tracylaud83
Regular Member
imported post
How can this site be Anti-LEO, when you have LEO on here.
FLEO at that...
How can this site be Anti-LEO, when you have LEO on here.
FLEO at that...
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Dickson City, PA police conduct Katrina style gun confiscation!
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
SicSemperTyrannis
Regular Member
imported post
So.... what happened last night?
So.... what happened last night?
Lthrnck
Regular Member
imported post
Spurrit,
Why would personally attack BB62 like that. All he stated was he didn't feel the title was approiate and was a little over the top. Several of us agreed and several folks on the PA site also tought the same.
Are we all now wife beaters... ? geesh what a childish response.
Spurrit,
Why would personally attack BB62 like that. All he stated was he didn't feel the title was approiate and was a little over the top. Several of us agreed and several folks on the PA site also tought the same.
Are we all now wife beaters... ? geesh what a childish response.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Renegade wrote:
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
Renegade wrote:
Woo hoo! Haldane! Thank you for his mention. I hope that you have read him.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,777
imported post
spurrit wrote:
Right or wrong can always be eclipsed by bad presentation.
spurrit wrote:
There is no need to attack BB62 for doing exactly what we always ask people to do ... "Live every moment as if you were a public relations director for the 2nd Amendment".
Right or wrong can always be eclipsed by bad presentation.
Liko81
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Al Swartzlander wrote:
Al Swartzlander wrote:
Quite frankly, the reason you can say that here is because you have never had to say it to a cop. It's a great sentiment, but do you have thestones to back it up? That's rhetorical, by the way; the last thing I want from this is a reply to the effect of "bring it on, baconators".
imported post
The use of Nazi references ismerely pointing out that they were using EXACTLY the tactics used by the ACTUAL Nazi's.
This isn't Seinfeld, where people gripe about the "Soup Nazi", or an everyday event, where pushy, self important people refer to the people in charge adhere to set rules.
If I sounded rough, I meant it that way. This country is being ruined by apologists who insist on ignoring the victim and hugging the aggressor. LEt the blame fall where it will. Right is right, and some people need to look closer.
The use of Nazi references ismerely pointing out that they were using EXACTLY the tactics used by the ACTUAL Nazi's.
This isn't Seinfeld, where people gripe about the "Soup Nazi", or an everyday event, where pushy, self important people refer to the people in charge adhere to set rules.
If I sounded rough, I meant it that way. This country is being ruined by apologists who insist on ignoring the victim and hugging the aggressor. LEt the blame fall where it will. Right is right, and some people need to look closer.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
I understand some people are thinking "Nazi" is over the top. The word has tremendous emotion associated with it. But, the metaphor is an apt one. I am far from anti-cop, family and many friends have worn the badge. And the vast majority of police officers are decent, honorable and often very brave individuals. That makes the incompetent, ego-maniacal, or corrupt stand out as what they are: thugs. And thug is a good synonym for Nazi. Further to that, they cannot be allowed to operate with impunity. There are plenty of lawyers who agree and will go after them for 1983 violations. State tort laws often have first dibs, so you need to have a lawyer who knows both state and federal civil rights violation law. Then, you make them pay. Damages real and punitive can add up to 100s K, and juries can easily put themselves in your shoes, so begin edged to your side. A good lawyer can get them to feel the outrage they should. If you don't like Nazis, call them what they are: thugs. But either word is apt, imo.
I understand some people are thinking "Nazi" is over the top. The word has tremendous emotion associated with it. But, the metaphor is an apt one. I am far from anti-cop, family and many friends have worn the badge. And the vast majority of police officers are decent, honorable and often very brave individuals. That makes the incompetent, ego-maniacal, or corrupt stand out as what they are: thugs. And thug is a good synonym for Nazi. Further to that, they cannot be allowed to operate with impunity. There are plenty of lawyers who agree and will go after them for 1983 violations. State tort laws often have first dibs, so you need to have a lawyer who knows both state and federal civil rights violation law. Then, you make them pay. Damages real and punitive can add up to 100s K, and juries can easily put themselves in your shoes, so begin edged to your side. A good lawyer can get them to feel the outrage they should. If you don't like Nazis, call them what they are: thugs. But either word is apt, imo.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
You mention lawyers - I posted over on the PA forum and got no answer, yet...
Because of my experience (stopped at gunpoint by 3 officers while walking down the street OCing), andthe answers I received from various attorneys,I think it is unlikely that anyone other than PA Patriot (if he is able to) could get "compensation" for what happened, because there is no pattern of illegal behavior (at least not yet) on the police's part.
Does anyone want to agree, or enlighten me otherwise?
Gunslinger wrote:
You mention lawyers - I posted over on the PA forum and got no answer, yet...
