|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Kentucky > New Info In Arrested For Open Carry......
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Kentucky > New Info In Arrested For Open Carry......
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TheMrMitch Regular Member 
|
Please read. I talked to Mr Smith's attorney today at 15:45. He was gracious enough to return my call. 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. He had advised the police he was openly carrying and at some time his clothes either obscured his weapon, because of loss of contrast or it became covered, thus the illegal CC charge. His lawyer believes the charges should never have happened and will be dismissed. I asked if a demonstration in his behalf would be acceptable and he agreed. Should someone familiar with the area wish to set up a demonstration, I will be the 1st to volunteer. Mr Smith has gotten a lot of flack, and some of it is understandable as his internet communications skills are not up to certain standards. I am flaming NO one at all. I understand some of it. The next part is up to us. What say you? Last edited on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 09:07 pm by TheMrMitch |
|||||||||
|
MrOverlay Regular Member
|
If you are talking about a demonstration of support that is one thing, but if you are talking about a demonstration involving objects, such as guns and holsters, that might be a problem. |
|||||||||
|
TheMrMitch Regular Member
|
That's why I threw the question out. Dunno what would be the best in this case, though I cannot see where open carry at the time would hurt. He needs our support, and a point could be made. Just throwing this out for the members. |
|||||||||
|
MrOverlay Regular Member
|
Well your never going to get in the courthouse, well not without a real fun situation. Standing out on the sidewalk is probably not going to do much, although the LEO's of Louisville might be fun to watch. The jury is not going to know about it, and if they do, they will probably be removed from the jury for one reason or another. Since only probably two maybe three people know what actually happened that day/night, I would suspect the list of witnesses will be very short. My 2 cents. |
|||||||||
|
Whtdragn Regular Member
|
You might be able to get some newspaper interests if you are willing to try and talk to a local reporter and maybe a TV news spot. I am not sure if you would get anywhere with a demonstration but there are some bus sign locations close to the court house and they might be nice for an opencarry.org sign and some nice comment. |
|||||||||
|
MrOverlay Regular Member
|
I doubt the Courier Journal will be interested in any pro gun story. Any story they would do would be a hatchet job on guns in genreal and open carry in particular. Good thought though with a fair minded paper. |
|||||||||
|
Whtdragn Regular Member
|
just and FYI The outdoor advertising at one of the TARC stops is 300 a month plus 100 or so for printing costs. The cost can go up or down with location but right around the courthouse it would be close to that. |
|||||||||
|
Thos.Jefferson Regular Member 
|
I've been watching this story for some time now and feel I have to comment. After seeing the facts in the story one has to pose the question why would any one in their right mind call the police and say something like that? Is this guy to be the posterboy for open carry? I would personally love to go Downtown and protest in front of the courthouse while open carrying, Exspecially if some of the open carriers where off duty LEO , wearing street clothes . To hell with the newspaper lets call up WHAS-11 and get on TV!! Mr. Mitch I've read you are a corrections officer so that's cool. We need superdemon or whatever his name is, he says he's a cop. Here ya go bud, heres your chance to show your not just a Nazi in disguise. I read where you called that guy a "mall ninja" for doing opencarry in protest. Show us you really believe in the God given right for any man to carry a weapon for his own safety and piece of mind. Hit the bricks with us down on Jefferson st. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member 
|
Thos.Jefferson wrote: I've been watching this story for some time now and feel I have to comment. After seeing the facts in the story one has to pose the question why would any one in their right mind call the police and say something like that? Is this guy to be the posterboy for open carry? I would personally love to go Downtown and protest in front of the courthouse while open carrying, Exspecially if some of the open carriers where off duty LEO , wearing street clothes . To hell with the newspaper lets call up WHAS-11 and get on TV!! Mr. Mitch I've read you are a corrections officer so that's cool. We need superdemon or whatever his name is, he says he's a cop. Here ya go bud, heres your chance to show your not just a Nazi in disguise. I read where you called that guy a "mall ninja" for doing opencarry in protest. Show us you really believe in the God given right for any man to carry a weapon for his own safety and piece of mind. Hit the bricks with us down on Jefferson st. Are you saying the last part of your post for ME? Then you haven't read carefully. I am not in support of Belize at all. I told everyone here that when the details started to come out, he would be shown to be hiding several facts. His attorney can say all he wants, but the time for the charges to be "dismissed" are long gone. It's now down to a trial, and it's either going to be "guilty" or "not guilty". Now that the details are coming out, I ask the same thing; Do you want this character to be the poster boy for concealed carry? A man that called the police and made the statement he made? That was stupid act number one. Stupid act number two was KNOWING that police were going to be coming to see you, you don't take the time to MAKE SURE YOUR WEAPON STAYS IN A LEGAL CONDITION. Again, I don't care what the attorney says about the clothes obscuring or covering the weapon, AS THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF CONCEALMENT, PEOPLE!!! Are you honestly expecting to get this guy an exception? He can conceal his weapon, or get sloppy and let it get concealed, and it's ok? Really? You really think that should be a positive defense for what happened? "My weapon is not concealed, my shirt is just covering it." Really? You must be out of your mind. This case, more than any other, should point to the fact that we need to be careful, carry with due care, and not act like idiots in public, especially when LEOs are involved. If anything, this should be held up as an example of how not to conduct yourself when OCing. I really, really can't believe the continued support of this man or his actions. Some of you are truly blinded with fervor. Even more relevant question...You want the general public to accept OC more readily, and the protests are going to do nothing but bring B4Me's actions to the front...You want the general public seeing his actions as being representative of the cause of OC? Really? We should be condoning his actions as an unfortunate confluence of behavior and attitude that does NOT represent what the majority (I hope) of OCers wish to convey as their own. Last edited on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 10:39 pm by superdemon |
|||||||||
|
kyboyy Regular Member 
|
not to get on anyone's bad side on here , but i kinda have to agree with Superdemon on this... you don't call the police and say something like that. i know first hand that your mouth can definately get you in trouble with leo... you don't say that. when i do open carry, i make sure that my shirt is tucked in behind my holster so that its perfectly visible, they way i was told to carry because the second your shirt, sweat shirt, hoodie, jacket, anything covers it, it is concealed. i'm pretty new to owning a gun and definately new to open carrying, but even i know this.... for someone who's definately more experienced in this subject, he just should've known better....... |
|||||||||
|
Thos.Jefferson Regular Member
|
