Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Is they is, or is they aint???

  1. #1
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Is they is, or is they aint???

    It happened again. Thankfully I wasnt injured.

    A thought struck me...

    As I sit here, I am thinking of things mentioned in the past, and things that have happened recently. All of these things happening on private property.

    Some examples:

    Alexmayhem was asked to leave Albertsons by Kennewick Police. He was asked to leave private property by the local police dept after not being approached by any of Albertsons staff.

    Somebody on here was asked to put his gun away at a movie theater on private property from a police officer, not by the theater staff.

    Tom Brewster was approached and asked for ID on the private property at starbucks because of open carrying a firearm, which from what I understood was not initiated by the staff there.

    The other day a lady without a license or insurance backed into one of our employees cars and the officer showed up and said she could not write a police report, ticket the lady or do anything else because the incedent happened on private property. This lady admitted to driving the vehicle, the only way into our parking lot is from a public road.

    How can they enforce a "not" law when it comes to open carry, and not enforce a real law on private property? I was taught that rules of the road still applied to parking lots, turn signals, speed limits. If your car is vandalized in your driveway they will come and fill out a police report. Damage is damage, what differintiates what is reportable and what is not? If there is a domestic dispute, an officer will come on private property and sort things out.

    This is where the dash cam thing would be cool in this area. The employee is a young kid who really didnt know what to do, so I told him the usual exchange info and get the officers info so that he could refer back to it.

    He said he had forgot the cops name so I said hang on, I went out to ask her for her info, and on the way I snapped a photo of her license plate number. She hopped out of her vehicle and said "Here let me give you my card, this car is not tied to my name in any way". I asked her "Are you not assigned the car and have to check it out and back in?" She said "no", I was thinking well the dash cam could ID you but she seemed ignorant already, so I took the card and she wrote her sargeants name on the back which looks like ( Sgt Mos). This happened on the 5th and her name is Becca Jones.

    I want to find some info on this cause this is the second one of our employees that have had their cars hit and been told that police do not have to file an incedent report. I had first thought well if it were vandalism that is done with on purpose, and an accident, well is an accident. But then I thought well even if the unlicensed, uninsured woman didnt mean to back into our employee, she drove the car on purpose without a license and insurance which makes this not an accident.

    Any thoughts? <--- LOL
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  2. #2
    Activist Member SigGuy23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Freeland, WA
    Posts
    323
    Somebody on here was asked to put his gun away at a movie theater on private property from a police officer, not by the theater staff.
    This one was me.

    That is crazy. She admitted to breaking the law private property or not. The kid should take the woman to court with all of you as witnesses. Hopefully The judges will be on his side and make her pay for the damages.

  3. #3
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by SigGuy23 View Post
    This one was me.

    That is crazy. She admitted to breaking the law private property or not. The kid should take the woman to court with all of you as witnesses. Hopefully The judges will be on his side and make her pay for the damages.
    Most discerning to me was that the officer pulled out of the parking lot right after the unlicensed, uninsured driver and then sped up and quickly passed her. She let her drive away.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    I was taught that rules of the road still applied to parking lots, turn signals, speed limits.
    You were taught wrong. Absent negligence or recklessness (crimes), Title 46 violations cannot be enforced on private property.

    I don't wear my seat belt on private property, nor do I stop at stop signs on private property if there is no reason to.

  5. #5
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    You were taught wrong. Absent negligence or recklessness (crimes), Title 46 violations cannot be enforced on private property.

    I don't wear my seat belt on private property, nor do I stop at stop signs on private property if there is no reason to.
    What he said. For the most part, anything goes in a private parking lot.

  6. #6
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    You were taught wrong. Absent negligence or recklessness (crimes), Title 46 violations cannot be enforced on private property.

    I don't wear my seat belt on private property, nor do I stop at stop signs on private property if there is no reason to.
    I will still follow the rules of the road in parking lots because it is the right thing to do, not because it is the law.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    It happened again. Thankfully I wasnt injured.

    A thought struck me...
    You gotta watch out for those. They have an alarming tendency to come back around for a second pass if you duck the first one though...

