OCDO censors possible negative information RE: Paul Henick aka skidmark

I started a thread about Paul Henick aka skidmark and a recent article from examiner.com. In the article's comments it was alleged that Heinke threatened the prosecutor and may have made racial remarks to the security guards subsequent to his arrest.

I thought OCDO allowed the open discussion of the open carry of handguns?

No rules were broken by posting the link and picture of Henick.

Does OCDO have something to hide?

Why do they delete posts which may paint Henick in a negative light? After all a warrant was issued for Paul Henick, he was arrested, he was charged, the magistrate signed the arrest warrant, bond was set. If you add it all up there seems to be, in the minds of those enforcing the law, that he committed a crime.

I assume that you are an LEO since you have an LEO patch as your avatar. Therefore you must know that guilt is determined in a court of law, and even then sometimes the courts are wrong. Hence the appeal process.

You must also be aware that sometimes people lie when they secure warrants, and further sometimes people make mistakes in their observations that those warrants are based upon.

I had a post deleted also, that had nothing disparaging in it about Skidmark. I just made an observation about the Sheriff's office in general and Mr. Poindexter in particular. I don't know why it was deleted, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

IMHO the whole thread needs to be heavily moderated so that the prosecution does not have any ammo to fight with.

paramedic70002 said:

IMHO the whole thread needs to be heavily moderated so that the prosecution does not have any ammo to fight with.

Click to expand...

And that's the point. As has been stated previously, there will be plenty of time to address questions of actions or legality AFTER the case has been adjudicated. Skid's attorney has properly counseled him NOT to comment on this case before it is adjudicated, and most responsible posters will honor an extension of that request to those of us on this board.

Please do not respond to this troll. He is trying to exacerbate the problems that skidmark is facing. Please, just let this thread die and slide down the index to oblivion.

On edit: A later post says that the OP is not a troll and that calling him a troll is a personal attack. I stand by the statement. His actions of late are quite trollish: attention-seeking and trouble-making. He is not seeking to further dialog. He is trying to create problems for the site owners and for skidmark. Anyone who has any respect for either will not help the OP in his deliberate attempts to make life difficult for these folks.

If you believe this post to be a personal attack, please, I beg of you, hit the report button. It is that little exclamation mark at the bottom left of this post. Please hit it and hit it often.

eye95 said:

Please do not respond to this troll. He is trying to exacerbate the problems that skidmark is facing. Please, just let this thread die and slide down the index to oblivion.

Click to expand...

Kwik is many things, but a troll is not one of them.

I said a couple of years ago (and was threatened with banishment for saying it), that the owners of this forum do not allow the members to use the 1st Amendment to support or discuss the 2nd Amendment... Unless your views agree with their views. Recent events with the secret thought police editing and deleting posts bear this out.


P.S. Calling Kwik a troll is a personal attack. For someone who is always so quick to point to the rules when it suits you, it seems as though you don't think they apply to you. What a surprise.

I think that's called being a hypocrite. Now it's your turn to rationalize your actions and "move on".

hp-hobo said:

Kwik is many things, but a troll is not one of them.

I said a couple of years ago (and was threatened with banishment for saying it), that the owners of this forum do not allow the members to use the 1st Amendment to support or discuss the 2nd Amendment... Unless your views agree with their views. Recent events with the secret thought police editing and deleting posts bear this out.

Click to expand...

They are entirely correct to do so. It is THEIR property, and THEIR 1st amendment vehicle. It IS for discussion of THEIR chosen topic. You are free to use it within THEIR guidelines. You are also free to create your OWN website to do YOUR chosen topic.

wrightme said:

They are entirely correct to do so. It is THEIR property, and THEIR 1st amendment vehicle. It IS for discussion of THEIR chosen topic. You are free to use it within THEIR guidelines. You are also free to create your OWN website to do YOUR chosen topic.

Click to expand...

Thank you for stating the obvious. But that's just another stawman argument (surprise!) because I never anything contrary to that position.

It still doesn't make it right to pretend to be a pro-rights and pro-constitution forum but only allow people to exercise those rights as they see fit. They should promote diversity of opinion, especially when it doesn't support theirs.

You, and people like you, are always concerned about what outsiders see if they read this forum, as we should all be to an extent. However, when an outsider sees the prevailing attitude on this forum as articulated in your post, they see that gun rights advocates are narrow minded and unwilling to even entertain a different point of view. That makes us, in their eyes, as a group, no better than any other anti-rights advocates and just as bad as anti-gun rights advocates although they like you don't see it in themselves.

I also noticed that as one of the forum's self appointed rules quoters, you failed to identify the fact that Kwik was personally attacked in this thread. Could it be that rule quoting is only for people who you disagree with? Hmmmm...

So... Is anyone going to address why Kwik's perhaps untimely but well within the rules post was deleted or are you just going to make up stories and call names?

hp-hobo said:

Thank you for stating the obvious. But that's just another stawman argument (surprise!) because I never anything contrary to that position.

Click to expand...

No, it was not a strawman argument. I didn't argue a thing, merely pointed out those facts.

hp-hobo said:

It still doesn't make it right to pretend to be a pro-rights and pro-constitution forum but only allow people to exercise those rights as they see fit. They should promote diversity of opinion, especially when it doesn't support theirs.

Click to expand...