First off I never said I was this guys champion.I stated that I would love to open carry downtown IF some of the OCers were offduty LEO such as yourself. I couldn't agree more that this guy (b4me) is not the best candidate for OC poster boy, apparently he is not right in the head. You had stated that there is case law where the gun was clearly printing under the clothes and it was not considered to be concealed. Shouldn't this be a win? As far as the TT charge goes the case must be weak at best else the prosecutor wouldn't have offered a walk. Am I right or wrong? |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
You're wrong on all counts. 1. I never said you were anyone's champion. - What I said was that B4M's behavior was idiotic, yet there are people who are rallying to his defense. Why in the world would we want to hold up his behavior as a model of someone wrongly prosecuted through the criminal justice system? If a rally is held for this idiot, we will not be doing the OC movement any favors, and will be doing it much harm. We need to show the average citizen that while we support the right to OC, this is an example of irresponsible, irrational behavior, and we do not support it. If we jump on the bandwagon and support everyone who gets prosecuted, no matter how irrational and stupid their behavior is, we will be dismissed as a whole. We cannot (at least I will not) blanketly support people simply because they visit this forum, or ask for our help. We must (at least I will) have some sort of thought process and not get caught up in the hue and cry of everyone. Some people who get arrested are actually guilty of a crime, you know. 2. Secondly, you question about the shirt/printing/concealment... -You weren't there, I wasn't there, neither was anyone else in this forum except B4M, the LEO, and B4M's witness. It happened back in October. It was fairly cool then, and he says he was wearing a sweatshirt. I doubt that a sweatshirt would print enough to qualify for that condition. The other part of that is the fact that when you choose to carry OC, you must OC, especially if you are too stupid to go get a CC permit. It's a big responsibility, and it can get tricky to keep it open if you are not careful. Obviously, B4M was either sloppy, lazy, or had the weapon intentionally covered, then tried to uncover it when the LEO got there. Let's be honest, the gun was probably concealed. I only say "probably" as I don't like to use absolutes when I am not a direct witness. 3. Your question about this being a "win"... The time for "win" is over. Just like I said before, the time for "dismissed" is over. He was offered a way out of the situation in his preliminary hearing/probable cause hearing. Well, the probable cause held, or it would have been dismissed. Not a good sign for B4M. Trust me, if I send someone to jail, and the Commonwealth wins the preliminary hearing/probable cause hearing, I have about a 90% chance of winning the actual case. I'd have to really screw up in court in order to loose at that point. There is a retired trooper in these forums, ask him, and he will tell you the same thing. Then you have people like Mr.Mitch on here. He's actually in the CJS, and doesn't realize he is being played by an attorney! This attorney could not care less what sort of crime his client committed, and doesn't care who wants to rally to his defense, as long as someone does. Of course the attorney wants a rally in his client's favor. He knows the case is a hard win, and will take whatever he can get. Did he think the attorney was going to say, "Why no, sir, I don't need any free help getting this client out of a charge that is cut and dry and he will be convicted of"? I have tried to tell you guys that something was hinky about this whole thing for a while now. However, the attitude around here is that anyone's story, no matter how unbelievable, must be true and supported. There is very little independent free thought here. Lets start thinking for ourselves, instead of trying to find people who simply mirror our own opinions and parrot back and forth the same tired cliches and catchphrases. |
|||||||||
|
TheMrMitch Regular Member
|
"Then you have people like Mr.Mitch on here. He's actually in the CJS, and doesn't realize he is being played by an attorney!" Uh...slow down dude. I know exactly what's going on, thank you. Do you? |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
Yes I do. You are getting played. A decade around attorneys tells me so. Sorry for the wake-up call. |
|||||||||
|
TheMrMitch Regular Member
|
A decade. Well.....you do have a wee touch of experience. Do my six decades count? I do credit your gumption, but experience does help. You will gain it in the future. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
TheMrMitch wrote: A decade. Well.....you do have a wee touch of experience. Do my six decades count? You make me laugh. And at 6 decades old, I would think that you would know when you are being played, but obviously you don't. Just because someone wants you to think that they think like you do, and use that to their advantage, doesn't mean they think like you. And I may only have a decade in law enforcement, but I have nearly 4 decades just being around. |
|||||||||
|
TheMrMitch Regular Member
|
Glad you're laughing because we laugh together. Dunno why a learned one such as yourself (you say) must keep reminding posters here of your status and experience in almost every post.....do you forget? We can't. It is quite noticeable. Insecurity? You might be a nice fella.....if you turn your attacks down and give others credit for having some sense. Now. I'm off for a nice breakfast. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
TheMrMitch wrote: Glad you're laughing because we laugh together. I'm glad you went here. Let's talk about you in just a second, but first... I remind people in posts because a lot of people seems to just read parts of posts, then go argue the parts of the post they read, without reading the whole thing. Plus you have new guys/gals in here all the time. Insecure? Nope. Not when I try my best to foster independent thought here. If I was insecure, I would be parrotting the herd mentality along with most everyone else here... Now back to you. I have no idea what you are all about, but I know you may quite be the one who is "insecure". I will remind you and everyone else here about the post Mitch made about one time being asked if he was a cop when a citiaen saw his weapon. He lied to the person and said yes. I will remind you that Mitch is a corrections officer, but not a cop. Now, Mitch seems to be a fellow on here who wants to get fired up and fight for our gol-durned right to OC. But, when confronted by a simple question, he chose to lie (to admittedly make is easier) than to tell the truth. Why is that? Were you afraid of the confrontation? Are you a wannabe? If your wish is to truly educate people about OC, and you want to have a rally to support the soon-to-be-convicted B4M, why not take the time to either 1) Explain that you were a corrections officer, or 2) explain that OC was completely legal? Why did you not choose either of those options? Why did you have to go the admittedly "easier" route? I certainly don't choose to go that way, and I don't choose to go the easy way in here... Six decades, and you would rather roll over and take the easy way that stand up and explain the facts? And, I rarely attack people, but I do attack their stupid ideas. Then they take it personally and think I am attacking them. People need to drop the herd mentality, and more importantly, they need to stop thinking that they don't have herd mentality. Last edited on Fri Mar 20th, 2009 03:44 pm by superdemon |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member 
|
Gentleman - neutral corners please. Best to handle personal conversations through PMs unless there is a serious need to "out" a poster. IMHO and worth what you paid for it.  Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
