| Author | Post |
|---|
M1Gunr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:54 pm |
|
| Set a date - I'll be there....
|
Lante
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 03:37 am |
|
I will come over any Sunday!
|
amlevin
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:14 am |
|
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote: So the police chief just called me and apologized profusely for the violation of my rights and stated that he has given all the information he has received including the training bulletin to all his officers and dispatchers and has directed the training officer to create his own bulletin for Mercer Island and hold training for all officers and dispatchers in the town.
He also said that he understands this is a constitutionally protected right and he wants to make sure everyone's constitutional rights are protected by his police force.
He said he expects that every time I go out, he'll get a bunch of frantic calls from concerned citizens, but that he hopes that his dispatchers will handle the calls professionally and calm the callers down by explaining how open carry is completely legal. He said they'd still have to send an officer, but that they would instruct them to only observe rather than confront.
Being calm and logical often gets this type of response. I would, however, make sure that the speedometer in your car is super accurate and you don't speed on the Island. I used to date a girl that lived down in the "rich part" of the Island and had a MI cop chase me all the way across the bridge because he thought I was driving too fast for the "Neighborhood". Hope you don't get any special attention from any of the officers that obviously "lost face" in this incident. Or from any of their friends on the force.
|
jbone
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Arlington, WA |
| Posts: | 794 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:18 am |
|
Good God! If they are saying that every time you show up in the park or anywhere in their jurisdiction you will be profiled and harassed, is that not a civil liberties issue.
If a lady with unspeakable looking hairy moles on the face, a black man, an old man wearing a clown costume, or illegal alien was to suffer the same harassment and cuffing every time they were seen, what would that be called?
Is there a new LEO generation dedicated to the oppression of civil liberties. To the hell with your rights, I make the law from here-on-out. I don't give a rats ass with what State Law, State Constitution, or the US Constitution says; I make the Law bubby.
Does that pretty much sum of the Officers in you encounter?, not to mention the current reigning political party.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:49 am |
|
jbone wrote: SNIP Is there a new LEO generation dedicated to the oppression of civil liberties. To the hell with your rights, I make the law from here-on-out. I don't give a rats ass with what State Law, State Constitution, or the US Constitution says; I make the Law bubby.
Maybe, maybe not.
Here is a revealing quote from Terry vs Ohio (1968):
...The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, will not be stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial...(emphasis added)
Two points.
First, the court was aware that "certain elements of the police community" were violating the 4A prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures--harassment.
Second, the court knew the complaints were frequent.
Something else just occurred to me.
One of the major sparks for the American Revolution was something called "Writs of Assistance." A writ of assistance was basically a general warrant, something prohibited today by the 4th Amendment.*
Would it not be ironic if the harassment mentioned in Terry was a major factor behind the civil rights movement? Basically it would mean that once again, violation of the principles embodied in the 4th Amendment contributed to a people standing up to government.
*The 4A denies general warrants by setting out the requirements for an acceptable warrant:
...and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis added)
Last edited on Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:52 am by Citizen
|
jbone
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Arlington, WA |
| Posts: | 794 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 05:46 am |
|
Citizen wrote: jbone wrote: SNIP Is there a new LEO generation dedicated to the oppression of civil liberties. To the hell with your rights, I make the law from here-on-out. I don't give a rats ass with what State Law, State Constitution, or the US Constitution says; I make the Law bubby.
Maybe, maybe not.
Here is a revealing quote from Terry vs Ohio (1968):
...The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, will not be stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial...(emphasis added)
Two points.
First, the court was aware that "certain elements of the police community" were violating the 4A prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures--harassment.
Second, the court knew the complaints were frequent.
Does the first & second point exist today? I mean are the courts aware of the frequent violations against lawful firearms owners while conduction lawful activity?
I ask myself frequently are we spending more time swapping stories and providing sea lawyer advice on internet forums rather than filing complaint after complaint at city hall, demanding the violations of civil liberties under the 2A be heard in court.
I'm a believer that this has progressed into a civil rights issue over the years. Frequency is as clear as the elements of agencies violating the 2A & State Constitutions. It's open season on gun owners, law enforcement agencies have officers legislating from a patrol car, councilmember's and mayors across the country are interrupting under their personal agendas, and none of these officials fear repercussion for their illegal actions.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 06:11 am |
|
jbone wrote: SNIP I ask myself frequently are we spending more time swapping stories and providing sea lawyer advice on internet forums rather than filing complaint after complaint at city hall, demanding the violations of civil liberties under the 2A be heard in court.
