Court narrows parameters for denying police records

Fuller Malarkey · Dec 22, 2013

Washington Supreme Court narrowed the parameters governing when law enforcement agencies can automatically deny public records requests.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/dec/22/editorial-washington-high-court-ruling-on-police-r/

“The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.”~Associate Justice Barbara Madsen, author, majority opinion.

kparker · Dec 23, 2013

Fuller Malarkey said:
Washington Supreme Court narrowed the parameters governing when law enforcement agencies can automatically deny public records requests.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/dec/22/editorial-washington-high-court-ruling-on-police-r/

“The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.”~Associate Justice Barbara Madsen, author, majority opinion.

I really really miss Richard Sanders, but if Madsen can vote this way, and quote this way, I'll take it!

sudden valley gunner · Dec 23, 2013

Good! Now combine this with Yacobellis vs City of Bellingham. Were the municipalities are held financially liable and will be penalized for not providing info.

Maybe since they had a bad ruling with the disclosure of what the Governor is doing they felt they needed to throw us a bone.

Primus · Dec 23, 2013

Tyranny at its finest. Feel like a slave in Amerika. The

Lol wait whoops wrong thread this one is a win.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

sudden valley gunner · Dec 23, 2013

Primus said:
Tyranny at its finest. Feel like a slave in Amerika. The

Lol wait whoops wrong thread this one is a win.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Wow one so called win!

How about total disclosure? Wouldn't that be better? How about you pay attention to whats going on, and how many losses there are, oh wait you are a government agent and think many of those losses are a win.

Primus · Dec 23, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
Wow one so called win!

How about total disclosure? Wouldn't that be better? How about you pay attention to whats going on, and how many losses there are, oh wait you are a government agent and think many of those losses are a win.

If there's even a small win like this (and there are thousands) then its not tyranny. Everyday guys are wining cases. Every year legislation is being passed to help us. But your right... its tyranny...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Fuller Malarkey · Dec 23, 2013

Primus said:
If there's even a small win like this (and there are thousands) then its not tyranny. Everyday guys are wining cases. Every year legislation is being passed to help us. But your right... its tyranny...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

What is with the "us"? You don't open carry nor do you support it.

I'd like encourage others to report post #4 to the administration for it's disruptive, inciting and disrespectful intent.

PistolPackingMomma · Dec 23, 2013

Primus said:
If there's even a small win like this (and there are thousands) then its not tyranny. Everyday guys are wining cases. Every year legislation is being passed to help us. But your right... its tyranny...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I have an odd mixture of reactions at people who believe tyranny is some sort of absolute creature with a Snidely Whiplash moustache.

Dave_pro2a · Dec 23, 2013

Primus said:
If there's even a small win like this (and there are thousands) then its not tyranny.

Fallacy.

Primus · Dec 23, 2013

PistolPackingMomma said:
I have an odd mixture of reactions at people who believe tyranny is some sort of absolute creature with a Snidely Whiplash moustache.

Ma'am if your implying that tyranny isn't an all or nothing gambit then I do agree with you. It can inch and creep in. But I'd say in the same aspect the "wins" would have to stop then the tyranny could creep in.

As of now I think we are pretty neutral. The government still has judges and reps. That are calling out the unconstitutional laws and ideas and fighting them. There are still judges and sheriffs refusing to enforce dumb laws. There are actually laws in favor of the people and cases for the people being judged. That's a good thing.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

PistolPackingMomma · Dec 23, 2013

Primus said:
Ma'am if your implying that tyranny isn't an all or nothing gambit then I do agree with you. It can inch and creep in. But I'd say in the same aspect the "wins" would have to stop then the tyranny could creep in.

As of now I think we are pretty neutral. The government still has judges and reps. That are calling out the unconstitutional laws and ideas and fighting them. There are still judges and sheriffs refusing to enforce dumb laws. There are actually laws in favor of the people and cases for the people being judged. That's a good thing.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

To say that we have an occasional win does not tyranny make, confuses tyranny with totalitarianism.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 24, 2013

PistolPackingMomma said:
To say that we have an occasional win does not tyranny make, confuses tyranny with totalitarianism.

+1

I am sure Dictators and Kings did some good every once in awhile.

Primus you have something wrong with you mentally, trying to excuse the massive amounts of tyrannical acts because they did something ok.

PistolPackingMomma · Dec 24, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
+1

I am sure Dictators and Kings did some good every once in awhile.

Primus you have something wrong with you mentally, trying to excuse the massive amounts of tyrannical acts because they did something ok.

Upon re-reading his post, I must agree with you. He claims tyranny is not an all or nothing thing, but creeping in here and there.
Then *immediately* contradicts himself by saying once the "wins" stop, we will have tyranny.

What sort of intellectual dishonesty is this...

sudden valley gunner · Dec 24, 2013

PistolPackingMomma said:
Upon re-reading his post, I must agree with you. He claims tyranny is not an all or nothing thing, but creeping in here and there.
Then *immediately* contradicts himself by saying once the "wins" stop, we will have tyranny.