Grapeshot wrote: Gentleman - neutral corners please. Ha ha. Yeah, it got a little heated, but it is very frustrating to see people doing damage to the OC movement by rallying around someone like B4M. I ask only one last time... Is B4M the person who we feel truly represents a person who was/is wrongfully prosecuted for CC? Even after his attorney admits that the weapon was obscured? Is that the image we want pushed to the general public as responsible, socially acceptable OC? ANd like I have said before, every now and then, we do manage to put a guilty man in jail, even if he is one of your own. Last edited on Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:08 pm by superdemon |
|||||||||
|
TheMrMitch Regular Member
|
Grapeshot: I just got back from a wonderful breakfast and you beat me to the suggestion. I will not continue in this manner. No problem. I may be checked out at 270 358 9876 ....Deputy Mitchell, should anyone wish. This site is too good to be in any argumentive status. Thanks.  Last edited on Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:07 pm by TheMrMitch |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member
|
TheMrMitch wrote: Grapeshot: I just got back from a wonderful breakfast and you beat me to the suggestion. I will not continue in this manner. Just me but I see posting phone numbers as a potential problem - might want to edit and handle such contacts as you decide by PMing your phone or email to those of whom you approve. I promise to not call you after 3:00AM   Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
TheMrMitch Regular Member
|
That's the 24 hour open jail number for Larue County. HehHeh Thanks for the concern. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
TheMrMitch wrote: That's the 24 hour open jail number for Larue County. HehHeh TheMrMitch, I have no doubt that you are who and what you say you are, please look at my last post on the last page and if you don't care to, answer those questions. Thansk. |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member
|
TheMrMitch wrote: That's the 24 hour open jail number for Larue County. HehHeh Should have known better - but I'm one to look for problems - only then can solutions be found.  Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
TheMrMitch Regular Member
|
SD....No....He is NOT the best canditate for a rally, and that is why I issued the question about rallying around him. However....he is one that needs help....like him or not. He made a mistake in his words, and we shall see how it does work out. I do not mind answering your questions at all. Thank you Sir. |
|||||||||
|
BB62 State Researcher
|
superdemon wrote: ... To all: I apologize for not following this whole matter, but from what I've read, I agree with SuperDemon. To SD: For someone in LE, I like the way you present your case. I do not detect this "us vs them" mentality that too frequently raises its ugly head here. I'm glad you're here. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
TheMrMitch wrote: SD....No....He is NOT the best canditate for a rally, and that is why I issued the question about rallying around him. That begs the question, why help him? You say he made a mistake in words? Why do you assume it was a mistake? It sounds like he wasn't getting what he wanted on the phone (help with his car) so he threw a fit like a toddler and ran his mouth, and it got him in trouble. Like him or not, he made conscious choice to act like a petulant child, and he should pay the price. Secondly, like I have said before... Knowing that police were coming to him, he didn't have the sense of mind to make sure his weapon stayed in a legal conditiion. Again, blame his attitude, his physical pain, or his pain meds, but he still should have focused on the one task at hand...making sure the LEOs that responded found nothing to for which to take him to jail... Another thing, how do we know the LEO wasn't already in route to arrest him for the statement he made on the phone, and just happened upon his CC condition when she got there? She may have fully been intent on taking him into custody for the remarks he made on the phone, and only discovered the weapon as an affect of the arrest...SHe may have even been ordered by her supervisor to make the arrest... Not saying any of the above conditions are accurate, but you never know, lets think for ourselves here... B4M doesn not, I repeat, does not need our help. He wants our help. He needs to learn do deal with the mess he made himself. He called the cops to rescue him with his automobile situation, and now he wants his "friends" to rescue him with his legal situation. He is not a person to be martyred. He should face whatever music he has to face. If he wants to be adult enought to OC, he should be adult enough to conduct himself in a manner that will not lead to his arrest when he is doing so. A rally in his favor is a rally AGAINST open carry. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
BB62 wrote: superdemon wrote:... Thank you. I am truly, truly one with the cause. I will admit that I give the other side of the coin in some debates, and I also attempt to foster a little free thought, but I am a brother in the cause. I am a member of the Constitution Party. Check my profile, and look at the Pledge of Allegiance that I recite. Last edited on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 01:05 am by superdemon |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
I'll even make a prediction right now... I will say the B4M's case MAY, JUST MAY be dismissed without prejudice, conditional on him staying out of trouble for one year. Here is why.. From what I can gather, he is not in the physical condition to do any kind of community service. He is not going to be picking up trash on the highway. He seems to be in rather poor financial shape, so I doubt he will get a fine. If he has a private attorney (and I haven't read back far enough to find out) he may have killed this option. The court will assume that if he has the money for an attorney, he has the money to pay a fine. This one I am still on the fence about. I try not to judge other court systems like my local one, so this one is tough. He will not get his weapon back. It will be ordered either remanded to the department that arrested him, or it will be ordered destroyed. EVEN IF THE CASE IS DISMISSED. So you see, even if the case is "dismissed", it doesn't mean that B4M wins. He still has to pay an attorney (maybe), and he will still loose his weapon. The most damning testimony will be from B4M himself, when they play the recording of his message to the police dispatcher. Last edited on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 01:45 am by superdemon |
|||||||||
|
hotrod Regular Member 
|
superdemon wrote: I'll even make a prediction right now...Judge can't order the weapon destroyed. It must be put up for sale by the department. If the case is dismissed his weapon must be returned. Any legally owned property used as evidence can not be with held after aquittal or dismissal. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
hotrod wrote: superdemon wrote:I'll even make a prediction right now...Judge can't order the weapon destroyed. It must be put up for sale by the department. If the case is dismissed his weapon must be returned. Any legally owned property used as evidence can not be with held after aquittal or dismissal. That is not correct. A dissmissal without prejudice is not the same thing as "not guilty". It's like saying, "This is a warning. You screwed up, but we are going to give you one more chance." The last time I arrested someone for CCDW, the exact same thing happened. DWP, and the judge ordered the weapon not to be returned to the owner. |
|||||||||
|
hotrod Regular Member
|
The judge may have ordered it held, but illegally. Personal property can not be held with out due process. No government agency may with hold any property with out due process. If the defendent in your case appeals, he will prevail. A dropped charge with or without prejudice is a dropped charge. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