    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    How can they enforce a "not" law when it comes to open carry, and not enforce a real law on private property? I was taught that rules of the road still applied to parking lots, turn signals, speed limits. If your car is vandalized in your driveway they will come and fill out a police report. Damage is damage, what differintiates what is reportable and what is not? If there is a domestic dispute, an officer will come on private property and sort things out.
    Technically? They can only legally enforce actual laws, not what they believe to be laws in error. The problem is, many judges will rubber-stamp a 'Disobeying an Order' charge even if it is an unlawful order or even if obeying it would cause you to commit a crime. Likewise, arresting someone for not breaking any laws is, by definition, false arrest. But last I checked, the law doesn't permit you to resist an unlawful arrest, and doing that leads to criminal charges as well.

    What differentiates reportable from not is the divide between criminal and civil law. Technically, as long as it's just a civil matter, the police have no duty to get involved at all. They can if they want to, but that generates paperwork, so a lot of them don't want to. They have to investigate accidents on actual roads, to see if any laws were broken, and they tend to oversee the public hazard of the accident site until it's cleared up. But unless the woman actually intended to collide with the other car, no laws were broken in that parking lot.

    A domestic dispute usually involves at least a noise ordinance violation, and often includes assault, battery, etc. Those are things police are duty-bound to do something about.

    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    I want to find some info on this cause this is the second one of our employees that have had their cars hit and been told that police do not have to file an incedent report. I had first thought well if it were vandalism that is done with on purpose, and an accident, well is an accident. But then I thought well even if the unlicensed, uninsured woman didnt mean to back into our employee, she drove the car on purpose without a license and insurance which makes this not an accident.
    Technically they don't have to do a report unless the crash was deliberate vandalism or a high degree of negligence (how high is high? Endangers a person is about where it starts). You pretty much have to deliberately hit another car, or try to deliberately run someone over for a police report to be required. Streets are regulated, parking lots generally aren't, unless there is intent to commit a crime.

    You say the cop ignored the lack of driver's license and insurance? The woman might have had them, and just told you she didn't to avoid being identifiable in court later on; If she showed them to the cop secretly, then the cop wouldn't be required to arrest her for the lack of them. People do stupid things under stress, and dishonesty makes everything worse.

    Is it a misdemeanor in Washington for a cop to refuse to investigate a crime or make an arrest when confronted with a crime? If so, the cop broke the law, and you need to file a formal complaint, since whether the woman really did have license and/or insurance, you have a reasonable amount of proof that she does not.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post

    Technically? They can only legally enforce actual laws, not what they believe to be laws in error. The problem is, many judges will rubber-stamp a 'Disobeying an Order' charge even if it is an unlawful order or even if obeying it would cause you to commit a crime. Likewise, arresting someone for not breaking any laws is, by definition, false arrest. But last I checked, the law doesn't permit you to resist an unlawful arrest, and doing that leads to criminal charges as well.
    Au Contraire mon frere! http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm


    “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
    “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
    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)

  9. #9
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Only problem with this is that one's heirs may be the ones that have to deal with the legal fallout. Killing a Police Officer, even in Self Defense, may yield a response that ends up with the person "in the right" still ending up dead.
    "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?"

  10. #10
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    You were taught wrong. Absent negligence or recklessness (crimes), Title 46 violations cannot be enforced on private property.

    I don't wear my seat belt on private property, nor do I stop at stop signs on private property if there is no reason to.
    cite plz dean?
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    cite plz dean?
    RCW 46.61.005

  12. #12
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Ah yes, thanx. Not that I doubted you, just wanted something to refer to next time I get harassed for riding across a parking lot without a helmet.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  13. #13
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    My personal way of handling something like this is give it to the injured persons (the guy who's car was hit) insurance company, have what ever damage was done repaired under the unisured motorist clause, and then let the insurance company worry about recovering their money.

    As for the police not filing a report...well, I guess that is up to them. Can they charge the uninsured lady? Not while she is on private property, unless she was stealing the car...but they can file a report.
    Last edited by hermannr; 10-10-2011 at 02:08 PM.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    Most discerning to me was that the officer pulled out of the parking lot right after the unlicensed, uninsured driver and then sped up and quickly passed her. She let her drive away.
    This is America's police force. I mean seriously? WTF!? Unlicensed, uninsured, AND A BAD DRIVER and the cop just turns her head? Are you kidding me? It's like a big joke man.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  15. #15
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    You gotta watch out for those. They have an alarming tendency to come back around for a second pass if you duck the first one though...



