating force and escalating what should have been a non-situation.
When B4M made his first 911 call, it should have gone something like this:
911: "911 operator. Please state the nature of your emergency."
B4M: "I locked my keys in my car."
911: "Is there some extenuating circumstance that makes that an emergency?"
B4M: "Well, I'm not in very good health and I need to get home."
911: "Do you need an ambulance?
B4M: "Well, no."
911: "This is an emergency line, sir. You need to call a locksmith."
B4M: "OK."
Courts all across the country have repeatedly ruled that the police are not obligated to render any services at all, under any circumstances. When you call, they'll probably help you if you need help. They're usually a helpful bunch. But they can't be sued for not rendering assistance, if you're being robbed, raped, murdered... whatever. There is no contract that requires them to assist anybody. They aren't locksmiths, and they definitely shouldn't spend our tax dollars responding to those calls.
If they had done nothing, which was the correct response, none of this would have happened.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 04:19 pm |
|
Liberty4Ever wrote: superdemon wrote:508.080 Terroristic threatening in the third degree.
(1) Except as provided in KRS 508.075 or 508.078, a person is guilty of terroristic threatening in the third degree when:
(a) He threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or serious physical injury to another person or likely to result in substantial property damage to another person; or
(b) He intentionally makes false statements for the purpose of causing evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation.
(2) Terroristic threatening in the third degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective: June 21, 2001
History: Amended 2001 Ky. Acts ch. 113, sec. 3, effective June 21, 2001. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 72, effective January 1, 1975.
I've read all the info posted on this topic. I'll certainly agree that the reality may be very different from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand info we've been discussing, but assuming the quote that B4M allegedly made was accurate, according to the law quoted above, there is no way I'd find him guilty of terroristic threatening. The law is clear, and it makes sense in this case. If B4M said, "If someone isn't helping me in five minutes, I'm going to start shooting people", THAT would be terroristic threatening. His comment threatened nobody, and was obviously born of his frustration with services promised but not delivered in a timely manner.
I'm 100% with Statesman on this one. The police handled this badly. B4M shouldn't have called 911 at all, and he shouldn't have said what he said. There's no law against stupidity or 98% of us would be incarcerated.
I do not appreciate the police initiating force and escalating what should have been a non-situation.
When B4M made his first 911 call, it should have gone something like this:
911: "911 operator. Please state the nature of your emergency."
B4M: "I locked my keys in my car."
911: "Is there some extenuating circumstance that makes that an emergency?"
B4M: "Well, I'm not in very good health and I need to get home."
911: "Do you need an ambulance?
B4M: "Well, no."
911: "This is an emergency line, sir. You need to call a locksmith."
B4M: "OK."
Courts all across the country have repeatedly ruled that the police are not obligated to render any services at all, under any circumstances. When you call, they'll probably help you if you need help. They're usually a helpful bunch. But they can't be sued for not rendering assistance, if you're being robbed, raped, murdered... whatever. There is no contract that requires them to assist anybody. They aren't locksmiths, and they definitely shouldn't spend our tax dollars responding to those calls.
If they had done nothing, which was the correct response, none of this would have happened.
Wow. Unbelievable.
The police handled it badly. You guys are so deluded, that you will simply not accept that one of your own has made a mistake. Only the police did.
Read this very carefully...
We, as LE, cannot make the following assumptions:
1. Someone making the statement he made is just using hyperbole.
-Can you imagine if someone made the statement he made, the LE decided he was just joking around, and did not step up their response, but then he decided to actually do what he threatened? You same people would be screaming, "There was a recording of him saying he was going to do it, why didn't you respond?"
See the double-edged sword we have to walk? And guess what, if we have to err, we err on the side of the safety of the general public.
2. Someone saying they are going to "fire a shot into the air" or whatever, is going to do it vertically.
- If I point my pistol straight out from my chest, at chest level, and fire, I have fired "into the air".
You guys are so polluted with LEO hatred and distrust, that Liberty4ever creates a hypothetical dialouge to say how it should have went on B4M's part, but the simple fact that it didn't go that way shows who is at fault here.
Then Liberty4ever says that it is further the police's fault, as they shouldn't be responding to calls for unlocks anyway!
Quit creating hypotheticals, quit Monday morning quarterbacking the LEO, and look at the facts of the case. Set aside your prejudices against law enforcement and do some independent thinking here. For the love of all, he didn't even show up to his court appearance!
|
Liberty4Ever
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 06:04 pm |
|
I'm not anti-police. The police serve a needed function in our society, and it can be dangerous work. It's also the sort of work that requires judgment calls and sometimes there is no good choice. This seems to be one of those occasions.
I'm not defending B4M. I think he did a lot that was not right. I don't know him personally, but he is described as not in good health. I know people who have chronic illness and the constant pain and/or the long term exposure to prescription pain medication changes them. They become short tempered and less able to control their emotions. Maybe B4M is like that?
My only point was that the police seem to have severely over reacted in this case, and caused most of the problems. Of course, B4M and society bear the cost of those problems, and not the police who escalated the situation.
I liked the police a lot more when they were Peace Officers. Their job was keeping the peace. I do not care for the new emphasis on the Law Enforcement Officer. I feel it creates the perception that they are working against people in a hostile manner, rather than working within the community to keep the peace. It's a subtle distinction, But I believe it's an important distinction.
"I help to keep the peace."
"I enforce the law."
Which sounds better to you? The former conjures images of Andy Griffith in my mind. The latter makes me think of militarized police in black riot gear.
|
KY_CCDW
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 06:28 pm |
|
People suing the police departments have caused them to be required to take everything literally. They cannot use very much discretion because it has come back and bit them many times.
What he said about "firing off a round" was incredibly stupid. Allowing his firearm to become covered when he did not have a CCDW permit was the second stupid thing he did.
Not showing up for his court date = STRIKE THREE!
He deserves no leniency. NONE.
|
Statesman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 09:26 pm |
|
You, sir need to educate yourself on the difference between free speech and TT.
I'm educated enough on the restrictions on free speech, and it doesn't protect terroristic threatening. Look at the KRS you cited:
(a) He threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or serious physical injury to another person or likely to result in substantial property damage to another person; or
Shooting in the air may indeed be a crime, but it isn't a TT charge. Is shooting upwards in the air "likely" to result in death or serious physical injury? Even if it was likely, B4M obviously wasn't making such a threat, or the police would have arrived with a SWAT team.
(b) He intentionally makes false statements for the purpose of causing evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation.
An intent based statute. Obviously, there was no intent to do any of the above.
Tell us, based on a or b above, how does 508.80 apply here? This is the third degree. I just looked at 1st and 2nd degree TT, and they are much more serious crimes. If we want to include this activity as TT, then legislation will need to be passed. It is simply out of scope for this statute, as far as I can tell.
If you threaten to do something that is likely to cause injury to another person, or another peson's property, you are guilty of TT. You do not have to direct the threat to a particular person, only the general populace.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. "Likely" is the key phrase here. Firing a bullet into the air, when illegal, is probably negligent discharge, if applicable. B4M gave no indication he was going to fire in the general direction of anybody.
You could also get into the technicalities of firing a weapon in city limits, etc.
I agree here. He still didn't threaten to do this, he said "What does one have to do to get service around here?" That is not a statement of intent to do something.
See, when you build the basis for the initial contact piece by piece, you realize that every step B4M has taken has been wrong here.
In my view, B4M's only offense was CC without a license. That was accidental, but yes, still wrong. When he contacted the police, what he said was stupid, not wrong. He doesn't deserve punishment for it. Not showing up for court is clearly wrong, yet it is an unrelated action to the issue of determining the nature of a TT charge.
And you can disagree with our justice system all you want; I disagree with large parts of it as well; but when you are summoned to court, you go. Period.
We agree here!
You say you can't see him as the initiator of force, but he was the initiator of the idiocy that lead to re force reaction.
I was making an argument based on a real philosophical principle here; "The Initiation of Force". http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_InitiationOfForce.html
You seem to be rejecting my argument, while making a mockery of a longstanding philosophical principle. Why?
As you likely already know, our legal system incorporates this principle within its framework, and it forms the premise for the "Rule of Law". To quote: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_RuleOfLaw.html
that the use of force is tightly controlled by objective, predefined laws.
As a police officer, I don't have to WAIT for force to be used before I use force. He made the mistake of this equation:
I may shoot my gun in the air+actually having a gun when the LEO got there+ carrying in an illegal way= your sorry ass goes to jail.
And with our legal system, the court can negate your equation for the charge, and throw it out if it is deemed invalid. Fortunately, it is done each and every day. I am glad to live under such a legal system, because it means I (in theory) don't live under the arbitrary rule of men, but of law.
And I am tired of you guys arguing the techicality of how his sweatshirt covered the weapon or not. IF AT ANY TIME, YOU WEAPON BECOMES CONCEALED, even inadvertantly, THEN IT IS CONCEALED. Period.
Maybe it was not intentional, or reckless, but it was negligent on his part, and that is still legal standing for the arrest.
Yes, even partially concealed is still considered concealed. I agree, but the officer does have discretion to issue a warning. Or, if he's ticked off that day, or understandably upset at the suspect, he can make an arrest.
I was saying a long time ago it was wrong to hold this guy up as some sort of martyr for concealed carry, and now he has proven it.
I believe only the initiators of force can create martyrs. In this case, the government; so far; hasn't convinced me, and possibly others, that he deserved a TT charge. If he were a martyr, and I don't believe he is; nor care to classify him as such for any purpose; it would be for OC I believe, because this was his intent all along.
Quit defending this idiot. Quit making excuses for this idiot. Quit trying to pin this on the LEO that showed up, or LEOs in general. Quit blaming the justice system.
I am not defending B4M. I am clearly on record as criticizing what both parties did wrong here. I'm only judging the rationale behind a TT charge for the officer(s) involved. I remain open minded as to why the charge was applied, and I will impugn the LEOs involved until I get a warranted justification.
None of the above told this moron to not show up in court, or to do what he did.
Again, we all agree on this.
Let's all start acting like grown men and start taking accountability for our own actions; 5 year olds blame others for their troubles; men tack accountability.
Agreed. Grown men argue and debate. Five year olds insult, hit each other, and tattle tale. B4M should be held accountable for concealing without a license, and not showing up for court. The TT charge is still in question.
508.080 Terroristic threatening in the third degree. (1) Except as provided in KRS 508.075 or 508.078, a person is guilty of terroristic threatening in the third degree when: (a) He threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or serious physical injury to another person or likely to result in substantial property damage to another person; or (b) He intentionally makes false statements for the purpose of causing evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation. (2) Terroristic threatening in the third degree is a Class A misdemeanor. Effective: June 21, 2001 History: Amended 2001 Ky. Acts ch. 113, sec. 3, effective June 21, 2001. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 72, effective January 1, 1975. Last edited on Sun Jul 5th, 2009 09:27 pm by Statesman
|
Current time is 12:35 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|
|