hotrod wrote: The judge may have ordered it held, but illegally. Personal property can not be held with out due process. No government agency may with hold any property with out due process. If the defendent in your case appeals, he will prevail. A dropped charge with or without prejudice is a dropped charge. No. "Dismissed with prejudice" means the charge can be brought back at a later time (within the statute of limitations) for whatever reason. It's kind of like being on parole. If you get paroled, and let's say you have 5 years of parole time. If you go back to jail for an unrelated crime, they can tack that 5 years (or whatever is left of it) onto the sentence for the new crime. Yes, when it is dismissed without prejudice, you have had your due process. In the case I mentioned, the defendant had an option...dismissed without prejudice and surrender the handgun, or go to trial. He chose the former. Therefore, he had his due process. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned 
|
superdemon wrote: "Dismissed with prejudice" means the charge can be brought back at a later time (within the statute of limitations) for whatever reason. Actually, no. "Dismissed with prejudice" means the cause is dismissed in its entirety, with disfavor, and cannot again be brought before the forum absent a showing of a material change in circumstance. "For whatever reason" is legally insufficient to revive a cause dismissed with prejudice. "Dismissed without prejudice" gives the filer a much lower hurdle for refiling. |
|||||||||
|
hotrod Regular Member
|
You did not say he surrendered the weapon. That puts a different spin on it. The system used negotiation to come to a mutual conclusion. Give up your weapon, we will not charge. If the charge was dismissed without negotiation, and I was the party to the complaint, I would have retrieved my weapon via the courts. They would have to return it. Dismissed without prejudice means the county prosecutor or commonwealth attorney can refile at a later time, that doesn't mean he can retain evidence. If that were so, they would charge anyone for anything, dismiss without prejudice and retain property without due process indefinitely Last edited on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 02:33 am by hotrod |
|||||||||
|
intellavore Regular Member
|
First and foremost, I open carry... And There is no way that my shirt or jacket can cover up my gun. As I carry it in a drop leg holster. But the real point here is, it shouldn't matter whether it was covered up or not. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE "INFRINGED" What part of infringed do politicians not understand? Open carry or Concealed it makes no difference. If I commit a crime with a gun then prosecute me. If I don't then leave me the hell alone. Seems logical to me. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
intellavore wrote: First and foremost, I open carry... And There is no way that my shirt or jacket can cover up my gun. As I carry it in a drop leg holster. But the real point here is, it shouldn't matter whether it was covered up or not. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE "INFRINGED" What part of infringed do politicians not understand? Open carry or Concealed it makes no difference. If I commit a crime with a gun then prosecute me. If I don't then leave me the hell alone. Seems logical to me. Um, he did commit a crime with a gun, and he his being prosecuted... |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: superdemon wrote: Actually, no. "Dismissed with prejudice" means the cause is dismissed in its entirety, with disfavor, and cannot again be brought before the forum absent a showing of a material change in circumstance. "For whatever reason" is legally insufficient to revive a cause dismissed with prejudice. "Dismissed without prejudice" gives the filer a much lower hurdle for refiling. Whoops. I hate when I say exactly the oppostite of what I mean. Thanks for catching it. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
hotrod wrote: You did not say he surrendered the weapon. That puts a different spin on it. The system used negotiation to come to a mutual conclusion. Give up your weapon, we will not charge. If the charge was dismissed without negotiation, and I was the party to the complaint, I would have retrieved my weapon via the courts. They would have to return it. I love the conspiracy notion here. It would take one hell of a plan to do that to obtain property like that. I am telling you that it happens. A lot. I'm usually in court about 6 days a month. It happens. It is legal. |
|||||||||
|
hotrod Regular Member
|
superdemon wrote: hotrod wrote: You did not say he surrendered the weapon. That puts a different spin on it. The system used negotiation to come to a mutual conclusion. Give up your weapon, we will not charge. If the charge was dismissed without negotiation, and I was the party to the complaint, I would have retrieved my weapon via the courts. They would have to return it.
Six days a month in court, whether district or circuit, is not enough time to observe all the inner workings with in the due process procedure. Spend 4 days a week for 20 years and get back to me. |
|||||||||
|
intellavore Regular Member
|
What law did he break? His gun was covered? I don't see a crime there. If the Right (not privalage) to keep (own) and bear arms (carry on you) shall not (will not) be infringed (legislated or restricted) He did not commit a crime. Constitutionally speaking every American should ignore any and all gun laws as they are inherently Unconstitutional. You can argue all day long that we need those laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals but you and I both know that is an IDIOTS argument. The criminals will get a gun regardless of what law you try to impose. If more men had the testicular fortitude to stand up and tell the federal government to kiss our collective arses we wouldn't be having the problems we are having now. If a crazy man gets his hands on a gun and goes into a store and starts shooting there damn well needs to be armed citizens in that store to put a stop to it. But you keep letting the government do your thinking for you. Tell me how that works out for you. |
|||||||||
|
Flyer22 Regular Member
|
Intellavore, welcome to the site. I don't know how much you know about the finer points of constitutional law, but you should know that most of us try to be as precise and as accurate as possible. You don't seem to quite grasp the fundamental difference between the national government and a state government. The U.S. Constitution, by and large, is a check upon the national government. The 2nd Amendment does not apply to state governments. If you want to try to make a constitutional argument, fine, but you've got to do it from the Kentucky Constitution. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
Well, how about this... I was recently at a county Sheriff's department, and I saw a sign in the parking lot that said, "Skateboarding not permitted on county property. Skateboards will be confiscated and not returned." If that was not legal, why would the Sheriff advertise that he was going to violate the Constitution? Would that not open him up to lawsuits? |
|||||||||
|
hotrod Regular Member
|
superdemon wrote: Well, how about this... Yes it would open him to lawsuit. If he confiscated without charging a crime. Without giving the accused a chance to defend in open court. Not giving the accused the ability to reclaim private property would be grounds for a lawsuit. If you were in Kentucky and the county sheriff has such a sign, he better have a county ordinance that does not allow skateboarding on public property or in designated areas. That also opens up the county for suit as well if he confiscates without due process. I can put a sign up at my home that says, "don't walk on the sidewalk or I will sue you". Doesn't mean I can do it. |
|||||||||
|
Statesman Regular Member 
|
superdemon wrote:
+1 I voted for Chuck Baldwin too.  I cannot locate any original posts about this person, but it sounds like he made some errors in judgement, and/or has some bad choices of words. Maybe I am missing something (and I usually do), but I don't believe firing a gun in the air warrants a TT charge, unless you consider the air a victim. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
