• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Female OC advocate needs our help to fight bogus charges!

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
KYGlockster said:
I agree with you completely about the holsters, but how could wearing a t-shirt hurt your case? It has nothing to do with the law or the evidence presented.
The prosecutor could draw the jury's attention to a group in the gallery, dressed alike, & instead of the trial being about me being falsely accused it would become about how they feel about guns in general & the OC movement in particular, making me out to be a radical who wants to promote a cause & "push the boundaries".
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I was sitting alone, at night, in what the cops called a high-crime neighborhood, with a computer on my lap. I'd be silly not to want to be able to protect myself!
I live in a not-so-great area. I've seen violent crime on my street. (In fact, I was threatened by a gang of feral urban ethnic teens yesterday afternoon just 2 houses away from home.)

My lawyer says that people generally don't show up to court in support of the cops, who will be the only ones testifying for the defense, so it's reasonable for the jury to assume that people are there to support me (minus a few gawkers).
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
I agree with you completely about the holsters, but how could wearing a t-shirt hurt your case? It has nothing to do with the law or the evidence presented. I can certainly understand your worrying about the situation though, and I hope everything goes well for you and that everyone that shows to support you does as you wish.

Either way you will have plenty of folks praying and hoping for you I am sure. I have never commented on any of this before, but I have watched the threads closely regarding the issue you find yourself in, and I will be thinking about you on Monday! Good luck to you, and may the jury come to a verdict based on the facts and the law and nothing more!

I do believe many states have statutes prohibiting JURY TAMPERING. While it may be a stretch to make such a charge stick in this situation(simply the wearing of empty holsters, 1st amendment pro firearms shirts, and stickers or buttons)... do we really want a mistrial to be declared and have additional costs added to the defendant in this case that should not have ever been prosecuted anyway not to mention further delay for justice!
 
Last edited:

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
I do believe many states have statutes prohibiting JURY TAMPERING. While it may be a stretch to make such a charge stick in this situation(simply the wearing of empty holsters, 1st amendment pro firearms shirts, and stickers or buttons)... do we really want a mistrial to be declared and have additional costs added to the defendant in this case that should not have ever been prosecuted anyway not to mention further delay for justice!

It's not the tampering with, or intimidation of, a jury that you have to be worried about.

It's that a prosecutor, especialy one who's fighting a losing battle, can play the "gun nut" card and support that idea by pointing at those gathered in the gallery in support of the defendant.

There was a recent trial in Waverly, Ohio that was a complete sham in which the prosecutor MORE than proved that he was willing to stoop quite low to win his case.

Attend the trial in business casual, without any outward pro-2A apparel.

I have the time, but not the funds, to attend.

Here's wishing you the best!
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
It's not the tampering with, or intimidation of, a jury that you have to be worried about.

It's that a prosecutor, especialy one who's fighting a losing battle, can play the "gun nut" card and support that idea by pointing at those gathered in the gallery in support of the defendant.

There was a recent trial in Waverly, Ohio that was a complete sham in which the prosecutor MORE than proved that he was willing to stoop quite low to win his case.

Attend the trial in business casual, without any outward pro-2A apparel.

I have the time, but not the funds, to attend.

Here's wishing you the best!

IF I could attend, I'd love to participate in a POST decision removal of a cover garment to expose an APPROPRIATE to me t-shirt expressing in lawful 1st amendment rights manner my feelings about lawful carry of self-defense tools!

For the record, I have NOT suggested that anyone do this.... simply thinking outloud in a "what if" manner!
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I am so proud!

We have some of the best pro rights people in the country right here on this forum!

Think about how many are willing to stick their necks out on the line without the help of the big guys (large pro gun organizations) and succeed.

Yay!!!!!!!
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
I do believe many states have statutes prohibiting JURY TAMPERING. While it may be a stretch to make such a charge stick in this situation(simply the wearing of empty holsters, 1st amendment pro firearms shirts, and stickers or buttons)... do we really want a mistrial to be declared and have additional costs added to the defendant in this case that should not have ever been prosecuted anyway not to mention further delay for justice!

I believe my statement has already answered your question.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
It's not the tampering with, or intimidation of, a jury that you have to be worried about.

It's that a prosecutor, especialy one who's fighting a losing battle, can play the "gun nut" card and support that idea by pointing at those gathered in the gallery in support of the defendant.

QUOTE]

And a good Defense attorney would say, "These are simply bystanders who must be following the case, and are in no way related to Ms.____." Or he would just object the remark on grounds of speculation.

Anyways, congratulation MKEgal! I hope you get what you deserve in Federal court, or should I say I hope they get what they deserve! Well done!
 
Last edited:

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
MKEgal is being poorly discussed on Gundigest.com

I would like to point out that this situation is being discussed over on gundigest.com; it is on the main page and titled "CCW profiling." The officer who has written the article says that MKEgal's situation could have been avoided if she just would have shown some courtesy. I guess the writers at Gun Digest believe giving up our rights and freedom is what we should all do. How about this: this could have been avoided if they would have let her be when she told them to call the owner and confirm her right to be there, or I know, this whole thing could have been avoided if THE INSANE OFFICERS DIDN'T ARREST HER FOR CONCEALING A FIREARM WHEN SHE WASN'T CONCEALING A FIREARM!!!!

Take a look at the comments as well. One poster by the name of "observer" believes it best to temporarily confiscate legally possessed weapons for HIS SAFETY! I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but our rights trump his safety. Until an officer can deem someone a threat, they have no right to violate our freedoms (at least they don't here in KY). I am entering the field of law enforcement because I want to help people. Will I disarm people because I am afraid of the job? No! If I can't allow people to exercise their rights because I am too afraid, then it would probably be best to find a different career. The poster says once you look down the barrel of a gun it makes an officer realize they need to disarm anyone with a weapon. Well, I have looked down the barrel of a gun, and I am not afraid of a gun now anymore than I was before this incident. This just shows the mentality of most of our "peace officers" today. Please go to the article and take up for her actions, and for what is right.
 
Last edited:

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
I would like to point out that this situation is being discussed over on gundigest.com; it is on the main page and titled "CCW profiling." The officer who has written the article says that MKEgal's situation could have been avoided if she just would have shown some courtesy. I guess the writers at Gun Digest believe giving up our rights and freedom is what we should all do. How about this: this could have been avoided if they would have let her be when she told them to call the owner and confirm her right to be there, or I know, this whole thing could have been avoided if THE INSANE OFFICERS DIDN'T ARREST HER FOR CONCEALING A FIREARM WHEN SHE WASN'T CONCEALING A FIREARM!!!!

Take a look at the comments as well. One poster by the name of "observer" believes it best to temporarily confiscate legally possessed weapons for HIS SAFETY! I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but our rights trump his safety. Until an officer can deem someone a threat, they have no right to violate our freedoms (at least they don't here in KY). I am entering the field of law enforcement because I want to help people. Will I disarm people because I am afraid of the job? No! If I can't allow people to exercise their rights because I am too afraid, then it would probably be best to find a different career. The poster says once you look down the barrel of a gun it makes an officer realize they need to disarm anyone with a weapon. Well, I have looked down the barrel of a gun, and I am not afraid of a gun now anymore than I was before this incident. This just shows the mentality of most of our "peace officers" today. Please go to the article and take up for her actions, and for what is right.

This article is just what I expect from a cop.



Kevin D. Michalowski COP and article author said:
"Officer Benitez and another officer approached the driver of the car who was sitting there, computer open, looking at the internet, because they said the scene looked suspicious. I’m a cop. I know about Terry Stops. This likely qualifies.

This is what the court said:
In Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Warren wrote
And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. (392 U.S. at 21)

You think "looked suspicious" = specific and articulable facts which point to a crime? HA!

Kevin D. Michalowski COP and article author said:
The cops say they want to see some ID....Now, in some cases, it is your right to refuse to talk to the police......But if something is out of the ordinary, then things change.

Something feels out of the ordinary = RAS? Christ.

Kevin D. Michalowski COP and article author said:
But it all could have been avoided with some common courtesy........ In the end, the citizen won the court case. But did she win the larger battle? She still got arrested that night. She could have avoided that

I like this implication that the lack of courtesy lead to the charges, NOT any actual crimes she was charged with.

It's probably correct. If you are not doing anything illegal, AND you properly prostrate your self for the cops, you can probably avoid arrest. But it apparently has to be both.
 
Top