Hmmmm. You have a point there.
My main beef has been the 4A violations. My idea has been that if all we formally complain about is 2A violations, we miss the much broader and more common 4A violations.
I believe every formal complaint should howl and hammer on the 4A violations, naming them as 4A violations, not just saying in so many words, "The LEO had no authority to detain me over my gun." I would prefer to read in caps, "THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT."
However, there is no reason both cannot be complained in the same complaint. Nor is there any reason complaints cannot be aimed at City Council/the Legislature.
I wonder if maybe we have been overlooking an avenue here. If you think about it, plenty of states have 2A protections in their state constitutions. And plenty of states have passed "shall issue," meaning legislatures have been friendly to 2A to a certain extent.
|
Gene Beasley
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 06:19 am |
|
jbone wrote: [snip]
I ask myself frequently are we spending more time swapping stories and providing sea lawyer advice on internet forums rather than filing complaint after complaint at city hall, demanding the violations of civil liberties under the 2A be heard in court.
I'm a believer that this has progressed into a civil rights issue over the years. Frequency is as clear as the elements of agencies violating the 2A & State Constitutions. It's open season on gun owners, law enforcement agencies have officers legislating from a patrol car, councilmember's and mayors across the country are interrupting under their personal agendas, and none of these officials fear repercussion for their illegal actions.
I am in full agreement. The main obstacle is money. I was looking into addressing an event last year and it was $300, if I remember correctly, just to file the case with the court. Legal fees and time would give ample cause to pause and reflect on the strength of your case and the likelihood of prevailing.
But I don't think that what we are doing is without benefit. Look at the number of people of have gone from knowing nothing about OC to being fairly well versed in the statutes and case law. This isn't about me. A number of people have stood up for their rights; both in these contacts and challenging cities/counties/departments on their illegal laws or practices. I'm on a ccw list and more often than not I end up referring back to something that's already been discussed, if not resolved here.
I have been mulling over the idea of talking with WASPC. Sue Rahr is in our corner and she is active. I used to work with the now executive director. There's always the chance that we could open up a can of worms with WASPC approaching the legislature for a bill that would favor the LEO, citing officer safety. My opinion is that in the current climate, every elected official's hold on their seat is so tenuous that they're not going to take on the citizenry. Just thinking out loud.
|
FunkTrooper
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 10:53 am |
|
I just had an Idea, if you get the cops to name themselves and get their confession of not caring what the law says on record then instead of making it a lawsuit take the tape to city hall let the officials hear it for themselves. It would probably get more people to focus on these rogue officers and get people to realize that just because cops bother you that doesn't make you a criminal.
|
antispam540
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 11:09 am |
|
If he had the conversation taped, this would be a whole different story, and our elected representatives could hear it on the evening news. I don't carry my recorder as often as I should either, though.
|
FunkTrooper
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 11:56 am |
|
I use my phone to record voice and am going to setup Ipod touch to record as well until I can get a decent voice recorder, kinda hard since money is tight.
|
Lurkus Maximus
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 10:49 pm |
|
FunkTrooper wrote: I use my phone to record voice and am going to setup Ipod touch to record as well until I can get a decent voice recorder, kinda hard since money is tight.
Crossover from this post:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/27711.html
but have you seen the services that offer remote (ie inaccessible to delete or confiscate by anyone but you) storage for phone conversations? I'm curious if anyone has used them.
|
swatspyder
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 11:13 pm |
|
Lurkus Maximus wrote: FunkTrooper wrote: I use my phone to record voice and am going to setup Ipod touch to record as well until I can get a decent voice recorder, kinda hard since money is tight.
Crossover from this post:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/27711.html
but have you seen the services that offer remote (ie inaccessible to delete or confiscate by anyone but you) storage for phone conversations? I'm curious if anyone has used them.
If the files are deleted, as long as you dont record anything again and you shut it right off, you can recover the files that were deleted on any home computer.
|
Lurkus Maximus
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 12:15 am |
|
swatspyder wrote: Snip
If the files are deleted, as long as you dont record anything again and you shut it right off, you can recover the files that were deleted on any home computer.
These services work by recording a phone call to an intermediate server. If your recording device (cell phone) is "lost", the recording is still available to you from the server.
Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 12:16 am by Lurkus Maximus
|
amlevin
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 02:15 am |
|
Gene Beasley wrote:
The main obstacle is money.