Statesman wrote: superdemon wrote: Well, he said to the police dispatcher something to the effect of "Do I have to fire a shot in the air to get help?" Or something to that effect, AND told them he was carrying. The original story was posted in a thread called "I WAS ARRESTED FOR OPEN CARRY", which he wasn't. His story has since fallen apart, and I have been working my arse off to show that he is not someone who needs our help, or shoul be held up as some sort of martyr of LEO harassment. He made some fundamentally stupid, stupid decisions, and we should be distancing ourselves from him. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
hotrod wrote: superdemon wrote:Well, how about this... The sdewalk is not your property. Why would an LEO intentionally do something to bring more lawsuits onto the department? Really? You can sue for just about anything, it doesn't mean you will win. Let me give you yet another example of no due process... When I worked at an auto parts store, and someone used a credit card that was bad, or way overdue, I would get a message that told me to either hold or destroy the card. Where is the due process in that? You can talk Constitutional theory until you are blue in the face, but I am telling you what I have seen in action day after day for a decade. It happens. I am not saying I agree with it, or support it, all I am sayig is that it happens. Last edited on Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 05:31 pm by superdemon |
|||||||||
|
Statesman Regular Member
|
superdemon wrote:
I got this one!! On the back of the cards, they say the cards are the property of the bank, therefore the bank can seize the cards anytime they wish, for any reason(s). No due process is needed since there is no confiscation of property. Example: "This card is the property of [insert bank name here] bank/credit union. It may be revoked by the [insert bank name here] without notice and shall be surrendered upon demand. " I'm sure an agreement to "surrender" the property was also covered in the agreement signed by the account holder when he created the account. Last edited on Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 05:39 pm by Statesman |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member 
|
I haven't followed this story but I find a couple of things strange. Why was he calling 911 if he locked his keys in his car. Are the police in KY also locksmiths? To me that could be a frivilous call charge there unless there is something else going on. Then to mention the threat of shooting into the air if he didn't get action immediately is going to raise eyebrows anywhere. Second did his clothing cover his gun? Someone said that in KY if the gun can be discerned below the clothing (printing) it is not concealed. The deal about "I was open carrying but my clothing just covered it" sounds funky to me. I am sure there is more to this story than what I have read but it sure sounds shady from both sides and as some have said this may not be a poster boy for an OC protest march. |
|||||||||
|
hotrod Regular Member
|
Statesman wrote: superdemon wrote: Thank You!! Exactly correct. Does the Sheriff think the property his office is on is private? I believe it to be public. Just like a right of way |
|||||||||
|
Venator Regular Member 
|
superdemon wrote: hotrod wrote:superdemon wrote:Well, how about this... Does the credit card company own the card and can they have an agent (vendor) retrieve said property? |
|||||||||
|
hotrod Regular Member
|
Venator wrote: superdemon wrote:This is getting way off topic, but, yes a credit card company can request the vendor retrieve their card. It is included in the agreement you sign to use the card company. You are not obligated, but they appreciate your help. Personally, I would not. Thats just mehotrod wrote:superdemon wrote:Well, how about this... |
|||||||||
|
rscottie Regular Member 
|
From everything I've read about this man I have come to the conclusion that he is NOT a CRIMINAL. He may have gotten a little upset because he was stuck outside of his vehicle and needed help. Now, I understand that he is in poor health. If that is so, being stranded outside is indeed a reason to call for help. If the only number he had to call was 911, then he had no choice. As far as his gun getting partially covered because it was windy or whatever, I find it hard to stomach someone calling that a crime. Mainly because I believe that carrying a firearm is not a privilege to be granted by the government and you should be able to carry openly or concealed with no permits whatsoever. Yes, it may be against the law, but the law is wrong. And that is why we should support this man. He may not be the posterboy for opencarry, but if he is otherwise a good law-abiding citizen, he shouldn't be put through so much legal garbage just because he was frustrated by being locked outside his vehicle. I'm betting that more than one of us on here has said something in frustration that we wish we had not...and we were probably not arrested. |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
rscottie wrote: From everything I've read about this man I have come to the conclusion that he is NOT a CRIMINAL. Sir, your two bolded statements contradict each other. 1. Unfortunately for you and B4M, the Commonwealth of KY says it is a crime. 2. Well, let's just go ahead and support someone who broke a law that we don't agree with. Hell, let's go round up some NAMBLA members and take 'em on down to the courthouse so they can support the next child molester that goes to trial, since they don't agree that molesting little kids is wrong... 3. Frustration is one thing, but saying what he said on the phone, to the police, was stupid, and unfortunately, again, the Commonwealth says it is illegal. You can't have a police department that is going to let people call and behave that way on the phone. Being locked out of your car is NOT a 911 situation, and is barely a police situation with all the good, hardworking locksmiths and wrecker drivers out there trying to earn a living. If he had a phone, he had many other options than 911. Most importantly, and what really goes to B4M's actions, he knew the police were on their way, and he didn't have the foresight enough to make sure, absolutely sure that his weapon stayed in a legal condition. He could have rectified that in many ways as well, and simply chose not to. You can believe in your rights all you want, and talk theory all day long, but in the real world, actions like B4M's come with consequences. |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member
|
This is getting way off topic, but, yes a credit card company can request the vendor retrieve their card. It is included in the agreement you sign to use the card company. You are not obligated, but they appreciate your help. Personally, I would not. Thats just me I think when you sign the agreement to honor their cards you also agree to these terms at least that is what I read when I started accepting credit cards. I was fortunate that I never was notified to hold a card but I do know some that were told to hold it because it was stolen. I know some clerks that have gotten a $50 reward for holding a stolen card. If they can keep the person there until police can make an arrest then they get an even bigger bonus. There are certain guidelines that you accept by being able to honor a credit card and it varies to the type of card but you are legally obligated to follow those guidelines. |
|||||||||
|
intellavore Regular Member
|
