| Author | Post |
|---|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 04:15 pm |
|
ianto94 wrote:
Terry involved an investigative stop, which at best is a temporary detention. Yes. It requires reasonable articulable suspicion. So suspicion of what here? Carrying a Bible without a license? Carrying a firearm openly is not a basis to suspect someone is violating the law since it is not a crime in PA. Now let's deal with the facts here.
Person is carrying a gun openly, not a crime. ... What exactly does Beaver County need to defend; what precedent do they need to prevent being established. Arresting someone because they are an American? I don't get what precedent you think they would be concerned with other than they don't like open carry. Tough. And yeah, they will defend it, and they will not prevail because they made a false arrest. Disorderly conduct? That's a laugh. So far he has not been cited and he won't be. What might happen is they will negotiate no to charge him and agree to give him his gun back if he does not sue. I hope he says stick it. As for the cost to sue, I expect Jack will be able to find an attorney to take it on principle or contingency. If I practiced in PA, I'd jump at the chance to represent him.
So, you don't think that proximity to a "protectee" while showing a firearm qualifies as a reason to detain and investigate. And, as an attorney, you want to litigate. Please do.
Ken
|
ianto94
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 91 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 04:18 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: ianto94 wrote:
Terry involved an investigative stop, which at best is a temporary detention. Yes. It requires reasonable articulable suspicion. So suspicion of what here? Carrying a Bible without a license? Carrying a firearm openly is not a basis to suspect someone is violating the law since it is not a crime in PA. Now let's deal with the facts here.
Person is carrying a gun openly, not a crime. ... What exactly does Beaver County need to defend; what precedent do they need to prevent being established. Arresting someone because they are an American? I don't get what precedent you think they would be concerned with other than they don't like open carry. Tough. And yeah, they will defend it, and they will not prevail because they made a false arrest. Disorderly conduct? That's a laugh. So far he has not been cited and he won't be. What might happen is they will negotiate no to charge him and agree to give him his gun back if he does not sue. I hope he says stick it. As for the cost to sue, I expect Jack will be able to find an attorney to take it on principle or contingency. If I practiced in PA, I'd jump at the chance to represent him.
So, you don't think that proximity to a "protectee" while showing a firearm qualifies as a reason to detain and investigate. And, as an attorney, you want to litigate. Please do.
Ken
Fact 1. he was not in proximity to a protectee. Fact 2. They did not detain, they arrested. Fact 3. Since I am not licensed in PA or practice there I could not litigate this even assuming Mountain Jack wanted to, but I think he should.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 04:35 pm |
|
ianto94 wrote: Fact 1. he was not in proximity to a protectee. Fact 2. They did not detain, they arrested. Fact 3. Since I am not licensed in PA or practice there I could not litigate this even assuming Mountain Jack wanted to, but I think he should.
I wasn't there, but the reports I've read leave your "FACTS" somewhat in dispute.
Ken
|
ianto94
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 91 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 04:45 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: ianto94 wrote: Fact 1. he was not in proximity to a protectee. Fact 2. They did not detain, they arrested. Fact 3. Since I am not licensed in PA or practice there I could not litigate this even assuming Mountain Jack wanted to, but I think he should.
I wasn't there, but the reports I've read leave your "FACTS" somewhat in dispute.
Ken
I was not there either, but from what I understand Obama was due some time later, he was not in the restricted area and he was placed under arrest.
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 04:55 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote:
I wasn't there, but the reports I've read leave your "FACTS" somewhat in dispute.
Ken
Dispute by who?
Cites please.
|
cccook
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | DFW, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 05:04 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: I wasn't there, but the reports I've read leave your "FACTS" somewhat in dispute.
We must have read different articles.
Had I chosen to take the actions MTN Jack did, I personally would have anticipated that I might receive some "attention" from local authorities. I would not have expected to have my rights violated. Nor would it be reasonable for me to accept that they were without further action.
