Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
THIS HAS TURNED OUT TO BE INCORRECT, See comments below.:
THIS HAS TURNED OUT TO BE INCORRECT, See comments below.:
I just found out that two attorneys will be presenting a talk on how to successfully arrest and prosecute lawful OCers. As it's only for Sheriffs I can not attend, but do have someone that will be video taping the talk. I hope to have it available on-line soon.
I encourage every one to email their sheriff and express their outrage at such a waste of tax payers money and officers time trying to harass and arrest lawful people exercising their firearm rights under both the 2A and the state constitution.
...
Venator wrote:I just found out that two attorneys will be presenting a talk on how to successfully arrest and prosecute lawful OCers. As it's only for Sheriffs I can not attend, but do have someone that will be video taping the talk. I hope to have it available on-line soon.
I encourage every one to email their sheriff and express their outrage at such a waste of tax payers money and officers time trying to harass and arrest lawful people exercising their firearm rights under both the 2A and the state constitution.
...
That's a pretty serious charge, V.
Wouldn't that be...illegal?
I hope your info is correct....and not just alarmist misinterpretation.
HankT wrote:Venator wrote:I just found out that two attorneys will be presenting a talk on how to successfully arrest and prosecute lawful OCers. As it's only for Sheriffs I can not attend, but do have someone that will be video taping the talk. I hope to have it available on-line soon.
I encourage every one to email their sheriff and express their outrage at such a waste of tax payers money and officers time trying to harass and arrest lawful people exercising their firearm rights under both the 2A and the state constitution.
...
That's a pretty serious charge, V.
Wouldn't that be...illegal?
I hope your info is correct....and not just alarmist misinterpretation.
I have it on good authority that a talk by two lawyers will be presented on methods to successfully prosecute OCers.
Since the talk has yet to be given (Monday or Tuesday) I don't know what information will be discussed. I will know after reviewing any tapes of the training. This is a heads up that something may be coming and we need to be proactive. If the information turns out to be false then I will retract and apologise.
As for being illegal, if the prosecutors thought it was legal then it wouldn't be illegal would it. As ignorance of the the law IS an excuse for LEOs.
Thank you for your opinion.It's great that MOC is proactive. You guys in MI are doing some good stuff. But thiskind of talk doesn'tcome off well...
After the talks are done, their names need to be displayed in neon.
I have it on good authority that a talk by two lawyers will be presented on methods to successfully prosecute OCers.
Lawyers are sneaky bastards. Tricking someone into saying the wrong thing isn't illegal. Could it be that the subject matter will be strategies to this end?
Right. But if the talk is actually about "training the police how not to screw up with a lawful OCer...and get sued," then it would be the exact opposite of what V charged in the OP. More than just "skewed"....Its also possible the initial report is a little skewed. It could be that the attorneys are training the police how to not screw up with a lawful OCer, as in false arrest or detention, and get sued.
The same can be said of unnecessary needling and baiting, Hanky.SNIP There's a cost for making wild and spurious allegations. The cost is reduced credibility.
I'm reminded of something from Terry v Ohio, something that might fit into a letter. No matter what the real nature of the lawyer training, it can't hurt to remind the attorneys and cops.[suggested letter]
Yes. Doing nothing is best. Wait until after someone gets arrested. Don't want to undermine our credibility, do we? Oh, no. Not with police who accuse us of seeking to entrap them just to make money. Heavens no. And not with certain segments of the public whoget the vapors and rants overOC anyway. Oh, no. Must maintain credibility.I guess we should all just sit back and see how this goes then.
Venator wrote:I'm reminded of something from Terry v Ohio, something that might fit into a letter.[suggested letter]
Just wear a T-shirt that says: "False arrests will be vigorously sued."
Or you could be more subtle about it: "My attorney wants another Lear jet."
Or, perhaps even better: "My attorney'swife is driving him nuts with her demand fora vacation home in The Hamptons."
"My attorney is a legal activist. His slogan is 'LITIGATE NOW!'"
"My attorney especially likes targets who mistakenly think they are protected by qualified immunity."
Do you always have to interject and try to discredit someone? Venator is relaying information he received from a source he trusts, and admits that he does not have the details, and will not until it happens.Citizen wrote:Right. But if the talk is actually about "training the police how not to screw up with a lawful OCer...and get sued," then it would be the exact opposite of what V charged in the OP. More than just "skewed"....Its also possible the initial report is a little skewed. It could be that the attorneys are training the police how to not screw up with a lawful OCer, as in false arrest or detention, and get sued.
Such a mis-statement, if it is one,is likelyborne out of ideological extremism and we're better off without that kind of stuff.
Actually, the charge is, on its face, unbelievable. It's possible that all the sherrifs and all the lawyers and all the deputies and all the courts will be scheming and lying to falsely arrest and falsely prosecute "lawful OCers." We have to keep open to that remotely possible outcome. But it's probably too early to start publicly accusing them all of illegal activity.
There's a cost for making wild and spurious allegations. The cost is reduced credibility.
HankT wrote:Do you always have to interject and try to discredit someone? Venator is relaying information he received from a source he trusts, and admits that he does not have the details, and will not until it happens.Citizen wrote:Right. But if the talk is actually about "training the police how not to screw up with a lawful OCer...and get sued," then it would be the exact opposite of what V charged in the OP. More than just "skewed"....Its also possible the initial report is a little skewed. It could be that the attorneys are training the police how to not screw up with a lawful OCer, as in false arrest or detention, and get sued.
Such a mis-statement, if it is one,is likelyborne out of ideological extremism and we're better off without that kind of stuff.
Actually, the charge is, on its face, unbelievable. It's possible that all the sherrifs and all the lawyers and all the deputies and all the courts will be scheming and lying to falsely arrest and falsely prosecute "lawful OCers." We have to keep open to that remotely possible outcome. But it's probably too early to start publicly accusing them all of illegal activity.
There's a cost for making wild and spurious allegations. The cost is reduced credibility.
A tornado siren before a severe thunderstorm may not necessarily yield an actual tornado, but wouldn't you rather have been warned and prepared and be relieved when it didn't happen than be outside jogging or something and be jumped by a tornado you were unaware of?
You say what Venator says is a serious charge... and it is, if it is true. However, I think that directly calling him an extremist is also a serious charge. And after all, reduced credibility is the cost for making wild and spurious allegations... so, since it seems likely that there will be a video of the event, why not wait for it to happen before unquestioningly disregarding its possibility.
SNIP Do you always have to interject and try to discredit someone?