Yes it is. Consider this though, our Founding Fathers put EVERYTHING they had at risk just to declare independence from England. Not just lawyer's fees, court fees, etc, but every bit of wealth they possessed. Everything up to and including their lives were on the line. Something to consider tomorrow between the Monster BBQ Burger, Potato Salad, and the swig of your favorite cold beverage.
|
jbone
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Arlington, WA |
| Posts: | 794 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:26 am |
|
amlevin wrote: Gene Beasley wrote:
The main obstacle is money.
Yes it is. Consider this though, our Founding Fathers put EVERYTHING they had at risk just to declare independence from England. Not just lawyer's fees, court fees, etc, but every bit of wealth they possessed. Everything up to and including their lives were on the line. Something to consider tomorrow between the Monster BBQ Burger, Potato Salad, and the swig of your favorite cold beverage.
That's about it, the cities and counties suck up the tax payer dollars fighting us off, while the blue collar worker can barely afford to file the case from their own wallet. How do we tap into our tax dollars, public defenders?
If you haven't been arrested can you use them for a case where you are the plaintiff?
Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:27 am by jbone
|
j2l3
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 06:19 am |
|
jbone wrote:
That's about it, the cities and counties suck up the tax payer dollars fighting us off, while the blue collar worker can barely afford to file the case from their own wallet. How do we tap into our tax dollars, public defenders?
If you haven't been arrested can you use them for a case where you are the plaintiff?
Nope, that's why they are called "Public "Defenders"
|
amlevin
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 06:10 pm |
|
jbone wrote: How do we tap into our tax dollars, public defenders?
You really can, up front. That said you CAN tap these dollars by successfully pleading your case and getting a favorable judgement. In most cases the looser pays the attorney fees associated with the case if the Judge is reasonable.
If your case is good there are often lawyers that will handle it on contingency. Make sure you have ALL the facts and "go shopping". Obviously few, if any, lawyers will take a case that is a "looser" at first look.
There are also organizations that will take up the "sword" if there are compelling facts.
It all revolves around FACTS.
|
Temporary
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 21st, 2009 02:53 am |
|
To whom these words may concern,
I would like those members here to know that I have created this account, 'Temporary,' with only the intention to reply to this thread. I do live on Mercer Island, attended Mercer Island High School, and have graduated my boarding school with the class of 2009. I am nineteen years of age, male, and am not affiliated or advocative of any "civil liberty" organizations--that I am currently aware of.
What happened to the O. P., while concern is warranted (because of modern media and communication technologies, public awareness of violent and sexual crime, amongst other, taboo, behaviours, has been increased), I do not believe that the Mercer Island Police Department was at all warranted in their behaviour toward you. Of course, they, for their safety, would not wish to reach down near you and pick up a pamphlet (which could be incorrect or biased); how ever, threats and other judgemental behaviour is that of a biased and, regarding their job, corrupted Police--not one that I would like on Mercer Island.
Realizing that they may have been transfered from other departments, where violent and sexual crime is more rampant, or alive, such aforementioned cautions are those belonging to a well-trained and experienced Police. Other wise, I would be led to believe that, due to the low, percieved, violent and sexual crime, in addition to the recent housing and business influx in the central business district, where Mercerdale Park is located at the edge of, an inexperienced Police might have been merely jumpy and, perhaps, excited at their first gun related "crime," some thing many, I would presume, only view on educational runs and tapes.
In conclusion, and I apoligize if my response has seemed precotious or drawn, I would say, with all of my experience in the law field, to file a complaint with the highest possible authority; with all of my passion and judgement, I would suggest that you file a civil suit with either the City of Mercer Island or the Mercer Island Police Department for your aforementioned grievances. Such suggestions are made assuming that your civil case would be to publicize your grievances, rather than for monetary gain--to which, I would assume, would be none.
Regards,
Devon Kelly Mulhaney
|
Temporary
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 21st, 2009 02:56 am |
|
swatspyder wrote: Lurkus Maximus wrote: FunkTrooper wrote: I use my phone to record voice and am going to setup Ipod touch to record as well until I can get a decent voice recorder, kinda hard since money is tight.
Crossover from this post:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/27711.html
but have you seen the services that offer remote (ie inaccessible to delete or confiscate by anyone but you) storage for phone conversations? I'm curious if anyone has used them.
If the files are deleted, as long as you dont record anything again and you shut it right off, you can recover the files that were deleted on any home computer.
Would such means be illegal in our State of Washington?
|
Current time is 10:02 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
|
|