Last edited on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 05:40 pm by cccook
|
rodbender
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Elgin, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1181 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 06:54 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: rodbender wrote: CowboyKen wrote: Mike wrote: CowboyKen wrote: I admire Mr. Noble's dedication to principle, but that kind of behavior may have a price.
You mean peacefull completely lawful behavior?
Yes.
Ken
I hope CowboyKen is not a Texan cowboy. Too many like him here and open carry will never pass.
Why is that, Texas? Do you disagree with what I said here? Many Texans have paid the price for doing what they believed was right. Are you not one of them? There is often a price for your actions that has nothing to do with breaking the law.
Ken
You say you admire his intentions, then you denigrate him for it. You say he should have expected the treatment he got. Well, this is the part of the world that has a set of rules that says that if you are not breaking the law you should not be arrested. He was not breaking the law, he did not breech the secure area for the "Anointed One" and the Secret Service said so. The local police had already said he was under arrest and they were stuck. They had to do something to save face and didn't care if MJ was the one that had to pay the price for their error, as long as they didn't have to pay it. They probably figure that he will let it lie and be happy with getting his gun back at some later date.
This is a blatant civil rights violation and should be scorned by all citizens of this great United States, including the "Chosen One", and most especially the LEO's. Yet there are people that will say things like "He deserved it". Well, FYI, he didn't deserve it and he should sue and if he decides to take this path, should prevail. The word will eventually get out to all LEO's and this kind of stuff will constrict to a minimum. There should never be a price to pay for obeying the law.
In sum: I find it detestable that a citizen of this great United States has the opinion that another citizen should expect to get arrested while NOT breaking the law, even if said citizen is entitled to said opinion. I also find it extremely dangerous to have an over abundance of citizens with such an opinion. No, I am not advocating caging, expelling, or doing away with ones of this opinion. Let that be understood, please.
This reminds me of a short poem that someone wrote about the happenings in Nazi Germany. I will try to locate it and post it. It has a great deal to do with citizens that are complacent and put too much trust in government.
And here it is. It was actually a quote from a speech and there are many versions but they all seem to get the point across, I hope.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
Last edited on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 07:18 pm by rodbender
|
lockman
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Aug 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | Elgin, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 638 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 07:55 pm |
|
If charges are brought under state law Mr. Noble will prevail unless the courts reverse all the current holdings on lawful firearms carry.
As for civil court, a large a judgement is probably not going to happen but I am sure he will prevail. Like winning in principle but getting awarded a dollar in punitive damages.
|
frommycolddeadhands
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 07:59 pm |
|
The arrest was bad. Cops can pull someone aside and ensure they aren't an assasin without arresting them and calling the feds. Feds seemed to handle it by the book. I have no beef with them on this one. Local PD realized they screwed the pooch and threw a disorderly conduct charge at a lawful citizen because they had no grounds to arrest him in the first place, and the politician they were concerned he might be a threat to hadn't even arrived in town at the time of his arrest. That about it?
Yeah, he's got some grounds for a lawsuit against the local PD. Just put the arresting officer on the stand and ask him what the original arrest charge was when he put the cuffs on and watch him blather away about a possible threat to a politician who wasn't there. I'd pay to see it.
-PS, did Jack ever get his gun back?
|
mvpel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 08:00 pm |
|
New York State Troopers who arrested a man videotaping their activities on a public road from private property won $4,000 PERSONALLY in punitive damages from each of three troopers involved in the arrest, as I recall.
Not to mention OCDO's very own Mark Machiavera, who won an undisclosed sum from the cops who falsely arrested him.
Last edited on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 08:03 pm by mvpel
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 08:03 pm |
|
| There are others here... who have been arrested for OC where 'legal' and awarded handsome sums. These LEO's skrood the pooch on this one... Actual Rights violated: 1A, 2A, 4A, 5A 'n 14A from what I can estimate.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 08:07 pm |
|
rodbender wrote: CowboyKen wrote: rodbender wrote: CowboyKen wrote: Mike wrote: CowboyKen wrote: I admire Mr. Noble's dedication to principle, but that kind of behavior may have a price.