Superdemon, Are you really going to equate a constitutionally protected Right, (not given right but protected right) with a child molester raping a child? First and foremost there is no Right given by God or protected by said constitution that allows a pervert to rape a child. However God did give you the Right to protect your family. And the Founders of this country saw fit to protect that right from government seizure. By protecting it. You said that the state of Ky disagrees with us on the FACT that we don't need no permit to carry a gun covered or uncovered? Have you never heard of the Lesser Magistrate? Grab a copy of Blacks law book and check it out. Forcing Americans to take a license or permit to keep and bear arms is as ridiculous as telling a preacher he can't preach against homosexuality on the street corner. Why have Americans decided to just do as they are told like good little doggies. It is and UNJUST LAW AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DISOBEYED. The right to keep and bear arms is there to protect us from the government, so that should the need arise we can stand up as one and overthrow a dictators regime. Now if we allow that same government to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms how are we to protect ourselves from that government? Its time people stop taking what the government tells you as gospel and do a little damn studying. Now your Rights and then be prepared to defend them at any cost. Or be prepared to be relieved of your liberties and shackled like good little slaves. |
|||||||||
|
intellavore Regular Member
|
Flyer, here's by Ky constitutional argument. Kentucky joined the Union and agreed that the Constitution of the United States of America is the Law of the land. Therefore they bound themselves to it. And are therefore beholden to it. Now I'm no Lawyer so bear with me here. This is section 1 of the Ky Constitutions Bill of Rights.... First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. Second: The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences. Third: The right of seeking and pursuing their safety and happiness. Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and opinions. Fifth: The right of acquiring and protecting property. Sixth: The right of assembling together in a peaceable manner for their common good, and of applying to those invested with the power of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance. Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891. History: Not yet amended. Now I understand that Ky can and does ammend it's constitution but have you considered the opening of this section of the constitution..... All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: Now as i said I'm no lawyer and I know this post is getting a little long but, Do you understand the words INHERENT and INALIENABLE...........first inherent, : involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic <risks inherent in the venture> — in·her·ent·ly adverb Now for inalienable..... in·alien·able [url=javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?inalie01.wav=inalienable')]  [/url] Pronunciation: \(ˌ)i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\ Function: adjective Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable Date: circa 1645 : incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights> — in·alien·abil·i·ty [url=javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?inalie02.wav=inalienability')] [/url] \-ˌnāl-yə-nə-ˈbi-lə-tē, -ˌnā-lē-ə-nə-\ noun — in·alien·ably [url=javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?inalie03.wav=inalienably')] [/url] \-ˈnāl-yə-nə-blē, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\ adverb .......The government doesn't have the right to legislate away your rights to keep and bear arms as they are inherent and inalianable. That means (in case your not keeping up) that the government didn't give you the right nor can they take it away from you. And if they do you are morally and legally justified in taking any action you deam neccessary to defend that right. I look forward to further discussion. Sorry it's such a long post but I am very passionate about this subject...... |
|||||||||
|
dtabb Regular Member
|
The previous thread on this case included some debate on why LEOs dislike OC. There is some history in this particular community. In 1989, a Jefferson County Police officer was killed by a reported "squirrel hunter" walking down a suburban road with a .22 rifle. When the officers arrived, one of whom knew the man from previous encounters, he leveled the rifle and shot the officer in the head. The other officer arrested him. I cannot believe his restraint with regard to becoming executioner. One incredible professional. The killer was found to be incompetent to stand trial. The arresting officer never got over the incident and eventually was released from the force. Some years later he killed himself, with his service weapon, in a bedroom of his mother's house. It's ironic that two officers are dead while the perp enjoys taxpayer-funded room, board, and medical care for the rest of his life. Obviously, the killer was not mentally fit to be in possession of a weapon at all. That's why police respond to "Person With A Gun" calls. Nobody has any way of knowing, under Kentucky's open carry right, whether that person is allowed to possess any weapon. It is up to the person to know whether they are legal or not, and a mentally defective person is probably not in the best position to determine that. I absolutely hate gun control laws, but I try to keep an open mind for the sake of debate. I understand why LEOs may dislike OC...most of us don't have to respond to those calls. I think our best approach is education...know our rights and explain them in a rational, calm, controlled way when confronted. Then again, some people just can't be educated. Does anyone else see the quandary here? Police officers have long memories. We shouldn't hate them for that. Take care... |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member
|
dtabb wrote: snip........ Fact - cars kill more people than guns do; so should LE stop every person seen in possession of one? Perhaps we need to judge people by their actions. LEOs are often in tough situations - I do not envy them but I do respect them with very few exceptions. Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
dtabb Regular Member
|
Grapeshot wrote:
Please don't preach to the choir, especially with well-worn euphamisms. I thought you were the most intelligent poster throughout these threads...please don't tarnish that image. The point I'm trying to make is that police are in a quandary. The must respond to dispatches, in essence orders, and they never know what they're going to roll up on. The politicos who are the executive heads of all LEOs need to make the decision that "Person With A Gun" calls will not be addressed unless the person with the gun is wielding it in a threatening or irrational manner. Will that decision be made? Who are we kidding? These guys are always running for the next election. We as proponents of Open Carry need to know and understand that we are always going to be questioned, and educate ourselves accordingly. I'm afraid that in this case Mr. Smith did not handle himself well, and is not a good example of the people we really are. I just heard on the radio another LMPD officer has been shot... Later. |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member
|
dtabb wrote: Grapeshot wrote: Perhaps I am guilty of judging your exposure to our thinking by the number of your postings. My bad.  Carry on. Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
dtabb Regular Member
|
I just want to update my last post for those outside of Louisville who may be concerned about our officer who was shot this morning. As of now, the reports are of "non-life-threatening" injuries. I hope this is true. Please forgive this off-topic post. Updates can be viewed at the Courier-Journal web site: http://www.courier-journal.com I'll get back to Mr. Smith soon. |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member
|
Grapeshot wrote: dtabb wrote:snip........ If the police get a 911 call that someone had driven by my house several times and I think they are up to something should the police be able to stop that car and ask the driver for identification? The driver has not done anything other than drive around the block a dozen times and looked the house over carefully which are both totally legal. I do not know the answer about can they stop and aks for ID but I think it compares to the MWAG call. |
