Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: luke groves is outta jail

  1. #1
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    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!

  2. #2
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398

    Post imported post

    Totally sweet, for the next 10 years, as long as he lives with his wife, their house is open season for burglaries/robberies.

    *sarcasm detector going off*


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  3. #3
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    1245A Defender wrote: Looks like Groves let the details slip away from him.

    Then he ran afoul of the sentencing guidlines.

    I think he caught a break with the prosecutor and the judge.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    I've been following this case for quite a long time since I live in Kitsap County. This guy deserved the break that Russ Hauge cut him.

    The sad part of the story is that his wife can no longer keep firearms in the house in which she andher husband reside. She is now denied her right to possess the tools necessary to provide for her family's security. I find that disgusting!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    1245A Defender wrote: Looks like Groves let the details slip away from him.

    Then he ran afoul of the sentencing guidlines.

    I think he caught a break with the prosecutor and the judge.
    Go away
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    1245A Defender wrote: Looks like Groves let the details slip away from him.

    Then he ran afoul of the sentencing guidlines.

    I think he caught a break with the prosecutor and the judge.
    Go away
    +1
    Live Free or Die!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Not Here Anymore
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    1245A Defender wrote: Looks like Groves let the details slip away from him.

    Then he ran afoul of the sentencing guidlines.

    I think he caught a break with the prosecutor and the judge.
    Go away
    +1
    X2
    I am the person responsible for myself, my wife and my son. I take that VERY seriously.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    x 10^10000

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Ajetpilot wrote:
    I've been following this case for quite a long time since I live in Kitsap County. This guy deserved the break that Russ Hauge cut him.

    The sad part of the story is that his wife can no longer keep firearms in the house in which she andher husband reside. She is now denied her right to possess the tools necessary to provide for her family's security. I find that disgusting!
    +1 Our zero tolerance laws are way out of whack with reality.

    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. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lewis County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    226

    Post imported post

    Awesome jawsome.

    Will he get his job back?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    Let's invite him for coffee at Mile Hill Mc Donalds tomorrow.

  12. #12
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Are they freaking serious?! A non-violent felony conviction from 20 years ago that gets him convicted of "possession" of firearms in his own home?

    This is just another stupid example of how our justice system expects every common man to have a law degree to keep from running afoul of it, while our own police forces aren't even required to know or even be aware of basic laws relevant to their jobs before they make an arrest or issue a citation.

    Sickening! Just grossly sickening.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    I've been following this case for quite a long time since I live in Kitsap County. This guy deserved the break that Russ Hauge cut him. The sad part of the story is that his wife can no longer keep firearms in the house in which she and her husband reside. She is now denied her right to possess the tools necessary to provide for her family's security. I find that disgusting!
    Is that the case, or is that speculation? When this was being discussed shortly after the verdict, there was talk that if the guns had been locked up in a locker that only the wife had a key to, he wouldn't have been in possession or control of the firearms.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lewis County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    226

    Post imported post

    The catch is that the firearms are kept within his home, therefore he is in illegal possession of a firearm. This didn't need to be in the trial. All the PA needed to prove is that he knew they were in his home and he had control of them.

    Looking back on this trial, it feels like the PA was being stupid and probably encourages the idea of a society where people are afraid to summon the police.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    SNIP This is just another stupid example of how our justice system expects every common man to have a law degree to keep from running afoul of it,...
    Ahhhhh. See. Now that is where they've got you hoodwinked. They don't really expect you to know the laws. The laws are not there for you to know. The laws are there to give them all sorts of ways to earn political points, and give them control.

    In fact, they would prefer if people did not know the law. More grist for the criminal justice mill. The more bodies passing through "The System", the more money for the system, and the more justification for the system in the first place.

    Eventually, you get into aframe of mindwhere you assume you need permission to do anything. And, this is exactly where they want you.
    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.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Sadly, I fear that is so true, Citizen.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lewis County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    226

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Eventually, you get into aframe of mindwhere you assume you need permission to do anything. And, this is exactly where they want you.
    I've always had a prettydecent frame of mindfor whatever condition of the world I live in.

    Never be inCondition White.
    Do not ask permission to exerciserights that you already have.
    Do not apologize for your rights.
    Defend your allies.
    Defend yourself.

    They seem to fit whether we're at war or times of peace. I guess this would fit the common sense agenda. For those that don't seem to catch on, things tend to get ugly fast.