You mean peacefull completely lawful behavior?
Yes.
Ken
I hope CowboyKen is not a Texan cowboy. Too many like him here and open carry will never pass.
Why is that, Texas? Do you disagree with what I said here? Many Texans have paid the price for doing what they believed was right. Are you not one of them? There is often a price for your actions that has nothing to do with breaking the law.
Ken
You say you admire his intentions, then you denigrate him for it. You say he should have expected the treatment he got. Well, this is the part of the world that has a set of rules that says that if you are not breaking the law you should not be arrested. He was not breaking the law, he did not breech the secure area for the "Anointed One" and the Secret Service said so. The local police had already said he was under arrest and they were stuck. They had to do something to save face and didn't care if MJ was the one that had to pay the price for their error, as long as they didn't have to pay it. They probably figure that he will let it lie and be happy with getting his gun back at some later date.
This is a blatant civil rights violation and should be scorned by all citizens of this great United States, including the "Chosen One", and most especially the LEO's.
Sir,
Just to make it clear, what I said, and what I didn't say; I didn't say I "admire his intentions." I said, "I admire Mr. Noble's dedication to principle."
I did not "denigrate him for it," I did not denigrate him at all. I have not called anyone here any names, and I won't.
I did not say "he should have expected the treatment he got." I suggested that he may have purposely put himself in the position he was in. I also said that if that was not the case then "he was unlucky."
To both quote me and misquote me in the same post is interesting, but I think it may be disingenuous.
Your opinion that the authorities have lied about what happened is one your are certainly entitled to hold, as it is your right to reach whatever conclusions you choose to reach.
Again, IMO if you walk around, legally open carrying, in the vicinity of where a "protected" candidate is going to appear you might not be surprised if you are detained and questioned. If you truly think that "(t)his is a blatant civil rights violation," you may choose to act on it in whatever way you think is appropriate. Good luck.
Ken
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 08:15 pm |
|
| I reckon you're all about Status Quo then? Heh... you sure ain't no 'cowboy'... Ken.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 08:23 pm |
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: I reckon you're all about Status Quo then? Heh... you sure ain't no 'cowboy'... Ken.
Sir,
You do not know me or what I am "all about." And when you can ride my horse and walk in my boots (or out shoot me in mounted) then you can tell me I "ain't no 'cowboy'."
I don't know you so I have no idea if you know what a cowboy is.
I have been taught that you demonstrate what you are, or are not, by how you behave.
Ken
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 08:46 pm |
|
SASS membership does not a 'cowboy' make. I dunno 'bout yer boots... but I could ride yer horse 'n pretty much hit stuff from the gallop with pistol or rifle. So? I could do that 40 years ago. The scars on my boots 'n chaps ain't from draggin' 'em off the back of my pick-up either.
Ya don't think like any cowboys (or the modern equivelent... bikers) I know... from your writings anyway. Yer timid. You're too concerned with what other people think. Cowboys don't give a damn what anybody thinks... that's why they're cowboys... or bikers.
That's why I live where I live... rather then Tucson with all that city stuff goin' on now. Didn't used to be that way... but... oh well,
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 09:01 pm |
|
Notice how "Ken" continues to repest the fallacy that Jack was "detained", when in fact, he was ARRESTED.
Yes, I know the 'legal' difference.
Last edited on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 09:01 pm by Pa. Patriot
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 09:13 pm |
|
I think you are just arguing to argue now.
The major point is that he WAS doing something "questionable" but WAS NOT doing anything "ILLEGAL". Police are not supposed to police morality, but law.
We can argue all day long wether what he was doing was "wrong" or not, but what is most important is WHAT IS LEGAL!
The police may have the right to be suspicious and ask the man what he was doing and why he was there. If he then did anything that gave them cause to believe that he was doing something illegal THEN they have cause to arrest.