|||||||||
|
dtabb Regular Member
|
Grapeshot wrote:Perhaps I am guilty of judging your exposure to our thinking by the number of your postings. My bad. Thanks. I never judge anybody's knowledge by their number of posts. In astronomy we have a thousand amateurs for every pro. They cannot be underestimated. Just a few years ago an amateur in western Kentucky discovered a nebula never seen before, but apparently was always there. Every year amateurs discover asteroids and comets not seen by their professional counterparts who are dedicated and paid for seeking out these objects. The only photo of 2007's Earth-near-miss asteroid was taken by an amateur. The point is newcomers on the scene often have relative points and observations. Astronomy is probably the largest worldwide discipline where amateurs are treated as pros. Virtually everything they post is investigated. I'd like to see that mindset spill over into politics, where elected representatives understand that public opinion and knowledge are valuable assets. We should, as a group, work toward that end. Open Carry is not a law in Kentucky...it is a right granted by the commonwealth's constitution. I wish Mr. Smith had expressed that right in a more convincing manner without the theatrics, but I will still support him. Schedule willing, I will attend his June trial. Take care. |
|||||||||
|
TheMrMitch Regular Member
|
I also support Mr Smith and will help him as I can. To get off topic for a moment: I have a Celestron Ultima 8 that I sometimes piggyback my Nikon. I personally think Mr Smith will prevail. |
|||||||||
|
dtabb Regular Member
|
Mr. Mitch, You are one lucky person. That is my favorite telescope...an 8" catadioptric in a meadow late at night is the perfect blend of affordability, portability, and light-gathering bliss one could experience. Unfortunately, most of my data is gathered remotely from Australia and New Mexico and is shipped to me via the web for assembly and analysis. I long for the old days, which are still here, thankfully, via the Louisville Astronomical Society and its Curby, Indiana observatory. It can't be beat for $30 a year membership. We should think about this relative to Mr. Smith's travails. Everything we know is through the Web, which is not a bad thing per-se. But I intend to get hands-on when I can. I'll report back. Take care. |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member
|
PT111 wrote: Grapeshot wrote:dtabb wrote:snip........ Absolutely no comparison. With what might be RAS of casing for a break-in (more so at 3:00 AM) is in no way comparable to OCing peacefully while eating dinner, shopping at Wal-Mart or walking your dog. If the vehicle only drove by once or twice in a one hour period, I would concur. Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
dtabb Regular Member
|
Grapeshot wrote:
I believe the main points in contention to be "Why should law enforcement respond to legal activity?" vs. "Why not go after someone acting suspiciously?" I believe law enforcement will respond regardless. Why do I say that? Because the nature of political leaders is to respond to every request for LE assistance, whether the activity is legal or not, and our rights are constantly trampled. Unfortunately, that includes open carry. My continuous "call to arms" in this forum is to "deal with it" responsibly. While we are doing that, our focus needs to be political. We know what that means. In the meantime, we need to support people who may not have the faculties (for whatever reason) to engage successfully in an initial confrontation or effectively support their defense later in court. They may, in fact, fall outside of our own ideals for OC citizens. I don't know if Mr. Smith falls under the above, but every one of these cases we lose is a step toward limiting our rights. Let's support Mr. Smith. From what I know, he is not a criminal and had no criminal intent. Take care... |
|||||||||
|
dtabb Regular Member
|
TheMrMitch wrote:He called the police and made a comment (in frustration) about what does one have to do to get help "Fire A Gun In The Air"?.....or something similar. That is the TT charge. Mr. Mitch, I realize I'm a month behind the times, although I've read every post on this case in two threads, but I truly do not understand this. I've been quizzing my lawyer cousin, and he says: Rhetorical questions, such as "Should I fire a gun in the air?" are not threats. Conditional statements, such as "If you do this, then I'll do that." are not threats. What are we missing here? It has to be something we don't know... |
|||||||||
|
TheMrMitch Regular Member
|
I've gleaned as much info as I can and simply think it was a series of small errors on Mr Smith's part as well as an attitude of a certain officer at the scene. It has been inferred I'm being suckered in by his lawyer to boot. From my conversations with Mr Smith I have gotten the impression he his basically a decent person I wouldn't mind knowing, though he lacks an ability to BLOG his thoughts to a certain degree as are a lot of us. Of course, it's been inferred he has suckered me there also. I don't believe so or I wouldn't back him. Only time will tell. |
|||||||||
|
gutshot Regular Member
|
TheMrMitch wrote: I've gleaned as much info as I can and simply think it was a series of small errors on Mr Smith's part as well as an attitude of a certain officer at the scene. It has been inferred I'm being suckered in by his lawyer to boot. TheMrMitch, Is Mr. Smith's trial still on for Monday? |
|||||||||
|
TheMrMitch Regular Member
|
Sorry to say, I'm not sure. |
|||||||||
|
dtabb Regular Member
|
Yes. It's in courtroom 304 sometime Monday (after 12:00 AM). It's a jury trial for concealed carry and terroristic threatening. http://apps.kycourts.net/dockets/DocketResults.aspx?pageIndex=1&CountyCourt=0561&Division=DI&EventDate=6/15/2009&courtRoom=304 |
|||||||||
|
gutshot Regular Member
|
TheMrMitch wrote: Sorry to say, I'm not sure. Does that mean you haven't heard anything lately or you've lost interest in assisting him? I'd like to attend, but don't want to make the effort only to find out there will be no show. If you have lost interest would you mind telling us why? I'm not trying to belittle you. You seemed to have had more (intelligent) information than anyone else and I'm interested, for myself. Often these things create quite a stir at first then, after time passes, are forgotten. The powers that be know this and stall to avoid the spot light and have more time to intimidate the defendant. The clock keeps running on attorney bills, lots of pressure to settle. |
|||||||||
|
gutshot Regular Member
|
dtabb wrote: Yes. Thanks, I'll be there. |
|||||||||
|
TheMrMitch Regular Member
|
OK. I was hoping all would be well.....but it "ain't". I received an e mail (I still have it) that convinces me that Mr Smith has crossed the line and I no longer wish to assist him. The mail was from him. Possibly a small loss of temper (not at me), but he needs to verify that. Basically, he does not plan on being there on his court date and has contempt for the entire system. I do wish him the best. I thought he had a good chance, but now will wait and see. I am against some things the police and or citizens do, but do not revert to threats. If it comes to it, I will print the mail. No I have not lost interest and I understand what you say. There is a time to stand back, and I have arrived there in this instance. Thanks all. Last edited on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 11:41 pm by TheMrMitch |
|||||||||
|
gutshot Regular Member
|
TheMrMitch wrote: OK. I was hoping all would be well.....but it "ain't". I understand your frustration. I guess we all knew that Mr. Smith was not the stable foundation we all had hoped to build our gun rights on. He was (and is) a man entangled in a system he doesn't fully comprehend and he is ilequiped to fight off a over reactive police presence. |
|||||||||
|
Thos.Jefferson Regular Member
|
Does anyone know the outcome of this fiasco? |
