Open Carry in the news KHQ interview with Jeff Hayes

[fetch]

Orphan,
My feeling is nothing is going to happen. PFD hands are tied by the ordinance.
We need to get together, compare notes and put together an argument so that we can go to the city and have them change the SMC.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Go get "em guys! If it takes more funds than you have let us donate, and put it on the general forum too, a thousand little bits can add up to quite a bit.

there is no such thing as private prosecution in WA state.

a private person can approach a prosecutor's office (iow no statutory need to go through the cops) to present criminal evidence, although they will tell you - make a police report generally speaking, such as the AG's office in WA state takes complaints directly (not from LEO's) for many kind of frauds, etc. and even have a hotline, etc.

but there is no such thing as private prosecution in WA state. all prosecutions list a state actor (city of, state, etc.) as "victim" in all criminal informations.

you have civil redress for stuff, but if no prosecutor will take a case, there is no way to privately prosecute somebody in WA state REGARDLESS of cost

Cite? This kids is why you never take legal advice from cops.:lol:

But of course since prosecutors and cops work hand in hand neither one of them would want citizens with the ability to prosecute them.


Actually Palo you are wrong...I have read the state guidelines on this being something I am in favor of. I actually think we need to revert to prosecution by the injured party not by the state the state should use the same prosecutors they give people who can't afford attorneys and the limited amount of funds they recieve to fight for their "malum prohibutm laws.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.rulesPDF&ruleId=Districtdisste32.1&pdf=1

SCLCrRLJ 2.1(c)
CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
Any person filing a criminal citizen complaint pursuant to CrRLJ 2.1(c)
must provide a sworn written statement of the probable cause supporting the
crimes alleged. The judge will review the alleged crimes and the probable
cause statement to determine whether the request should be granted or denied.
At the discretion of the judge, a hearing may be set to hear additional
evidence or to allow the named defendant or the prosecuting attorney an
opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the filing of the complaint.
If the judge grants or denies the filing of the complaint on the basis of the
sworn affidavit without hearing, the judge shall state in writing the reasons
for granting or denying the filing of the complaint.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=clj&set=CrRLJ&ruleid=cljcrrlj2.1

SCOTUS even ruled in favor of this of course the more progressive judges dissented...how dare the people want their rights back and not trust the "justice system" http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-6261.pdf

In the history of common law full time government prosecutors is a fairly recent phenomena. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor

Private prosecution

In the early history of England, the victim of a crime and his family had the right to hire a private attorney to prosecute criminal charges against the person alleged to have injured the victim.[SUP][5][/SUP] In the 18th century, prosecution of almost all criminal offenses in England was private, usually by the victim.[SUP][6][/SUP] In colonial America, because of Dutch (and possibly French) practice and the expansion of the office of attorney general, public officials came to dominate the prosecution of crimes. However, privately funded prosecutors constituted a significant element of the state criminal justice system throughout the nineteenth century.[SUP][7][/SUP] The use of a private prosecutor was incorporated into the common law of Virginia and is still permitted there.[SUP][5][/SUP] Private prosecutors were also used in North Carolina as late as 1975.[SUP][8][/SUP] Private prosecution has been used in Nigeria, but the practice is being phased out.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Bruce L. Benson's To Serve and Protect lauds the role of private prosecutors, often employed by prosecution associations, in serving the needs of crime victims in England. Radical libertarian theory holds that public prosecutors should not exist, but that crimes should instead be treated as civiltorts. Murray Rothbard writes, "In a libertarian world, there would be no crimes against an ill-defined 'society,' and therefore no such person as a 'district attorney' who decides on a charge and then presses those charges against an alleged criminal."[SUP][10][/SUP] Private prosecution has been cited as a remedy for district attorneys' unwarranted inaction.[SUP][11][/SUP]

I actually spoke with the attorney was seeking private prosecution over the needless and cruel killing of 'Rosie' by the Des Moines police department. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...laint-Procedure&highlight=private+prosecution

So unless there has been a recent law eliminating our common law right to institute prosecution than we still have the right.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Orphan,
My feeling is nothing is going to happen. PFD hands are tied by the ordinance.
We need to get together, compare notes and put together an argument so that we can go to the city and have them change the SMC.

Fetch I agree PFD can not change the law I never expected them to even try because that is way beyond their scope of authority. What I asked them to do is consult the
City Attorney about the law, the City Attorney can do something about it.

Maybe just maybe because of Chan V Seattle it will get changed and we will not have to address City Counsel, not counting on it but lets give Spokane the chance to do the correct and lawful thing.

I also agree that we need a get together, I am available anytime except for Saturday the 25th. we could do a dinner, somewhere inexpensive so everyone that wants to attend can do so, and I could fill anyone that is interested in on the details.

Remember that Thor80 is also involved in this he was right there by my side and didn't so much as flinch when we were confronted.

I only regret that I had a serious obligation a few hours later that day or I would have stood firm, I actually thought of calling a cop on them that day.

 

[hadji]

Ah, but that would complicate this case.
You did the right thing by having a discussion, then leaving.

Here's what could have happened:
you would have been arrested for trespassing.
Not for carrying.

