Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 127

Thread: Female OC advocate needs our help to fight bogus charges!

  1. #101
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    15,345
    Kick Butt!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  2. #102
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Galloway and/or Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,006
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    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!
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does a caring, sensitive person feel when they are forced to use a handgun to stop a threat?

    Recoil.

  3. #103
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,142
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWifeSaidYes View Post
    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!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  4. #104
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    524
    Any updates?
    Hoka hey

  5. #105
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by FallonJeeper View Post
    Any updates?
    I'm guessing mkegal's attorney has asked her not to post details at this point in time.

    Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

  6. #106
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,006

    well,,,

    Go to the wisconsin forum.
    Go the thread,,, It has begun.
    some info for you there...
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  7. #107
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    524
    Update - Not Guilty!!

    Congrats to MKEgal!!
    Hoka hey

  8. #108
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by FallonJeeper View Post
    Update - Not Guilty!!

    Congrats to MKEgal!!
    Yes! May she mop the floor with their criminal A$$ES in Federal court.

    Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

  9. #109
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    15,345
    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!!!!!!!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #110
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,978
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    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.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  11. #111
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,978
    [QUOTE=MyWifeSaidYes;1792221]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 by KYGlockster; 07-25-2012 at 12:32 AM.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  12. #112
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    15,345
    Let's not forget it isn't just the cops who tried to trample our sisters freedom. The prosecutor could have dropped these charges long ago...
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #113
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,978

    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 by KYGlockster; 08-01-2012 at 10:20 AM.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  14. #114
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    8,447
    More densely populated areas tend to have LEOs with a 'disarm for safety' mentality more so than less densely populated areas.
    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

    Politicians are the tyrants 3000 miles away; thug cops are 3000 tyrants 1 mile away. (Adapted from Benjamin Martin, fictional character extraordinaire)

  15. #115
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    1,578
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin D. Michalowski COP and article author
    "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!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin D. Michalowski COP and article author
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin D. Michalowski COP and article author
    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.
    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. -Ayn Rand

  16. #116
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    Just having the case dismissed is a good thing; when she finds them civilly or criminally liable for their conduct, that will be another victory.

  17. #117
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    15,345
    ......must be just a 'few bad apples'....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #118
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,396
    .

  19. #119
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,396
    Quote Originally Posted by prose
    This is a clear case of the federal crime "felony deprivation of rights under color of law". That is when a leo uses his gun and badge to deprive a citizen of any of her constitutional rights.
    You're probably referring to 42USC1983, titled Civil action for deprivation of rights
    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...
    There's also 42USC1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights which is applicable to anyone but is still only a civil action.
    (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
    If two or more persons in any State ... conspire ... for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person ... of equal privileges and immunities under the laws
    ...
    in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is ... deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
    18USC241 Conspiracy against rights, however, is a felony & is applicable to anyone.
    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same
    ...
    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
    and ... if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap... they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
    I really wish we could get that one used / prosecuted more often against officers who misbehave.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 08-06-2012 at 01:59 PM.

  20. #120
    Regular Member Yaki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Salinas, California
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    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).
    I support you and I keep updated on your case.
    My question is why did you feel the need to say ethnic kids? If it were a group of white kids would you have stated that (be honest)?
    If race were important to the story by all means say it. Mentioning it when it doesn't further th s story shows a personal issue..

  21. #121
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,396
    Would you be happier if I'd just said 'black' instead of making up a silly pretend-PC label?
    [Sort of like saying 'park' instead of 'inter-urban green area'.]

    As a descriptor it's one more thing to use to paint the picture. It goes to show the area I live in & adds to the tally of violent crimes or attempted crimes by gangs of black youth. If it'd been a white gang I would have been surprised, esp. in this area, but yes I would have mentioned it.

    I try very hard to take people as they come, not make judgments based on a group I think they belong to. If you plow through my posts here, you'll see that I have often confronted racists & bigots. I'm sorry to have even given the slightest impression that I belong to or condone those groups.

    But when I see repeated news reports of violent crimes committed by groups of black youth (including in & around the metro area where I live), then see a group of such coming toward me, & one runs at me, I get worried.
    I don't see that as unreasonable.
    I was a bit surprised they didn't come up my driveway at me.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 08-18-2012 at 03:47 PM.

