-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
luke groves is outta jail
- Thread starter 1245A Defender
- Start date
OrangeIsTrouble
Regular Member
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*
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*
HankT
State Researcher
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.
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.
Ajetpilot
Regular Member
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!
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!
Tawnos
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
HankT wrote:
Go away
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Tawnos wrote:
Tawnos wrote:
+1
tyguy808
Regular Member
imported post
gogodawgs wrote:
gogodawgs wrote:
X2
kparker
Regular Member
imported post
x 10^10000
x 10^10000
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
Ajetpilot wrote:
Ajetpilot wrote:
+1 Our zero tolerance laws are way out of whack with reality.
DaemonForce
Regular Member
imported post
Awesome jawsome.
Will he get his job back? :uhoh:
Awesome jawsome.
Will he get his job back? :uhoh:
Trigger Dr
Regular Member
imported post
Let's invite him for coffee at Mile Hill Mc Donalds tomorrow.
Let's invite him for coffee at Mile Hill Mc Donalds tomorrow.
FMCDH
Regular Member
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.
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.
imported post
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.
DaemonForce
Regular Member
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. :banghead:
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.
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. :banghead:
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.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
FMCDH wrote:
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.
FMCDH 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 aframe of mindwhere you assume you need permission to do anything. And, this is exactly where they want you.
Ajetpilot
Regular Member
imported post
Sadly, I fear that is so true, Citizen.
Sadly, I fear that is so true, Citizen.
DaemonForce
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
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. :uhoh:
One more thing: Schools raise your kids to be incompetent and crazy. Not questioning anything is the first sign of trouble. Remember this.
Citizen wrote:
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. :uhoh:
One more thing: Schools raise your kids to be incompetent and crazy. Not questioning anything is the first sign of trouble. Remember this.
deanf
Regular Member
imported post
Are we a nation of laws, or of men? You can't have both.
Are we a nation of laws, or of men? You can't have both.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Ajetpilot wrote:
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!
Ajetpilot wrote:
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!
DaemonForce
Regular Member
imported post
deanf wrote:
deanf wrote:
Neither. We're a nation of power. To move forward we'll use either of thoseat our disposal. :celebrate