Anything is else is mere semantics and opinion. If police were to police morality and not the law than most all of us would be in jail, including the cops.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 09:17 pm |
|
Theseus wrote: I think you are just arguing to argue now.
The major point is that he WAS doing something "questionable" but WAS NOT doing anything "ILLEGAL". Police are not supposed to police morality, but law.
We can argue all day long wether what he was doing was "wrong" or not, but what is most important is WHAT IS LEGAL!
The police may have the right to be suspicious and ask the man what he was doing and why he was there. If he then did anything that gave them cause to believe that he was doing something illegal THEN they have cause to arrest.
Anything is else is mere semantics and opinion. If police were to police morality and not the law than most all of us would be in jail, including the cops.
Yer right. No more... no less.
|
rodbender
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Elgin, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1181 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 09:45 pm |
|
CowboyKen wrote: rodbender wrote: CowboyKen wrote: rodbender wrote: CowboyKen wrote: Mike wrote: CowboyKen wrote: I admire Mr. Noble's dedication to principle, but that kind of behavior may have a price.
You mean peacefull completely lawful behavior?
Yes.
Ken
I hope CowboyKen is not a Texan cowboy. Too many like him here and open carry will never pass.
Why is that, Texas? Do you disagree with what I said here? Many Texans have paid the price for doing what they believed was right. Are you not one of them? There is often a price for your actions that has nothing to do with breaking the law.
Ken
You say you admire his intentions, then you denigrate him for it. You say he should have expected the treatment he got. Well, this is the part of the world that has a set of rules that says that if you are not breaking the law you should not be arrested. He was not breaking the law, he did not breech the secure area for the "Anointed One" and the Secret Service said so. The local police had already said he was under arrest and they were stuck. They had to do something to save face and didn't care if MJ was the one that had to pay the price for their error, as long as they didn't have to pay it. They probably figure that he will let it lie and be happy with getting his gun back at some later date.
This is a blatant civil rights violation and should be scorned by all citizens of this great United States, including the "Chosen One", and most especially the LEO's.
Sir,
Just to make it clear, what I said, and what I didn't say; I didn't say I "admire his intentions." I said, "I admire Mr. Noble's dedication to principle."
I did not "denigrate him for it," I did not denigrate him at all. I have not called anyone here any names, and I won't.
I did not say "he should have expected the treatment he got." I suggested that he may have purposely put himself in the position he was in. I also said that if that was not the case then "he was unlucky."
To both quote me and misquote me in the same post is interesting, but I think it may be disingenuous.
Your opinion that the authorities have lied about what happened is one your are certainly entitled to hold, as it is your right to reach whatever conclusions you choose to reach.
Again, IMO if you walk around, legally open carrying, in the vicinity of where a "protected" candidate is going to appear you might not be surprised if you are detained and questioned. If you truly think that "(t)his is a blatant civil rights violation," you may choose to act on it in whatever way you think is appropriate. Good luck.
Ken
While I did not quote you directly, I think you are splitting hairs over the difference between what I wrote and what you wrote. As far as denigrating him, I think your implication that it was a stupid idea says that he was stupid for carrying where it is perfectly legal to do so. Why would someone think this way? Would you expect to to get a ticket for not using your turn signal (without having made a turn or changed lanes) because you were going the speed limit? This is the way I take your reasoning and to tell you the truth, it's asinine.
And the officer said, "Well, you are under arrest". Well, that ain't no detention, sir, that's a full blown arrest if I ever heard one. And they did take him to one of their facilities. If it were a dentention, they would not have removed him from the park.
It does not matter what his intentions were as far as trying to see if he could get by with it or not. He broke no laws and should have been, at the very most, detained long enough to find out that he was simply there to pass out fliers and then left alone. If they wanted to keep an eye on him, well, that was their decision to make, and a lot wiser one I would say.
|
T Dubya
Activist Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 10:53 pm |
|
Someone lock this post already..........
P.S. there are some of you that are total tools. You know who you are.
|
|
|
