Can police confiscate your video?

[Dave_pro2a]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

Also opened ended. No special protections, explicitly stated, for those in uniform.

There's a right to resist with force, someone who is committing a felony.

LEO can commit felonies.

Logic dictates... well, you think about it. Maybe some judge twisted it all around to revenge a corrupt LEO, IDK. I stick with the plain language.

 

[Grim_Night]

Rather than citing some lame national org like Grapeshot did (with generic information)... wold anyone like to cite specific Washington state laws and case law on that topic? This is, after all, Sparta. Err, I mean the WA sub form. What happens in Alaska doesn't matter, or California, or Utah.

AFAIK use of force is acceptable against LEO in some circumstance, in some states, how about WA? I don't know.

9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

Nothing in 9A.16.020 states that the use of force cannot be used against a police officer.

9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

Again, nothing in 9A.16.050 says that lethal force cannot be used against a police officer.

The issue is that what may be deemed lawful or justified in a court of law, may not even make it that far. "Cop Killers" tend to become seriously injured or even dead before they even make it to a court appearance before a judge.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Ooops. What did I just expose?

That's up to the reader to determine.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Nothing in 9A.16.020 states that the use of force cannot be used against a police officer.

Again, nothing in 9A.16.050 says that lethal force cannot be used against a police officer.

The issue is that what may be deemed lawful or justified in a court of law, may not even make it that far. "Cop Killers" tend to become seriously injured or even dead before they even make it to a court appearance before a judge.

Since oaths were taken to simply enforce the law, I assume every citizen is treated in a fair and balanced manner.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...y-almost-all-trials-over-20-year-period.shtml

The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

https://ncforensics.wordpress.com/2...-compromised-due-to-faulty-forensic-analysis/

A Massachusetts chemist was accused of faking test results at the state lab and tampering with drug evidence while she tested suspected controlled substances in criminal cases. Authorities declared that Dookhan tested more than 60,000 samples involving 34,000 defendants during her nine years at the Department of Public Health lab. Over 200 convicted defendants have been released from custody while their cases are being reviewed due to Dookhan’s involvement

Justice is blind, right?

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian

Ooops. What did I just expose?

That's up to the reader to determine.

Pretty hard to expose that which is not hidden.

Of course people make their own determination(s).

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

You expose nothing - instead made a quantum leap.

Forum Rule #15 - WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

Pretty hard to expose that which is not hidden.

Of course people make their own determination(s).

What is being forgotten is the fact that all the infringements on the 2A are not actually law. The 2A dictate what government may not do and this is reinforced by the supremacy clause in the Constitution itself. Coupled with clear statements by the founding fathers, it makes a very clear case. There are no valid restrictions on the keeping or bearing of arms. Rule 15 is contradictory as you can't fight something that does not constitutionally exist.

While everyone would agree using a firearm against an attack is simply why we bear arms, as soon as the attacker is government, people immediately begin to get cold feet. Of course I do not suggest wanton disregard for common sense and spraying the area with bullets in a shooting spree. Such would make us no better than any other shootings and we condemn them wholeheartedly. But self-defence is a basic human instinct regardless of uniform or otherwise.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snipped--There are no valid restrictions on the keeping or bearing of arms. Rule 15 is contradictory as you can't fight something that does not constitutionally exist.

Really? No state statutes, case law, Leos or courts to tamper with this unbridled right?

It might serve to remember that the Constitution serves as a limit on the federal government, not so much on the states or private property owners.

Conclusion: Rule 15 is not contradictory and is official.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Really? No state statutes, case law, Leos or courts to tamper with this unbridled right?

It might serve to remember that the Constitution serves as a limit on the federal government, not so much on the states or private property owners.

Aaah. We are talking two different things here. Private property owners can do what they like. States are still bound by the limitations of the Constitution. Additionally

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

- 10th Amendment.

In the case of the 2A there is an absolute prohibition on infringing on the right to bear arms. Therefore that power does not belong to the states

 

[Grapeshot]

Aaah. We are talking two different things here. Private property owners can do what they like. States are still bound by the limitations of the Constitution. Additionally

- 10th Amendment.

In the case of the 2A there is an absolute prohibition on infringing on the right to bear arms. Therefore that power does not belong to the states

I do not recommend swimming in those waters - there are sharks there.

The OCDO rule still stands as written.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

I do not recommend swimming in those waters - there are sharks there.

The OCDO rule still stands as written.

