| Author | Post |
|---|
Dreamer
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Washington, NC |
| Posts: | 261 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 06:56 am |
|
JP49911,
§ 14‑277.2. Weapons at parades, etc., prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person participating in, affiliated with, or present as a spectator at...
You have already admitted you entered this situation as a "witness".
From Websters:
Witness:
4 : one who has personal knowledge of something
Spectator:
1 : one who looks on or watches
Not exactly the same thing, but since your "personal knowledge" of this event is derived from your personal viewing of (and purposeful video recording of) it, I think both words fit your participation...
any parade, funeral procession, picket line, or demonstration upon any private health care facility or upon any public place owned or under the control of the State or any of its political subdivisions
You've admitted this "peaceful assembly" was expressly with the intent of displaying disagreement with the services being offered at a nearby clinic.
Even if you, as a spectator, are not actually ON the property of said facility, the statute is pretty clear that as a spectator of such an event, you can't carry.
It doesn't say you have to be part of the demonstration, and it doesn't say that the spectators need to be on the clinic's property to be in violation. It just says that being a spectator of such an event prohibits you from carrying. The wording is pretty clear...
to willfully or intentionally possess or have immediate access to any dangerous weapon. Violation of this subsection shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor. It shall be presumed that any rifle or gun carried on a rack in a pickup truck at a holiday parade or in a funeral procession does not violate the terms of this act.
Your own posts have these admissions in them. You have been, to use a rather old-fashioned phrase, "hoist with your own petard"...
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hoist%20by%20your%20own%20petard.html
You are guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. End of discussion.
I'm just saying, be careful. Next time, the cop who you bark and prance at may actually KNOW the law. And then the only song you'll be singing is the "jailhouse rock".
If you want to be a "test case" for your cause, then knock yourself out, buttercup.
But it's intentionally confrontational martyrs like you--true believers--that give the OC/CC effort a bad name. I hope you have a good lawyer, deep pockets, and enjoy becoming a "poster boy" for the Brady Bunch. Because that, I believe, is the path down which you are marching.
Good luck with that...
Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 07:00 am by Dreamer
|
jp49911
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Greensboro |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 07:06 am |
|
So Dreamer, I take it you think "upon" doesn't mean on their property but directed at the facility. No other way would I be "guilty" as it was private property owned by a third party.
So according to your interpretation of "upon", if I were to hold a demonstration at my house, private property, I would be in violation of this statute (I got me some guns here).
If THEY want to test that interpretation I hope they have some deep pockets (not sure how the budget for Greensboro is looking but in this economy, I'm sure the taxpayers wouldn't be happy with the city paying out a settlement).
Thanks for the concern...
|
NCjones
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | Goldsboro, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 08:44 am |
|
| Post deleted by user. Last edited on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 12:55 am by NCjones
|
NCjones
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | Goldsboro, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 08:52 am |
|
| The impression I got is that the cop was just trying to find out why you had a gun at an abortion clininc. The OC'ers rudeness and lack of cooperation dictated the situation. Last edited on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 01:00 am by NCjones
|
jp49911
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Greensboro |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 09:26 am |
|
NCjones wrote: Does this mean that since I live downtown and the parades pass in front of my house that I can OC?
For instance, the Christmas parade is passing in front of my house and I OC out to my mail box to check my mail. Some cop sees me OC'ing "at the parade" and arrests me. Technically, I was not present as a spectator, as I dont give a rats ass about watching our sucky Xmas parade. Nor was I affiliated with or participating in. I was simply going about my normal business.
What if you were watching the parade from YOUR patio on YOUR private property while OC'ing?
That's just ridiculous.
If "upon" means "directed at" vs "on" then you could be in Charlotte at someones house having a demonstration "directed at" a "private health care facility" in Greensboro and be guilty.
Either upon means on the property, or it means directed at the facility.
|
Dreamer
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Washington, NC |
| Posts: | 261 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 11:46 am |
|
My point, and the point of this law, isn't that the law should be used to prosecute someone who just happens to stroll by some event such as a parade or a demonstration. You folks are right--that would just be silly.
The point of this law is to prevent people who are actively engaged in either the activities delineated, or people who are actively watching them, from carrying, because such events can sometimes get rowdy, and the presence of firearms, ESPECIALLY with the history of a tiny segment of "pro-life" extremists, is probably not such a great idea.
And JP9911, you WERE, actively and with specific intent, a spectator. Because you thrust yourself into this interaction by approaching an officer who was actively investigating a call in the field, and you were actively documenting this event with a video device, you put yourself into this event as a spectator with intent. You've already admitted that your intent was to persuade the officer to back down. Granted he WAS out of line, and HE should be disciplined as well. But because you voluntarily thrust yourself into the situation as an active spectator, it is my interpretation that you were in violation of this statute. All I'm asking is that you "man up" and own what you were really up to. Just admit it.
