Deputy's transgressions caught on videotape

UPDATE: July 28, 2010

http://www.kccn.tv/

This (above) site has attracted more than 1.7 million hits from visitors in 94 countries across the world since it launched 13 days ago. Substantial initial interest was generated locally by CalCoastNews.com; then, the state's largest gun owners' forum, CalGuns.net, got heavily involved in discussing the issue, posing possible solutions, and helping broadcast the site's debut 22-minute video internationally. CalGun's members' comments are now approaching 1,000 in number, and the group is one of several helping to spearhead varied efforts to assist Matt Hart. And when the video was discussed by Dave Congalton on his Home Town Radio show on 920 KVEC July 20, unique visits to KCCN.tv increased by tens of thousands within hours. Activity on the site has not yet slowed. The editors are gratified by this display of universal interest in protecting rapidly-eroding Constitutional freedoms.

That whole video made me sick. I hope that these deputies lose their jobs and spend the rest of their days in poverty.

That whole video made me want to puke. The 'deputies' shouldn't just be fired, they should be tried for conspiracy, falsifying documents, probably purjury, tresspassing, false arrest, filing false reports, breaking and entering, as well as burgulary. (just off the top of my head)

I feel bad for the citizen in all of this. Minding his own business on his own property, and somehow they actually got him to plead guilty to one of the BS charges that they made up to cover their own azzes. That's some stormtrooper sh^t right there.

And yes, he should definately get his guns back. They had absolutely no right to take them in the first place. The logic of getting his keys, entering his home and UNLOCKING his gun SAFE to take his guns for 'safe-keeping' is completely beyond me.

42 usc 1983 is 2 years statute of limitations. This guy won't sue, though. He probably wants someone else to do his dirty work and just wants to make a spectacle of it all. If he does sue, bravo to him. He is better than most people.

codename_47 said:

42 usc 1983 is 2 years statute of limitations. This guy won't sue, though. He probably wants someone else to do his dirty work and just wants to make a spectacle of it all. If he does sue, bravo to him. He is better than most people.

Click to expand...

That's the whole idea and who's hidden that videos?
San Luis Obispo County sheriff’s deputies? DA?
His public lawyer is a freinds of them? Why his lawyer didn't get that videos before court?
They can re-trail for that reason.

sue the cops?

Be careful what you suggest on this site, as it appears the management frowns heavily upon casting a disparging word towards law enforcement officers.

There's even an attorney on the Louisiana forum here who stated usc 42 sec 1983 can't be used against cops, especially when it comes down to gun rights violations.

george everette sibley said:

Be careful what you suggest on this site, as it appears the management frowns heavily upon casting a disparging word towards law enforcement officers.

There's even an attorney on the Louisiana forum here who stated usc 42 sec 1983 can't be used against cops, especially when it comes down to gun rights violations.

Click to expand...

You may want to refresh yourself on the policy on cop-bashing here. This thread is evidence that the "management" (aka John and Mike) tolerates criticism of specific bad acts by police officers. The only time I've seen them step in is when someone translates such criticism to bashing of LEOs in general. Furthermore, my experience is they are loath to react except in the most egregious cases.

Your criticism of what you call the "management" is unfounded.

If the person had been guilty of something, most of what was found in the house could get thrown out with a good attorney.

Police actions like this is what allows criminals to walk free. Seen it happen way to many times - not that once isn't enough.

Who are you...

george everette sibley said:

Be careful what you suggest on this site, as it appears the management frowns heavily upon casting a disparging word towards law enforcement officers.

There's even an attorney on the Louisiana forum here who stated usc 42 sec 1983 can't be used against cops, especially when it comes down to gun rights violations.

Click to expand...

... to be telling anyone anything about this board??

Less than 1 month and 9 posts does not give you the necessary insight to make such comments.

Actually, it does.
It must not have occured to you a person can spend months reading here prior to posting.

george everette sibley said:

It must not have occured to you a person can spend months reading here prior to posting.

Click to expand...

OR, a person could be a former member recently extinguished from existence on this forum for the same kind of erroneous, over generalized. unintelligent, hollow cop-bashing comments? Perhaps using a new name?

JeepSeller said:

OR, a person could be a former member recently extinguished from existence on this forum for the same kind of erroneous, over generalized. unintelligent, hollow cop-bashing comments? Perhaps using a new name?

Click to expand...

Occam's Razor. That is indeed the simplest explanation: that he has been slapped down for cop-bashing and is retaliating. But, it doesn't matter. Contrary to his post, John and Mike do allow criticism of specific bad acts by LEOs and LEAs.

Edit: Nevermind. Comments not required, looks like the troll got bounced again. LOL

I'm reviving an old thread, but it seems appropriate on the topic of the SLOSO.

I just finished watching "Lynching Charlie Lynch":

http://www.amazon.com/Lynching-Charlie-Lynch/dp/B007VYBEC6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334964224&sr=8-1

The SLO Sheriff worked for more than a year, and couldn't even get a search warrant, because Charlie Lynch was in compliance with state law.

So, he ran to the DEA, and eventually got an indictment and conviction, although the witnesses were bound by federal rules of testimony. The judge blasted the outcome.

No one ever suggested jury nullification.

Feck.

prison for bad cops

The officers in this video should be lawfully arrested, tried and if found guilty, punished to the fullest extent of the law. The sooner
we stop giving a pass to law breakers, regardless of their position, the better off the Republic will be. They should be placed in the
general prison population as well, since they wanted to urinate on the Constitution !!