Care to expand on that? I've zero qualms about courting danger. I've targeted politicians including Obama and Pelosi as well as police forces and even branches of the military with my public posts. I'm quite sure the time will come when I get banned from social networks and quite possibly have a house raid by SWAT who think freedom and liberty is dangerous. I don't care. I refuse to be a sniveling coward bowing down to tyranny (no accusation intended whatsoever)

 

[Ezek]

Care to expand on that? I've zero qualms about courting danger. I've targeted politicians including Obama and Pelosi as well as police forces and even branches of the military with my public posts. I'm quite sure the time will come when I get banned from social networks and quite possibly have a house raid by SWAT who think freedom and liberty is dangerous. I don't care. I refuse to be a sniveling coward bowing down to tyranny (no accusation intended whatsoever)

uhm, I think that is misapplication of the constitution, as the constitution specifically states that whiel the federal government cannot infringe of what is outlined, the states however are given reign to rule as they see fit.

I believe the phrase goes powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

under the 10nth amendment.

I may be very wrong however. but that is my interpretation.

however, many states adopted similar language in their own constitutions as that with the federal constitution.

 

[Grapeshot]

Care to expand on that? I've zero qualms about courting danger. I've targeted politicians including Obama and Pelosi as well as police forces and even branches of the military with my public posts. I'm quite sure the time will come when I get banned from social networks and quite possibly have a house raid by SWAT who think freedom and liberty is dangerous. I don't care. I refuse to be a sniveling coward bowing down to tyranny (no accusation intended whatsoever)

Don't see where that is necessary.

We each make choices.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Don't see where that is necessary.

What is the "that" to which you refer?

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

uhm, I think that is misapplication of the constitution, as the constitution specifically states that whiel the federal government cannot infringe of what is outlined, the states however are given reign to rule as they see fit.

I believe the phrase goes powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

under the 10nth amendment.

I may be very wrong however. but that is my interpretation.

however, many states adopted similar language in their own constitutions as that with the federal constitution.

well.... all typos aside, states may not contradict the Constitution. They can and have nullified other laws but not the Constitution as that is the highest law in the land. The Supremacy clause states as much

Don't see where that is necessary.

We each make choices.

You made a statement, then can't be bothered to clarify what you said? Obviously is wasnt worth even saying so i'll move right along

 

[notalawyer]

Care to expand on that? I've zero qualms about courting danger. I've targeted politicians including Obama and Pelosi as well as police forces and even branches of the military with my public posts. I'm quite sure the time will come when I get banned from social networks and quite possibly have a house raid by SWAT who think freedom and liberty is dangerous. I don't care. I refuse to be a sniveling coward bowing down to tyranny (no accusation intended whatsoever)

So edgy, so cool!

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

uhm, I think that is misapplication of the constitution, as the constitution specifically states that whiel the federal government cannot infringe of what is outlined, the states however are given reign to rule as they see fit.

I believe the phrase goes powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

under the 10nth amendment.

I may be very wrong however. but that is my interpretation.

however, many states adopted similar language in their own constitutions as that with the federal constitution.

It may have meant to be so but it isn't. Although Grape repeats it often enough that you may be convinced in actuality the constitution does restrain states as well as feds. Just mention the 14th amendment and watch Grape put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la la la". :lol:

 

[Grim_Night]

It may have meant to be so but it isn't. Although Grape repeats it often enough that you may be convinced in actuality the constitution does restrain states as well as feds. Just mention the 14th amendment and watch Grape put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la la la". :lol:

Well without the 14th, then McDonald vs Chicago wouldn't be a thing right?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Just cuz courts have said so don't make it so....14th is not supposed to mean what they twisted it to mean...

http://www.mikechurch.com/news/gutzman-the-14th-amendment-does-not-make-2nd-amendment-universal-or-incorporated/

 

[Grim_Night]

Just cuz courts have said so don't make it so....14th is not supposed to mean what they twisted it to mean...

http://www.mikechurch.com/news/gutzman-the-14th-amendment-does-not-make-2nd-amendment-universal-or-incorporated/

So now, are we arguing against the USSC's ruling regarding McDonald vs Chicago?

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

It may have meant to be so but it isn't. Although Grape repeats it often enough that you may be convinced in actuality the constitution does restrain states as well as feds. Just mention the 14th amendment and watch Grape put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la la la". :lol:

But it certainly is. This is where I have to explain again and again, what is is the Constitution. We as a nation are not going by what actually is but by whatever we are told simply is. Though I do have to thank you for finding yet another way of reenforcing the idea that states gun laws are almost totally void. They have no power, no right to be enforced and therefore we can and should make any and all efforts to defend against any crimes that the powers that be may try to inflict on us for daring to think for ourselves and exercise the rights that we have

Just cuz courts have said so don't make it so....14th is not supposed to mean what they twisted it to mean...

http://www.mikechurch.com/news/gutzman-the-14th-amendment-does-not-make-2nd-amendment-universal-or-incorporated/

This I wholly agree with. Nullification is one of the most powerful weapons a citizen has against tyranny. But i'm not going to agree with that link. The Supremacy clause used in tandem with the 14th makes it a slam dunk case. Anyone who can't accept the evidence before their eyes is choosing not to see it and saying 'I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts'.