You weren't on your front porch. You weren't just walking by on the other side of the street. You weren't in someone's backyard in Charlotte. You walked up on this event, and rather than just minding your own business and walking on by, you pulled out your cell phone, closed distance, and started video recording them, and then when questioned, you addressed the cop in a confrontational tone of voice. It's all about your intent, and you had the intent of watching this event with active and focused attention, and appearing on video like some sort of martyr for the OC cause. You weren't just a spectator, you crossed the line into a heckler. And that DEFINITELY puts you in violation, because now you're not just watching, you are actively engaged in the protest yourself, by defending the protesters..
If you had walked up on a cop hassling a bunch of rastafarians who were protesting anti-pot laws, would you have inserted yourself into THAT situation? If you had walked up on a group of those crazy "God Hates Gays" protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church who go around picketing the funeral of our fallen Iraq War Veterans, and a cop was confronting them, would you have inserted yourself into that? Are you REALLY interested in protecting the Constitutional rights of EVERYONE, regardless of what their message is, or were you jumping into this situation because you share an opinion and dogmatic beliefs with these demonstrators? How about a little intellectual honesty here, man?
It's all about intent. And you have admitted it was your intent to use your camera to 1) document the protesters, and 2) try and get the cop to back off because he was, in your opinion, out of bounds.
You had no idea why he was there. Perhaps one of these protesters had touched a young female patient or a staffer who was walking to this clinic (assault). Perhaps there had been a complaint from one of the other property owners (disturbing the peace). Perhaps the owner of this clinic had filed a 500-ft restraining order, and they WERE in fact, in violation of some sort of distance prohibition.
You had NO idea why that cop was there when you first arrived, and you need to just admit that inserting yourself into this situation really had nothing to do with what you KNEW was right or wrong with his presence or actions, because there is no way you could have known if you just "happened on the scene" like you said.
You inserted yourself into this situation, by your own admission, because you sympathize with the cause of these protesters, you have an issue with the LEO's in your area on a number of issues, and you were looking to get some good footage.
I'm not asking you to change your political or moral opinions. What I'm asking you to do is just be truthful with us on your INTENT, and then admit that in the context of this specific incident, and in the context of your intent in entering this encounter, you were, in fact, in violation of the letter of this statute.
The fact that neither you or the cop really knew or understood this statute at that moment is irrelevant. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. We've pretty much proved that you WERE in violation of the law in this specific event, because of your intent, and all I'm asking is that you be truthful and stop hiding behind silly conjecture, reductio ad absurdum arguments, and dogmatic justifications.
We're calling you on this one, and trying to keep you from eventually getting nailed, because this is NOT the sort of incident where an arrest of an OCer would do ANY good for the OC movement. If you DO get busted, the media is going to cover it as "Man Carrying Gun Arrested at Anti-Abortion Demonstration", and they are going to try to paint ALL us law-abiding, non-confrontational, polite, civilized OCer with a Scott Roeder-shaped brush.
And THAT is something that I think we can all agree will NOT do the OC cause ANY good...
Just admit it. You f-ed up.
Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 11:56 am by Dreamer
|
jp49911
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Greensboro |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 06:47 pm |
|
"You've already admitted that your intent was to persuade the officer to back down."
I have NEVER said that my intent was to get him to back down. It was not. My intent was to record the interaction as police brutality has increased to an unacceptable level and ANY interaction can get out of hand at any time.
"...you addressed the cop in a confrontational tone of voice. It's all about your intent..."
I beg to differ on who was confrontational. I surely protected my rights in an assertive way but HE confronted ME.
FO (female officer): Put the phone up
Me: No Ma'am (assertive NOT confrontational)
FO: Put the phone up
Me: No Ma'am
MO: You're trespassing to buddy back over there.
Me: Trespassing? (inquisitive)
MO: Hold...wait...hold what you've got! (demanding)
It is now :15 seconds into the video I have said "no ma'am" twice and "trespassing???".
I am now being aggressively pursued and he has his hand on his weapon; yet I am confrontational?
It goes on from here but here are all of the things shouted at me in 35-40 seconds.
"You're trespassing too" (a lie)
"Back over there" (unlawful demand)
"Hold..wait...hold what you've got" (hand now on gun walking me down)
"Turn around" (unlawful demand AND a threat to my safety)
"Let me see your permit" (unlawful demand)
"Take your hand out of your pocket" (maybe unlawful but I don't want him more edgy, thus for my safety I comply)
"Let me see some ID" (unlawful demand)
"I need to see your drivers license" (unlawful demand)
"How old are you" (sounds like an investigatory inquiry I wonder if I'm being detained so I ask)
"Hold on a minute" (sounds like a demand to someone being detained, I ask again)
"You will be right here shortly" (a threat to detain me when no law has been broken on my part and there is no PC or RS that I am going to break one)
"...and you had the intent of watching this event with active and focused attention, and appearing on video like some sort of martyr for the OC cause."