    Technically? They can only legally enforce actual laws, not what they believe to be laws in error. The problem is, many judges will rubber-stamp a 'Disobeying an Order' charge even if it is an unlawful order or even if obeying it would cause you to commit a crime. Likewise, arresting someone for not breaking any laws is, by definition, false arrest. But last I checked, the law doesn't permit you to resist an unlawful arrest, and doing that leads to criminal charges as well.

    What differentiates reportable from not is the divide between criminal and civil law. Technically, as long as it's just a civil matter, the police have no duty to get involved at all. They can if they want to, but that generates paperwork, so a lot of them don't want to. They have to investigate accidents on actual roads, to see if any laws were broken, and they tend to oversee the public hazard of the accident site until it's cleared up. But unless the woman actually intended to collide with the other car, no laws were broken in that parking lot.

    A domestic dispute usually involves at least a noise ordinance violation, and often includes assault, battery, etc. Those are things police are duty-bound to do something about.
    Not really, Warren v. District of Columbia


    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Technically they don't have to do a report unless the crash was deliberate vandalism or a high degree of negligence (how high is high? Endangers a person is about where it starts). You pretty much have to deliberately hit another car, or try to deliberately run someone over for a police report to be required. Streets are regulated, parking lots generally aren't, unless there is intent to commit a crime.

    You say the cop ignored the lack of driver's license and insurance? The woman might have had them, and just told you she didn't to avoid being identifiable in court later on; If she showed them to the cop secretly, then the cop wouldn't be required to arrest her for the lack of them. People do stupid things under stress, and dishonesty makes everything worse.
    The driver handed the guy I work with Washington State ID. The officer told him that he needs to contact his insurance company with her information and let them handle this since she didnt have insurance.

    This is why I have uninsured motorist on my insurance. There are way too many irresponsible, lowlifes on the road who drive with out insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Is it a misdemeanor in Washington for a cop to refuse to investigate a crime or make an arrest when confronted with a crime?
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    If so, the cop broke the law, and you need to file a formal complaint, since whether the woman really did have license and/or insurance, you have a reasonable amount of proof that she does not.
    Please cite???
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Only problem with this is that one's heirs may be the ones that have to deal with the legal fallout. Killing a Police Officer, even in Self Defense, may yield a response that ends up with the person "in the right" still ending up dead.
    And why is that? Because of the continual militarization? Because of the immediate defense of a comrade by others in blue?

    But still my point stands it is not "illegal" to resist false arrest. And if LEO took how far people are legally allowed to resist false arrest maybe we would have less of a police state and less fear of what you just mentioned happening.
    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)

  17. #17
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    And why is that? Because of the continual militarization? Because of the immediate defense of a comrade by others in blue?

    But still my point stands it is not "illegal" to resist false arrest. And if LEO took how far people are legally allowed to resist false arrest maybe we would have less of a police state and less fear of what you just mentioned happening.
    The Police will always take steps to make sure that they have the upper hand. Be that in superior numbers when responding, or superior weaponry, they will usually come out on top.

    Yes it might be legal to resist a "false arrest" but you know, the old saying, "Dead Right"?
    "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?"

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Yep! And revolting against the Brittish could have killed all the colonists. But they did it anyway because it was right.
    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)

  19. #19
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yep! And revolting against the Brittish could have killed all the colonists. But they did it anyway because it was right.
    Apples and Kumquats.

    We're talking about a single person resisting a false arrest, not an organized revolt against authority.
    "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?"

  20. #20
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    Not really, Warren v. District of Columbia
    You misread what I wrote. Go back and read it. Nowhere did I say the police would be duty-bound to intervene, though I could have stated it more clearly. They are however duty bound to investigate crimes, since those are offenses against the laws of the city, county, state or nation, whether they also have an actual victim or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    The driver handed the guy I work with Washington State ID. The officer told him that he needs to contact his insurance company with her information and let them handle this since she didnt have insurance.

    This is why I have uninsured motorist on my insurance. There are way too many irresponsible, lowlifes on the road who drive with out insurance.
    Okay, but that wasn't in your post that I replied to (or I wouldn't have said it).

    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    Please cite???
    Um...cite what? I asked a question, how do you cite a question?

  21. #21
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    This is America's police force. I mean seriously? WTF!? Unlicensed, uninsured, AND A BAD DRIVER and the cop just turns her head? Are you kidding me? It's like a big joke man.
    Schlitz: think about this...I let my 13 year-old granddaughter drive my old beater Ford F250 4X4 on my private property. That old truck has not been licensed or insured since 2003, it is only used for firewood, clearing snow off the driveway, getting hay, never leaves the property....