Because of my experience (stopped at gunpoint by 3 officers while walking down the street OCing), andthe answers I received from various attorneys,I think it is unlikely that anyone other than PA Patriot (if he is able to) could get "compensation" for what happened, because there is no pattern of illegal behavior (at least not yet) on the police's part.
Does anyone want to agree, or enlighten me otherwise?
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
BB62 wrote:
A pattern of ignorance, refusal to properly train, ignoring a duty to have full knowledge, etc can also be established. The cops have the duty to know the rights of individuals to be respected. This is an example of "ignorance of the law is no excuse." And the constitution is the highest law--that also applies to state constitutional rights safeguards. That applies fully to moron cops. As I said, the Feds have shown they want tort actions: false arrest, illegal search and seizure, assault and battery, to be looked at first, but violation of three amendments to the constitution is a weighty case in Federal Court. And, you can take action in both courts, one after the other. It is more defensable for the cops who threw down on you than the cops in this situation, btw. They can claim reasonable apprehension. The cops here can claim nothing--particularly after the so called complaint was cancelled while they were enroute. There are probably few $$ to get in real damages, but exemplary damages in rights violation cases can be huge. Mental anguish is the most common, but damage to a reputation, public humiliation, etc can get lots of $$ in punitive damages. And the satisfaction of putting a pos thug wearing a badge down in the mud where she belongs__priceless.
BB62 wrote:
That is irrelevant in a tort action. It can be a factor in a 1983 Fed action, but not absolutely necessary. Also, the definition of 'pattern' is nebulous. Condoning by the chief of police a single act of violation of one's constitution rights can be enough.
A pattern of ignorance, refusal to properly train, ignoring a duty to have full knowledge, etc can also be established. The cops have the duty to know the rights of individuals to be respected. This is an example of "ignorance of the law is no excuse." And the constitution is the highest law--that also applies to state constitutional rights safeguards. That applies fully to moron cops. As I said, the Feds have shown they want tort actions: false arrest, illegal search and seizure, assault and battery, to be looked at first, but violation of three amendments to the constitution is a weighty case in Federal Court. And, you can take action in both courts, one after the other. It is more defensable for the cops who threw down on you than the cops in this situation, btw. They can claim reasonable apprehension. The cops here can claim nothing--particularly after the so called complaint was cancelled while they were enroute. There are probably few $$ to get in real damages, but exemplary damages in rights violation cases can be huge. Mental anguish is the most common, but damage to a reputation, public humiliation, etc can get lots of $$ in punitive damages. And the satisfaction of putting a pos thug wearing a badge down in the mud where she belongs__priceless.
Statkowski
Regular Member
imported post
Pennsylvania has two (2) State Supreme Court rulings that clearly state that open carry is legal and, in and of itself, does not warrant police intervention.
In Pennsylvania one can file a personal criminal complaint against the officer for abuse of office if stopped for merely open carrying. The complaint itself may not accomplish anything in the end, but it will draw attention.
BB62, it says you're in Cincinnati, Ohio. Were your open carrying experiencesin the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or in the State of Ohio?
Pennsylvania has two (2) State Supreme Court rulings that clearly state that open carry is legal and, in and of itself, does not warrant police intervention.
In Pennsylvania one can file a personal criminal complaint against the officer for abuse of office if stopped for merely open carrying. The complaint itself may not accomplish anything in the end, but it will draw attention.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,777
imported post
spurrit wrote:
Rich (who can prove actual harm and therefore has standing) DOES have a case if he chooses to pursue it.
HOWEVER, a member of the general public does not have standing unless there is a pervasive pattern of abuse.
Our judicial system is complex but can certainly be used to achieve the desired result with proper counsel.
spurrit wrote:
I think you missed the point he was trying to make.
Rich (who can prove actual harm and therefore has standing) DOES have a case if he chooses to pursue it.
HOWEVER, a member of the general public does not have standing unless there is a pervasive pattern of abuse.
Our judicial system is complex but can certainly be used to achieve the desired result with proper counsel.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
Thanks for your answer!
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,777
imported post
spurrit wrote:
spurrit wrote:
Absolutely it would be wrong. And you (as the party mistreated) would have standing to file suit. No pattern needed. It would be up to the jury to determine if the officer had reasonable apprehension in the given circumstance.IF I get a gun in the face, and don't in ANY way fit the description, that IS WRONG. :bangheadattern, my butt. :cuss:
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
Statkowski wrote:
You get extra points for spelling Cincinnati correctly! LOL
This was in the city limits of Cincinnati, Ohio, about 3-4 months after the Ohio Supreme Court released their ruling in the Klein v Leis case. The OSC's support of open carry was lukewarm, and only in the minority opinion.
