• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Worley wins!

rapgood

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
As I'm sure many of your remember, Mack Worley, then of Vancouver WA, was convicted of unlawful display of a weapon (RCW 9.41.270). The conviction was overturned on appeal (that's how most of these go), whereupon the City of Vancouver filed a Motion to Reconsider. The court summarily rejected the City's arguments and denied the motion. While the City can still file an appeal, based upon the denial of the MTR, it isn't likely that they would succeed. The Court accepted my argument that, in order to grant the City's motion, it would have to completely "evicerate the limits on RCW 9.41.270" that the display of a weapon would warrant alarm in a reasonable person, as it had held in State v. Spencer (Worley had his AR 15 simply slung over his shoulder and was not otherwise touching it). Congrats to Mack!
 
Difdi

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
rapgood said:
As I'm sure many of your remember, Mack Worley, then of Vancouver WA, was convicted of unlawful display of a weapon (RCW 9.41.270). The conviction was overturned on appeal (that's how most of these go), whereupon the City of Vancouver filed a Motion to Reconsider. The court summarily rejected the City's arguments and denied the motion. While the City can still file an appeal, based upon the denial of the MTR, it isn't likely that they would succeed. The Court accepted my argument that, in order to grant the City's motion, it would have to completely "evicerate the limits on RCW 9.41.270" that the display of a weapon would warrant alarm in a reasonable person, as it had held in State v. Spencer (Worley had his AR 15 simply slung over his shoulder and was not otherwise touching it). Congrats to Mack!
Click to expand...

If simply having a slung or holstered firearm -- openly carried without touching it -- warrants alarm in a reasonable person despite the statutes defining it as legal, then the fact that police kill more people in the US than the terrorists we're supposed to be so terrified of would warrant sufficient alarm to make a MWAG call every time we see a cop legally justified (and not in any way an abuse of the e911 system). After all, their carry of firearms is also defined as legal by a statute.
 
solus

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Schlepnier said:
Great news!

Brightens my day after waking up to hear Gabriel Giffords husband touting more gun control initiatives on my radio/alarm
Click to expand...

you should change stations :eek: to wake up to...as that would cause someone to have a really bad day at work.

rap...great job on defending your client.

ipse
 
Last edited:
MSG Laigaie

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
Thanks to BOTH of you. Every time someone goes forward with this kind of assault on Freedom and every time a barrister steps up to defend him, it is placing another brick in the wall that protects us all. Thank you for paving the way.
 
Alpine

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
Great news! Thank you for your work defending our freedoms here!
 
Grim_Night

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington
My biggest problem is the fact that even though we all know that he did nothing wrong and that the PA/DA screwed up, the defendant is out all the money spent on legal defense and will never get any of it back. The city spends all the money they want, paid for by tax payers and not a single thing will happen to them. How long was this legal battle going on? Years? So much wasted time and money on both sides and it did nothing really to further our cause because if the city doesn't charge someone else with this same exact "crime" someone else somewhere else will do it all over again and the fight begins anew.
 
solus

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Grim_Night said:
My biggest problem is the fact that even though we all know that he did nothing wrong and that the PA/DA screwed up, the defendant is out all the money spent on legal defense and will never get any of it back. The city spends all the money they want, paid for by tax payers and not a single thing will happen to them. How long was this legal battle going on? Years? So much wasted time and money on both sides and it did nothing really to further our cause because if the city doesn't charge someone else with this same exact "crime" someone else somewhere else will do it all over again and the fight begins anew.
Click to expand...

grim, you are correct w/your commentary & it is a shame citizens must endure this judicial misconduct.

ipse
 
Freedom1Man

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
solus said:
grim, you are correct w/your commentary & it is a shame citizens must endure this judicial misconduct.

ipse
Click to expand...

Grim_Night said:
My biggest problem is the fact that even though we all know that he did nothing wrong and that the PA/DA screwed up, the defendant is out all the money spent on legal defense and will never get any of it back. The city spends all the money they want, paid for by tax payers and not a single thing will happen to them. How long was this legal battle going on? Years? So much wasted time and money on both sides and it did nothing really to further our cause because if the city doesn't charge someone else with this same exact "crime" someone else somewhere else will do it all over again and the fight begins anew.
Click to expand...
This is our land of the free, where the gubernment is free to persecute citizens at the cost of the citizens. The citizenry has to pay both for their defense and their own prosecution. Where gobernment employees are free to violate the rights of anyone they choose without consequences to them.

Wait, I think we are in soviet Russia.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 
F350

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
941
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Grim_Night said:
My biggest problem is the fact that even though we all know that he did nothing wrong and that the PA/DA screwed up, the defendant is out all the money spent on legal defense and will never get any of it back. The city spends all the money they want, paid for by tax payers and not a single thing will happen to them. How long was this legal battle going on? Years? So much wasted time and money on both sides and it did nothing really to further our cause because if the city doesn't charge someone else with this same exact "crime" someone else somewhere else will do it all over again and the fight begins anew.
Click to expand...

+1

I think one of the battles left to fight for RKBA--which would be good for freedom generally--would be to advance legal protections for those who are ultimately acquitted. At the very least, there needs to be some direct possibility for those who have been found not guilty to be reimbursed for their legal expenses. In fact, the most just course might be a mandate that upon acquittal, all property seized as evidence or otherwise must be returned and reasonable legal fees must be paid by the state. Taken a step further, if the state is obligated to provide some minimum level of legal defense to the indigent, perhaps it should be required to provide some reasonable amount of money to all defendants from the get-go. What is reasonable? For starters, methinks that whatever is deemed a reasonable amount to spent prosecuting the case (including prosecuting attorneys, their paralegals and assistance and secretaries, the police time spent investigating, and so on and so forth) ought be matched and made available to the defendant.

Even this would not compensate for the stress of a wrongful prosecution, loss of income, damage to reputation, and many other issues. But at least it would not make the effectiveness of defense contingent on having sufficient assets (not seized by the government) and a willingness to liquidate those assets.

Charles
 
rapgood

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
44Brent said:
Is the plaintiff requesting donations to help pay for the lawsuit? If so, I would like to know where I can send a token gift of support.
Click to expand...
I don't know if Mack is requesting donations, but voluntary ones can be sent to:

Freeman Law Firm Trust Account
FBO Mack Worley
1107 1/2 Tacoma Ave S
Tacoma, WA 98402
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top