What sort of intellectual dishonesty is this...

+1

Jeff Hayes · Dec 24, 2013

PistolPackingMomma said:
Upon re-reading his post, I must agree with you. He claims tyranny is not an all or nothing thing, but creeping in here and there.
Then *immediately* contradicts himself by saying once the "wins" stop, we will have tyranny.

What sort of intellectual dishonesty is this...

+2

Primus · Dec 24, 2013

PistolPackingMomma said:
Upon re-reading his post, I must agree with you. He claims tyranny is not an all or nothing thing, but creeping in here and there.
Then *immediately* contradicts himself by saying once the "wins" stop, we will have tyranny.

What sort of intellectual dishonesty is this...

Ma'am I believe we are using different versions on tyranny. I am using it as a whole. As in a tyrannical control everything leader or government. I believe you may be using as the term for oppression?

If that's the case what we both said is correct. My statement that even little wins means no tyranny is true because if we are winning the. The president or government isn't a complete tyrant (think north Korea). If he were a complete tyrant he could say...... no guns. And poof wed have to give them. That's not happening.

For your use I understand and agree. If you feel a certain law is oppressive then it could be seen as tyranny of said state or local government.

Hope this clears it up.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

davidmcbeth · Dec 24, 2013

Different states have different open records acts (mostly passed after Watergate).

Some see FOIA requests as conflicting with discovery in court proceedings ... some don't care.

I think that the judge here has noted a specific event that delineates when a record is or isn't a public record available for access to the public. I really don't like the line in the sand drawn myself (it should be only part of a more comprehensive scheme) ... and would push legislators to change the law ...

PistolPackingMomma · Dec 24, 2013

Primus said:
Ma'am I believe we are using different versions on tyranny. I am using it as a whole. As in a tyrannical control everything leader or government. I believe you may be using as the term for oppression?

If that's the case what we both said is correct. My statement that even little wins means no tyranny is true because if we are winning the. The president or government isn't a complete tyrant (think north Korea). If he were a complete tyrant he could say...... no guns. And poof wed have to give them. That's not happening.

For your use I understand and agree. If you feel a certain law is oppressive then it could be seen as tyranny of said state or local government.

Hope this clears it up.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Main Entry: tyr·an·ny
Pronunciation: \ˈtir-ə-nē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural tyr·an·nies

Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant
Date: 14th century

1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson> ; especially : oppressive power by government <the tyranny of a police state> 2 a : a government in which absolute power is in a single ruler ; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek b : the office, authority, and administration of a 3 : a condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter> 4 : an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>

PistolPackingMomma · Dec 24, 2013

PistolPackingMomma said:
I think Brandon Raub would disagree.
I think David Sarti would disagree.
I think Victor Ortega would disagree.
I think Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman and Samir Khan would disagree.
I think Jose Guerena would disagree.
I think Justin Hallman would disagree.
I think Alvin Schlangen would disagree.
I think Jodi and Scott Ferris would disagree.
I think Lashonn White would disagree.
I think Ashley Warden would disagree.
I think John Adams would disagree.
I think this 10 year old boy would disagree.
I think Robert Pierson would disagree.
I think Noel Polanco would disagree.
I think Diane Tran would disagree.

What about the executive order allowing the government to seize all privately and publicly held resources?
What about the Michigan DNR destroying traditional species livestock?
What about the NDAA?
What about the Patriot Act?
What about the drones in our skies?
What about the surveillance cameras on the streets of Maryland?
What about the surveillance armored truck rolling around Miami?
What about Bloomberg’s ban on soda?
What about QE3?
What about ObamaCare?
What about the cops murdering family pets?
What about the cameras being installed on buses in Baltimore?
What about the war on drugs?
What about the arrest of silent dancing protesters at the Jefferson Memorial?
What about the warrantless electronic surveillance by the Feds?

Sorry, sugar, but unlike you, I don’t need a boot on my neck to recognize tyranny when I see it.

This is an old post to another member who claimed we did not have tyranny, yet. These links were all gathered from only a few months worth, and required no mores sleuthing than the ability to read.

And I'm sure we can pull up more recent, and numerous examples, if you like.

Or will you claim that since this Snidely Whiplash caricature you envision only torments a few individuals, it's not tyranny and we should discount those in favor of all the examples that back up your position instead? If only 1 man in 10 suffers, I guess the other 9 will tell him to stop complaining.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 25, 2013

PistolPackingMomma said:
This is an old post to another member who claimed we did not have tyranny, yet. These links were all gathered from only a few months worth, and required no mores sleuthing than the ability to read.

And I'm sure we can pull up more recent, and numerous examples, if you like.

Or will you claim that since this Snidely Whiplash caricature you envision only torments a few individuals, it's not tyranny and we should discount those in favor of all the examples that back up your position instead? If only 1 man in 10 suffers, I guess the other 9 will tell him to stop complaining.

+1 or they should just move according to Primus because for the mere fact they live where they do they consent to it by his theories.

Court narrows parameters for denying police records

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member