Huh? No, that does not compute.
Specifically, this website is pro-OC. You might want to re-review the ruleset of this website for clarification.

hp-hobo said:

You, and people like you, are always concerned about what outsiders see if they read this forum, as we should all be to an extent.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY.

hp-hobo said:

However, when an outsider sees the prevailing attitude on this forum as articulated in your post, they see that gun rights advocates are narrow minded and unwilling to even entertain a different point of view. That makes us, in their eyes, as a group, no better than any other anti-rights advocates and just as bad as anti-gun rights advocates although they like you don't see it in themselves.

Click to expand...

No, that is not the case. What we DO have here is a website that is focused mostly on ONE specific; Open Carry. Hence, the name, OpenCarry.org. (OCDO)
Look back up just a bit to the start of your paragraph, where you just about figured it out. "and people like you, are always concerned about what outsiders see if they read this forum." That is very correct. As it should be.

hp-hobo said:

I also noticed that as one of the forum's self appointed rules quoters, you failed to identify the fact that Kwik was personally attacked in this thread. Could it be that rule quoting is only for people who you disagree with? Hmmmm...

Click to expand...

EVERY forum member should be able to quote and follow the rules. As far as which posts get to stay, which get deleted, or which get edited, none of these are my call at all. Remember, this is someone else's property.

hp-hobo said:

So... Is anyone going to address why Kwik's perhaps untimely but well within the rules post was deleted or are you just going to make up stories and call names?

Click to expand...

If you desire conversation on that specific, your best route would be to contact the site owner. HE can address that topic for you.

kwikrnu said:

I started a thread about Paul Henick aka skidmark and a recent article from examiner.com. In the article's comments it was alleged that Heinke threatened the prosecutor and may have made racial remarks to the security guards subsequent to his arrest.

I thought OCDO allowed the open discussion of the open carry of handguns?

No rules were broken by posting the link and picture of Henick.

Does OCDO have something to hide?

Why do they delete posts which may paint Henick in a negative light? After all a warrant was issued for Paul Henick, he was arrested, he was charged, the magistrate signed the arrest warrant, bond was set. If you add it all up there seems to be, in the minds of those enforcing the law, that he committed a crime.

Click to expand...

A warrant can be obtained by police with little more than creative prose. The fact that Mr. Henick was arrested really does not have a thing to do with his true guilt or innocence. It truly does not matter what LE believes in their minds, it will matter what they can prove in court. Mr. Henick will be judged by his peers(if charges are not dropped before then) who have listened to the evidence the state and the defense have, and then make a decision based on that. He is not a criminal until he is found guilty of a crime by a jury of his peers.

As to why you post was deleted... welcome to the Rule #2 Club. You can follow all the rules and still have a post deleted for no reason other than the Administrators want to. It is just the way it is.

hp-hobo said:

Kwik is many things, but a troll is not one of them.

P.S. Calling Kwik a troll is a personal attack. For someone who is always so quick to point to the rules when it suits you, it seems as though you don't think they apply to you. What a surprise.

Click to expand...

I would have to disagree. Being a troll on an internet message board is exactly what I've read him to be. Calling him as such, while having "negative feeling" behind it hardly makes it a personal attack, anymore than calling someone who "writes books" a writer.

Posting things on a message board to illicit "emo posting behavior" is being a troll. Can you say with a straight face that he has not done exactly that?

wrightme said:

They are entirely correct to do so. It is THEIR property, and THEIR 1st amendment vehicle. It IS for discussion of THEIR chosen topic. You are free to use it within THEIR guidelines. You are also free to create your OWN website to do YOUR chosen topic.

Click to expand...

It is their vehicle, and they invited us along for the ride. They can and do make whatever rules they like on their site. My problem with it is that while it is their site, they are using the people who visit it to to increase their notoriety. News stories are shown that tout OCDO in their own forum section. But, in all fairness, why is OCDO being seen as the spearhead of the open carry movement? What state legislature has OCDO lobbied to change it's laws on open carry? I believe that is left up to individual in state grass root movements. What city council meeting has OCDO flooded with members to overturn an ordinance to ban open carry. Have groups flooded city council meetings for just that reason... yes but not at the direction of the Administrators.

The Administrators have offered a place for people who wish to discuss and advance the right of open carry. They have also gained increased notoriety from it. No offense to either, but I doubt they would be on the Daily show and interviewed by the press if not for a web site that can boast tens of thousands of "members". They do own the web site, but it's the people who give it the power. I have brought these points up before and the Administrators graciously acknowledged it is indeed the members who make this site great.

If OCDO disappeared tomorrow the fight for our open carry rights would still go on, albeit at a much slower pace

Yes, they are the drivers, but some do get a might offended for getting smacked across the mouth(metaphorically of course) for no reason we can see.

The way I see it,

The owners of this website aren't infringing on anyone's right to free speech. We are all free to create our own websites and say whatever we want on them. If someone is upset with the way this site is managed they can go talk about it in numerous other places of their choosing or of their making. I don't think anyone here is going to inhibit that. The owners here are under no obligation to facilitate another's speech and provide an avenue for it.

I am all for supporting people's rights to free speech and to carry firearms out in public but once they cross over onto my own property or through my doors, its going to be by the lawful rules I choose for whatever reasons I wish. If someone is in my home speaking in a way I don't like or a topic I don't want to hear, I have that right to ask them to leave. I also don't want strangers walking around armed in my woods or around outside of my house either without first asking for and receiving my permission.

If the owner(s) of this site wish to limit the discussions on a particular topic, so what? Its their right to do so and even if I did disagree personally with it, I definitely would try to have respect for that choice.

Really?

Sometimes things are better left unsaid. Censoring? Here's another word: Closed.