  22. #122
    Regular Member 07Altima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Monroe
    Posts
    132

    I am so happy

    I am sooooooooooooooo glad you that you won, and that we all won another victory against the governments over reach, I hope you mop the floor with them, take them down, pwn them in court make them feel the heat on the other way around. I hope those cops pay the piper, and makes them think twice about trying to make something from nothing ever again.

  23. #123
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Re: Female OC advocate needs our help to fight bogus charges!

    Quote Originally Posted by 07Altima View Post
    I am sooooooooooooooo glad you that you won, and that we all won another victory against the governments over reach, I hope you mop the floor with them, take them down, pwn them in court make them feel the heat on the other way around. I hope those cops pay the piper, and makes them think twice about trying to make something from nothing ever again.
    I agree with the spirit of your post. What we must remember is that the settlements really do not cost the offending officers anything. They are simply paying us with our own money. We need to push very hard in my opinion to strip the "qualified immunity" of officers who violate our civil rights. This can only be accomplished by lobbying hard for reforms in the FBI who basically turn a blind eye to 2A abuses by local police. They are responsible for pursuing color of law violators in local /county / state police departments. Sadly they rarely ever bring charges. Why is this important? Once an officer has been found to have violated the color of law rules they lose their immunity, and can be sued personally. Once one or two officers have their bank accounts drained and their houses awarded to the people they abused, you can bet there will be a substantial reduction in civil rights abuses by officers as they would now face consequences for abuses. It is amazing who fast news travels in the LEO community.

    Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!
    Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 08-25-2012 at 03:17 AM.
    “A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.” “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” George Washington

  24. #124
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA, ,
    Posts
    8,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock9mmOldStyle View Post
    ...

    We need to push very hard in my opinion to strip the "qualified immunity" of officers who violate our civil rights. This can only be accomplished by lobbying hard for reforms in the FBI who basically turn a blind eye to 2A abuses by local police. They are responsible for pursuing color of law violators in local /county / state police departments. ....
    Huh? "Color of law" violations are remedied by civil suits filed in the federal courts. The FBI does not investigate those.

    Or are you referring to the criminal denial of civil rights, which would be investigated by the FBI? Those folks do not, IMHO, turn a blind eye to what is happening so much as the Federal District Attorney/Assistant District Attorneys show no interest in seeking an investigation in support of possible prosecution. Remember, the FBI is not like a police department that patrols the streets looking to find folks committing crimes right here/right now who can be arrested based on observing their criminal action. The FBI goes looking for evidence after someone convinces the FDA/FADA that their complaint has some possibility of resulting in a conviction.

    Most states have their own version of "color of law" laws. It is certainly less expensive to file suit under those laws, and more usually results in favorable decisions for the plaintiff to go that route.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  25. #125
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Re: Female OC advocate needs our help to fight bogus charges!

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Huh? "Color of law" violations are remedied by civil suits filed in the federal courts. The FBI does not investigate those.

    Or are you referring to the criminal denial of civil rights, which would be investigated by the FBI? Those folks do not, IMHO, turn a blind eye to what is happening so much as the Federal District Attorney/Assistant District Attorneys show no interest in seeking an investigation in support of possible prosecution. Remember, the FBI is not like a police department that patrols the streets looking to find folks committing crimes right here/right now who can be arrested based on observing their criminal action. The FBI goes looking for evidence after someone convinces the FDA/FADA that their complaint has some possibility of resulting in a conviction.

    Most states have their own version of "color of law" laws. It is certainly less expensive to file suit under those laws, and more usually results in favorable decisions for the plaintiff to go that route.

    stay safe.
    See bold - any denial of civil rights under the authority of the uniform is criminal. Hence the term "color of law" to my knowledge. The Detroit FBI office often will not even respond to questions from victims if they are investigating complaints or not. One of our people had to FOIA them to get a negative answer. I will say it again Skid, until officers are held PERSONALLY accountable, via criminal and civil actions nothing will change. Under the current system this is almost impossible. You should understand this better than most here, have you got a personal appology from the officers who detained you? Did they face charges? Did they have to pay you a dime out of their pockets? Not bashing - most police are good people. Sadly, and often the small % who are criminals are allowed to continue to abuse citizens by the silence of their fellow officers.


    Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!
    Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 08-25-2012 at 11:20 AM.
    “A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.” “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” George Washington

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •