Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: State v Budic

  1. #1
    Regular Member sigfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Semi-closed account
    Posts
    47

    Post State v Budic

    I just watched arguments on State of Washington v Kenneth Budic in the Washington Supreme court that were presented on 6/14. Case number was 84714-2 if anyone wants to dig into the details.

    Summary is this, Mr Budik was the passenger in a vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was a known gang member. During the course of the evening, a rival gang approached the vehicle and shot both Mr Budik and the driver. The driver died and Mr Budik was bleeding. Police approached in response to a call. They asked Mr Budik if he knew who shot him and he said "no". He also asked police to go protect his family. The police did send members to protect the familiy but also continued the investigation.

    During the course of the investigation into the incident, they learned that Mr Budik did, in fact, know who shot him. They charged him with "rendering criminal assistance in the first degree" (9A.76.070)

    (1) A person is guilty of rendering criminal assistance in the first degree if he or she renders criminal assistance to a person who has committed or is being sought for murder in the first degree or any class A felony or equivalent juvenile offense.
    (2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, rendering criminal assistance in the first degree is a class B felony.
    (b) Rendering criminal assistance in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor if it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that the actor is a relative as defined in RCW 9A.76.060 and under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense.
    Mr Budik was not a family member so that strikes all of subsection (2). What the court seemed concerned with was wether this granted the police rights to easily abuse this power. They asked what would have happened if he simply gave them blank looks and didn't answer at all. They were concerned that anyone who simply exercised their constitutional rights to remain quiet would also be affected by this. The definition of "Rendering criminal assistance" is found in 9A.76.050.

    As used in RCW 9A.76.070, 9A.76.080, and 9A.76.090, a person "renders criminal assistance" if, with intent to prevent, hinder, or delay the apprehension or prosecution of another person who he knows has committed a crime or juvenile offense or is being sought by law enforcement officials for the commission of a crime or juvenile offense or has escaped from a detention facility, he:
    (1) Harbors or conceals such person; or
    (2) Warns such person of impending discovery or apprehension; or
    (3) Provides such person with money, transportation, disguise, or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension; or
    (4) Prevents or obstructs, by use of force, deception, or threat, anyone from performing an act that might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person; or (5) Conceals, alters, or destroys any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person; or
    (6) Provides such person with a weapon.
    The justices (and prosecution) were set on part 4 of the definition and more specifically hung on the word "deception" since he stated that he didn't know the person. The prosecution's argument was that because Mr Budik said "no" the police were obstructed from finding the person who shot them. The defense argument was very interesting and the justices seemed to be buying into it. First, Mr Budik was the victim of a crime. His answers would likely be shakey at this point regardless. (side note: this is why you need to practice over and over what you'd say if you were ever involved in a shooting). Second, Mr Budik's testimony, even if false, was not necessarily deception. Saying "no" would be different than saying "Yes, and he went THAT WAY [pointing in a different direction]." This was supported by the legistion that ours was drawn from. Third, although she does not challenge the constitutionality of the law, she does state that the vaguness needs further definition and clarification through legal precident to keep it from wandering into unconstitutional territory.

    The justices seemed to worry that this would have broad reaching applications if they affirmed Mr Badik's jury conviction. Was Mr Budik's false statement itself coerced (men approaching with weapons drawn right after he was shot). Would you prevent victims from giving statements in the future out of fear that you may slip up and end up with a felony. They also had concern that the man would be charged with a felony for simply saying he didn't know the man -- which apparently had no material information which would obstruct the police.

    The arguments were great and I liked where the justices seemed to be leaning (reversal of his guilty verdict). The verdict hasn't been decided yet, but it will be worth watching.

    So why am I posting this here? I believe this case could have implications on some of us who may have the unfortunate incident that requires us to use our firearm. Massad Ayoob has often said that police are compelled to give information after they shoot someone. They are required to answer a set of questions that are designed to help police understand if there are other things they should be looking at, but without putting the police in jeopardy of criminal prosecution because of it. Because these answers are compelled, they are not legal testimony. We, however, don't have the same luxury. If ths conviction is upheld, stating "I'm willing to talk with you in 48 hours with my attorney" could land you in hot water. It's worth watching and I hope it's overturned.

    Thanks for listening to my very sleepy message. I hope I made some sense. I'll update tomorrow if it didn't make sense. Thanks again.
    Semi-retired account.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Good post Sig.

    This whole thing is a circus. He should have never been charged at all. This is a classic example of those in "Law Enforcement" pushing for more control. They want all who don't cooperate with them to be viewed as criminals. (Even though apparently this guy was). Hopefully the judges disappoint them.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 06-16-2011 at 08:24 AM.
    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)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by sigfan View Post
    .........If ths conviction is upheld, stating "I'm willing to talk with you in 48 hours with my attorney" could land you in hot water. It's worth watching and I hope it's overturned...........

    I don't think he would have been charged if he simply refused to answer the question.
    Refusing to answer and lying are two completely different things.

    I don't see how refusing to answer can meet any of the criteria that you quoted. It certainly is not deceptive.

    It seems he would have been much better off either identifying the man who shot him, or refusing to talk to the police at all.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  4. #4
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    I don't think he would have been charged if he simply refused to answer the question.
    Refusing to answer and lying are two completely different things.

    I don't see how refusing to answer can meet any of the criteria that you quoted. It certainly is not deceptive.

    It seems he would have been much better off either identifying the man who shot him, or refusing to talk to the police at all.
    I know the police uncovered that he knew the person who shot him, but how does anyone know that he actually saw who it was and recognized him at the time? It's possible that he didn't get a look at the guy and simply wanted his family watched because he knew that it was most likely a rival gang member. Knowing a person and knowing who it was that shot you are two completely different things.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    I too believe he would have been fine not saying anything at all. IMO, the lie is whats being looked at as deceptive.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    123
    Second, Mr Budik's testimony, even if false, was not necessarily deception.
    Some would argue otherwise. In the minds of many, withholding the truth is just as bad as telling a lie.

    Furthermore, if one subscribes to the notion of the social contract, citizens have a responsibility to be good citizens, which means doing the right thing. Absent any compelling factors (which I do not consider to mean the "no-snitch" current "code" of the streets) to not come forward with the truth in aid of an investigation, one can argue that the good citizen should speak the truth in furtherance of his society's efforts to bring a murderer to justice.

    It's hypocritical to continue one's public bleating that cops are bad for not always being truthful, then excusing a citizen (let alone a gang member) for withholding the truth.

  7. #7
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by sigfan View Post
    Massad Ayoob has often said that police are compelled to give information after they shoot someone. They are required to answer a set of questions that are designed to help police understand if there are other things they should be looking at, but without putting the police in jeopardy of criminal prosecution because of it. Because these answers are compelled, they are not legal testimony. We, however, don't have the same luxury. If ths conviction is upheld, stating "I'm willing to talk with you in 48 hours with my attorney" could land you in hot water. It's worth watching and I hope it's overturned.

    Thanks for listening to my very sleepy message. I hope I made some sense. I'll update tomorrow if it didn't make sense. Thanks again.
    I have read a few of Massad's books along with attending his course in the Judicious Use of Deadly Force and your statement could not be further from what was taught.

    Massad has stated to the best of my recollection is that Police Departments recommend to their officers when involved in a shooting to take time to talk with an attorney and then make themselves available.
    The basic information to provide is who, where, evidence and witnesses and a short statement that You were in fear of your life and once I have time to contact an attorney I will make my self available for questioning. He also noted that during this time many will try and seek out approval for what just happened and when doing this people have a tendency to alter the story some to gain support and those altered information will bring doubt into the rest of the facts and you as a witness.

    Don't just take my word for it, I found a link to his DVD on the issue.
    http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com...Lethalfull.htm
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by sigfan View Post
    ...
    During the course of the investigation into the incident, they learned that Mr Budik did, in fact, know who shot him. They charged him with "rendering criminal assistance in the first degree" (9A.76.070)



    Mr Budik was not a family member so that strikes all of subsection (2). What the court seemed concerned with was wether this granted the police rights to easily abuse this power. They asked what would have happened if he simply gave them blank looks and didn't answer at all. They were concerned that anyone who simply exercised their constitutional rights to remain quiet would also be affected by this. The definition of "Rendering criminal assistance" is found in 9A.76.050.
    I will have to disagree with you on two points. One, him not being a family member of the assailant does not negate section 2 of 9A.76.070, it simply means that the crime is a class B felony instead of a gross misdemeanor. Think of a math or computer equation following the IF/THEN pattern. IF subject does this crime THEN crime type is A. IF subject is related to suspect THEN crime type is B.

    Two, he lied to police, that is blatant deception. Had he simply remained silent, they could not have charged him. But by lying to police and saying he didn't know when he did he also concealed information evidence (yeah I know, not physical but still concealing evidence.)

    The charge has nothing to do with the events other than the fact that the shooting victim lied to police thus hampering their investigation. I'm sure he lied so that he could have the chance at revenge.

    Now personally if I was in his situation I would have lawyered up and told the police that I would not answer any questions until consulting with my attorney and not without him/her being present during questioning. You can refuse to answer questions and it does not constitute lying to police.
    Last edited by sirpuma; 06-16-2011 at 03:40 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Massad Ayoob is still stuck in his heyday in the 70s. Discuss
    "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

  10. #10
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410
    Agreed.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Bo View Post
    Some would argue otherwise. In the minds of many, withholding the truth is just as bad as telling a lie.

    Furthermore, if one subscribes to the notion of the social contract, citizens have a responsibility to be good citizens, which means doing the right thing. Absent any compelling factors (which I do not consider to mean the "no-snitch" current "code" of the streets) to not come forward with the truth in aid of an investigation, one can argue that the good citizen should speak the truth in furtherance of his society's efforts to bring a murderer to justice.

    It's hypocritical to continue one's public bleating that cops are bad for not always being truthful, then excusing a citizen (let alone a gang member) for withholding the truth.
    Just remember Bo,

    No good deed goes unpunished.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Regular Member sigfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Semi-closed account
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Bo View Post
    Some would argue otherwise. In the minds of many, withholding the truth is just as bad as telling a lie.

    Furthermore, if one subscribes to the notion of the social contract, citizens have a responsibility to be good citizens, which means doing the right thing. Absent any compelling factors (which I do not consider to mean the "no-snitch" current "code" of the streets) to not come forward with the truth in aid of an investigation, one can argue that the good citizen should speak the truth in furtherance of his society's efforts to bring a murderer to justice.
    I have signed no such social contract so go ahead and null and void the rest of your statement. Compelling factors for not talking to the police are upheld in many US supreme court cases which have stated that you should not talk to the police -- even if innocent. Your statement that witholding information is tantamount to a lie is exactly why we are in jeopardy here. If you can make that argument, so can the prosecution. If you can appeal to emotion of a jury on that statement, you just might win. Witholding information is a right (as in, you have the right to remain silent -- as in the 5th ammendment).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bo View Post
    It's hypocritical to continue one's public bleating that cops are bad for not always being truthful, then excusing a citizen (let alone a gang member) for withholding the truth.
    Cops not being truthful is bad because they are paid for with public money and is therefor subject to public scrutiny. Me being untruthful or , more likely, being silent is my own damn business and is constitutionally protected sideways, backwards and upwards.
    Semi-retired account.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sigfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Semi-closed account
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    I have read a few of Massad's books along with attending his course in the Judicious Use of Deadly Force and your statement could not be further from what was taught.
    Massad has stated to the best of my recollection is that Police Departments recommend to their officers when involved in a shooting to take time to talk with an attorney and then make themselves available.
    The basic information to provide is who, where, evidence and witnesses and a short statement that You were in fear of your life and once I have time to contact an attorney I will make my self available for questioning. He also noted that during this time many will try and seek out approval for what just happened and when doing this people have a tendency to alter the story some to gain support and those altered information will bring doubt into the rest of the facts and you as a witness.

    Don't just take my word for it, I found a link to his DVD on the issue.
    http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com...Lethalfull.htm
    I know your normal schtick is to disagree with whatever anyone but yourself .. so let me see if I can shed more clarification on my statement.

    1. YES, his courses tell CITIZENS to do exactly as you say.
    2. YES, his courses say that police officers are told to talk to an attorney first before giving a statement.


    What I am stating is that in there is a list of questions that they are REQUIRED to answer or they will lose their badge. This information was backed up by a Seattle Police officer I had an encouter with at a gun meeting. The answers, because they are compelled, are not usable in court but are required to make sure the scene is secure and safe from further need to respond. Again, I'll look for the cite on this but am uncertain if this is RCW, union contract, or employment agreement. I'll get in touch with that officer (though it pains me to do so) and ask for the cite.
    Semi-retired account.

  14. #14
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by sigfan View Post
    What I am stating is that in there is a list of questions that they are REQUIRED to answer or they will lose their badge. This information was backed up by a Seattle Police officer I had an encouter with at a gun meeting. The answers, because they are compelled, are not usable in court but are required to make sure the scene is secure and safe from further need to respond. Again, I'll look for the cite on this but am uncertain if this is RCW, union contract, or employment agreement. I'll get in touch with that officer (though it pains me to do so) and ask for the cite.
    Good luck in finding something that does not exist.

    As to required to answer questions right after a shooting is limited as to Who, What, Where, When and a brief statement of self defense though when it comes to being questioned, they still maintain the right as any other citizen and has not given up their rights.
    I know a Chief of Police once the basics are given he tells them not to discuss it any future until he/she has had a chance to talk with a lawyer and respects the same for citizens.

    The concept of not notifying law enforcement of who just shot me is beyond me as I would want that SOB arrested and put a way. The mentality of not telling law enforcement of such crimes, like it or not is contributing to more of the same.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by sigfan View Post
    I have signed no such social contract so go ahead and null and void the rest of your statement. Compelling factors for not talking to the police are upheld in many US supreme court cases which have stated that you should not talk to the police -- even if innocent. Your statement that witholding information is tantamount to a lie is exactly why we are in jeopardy here. If you can make that argument, so can the prosecution. If you can appeal to emotion of a jury on that statement, you just might win. Witholding information is a right (as in, you have the right to remain silent -- as in the 5th ammendment).



    Cops not being truthful is bad because they are paid for with public money and is therefor subject to public scrutiny. Me being untruthful or , more likely, being silent is my own damn business and is constitutionally protected sideways, backwards and upwards.
    +1

    But of course many cops would love to see the fourth and fifth amendments done away with.......typical.

    I'd love someone to show me anywhere in the constitution where it says the people can't lie to cops (oh wait the founders would be disgusted at this standing army of police). Yet cops commit crimes all the time and we are suppose to just accept that.....
    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)

  16. #16
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sigfan View Post
    Compelling factors for not talking to the police are upheld in many US supreme court cases which have stated that you should not talk to the police -- even if innocent.
    Because you mentioned "many US Supreme Court Cases" perhaps you would be so kind as to cite at least one or two where it has been stated that you should not talk to the Police.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    123
    I have signed no such social contract
    So, you don't believe that you have any responsibilities as a citizen. You can simply go through your life picking and choosing which amenities and privileges that come to you to enjoy, mostly gratis, by virture of your good fortune in having been born here ...

    You don't need to vote then, you don't need to do anything to participate and perpetuate the working aspects of your society, you need do nothing to assist your fellow citizens ... such as participating in the society's chosen legal system in bringing a criminal to justice ... you feel compelled to do exactly naught to help out those nasty agents of the state, even when they are seeking to do something for the greater good ... No need to participate in the PTA, even if the city is educating your children for free; no need to obey traffic laws (too much chance of getting pulled over by a rogue cop), even though you drive the public roadways (mostly) in this state for free.

    I submit that if you were truly such a champion of individual rights, you might consider a little scholarship vis a vis how our Founding Fathers felt about a citizen's responsibilities -- and the notion of a social contract weighed heavily upon the original philosophy invested in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Read some of the political philosphers' whose works so influenced the founders of our nation.

    Nope, no need to tell the truth. Just leave it to the citizens that do believe that citizenship comes encumbered with a few responsbilities to step up and take up the slack left by the folks that want only to enjoy the benefits of citizenship without having to actually be good citizens.

    Yet cops commit crimes all the time and we are suppose to just accept
    that.....
    You see anyone say anything like that in this thread? Really? C'mon now, your usual prejudice is showing.
    Last edited by Bo; 06-17-2011 at 02:16 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Bo View Post
    . No need to participate in the PTA, even if the city is educating your children for free; [/I]

    For free? Guess what? I am paying through the @$$ to support public schools and I haven't had a kid in one of them for over 30 years. Don't give me any BS about how I am benefiting from the work done in schools done today. When I had people come an apply for jobs the majority were incapable of making common math calculations, reading a simple book of instructions, and had no clue as to what acceptable grooming was for a Retail environment. These were all High School Graduates too.

    Don't give me the "educating your children for free rhetoric. We all pay and dearly because the product the schools turn out is flawed. If a manufacturer had the same failure rate nobody would buy their product.

    The "social contract" you referred to works both way. Those that "take the bucks" should feel obligated to give back a finished product.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Bo View Post
    So, you don't believe that you have any responsibilities as a citizen. You can simply go through your life picking and choosing which amenities and privileges that come to you to enjoy, mostly gratis, by virture of your good fortune in having been born here ...

    Uh Duh......yes I believe that.....and don't buy into socialist thinking I owe this country or anybody anything. Welcome to liberty....Now this doesn't mean I am not helpful to others when I can.

    You don't need to vote then ( I don't vote they give me a choice between two loosers) you don't need to do anything to participate and perpetuate the working aspects of your society, you need do nothing to assist your fellow citizens ... (already covered) such as participating in the society's chosen legal system in bringing a criminal to justice (the legal system is not the legal system this country is founded upon, and yes I'll participate in jury nullification to try to nullify most your ridiculous freedom killing laws)... you feel compelled to do exactly naught to help out those nasty agents of the state, even when they are seeking to do something for the greater good (propaganda, those nasty agents rarely "help" and spend most the time as revenue collectors and traffic enforcement)... No need to participate in the PTA, even if the city is educating your children for free; ( covered well by Amlevin) no need to obey traffic laws (too much chance of getting pulled over by a rogue cop), even though you drive the public roadways (mostly) in this state for free. (Again are you kidding me? We pay dearly and overpay for these roads through high taxes on gas etc., Yet you buy into the statist thinking its a priviledge, and this has nothing to do with what is being tallked about actually this whole paragraph is a misdirection, stick to the topic)

    I submit that if you were truly such a champion of individual rights, you might consider a little scholarship vis a vis how our Founding Fathers felt about a citizen's responsibilities (I recommend you do the same, because they wrote the 4th and 5th ) -- and the notion of a social contract weighed heavily upon the original philosophy invested in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. (You are mislead there is no social contract to state or country other than to defend it when it is under attack. These legal documents were founded under Blackstone, English Freeman law, not statism) Read some of the political philosphers' whose works so influenced the founders of our nation. (like Blackstone?)

    Nope, no need to tell the truth. Just leave it to the citizens that do believe that citizenship comes encumbered with a few responsbilities to step up and take up the slack left by the folks that want only to enjoy the benefits of citizenship without having to actually be good citizens. Again socialist, statist thinking. The founding fathers didn't define a benefit to citizens they defined human rights government can't touch. They loved and promoted liberty and lack of intrusion of government into peoples lives.

    You see anyone say anything like that in this thread? Really? C'mon now, your usual prejudice is showing.
    Yes I do your statement that not saying anything is just as bad as lying.....this shows your prejudice and how you would love to reduce our rights to make your job easier. Especially when the courts have allowed cops to lie in the course of their investigation, they also over look the felonious bribes offered by prosecutors etc. in acquiring witnesses and plea bargains. They also over look the perjury (another felony) committed by cops daily on their police reports and in court.

    This particular case would also be disgusting to our founders I firmly believe they wouldn't have cared if a "civilian" lied to a law enforcement officer especially since our laws and justice system was originally put in place to protect citizens from the government and not the other way around. They would also be very disgusted at how the system ignores the requirement of both actus reas and mens rea be present for there to be a crime.

    And I didn't mean to hide my prejudice at all and openly admit I am not a fan of unconstitutional proactive law enforcement.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 06-18-2011 at 09:03 AM.
    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)

  20. #20
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yes I do your statement that not saying anything is just as bad as lying.....this shows your prejudice and how you would love to reduce our rights to make your job easier. Especially when the courts have allowed cops to lie in the course of their investigation, they also over look the felonious bribes offered by prosecutors etc. in acquiring witnesses and plea bargains. They also over look the perjury (another felony) committed by cops daily on their police reports and in court.

    This particular case would also be disgusting to our founders I firmly believe they wouldn't have cared if a "civilian" lied to a law enforcement officer especially since our laws and justice system was originally put in place to protect citizens from the government and not the other way around. They would also be very disgusted at how the system ignores the requirement of both actus reas and mens rea be present for there to be a crime.

    And I didn't mean to hide my prejudice at all and openly admit I am not a fan of unconstitutional proactive law enforcement.
    Good post......Not much more to add here...except it made think about this:

    Last year I paid $13,600 in property tax...also no kids in school for over 23 years
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  21. #21
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by jt59 View Post
    Last year I paid $13,600 in property tax...also no kids in school for over 23 years
    I'll wager that you too don't feel that you're getting a fair return on your investment. The Teacher's Union sure is though.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  22. #22
    Regular Member Wolfebane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    113
    I wonder if this is applicable.

    I've encountered situations where something happened to me and I had no idea who did it at the time, but then later it turned out that I did, in fact, know who did it - just didn't know it at the time.

    If this is the case, would be hard to prove but the burden of proof is on the state, defense just has to prove reasonable doubt, there should have been no charges filed at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by jt59 View Post
    Good post......Not much more to add here...except it made think about this:

    Last year I paid $13,600 in property tax...also no kids in school for over 23 years
    $13,600! talk about a buttload of property, I own a two story house on 5 acres and only have to pay about $2,500 a year in prop tax - either you do have a lot of property or high valued property or your jurisdiction is way screwing it's people.
    Last edited by Wolfebane; 06-19-2011 at 08:48 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfebane View Post
    I wonder if this is applicable.

    I've encountered situations where something happened to me and I had no idea who did it at the time, but then later it turned out that I did, in fact, know who did it - just didn't know it at the time.

    If this is the case, would be hard to prove but the burden of proof is on the state, defense just has to prove reasonable doubt, there should have been no charges filed at all.



    $13,600! talk about a buttload of property, I own a two story house on 5 acres and only have to pay about $2,500 a year in prop tax - either you do have a lot of property or high valued property or your jurisdiction is way screwing it's people.
    Chances are that if you owned that 5 acres in a city like Seattle or Tacoma, you'd have to put a couple of zero's on the end of your tax bill.

    I have a friend who owns 10 acres in Eastern Washington that pays about $500 per year in property tax. Of course there is no paved access road for miles, no power, no water, no fire protection, and police response time is measured in hours.

    It's all relative.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  24. #24
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfebane View Post
    I wonder if this is applicable.

    $13,600! talk about a buttload of property,

    - either you do have: 1. a lot of property or 2. high valued property or 3. your jurisdiction is way screwing it's people.
    Answers: 1. Yes, but not by choice (thanks Barney Frank)....2. not really........3. yes, although property values have been assessed downward, surprisingly, tax assessment increases per/$M have mysteriously gone up and so we are paying essentially what we did before the downturn.

    The additional misery and downside to the double dip is that when values do eventually increase, there will be a upward ratcheting of taxes paid on the increasing values that won't be recognized by most....and explained away by politicians as the impact of inflation.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Chances are that if you owned that 5 acres in a city like Seattle or Tacoma, you'd have to put a couple of zero's on the end of your tax bill.

    I have a friend who owns 10 acres in Eastern Washington that pays about $500 per year in property tax. Of course there is no paved access road for miles, no power, no water, no fire protection, and police response time is measured in hours.

    It's all relative.
    Sounds like heaven!
    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 2 12 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
  •