Now like people say "you're putting words in my mouth", "you're putting thoughts in my mind". This had nothing to do with being an OC martyr.
I think this has more to do with:
a) the right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (i.e. let me see some ID/show me your papers)
b) No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself (i.e. when he started investigating me I have a right not to answer).
You and others may think what you will as far as my intent and you may have more weight to your argument if I didn't OC on a daily basis. It's not like I just decided to OC for this particular incident. If OC is a part of my life style, which it is, then me OC'ing in this situation is incidental in regards to my intent (I ALWAYS OC. I was not doing it here to make a point/be a martyr).
"If you had walked up on a cop hassling a bunch of rastafarians who were protesting anti-pot laws, would you have inserted yourself into THAT situation? If you had walked up on a group of those crazy "God Hates Gays" protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church who go around picketing the funeral of our fallen Iraq War Veterans, and a cop was confronting them, would you have inserted yourself into that? Are you REALLY interested in protecting the Constitutional rights of EVERYONE, regardless of what their message is, or were you jumping into this situation because you share an opinion and dogmatic beliefs with these demonstrators? How about a little intellectual honesty here, man?"
You don't know me so it may be easy for you to dismiss what I say because, most others, including you, do not care about protecting the rights of those whom they disagree with.
Nevertheless I AM "REALLY interested in protecting the rights of EVERYONE".
Someone here mentioned Ruby Ridge in a previous post. I can assure you I don't agree with his theology or racist views. But I ABSOLUTELY think he has a right to have them and the siege on him and his family was OBSURED and I would have most certainly done what I could to protect his rights.
That, sir, is intellectual honesty. Do you believe Ron Paul when he say's his personal believes are against prostitution and drug use but he IS NOT in favor of outlawing those things? If so hen how can you have such a dogmatic and definitive stance about my beliefs and my intents without knowing me?
"It's all about intent. And you have admitted it was your intent to use your camera to 1) document the protesters, and 2) try and get the cop to back off because he was, in your opinion, out of bounds."
I have never said either.
"...You inserted yourself into this situation, by your own admission, because you sympathize with the cause of these protesters..."
I have never said that either.
"...you have an issue with the LEO's in your area on a number of issues..."
Nor have I said that.
See Dreamer, what you like so many others are doing is drawing conclusions based off of what YOU think, what YOU would have done and the fact that YOU wouldn't stand up for someone you disagree with (I'm not saying I disagree with these folks, I'm saying it's incidental because I will stand for peoples rights regardless of if I agree with their opinions).
I am different from most anyone you would meet and it's amazing to me that so many people feel they KNOW my thoughts, intents, psyche, mentality, motive, agenda et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
"...We've pretty much proved that you WERE in violation of the law..."
You have done no such thing. Even if I were a spectator you would have to prove this was "upon" a private health care facility "or" public property. It was neither. No one was "upon" a private health care facility and no one was "upon" public property.
|
jp49911
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Greensboro |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 06:53 pm |
|
If two men with bibles (not signs or shirts or props) are considered protesters, then I think the question becomes whether or not you can OC as a "spectator" of them if EVERYONE is on private property.
|
kwikrnu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed May 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 92 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 01:06 pm |
|
The laws cited say no carry on PUBLIC PROPERTY or upon MEDICAL FACILITY PROPERTY if protesting or demonstrating.
#1 This man was not on public property.
#2 This man was not upon medical facility property.
|
Dreamer
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Washington, NC |
| Posts: | 261 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 02:01 pm |
|
The word "upon" in this statute is not used to designate the location of the protesters--it is used to designate the intent and target of their protest, or toward whom their protest is aimed.
The word "upon" is defined, when used in it's spacial connotation, as "being on top of, or up and on". The statute says "upon a private health care facility". It DOES NOT say "upon the property of a private health care facility". If you read this statute to be denoting WHERE you can carry during a demonstration, then it would apply to being "up and on" the facility, and that is just silly.
If the word "upon" were to designate spacial location, then the protesters would require a ladder to be in violation of this statute, and quite honestly, I don't think I've EVER heard of protesters setting up their lines on the roof. That would just be silly.
So obviously, the word "upon" is used in it's other meaning, which is "with reference to , or against", such as in the sentence "He swore upon his honor", and us being used to denote the target of, or the "intentional direction" of the protest.
The English language is a VERY slippery creature, and Legal English is even more difficult to grasp if you don't have a VERY good command of the etymology and usage of words. The wording of these statutes has NOTHING to do with common usage, or "common sense" for that matter. The words in statutes are chosen for specific reasons, and that is because these words mean VERY specific things. Get a dictionary, preferably a recent edition of Black's Law Dictionary.