|||||||||
|
TheMrMitch Regular Member
|
Thos.Jefferson wrote: Does anyone know the outcome of this fiasco? This is what I (MrMitch) received about the subject : Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:34:31 -0400 (From Counsel) .ExternalClass .EC_shape {;} .ExternalClass p.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass div.EC_MsoNormal {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';} .ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass a:visited, .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';} .ExternalClass span.EC_EmailStyle18 {font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D;} .ExternalClass .EC_MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in;} .ExternalClass div.EC_Section1 {page:Section1;} Wayne, I appeared in Court on your behalf today as we have been discussing. We had a new judge in the court room, just FYI. It was Judge Don Armstrong. I presented your material to him and, as I told you, I moved to withdraw as your counsel. The prosecutor asked for a bench warrant, but did it in a way that was (I believe) intended to indicate that he didn’t care if the judge ordered you arrested or merely summoned to court. The Court denied the motion for a bench warrant and ordered that you be summoned to appear in the courtroom for trial on July 27, 2009. The Court granted my motion to withdraw as your counsel. REMEMBER, you have court scheduled for July 27 at 9:00 a.m. |
|||||||||
|
Thos.Jefferson Regular Member
|
Wonder why the lawyer quit him? Thanx for the update. |
|||||||||
|
KBCraig Regular Member
|
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
|
PT111 wrote: Grapeshot wrote:dtabb wrote:snip........ 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
|
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 Founder's Club Member
|
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. You may be right. Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
superdemon Regular Member
|
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
|
superdemon wrote: Additionally, here is another consideration for those of you that supported B4M. 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
|
Statesman wrote: superdemon wrote:Additionally, here is another consideration for those of you that supported B4M. 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
|
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
|
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. 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
|
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
|
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
|
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 
|
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: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 Founder's Club Member
|
In defense of no one - assume this and assume that - makes Johny a very dull boy. Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
Liberty4Ever Regular Member 
|
superdemon wrote:508.080 Terroristic threatening in the third degree. 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
|
Liberty4Ever wrote: superdemon wrote:508.080 Terroristic threatening in the third degree. 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
|
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
|
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
|
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: 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. 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 |
|||||||||
|
mellio Regular Member 
|
KY_CCDW wrote: 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. +1 Sad but true. |
|||||||||
|
Statesman Regular Member
|
I'll make this very simple, since you want to fall back on tired, empty statements about tyranny and LEO overreaction. Our system of government has checks and balances intentionally put in place to prevent it, by people who suffered at the hands of a tyrant. Therefore, my statements regarding tyranny isn't tired or empty. If you present this TT charge to any reasonable person of average intelligence, I believe they would say it does not apply, and that the LEO overreacted. You tell me this; In this particular case, one. I would have let B4M go with a warning about allowing his shirt to cover his firearm, unless existing case law proved it was not illegal. Generally speaking, the answer isn't numeric, it's about judging the facts of the situation at hand, and noone can do that more effectively than the LEO on the scene. We're only playing armchair quarterbacks here, because it's what we do. A reasonable LEO, not bent on jailing everyone, and not bent on letting every criminal go, will be able to excercise the best judgement possible here. |
|||||||||
|
Statesman Regular Member
|
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. And ostensibly, you cannot accept that an error in judgement was made by an LEO. Frankly, I'd rather have an objective argument based on the facts that we know of, rather than taking sides. Read this very carefully... What rule, regulation, or law prevents this assumption from being made, based on the comment he made? This relates back to The Death of Common Sense book I was talking about. No thinking is required here. Just comply; react, and arrest on a charge that probably won't stick. Let the judge sort em out, let the taxpayers pay, and let the defendant accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills. B4M was being stupid, so who cares? -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?" You make a good point here. You guys get the short end of the stick either way IF something goes wrong. It comes with the territory. However, if people see something is awry, we still have freedom of speech. Now, back to playing armchair quarterback. Assuming we have the correct quote, and using the literal interpretation of his words, those people would be wrong, because he didn't make a threat. His comment is a well known figure of speech. 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. It's good to know that LEO do not have to err on the side of individual freedom. 2. Someone saying they are going to "fire a shot into the air" or whatever, is going to do it vertically. 1) He didn't say he was going to fire a shot in the air. 2) If he did say he was going to fire a shot into the air, what historical evidence do you have of this alleged phenomenon? The act of firing into the air shows an intent of not causing harm, which is logically inconsistent with firing horizontally to cause harm. Now that I think about it, the two are mutually exclusive. - If I point my pistol straight out from my chest, at chest level, and fire, I have fired "into the air". As a technicality, your point is understood. The figure of speech, however, implies vertical firing. This is common knowledge. It sucks for LEO that they cannot utilize common knowledge. Lawyers have ruined our country. 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. I have not seen any hatred towards LEO in this thread, however I have seen some borderline insults on intelligence from you towards us citizens. Distrust is appropriate when warranted, and prejudice is as much of a reality for citizens as it is for LEO towards each other. Trust is earned on an individual basis, not by group. Police abuse has been well documented, as has their ability to defend and protect the public with valor. We are not sheep. We have to question everything in the realm of authority, until we get a satisfactory answer. That is, unless we want to live under authoritarian rule. I think most of us have established that we don't support not showing up for court, and that warrants my agreement with you on the lack of support for B4M. I for one, am glad you stepped in and warned us not to use B4M to further the OC cause. You were right. I also thank you for caring enough for our cause to contribute as much as you have to this thread, as well as others, regardless of our disagreements. I have learned quite a bit myself. Last edited on Sun Jul 5th, 2009 11:19 pm by Statesman |
|||||||||