Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Sheriff David Clarke says undercover deputy got gun past courthouse checks

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    Sheriff David Clarke says undercover deputy got gun past courthouse checks

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwauk...195672671.html

    An undercover Milwaukee County sheriff's deputy with a gun cleared security checkpoints at all six entrances into the county courthouse complex Wednesday.
    Pretty scary that the people at these "security" check points aren't doing their job. Of course, I'll be "that guy" and say, "Why shouldn't we be able to carry into a court room?"
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836
    Private security is, IMHO, a Gawd D*mn joke. And the security at the court house is no exception.
    I routinely go into the court house and safety building wearing civvies. I use my department issued badge and ID at the checkpoint. They don't even look at it. They see tin and a card in a black wallet and wave me through.

    I'll bet if someone flashed an old security guard badge and novelty ID they'd get let through with a weapon.
    Last edited by pkbites; 03-06-2013 at 06:19 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwauk...195672671.html



    Pretty scary that the people at these "security" check points aren't doing their job. Of course, I'll be "that guy" and say, "Why shouldn't we be able to carry into a court room?"
    Why scary? Guns should be allowed ...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Why scary? Guns should be allowed ...
    But they're not. And there are avenues to change that. Having lax security isn't the way.
    No guns allowed + incompetent security= armed law breakers with ill intent and everyone else being defenseless.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Why scary? Guns should be allowed ...
    You should have finished reading my post.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    SNIP I'll be "that guy" and say, "Why shouldn't we be able to carry into a court room?"
    It probably dates from the days when the king enforced unpopular laws.

    It makes no sense, really, in light of the rational and history behind trials.

    Go back to the days of Henry II in the late 1100's. Prior to that, trials were by ordeal--carrying a hot coal so many paces and then checking whether the wound was healing properly after so many days, or being tossed into water to float or sink (water would reject--float--the criminal). Trial by ordeal was supplanted by trial by judge and jury. Henry II instructed royal judges to ride circuit and take jurisdiction of cases formerly tried by the lords of the manors wherein the offense was committed. Back then, you had a choice: trial by ordeal, or trial by judge and jury. You had to consent to be tried by a judge and jury. This is the basis for certain features in the legal system, for example, pleading guilty or not guilty. This is why during Elizabethan times, if you refused to plead, the judge did not automatically enter a plea of not-guilty. You were tortured by pressing with iron--you were laid on the cell floor, covered with a plank, upon which was placed "as much iron as he could bear, and then more". You were not tortured to confess, you were tortured to plead. The government couldn't try you without your plea. The government couldn't try you without your consent.*

    The other, and more important, aspect of this was that trials were "by the country". This is the reference in Magna Carta to "trial by the country". And, later references to "trial by the vicinage", and "trial by a jury of his peers." There was even a time when the accused, in being asked his plea was also asked whether he consented to be tried by the country--a trial by his peers. These were important legal formalities.

    Henry II's circuit judges didn't preside over a jury trial. One of Henry's innovations was the sheriff selecting a jury to state the facts of the case to the judge. It was presumed that the people of the town or vicinity knew the facts of the case from their social interactions and were expected (required under oath) to inform the judge of what they knew. This was the beginnings of the jury system.

    The quick view is that you sought relief from trial by ordeal in the arms of the royal judge with a jury of your peers informing the judge of the facts of your case. Which slowly over time evolved into the jury trial system we have today.

    So, ultimately, today, a trial by jury is a trial presided over by the government judge, but decided by the people.

    So, if the trial is by the people, then why disarm the people in their court room? Just let everybody be armed and you'll have more security than you need.

    Unless, of course, you're the government and have subverted the process, and are enforcing unpopular or unconstitutional laws.


    Note: The history stuff is from memory from two books by Leonard Levy, The Origins of the Bill of Rights and The Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right Against Self-incrimination. Since its from memory, something might be a little off; don't take it too firmly.

    Note: Those two books are still in print. I highly recommend them. The book on the 5A won a Pulitzer Prize in history.

    *I got five dollars that says government has usurped its role in trials. What was the social and political atmosphere toward government at a time when government needed your consent to try you? It couldn't just try you like today. What changed? How did people and the common law view the king if the king couldn't just up and seize people and try them without the consent of the accused? Whereas today, the judge will enter a plea of not guilty and not even bother with your consent. Hmmmm. Makes me wonder.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

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