    One more thing: Schools raise your kids to be incompetent and crazy. Not questioning anything is the first sign of trouble. Remember this.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Are we a nation of laws, or of men? You can't have both.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Ajetpilot wrote:
    Sadly, I fear that is so true, Citizen.
    Thanks for the prompt, allowing me to post one of my favorite quotes. This is in regard to not knowing the law vs knowing the law:

    Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit. I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study...This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defence, full of resources. In other countries, the people, more simple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze. --Edmund Burke, Speech to Parliament on Conciliation with the Colonies. March 22, 1775 (emphasis added by Citizen)

    (Note the date of the speech. Lexington and Concord were just under a month away--April 19, 1775.)

    So, learning the law today not only undermines the government'sgame. It is patriotic!
    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.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lewis County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    226

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    Are we a nation of laws, or of men? You can't have both.
    Neither. We're a nation of power. To move forward we'll use either of thoseat our disposal. :celebrate

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    Are we a nation of laws, or of men? You can't have both.
    Nation of law abiding men. When the laws are reasonable and make freaking sense.

    We have way too many laws, lawmaker was was never meant to be a profession and our legislature of senators and congress was never meant to be a full time profession either.

    Citizen wrote:

    Ahhhhh. See. Now that is where they've got you hoodwinked. They don't really expect you to know the laws. The laws are not there for you to know. The laws are there to give them all sorts of ways to earn political points, and give them control. In fact, they would prefer if people did not know the law. More grist for the criminal justice mill. The more bodies passing through "The System", the more money for the system, and the more justification for the system in the first place. Eventually, you get into a frame of mind where you assume you need permission to do anything. And, this is exactly where they want you.
    Yep it has not been a "justice" system for a long time now, it is a processing system, not interested in what is fair or just anymore, as the case for this thread proves.

    Citizen, I been sharing that file about jury nullification a lot of folks are very surprised what the true nature of a jury should be.

    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)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Nation of law abiding men. When the laws are reasonable and make freaking sense.
    There is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.
    -John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776.

    Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law. (Regardless of the above-the-law proclivities of our politicians, this Rule of Law theory is one which we must strive to defend and live up to.)

    When we decide which laws we will obey based on our subjective interpretation of their reasonableness, then we are a nation of men, subject to man's emotional swings. If that's the way we want to have it, then there is no reasonable expectation of the sacrosanct equal justice under the law.

    We can't allow ourselves to be ruled by emotion. If we succumb, we are no better than the police officer who tells us we can't OC simply because he doesn't like it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    When we decide which laws we will obey based on our subjective interpretation of their reasonableness, then we are a nation of men, subject to man's emotional swings. If that's the way we want to have it, then there is no reasonable expectation of the sacrosanct equal justice under the law.

    We can't allow ourselves to be ruled by emotion. If we succumb, we are no better than the police officer who tells us we can't OC simply because he doesn't like it.
    When we decide what laws we will enact based on our own subjective interpretation of their reasonableness, then we are in no better a situation. Let's face it, the ban on non-violent felon in possession is an asinine law, and it was improperly enforced.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    When we decide what laws we will enact based on our own subjective interpretation of their reasonableness, then we are in no better a situation.
    It's not a perfect system.

    What's your solution? How else should men decide what rules they will be governed by?

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    Nation of law abiding men. When the laws are reasonable and make freaking sense.
    There is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.
    -John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776.

    Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law. (Regardless of the above-the-law proclivities of our politicians, this Rule of Law theory is one which we must strive to defend and live up to.)

    When we decide which laws we will obey based on our subjective interpretation of their reasonableness, then we are a nation of men, subject to man's emotional swings. If that's the way we want to have it, then there is no reasonable expectation of the sacrosanct equal justice under the law.

    We can't allow ourselves to be ruled by emotion. If we succumb, we are no better than the police officer who tells us we can't OC simply because he doesn't like it.
    I agree no one is above "reasonable or natural" law as the founding fathers referred to it. If the law is unreasonable or unjust it should be done away with. I am in no way promoting lawlessness. But do feel we have way too many "unnatural" laws.

    Civil disobedience is deciding which law we will or will not obey, jury nullification, is also a method of rendering unreasonable laws useless. We also can not rule out emotion in our "justice" system we are emotional beings no matter how much the legal system wants to deny that.


    …the patriotic study of all, to maintain the various authorities established by our complicated system, each in its respective constitutional sphere; and to erect over the whole, one paramount Empire of reason, benevolence and brotherly
    affection
    James Madison.

    Being under British rule the founding fathers broke many laws? Why because they were unjust, unfair or unreasonable. We have a duty to throw off unreasonable laws.


    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)

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •