Female OC advocate needs our help to fight bogus charges!

[sudden valley gunner]

Kick Butt!

[MyWifeSaidYes]

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]

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!

[FallonJeeper]

Any updates?

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

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!

[1245A Defender]

Go to the wisconsin forum.
Go the thread,,, It has begun.
some info for you there...

[FallonJeeper]

Update - Not Guilty!!

Congrats to MKEgal!!

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

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!

[sudden valley gunner]

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]

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]

[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!

[sudden valley gunner]

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...

[KYGlockster]

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.

[OC for ME]

More densely populated areas tend to have LEOs with a 'disarm for safety' mentality more so than less densely populated areas.

[twoskinsonemanns]

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.

"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!

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.

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.

[ComradeV]

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.

[sudden valley gunner]

......must be just a 'few bad apples'....

[MKEgal]

.

[MKEgal]

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.

[Yaki]

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..

[MKEgal]

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.

[07Altima]

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.

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

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!

[skidmark]

...

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.

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

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!