You don't want to enter into this fray unarmed, and the weapon of choice with lawyers and legislators is language...
But then again, IANAL (yet...). I'm just a graduate student who scored in the 99th percentile on my graduate placement tests... 
Last edited on Wed Oct 28th, 2009 02:04 pm by Dreamer
|
kwikrnu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed May 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 92 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 03:18 pm |
|
I'm not a lawyer, but don't you have to read it in its entirety?
"It shall be unlawful for any person participating in, affiliated with, or present as a spectator at any parade, funeral procession, picket line, or demonstration upon any private health care facility or upon any public place owned or under the control of the State or any of its political subdivisions to willfully or intentionally possess or have immediate access to any dangerous weapon."
"The word "upon" in this statute is not used to designate the location of the protesters--it is used to designate the intent and target of their protest, or toward whom their protest is aimed."
So, you are saying it is illegal to demonstrate against public places with a dangerous weapon? I do not believe that is the meaning. If that is the meaning I could be arrested for carrying a handgun if I have a yard sign on my property which disagrees with the state for building a park. A gun store owner in NC could be charged for having a sign in his store against an abortion clinic.
|
jp49911
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Greensboro |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 05:58 pm |
|
kwikrnu wrote: So, you are saying it is illegal to demonstrate against public places with a dangerous weapon?... If that is the meaning I could be arrested for carrying a handgun if I have a yard sign on my property which disagrees with the state for building a park. A gun store owner in NC could be charged for having a sign in his store against an abortion clinic.
That's my point. If "upon" means what some people think, REGARDLESS of where you are, you can not demonstrate against a private health care facility with a weapon.
|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 06:19 pm |
|
In order to be there legally with your firearm, carry a recorder and your "press credentials. "
Publish numerous articles on line. There is no litmus test for being a journalist.
Let them try and come after the armed press. Which do you think the police are more afraid of, the gun part or the press part?
|
mekender
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 146 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 05:08 am |
|
So instead of arguing, why not sue and find out just how right/wrong you are? If you are really that sure of your stance, then man up and back it up instead of arguing about something on an internet forum when there is obviously an ambiguous meaning in the state laws.
But when you poke a dog with a stick, dont be surprised when it bites you.
|
jp49911
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Greensboro |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 06:26 pm |
|
mekender wrote: So instead of arguing, why not sue and find out just how right/wrong you are? If you are really that sure of your stance, then man up and back it up instead of arguing about something on an internet forum when there is obviously an ambiguous meaning in the state laws.
But when you poke a dog with a stick, dont be surprised when it bites you.
That's it mekender, challenge my manhood. Why don't you triple dog dare me like dreamer.
It seems like to me an internet "forum" is the proper forum to dialogue about this type of stuff.
What would I sue for? I wasn't arrested/beaten/tased/pepper sprayed etc.
"But when you poke a dog with a stick, dont be surprised when it bites you."
Kinda like "don't pick a fight with a bully". I'm not lookin to pick a fight or poke a dog. I just won't be attacked by either without defending myself.
|
Racer X
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 31st, 2009 |
| Location: | High Point, NC |
| Posts: | 41 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 08:37 pm |
|
http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/10/31/article/man_arrested_for_carrying_weapon_at_abortion_clinic
uh oh.
|
jp49911
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Greensboro |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 08:59 pm |
|
Racer X wrote: http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/10/31/article/man_arrested_for_carrying_weapon_at_abortion_clinic
uh oh.
hmmm...
|
gunsfreak4791
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Kearns, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 09:44 pm |
|
I agree with JP1111 on his actions he did the right thing and I applaud his actions.
For all the others out their the OP simply posted a interaction between him and the police. He did everything right and refused to be a victim of the police department.
He is a fellow OC'er like the rest of us lets treat him with respect and dignity. I am tired of people picking apart every little detail of this incident.
He was in the right and that is all that matters so Back off the OP and let him be.
|
JSlack7851
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 10:17 pm |
|
jp49911. I don't car what those other two have to say. You did a mighty fine job holding that bully at bay. You knew you didn't need a permit to open carry, you called him on it. You knew you didn't have to show him your DL and you called him on it. I especially liked the part where he went to draw on you. Lots of guys (probably LEO) on these forums think LEO can do anything they want and they support that by coming up with some law or another to find fault with what you did. I'm sure those laws would be found unconstitutional against the RTKABA. So, let 'em try to knock what you did, you got the bully off of the peaceful assembliers (?), and I'll bet the bully had to go take a prozac after running into you. I'm sending your video to everyone who will watch it. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Last edited on Sun Nov 1st, 2009 10:25 pm by JSlack7851
|
NCjones
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | Goldsboro, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 11:47 pm |
|
| Post deleted by user. Last edited on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 01:06 am by NCjones
|
Current time is 01:05 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|
|