    So, lets say (this has not happened, but let's say it did). Someone, we do not know, drives down our driveway, and the grandkids are playing with that old truck, and they hit that visitor's car...do I need to call the Sheriff? If the visitor called the Sheriff would the 13 year-old be in trouble for driving without a license? Would I be in trouble for having no insurance? and no current license on the truck, and/or for allowing an unlicensed person to drive the truck?

    The answer to all of the above is NO. No-one would be in legal trouble because it all happened on private property. I would be liable for any damages, but no-one would be in legal hot water.

    Do you understand my hypothetical case? Do you agree?

  22. #22
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Schlitz: think about this...I let my 13 year-old granddaughter drive my old beater Ford F250 4X4 on my private property. That old truck has not been licensed or insured since 2003, it is only used for firewood, clearing snow off the driveway, getting hay, never leaves the property....

    So, lets say (this has not happened, but let's say it did). Someone, we do not know, drives down our driveway, and the grandkids are playing with that old truck, and they hit that visitor's car...do I need to call the Sheriff? If the visitor called the Sheriff would the 13 year-old be in trouble for driving without a license? Would I be in trouble for having no insurance? and no current license on the truck, and/or for allowing an unlicensed person to drive the truck?

    The answer to all of the above is NO. No-one would be in legal trouble because it all happened on private property. I would be liable for any damages, but no-one would be in legal hot water.

    Do you understand my hypothetical case? Do you agree?
    There are those who would argue that your private personal residence is a different situation altogether from a private supermarket that is specifically open to the PUBLIC...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  23. #23
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    There are those who would argue that your private personal residence is a different situation altogether from a private supermarket that is specifically open to the PUBLIC...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    One can be cited for Negligent Driving on private property:

    RCW 46.61.525
    Negligent driving — Second degree.

    (1)(a) A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property.

    (b) It is an affirmative defense to negligent driving in the second degree that must be proved by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, that the driver was operating the motor vehicle on private property with the consent of the owner in a manner consistent with the owner's consent.

    (c) Negligent driving in the second degree is a traffic infraction and is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars.

    (2) For the purposes of this section, "negligent" means the failure to exercise ordinary care, and is the doing of some act that a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under the same or similar circumstances.

    (3) Any act prohibited by this section that also constitutes a crime under any other law of this state may be the basis of prosecution under such other law notwithstanding that it may also be the basis for prosecution under this section.


    [1997 c 66 § 5; 1996 c 307 § 1; 1979 ex.s. c 136 § 86; 1967 c 32 § 69; 1961 c 12 § 46.56.030. Prior: 1939 c 154 § 1; RRS § 6360-118 1/2. Formerly RCW 46.56.030.]
    At one time I was informed that traffic reg's could be enforced on private property if the property was a "way open to the public" which was at the time inferred to be Public parking facilities.

    Screw around in a Safeway Parking lot and I guess you could be charged with something.
    "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
    Campaign Veteran OlGutshotWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA, ,
    Posts
    435
    Many many years ago I was told by my boss at the Texaco station to move my car from the pump area. I did move it.......all the while smoking my tires around the pump island and then chasing my boss into the garage.

    A rather large and very unhappy police officer who happened to be parked across the street in the grocery parking lot "appeared out of nowhere!"

    To my teenage vociferous argument that "it was private property, and I could do what I wanted", and that "I did this all the time"......( remember.....what you say can and WILL be used against you in court LOL ) he explained to me that it was not private property as it was open to the public, thus making me eligible for the Negligent driving charge.

    The Judge agreed, and offered the admonition that he would have charged me with 2nd degree assault with a motor vehicle if he had been able to. The prosecutor of course had read my words to the court that I had uttered.

    Taught me an awful big lesson on opening my mouth.
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    --George Washington,
    first U.S. president

  25. #25
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    One can be cited for Negligent Driving on private property:



    At one time I was informed that traffic reg's could be enforced on private property if the property was a "way open to the public" which was at the time inferred to be Public parking facilities.

    Screw around in a Safeway Parking lot and I guess you could be charged with something.
    Wouldn't hitting someone's car be considered "negligent"? So you're basically saying that this stupid cop was just too dam lazy to do the paperwork.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

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
  •