The stophad a lot of troubling elements, but the one that I think of most today was the officer's threat that (essentially) "I could cite you for Inducing Panic or Disorderly Conduct, if I had a complainant". That's one issue that troubles a lot of potential OCers in Ohio - and though the black letter law is clear, courts don't follow black letter law. :shock:
I would LOVE to challenge that reality (possible arrest/conviction for DC or IP), but support for doing so here seems to be lukewarm.
Statkowski wrote:
You get extra points for spelling Cincinnati correctly! LOL
This was in the city limits of Cincinnati, Ohio, about 3-4 months after the Ohio Supreme Court released their ruling in the Klein v Leis case. The OSC's support of open carry was lukewarm, and only in the minority opinion.
The stophad a lot of troubling elements, but the one that I think of most today was the officer's threat that (essentially) "I could cite you for Inducing Panic or Disorderly Conduct, if I had a complainant". That's one issue that troubles a lot of potential OCers in Ohio - and though the black letter law is clear, courts don't follow black letter law. :shock:
I would LOVE to challenge that reality (possible arrest/conviction for DC or IP), but support for doing so here seems to be lukewarm.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
jpierce wrote:
Stare decisis — "to stand by things decided"— (Latin: [ˈstaːre deːˈkiːsiːs], Anglicisation: [ˈsteɹɪ diˈsaɪsɪs]) is a Latin legal term, used in common law systems expressing the notion that, according to case law, prior court decisions must be recognized as precedent. The full legal term is "stare decisis et non quieta movere" meaning "stand by decisions and do not move that which is still" (NOTE: famously, "quieta non movere" is a maxim akin to "let sleeping dogs lie").
The SCOUS has repeatedly upheld case law "forgiving" the cops committing aggravated assault (pointing a deadly weapon) when any reasonable possibility of their fearing for their lives or suffering grievous bodily injury plays. Therefor, while he would have standing, he would likely not prevail. Not knowing all the facts in the case, the case would be decided upon this simple, established precedent. That is a trying of fact. The law is well established. This would be one where I would demand a jury trial.
jpierce wrote:
spurrit wrote:Absolutely it would be wrong. And you (as the party mistreated) would have standing to file suit. No pattern needed. It would be up to the jury to determine if the officer had reasonable apprehension in the given circumstance.IF I get a gun in the face, and don't in ANY way fit the description, that IS WRONG. :banghead
Stare decisis — "to stand by things decided"— (Latin: [ˈstaːre deːˈkiːsiːs], Anglicisation: [ˈsteɹɪ diˈsaɪsɪs]) is a Latin legal term, used in common law systems expressing the notion that, according to case law, prior court decisions must be recognized as precedent. The full legal term is "stare decisis et non quieta movere" meaning "stand by decisions and do not move that which is still" (NOTE: famously, "quieta non movere" is a maxim akin to "let sleeping dogs lie").
The SCOUS has repeatedly upheld case law "forgiving" the cops committing aggravated assault (pointing a deadly weapon) when any reasonable possibility of their fearing for their lives or suffering grievous bodily injury plays. Therefor, while he would have standing, he would likely not prevail. Not knowing all the facts in the case, the case would be decided upon this simple, established precedent. That is a trying of fact. The law is well established. This would be one where I would demand a jury trial.
Statkowski
Regular Member
imported post
Again, don't know if you have the ability to file a Private Criminal Complaint in the Queen City, but we do here, and we all should be familiar with the Abuse of Authority statute.
There are over 570,000 Pennsylvanians licensed to carry concealed firearms. That's one out of every 23 Pennsylvanians. A few states may have a better ratio, but we surehave the top license count!
What you say may well hold true for the Buckeye State (used to listen to WKRP a lot), but Commonwealth v. Hawkins and Ortiz v. Commonwealth pretty well put those puppies to bed here.
Again, don't know if you have the ability to file a Private Criminal Complaint in the Queen City, but we do here, and we all should be familiar with the Abuse of Authority statute.
There are over 570,000 Pennsylvanians licensed to carry concealed firearms. That's one out of every 23 Pennsylvanians. A few states may have a better ratio, but we surehave the top license count!
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Statkowski wrote:
http://www.legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm
Of states that make such data available, PA does indeed have the numbers. I like the fact that MO doesn't publish personal info, but I wish they would publish numbers of permits issued by county and overall. I suspect that I may live in the most heavily armed area of the state.
Statkowski wrote:
Found a page with info listed on CCW licenses for each state:
http://www.legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm
Of states that make such data available, PA does indeed have the numbers. I like the fact that MO doesn't publish personal info, but I wish they would publish numbers of permits issued by county and overall. I suspect that I may live in the most heavily armed area of the state.