Although it is a public facility,
trespassing is a chargeable offense.

That you were asked to leave because you were carrying is problematic,
but even so, at that point, you would have been guilty of trespassing.

That would be unfortunate, but not unrecoverable.
The attorney general has issued an opinion regarding trespass due to possession:

Under the criminal trespass approach, a city would post signs or otherwise notify the public that possession of firearms was prohibited on city property. [2] If an individual did not comply with this requirement, he or she would be charged with criminal trespass.

In our judgment, a city does not have the authority to generally prohibit the possession of firearms on city property except to the extent authorized by RCW 9.41.290. Even in the case of criminal trespass, a member of the public is only required to comply with “lawful conditions”. RCW 9A.52.090(2). Prohibiting possession of firearms on city property would not be a lawful condition, because RCW 9.41.290 preempts the power of a city to impose such a prohibition.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188


Never-the-less, it is better that we do not have to deal with that aspect in this case.

Because you took the course of action that you did (leaving),
the elements of this case are quite clear, and deal only with the section
of law that we want to deal with, without any other encumbrances.

Now we wait for an answer to see what our next move will be.

This statement shows that you correctly understand the situation as it currently stands.

hadji

 

[deanf]

there is no such thing as private prosecution in WA state.

Tell that to the Des Moines Police officers who were recently named in a citizen criminal complaint. It went through several levels of court hearings before being dismissed. Private prosecution is possible in Washington.

See here.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Tell that to the Des Moines Police officers who were recently named in a citizen criminal complaint. It went through several levels of court hearings before being dismissed. Private prosecution is possible in Washington.

See here.

Hehe beat you too it. But thanks again for that thread, was very informative.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Here's what could have happened:
you would have been arrested for trespassing.
Not for carrying.

Although it is a public facility,
trespassing is a chargeable offense.

That you were asked to leave because you were carrying is problematic,
but even so, at that point, you would have been guilty of trespassing.

That would be unfortunate, but not unrecoverable.
The attorney general has issued an opinion regarding trespass due to possession:


http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188

hadji

Number 2

RCW 9A.52.090
Criminal trespass — Defenses.

In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:

(1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or

(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or

(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain; or

(4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.

 

[PALO]

Hehe beat you too it. But thanks again for that thread, was very informative.

it was NOT a private complaint.

sorry, but you are wrong

as i said, a private criminal prosecution was the claim. those don't happen in WA. here's what this complaint said

CITY OF DES MOINES ex rel. CHARLES H.
WRIGHT;
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL GRADDON and STEVE
WIELAND,
Defendants.

lemme give you a hint... see the top of the complaint? it says CITY OF DES MOINES

they are the complainant, thus it is NOT a PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION . the actor is the city of des moines, a govt. entity.

you see "City of Des Moines" and then "ex rel." Charles H Wright

ex rel is a latin term short for the ex relatione. it means "on behalf of". it means the GOVERNMENT BROUGHT THE CAUSE OF ACTION ... ***UPON THE REQUEST (iow on behalf of) MR WRIGHT ***

iow, the govt. agreed with Mr Wright that a valid complaint should be informationed and thus did so.

but it is NOT a private prosecution, since the City of Des Moines *is* the actor. by definition.

that's what "ex rel." means

if you can show me a complaint where a private citizen is the SOLE complainant (not ex rel'd from a govt. complaint) , THEN you would have a point

so, again... unless and until you can produce a PRIVATE PROSECUTION in the STATE OF WA, you are wrong, and i am right

hth

 

[deanf]

it was NOT a private complaint.

As is usual, what happens in legal filings or in court does not represent reality.

If you knew anything of the history of the case, you would know that the City of Des Moines had no willing part in the prosecution of these officers.

All the latin in the world won't change the facts.

 

[PALO]

As is usual, what happens in legal filings or in court does not represent reality.

If you knew anything of the history of the case, you would know that the City of Des Moines had no willing part in the prosecution of these officers.

All the latin in the world won't change the facts.[/COLOR]

except the facts are this. a claim was made that WA state allowed private criminal prosecutions

it DOES NOT

nobody has offered any evidence to the contrary.

what you say very well may be true. prosecutors prosecute for ALL sorts of reasons (politics, newsworthiness, vendettas, etc.). that's tangential to the issue. a claim was made. i claimed (correctly) it was false and i have refuted it

unless and until somebody can point to a true private prosecution in WA state, that is the case

i don't expect intellectual honesty from those who made the claim i proved false. i've learned not to expect that on the internet. most can never simply say "my bad. i was wrong"

but maybe the OP will

regardless, this was NOT a private criminal prosecution. it is inarguable, since The City of Des Moines is the complainant

"in rel" prosecutions were never argued. i was the first to say anybody can approach a prosecutor (city, county, or AG etc.) and request THEY file a complaint on THEIR behalf

that's what an in rel prosecution is

 

[sudden valley gunner]

except the facts are this. a claim was made that WA state allowed private criminal prosecutions

it DOES NOT

nobody has offered any evidence to the contrary.

Um did you follow the links for civilian criminal complaint? Cite where it isn't allowed I'll wait.

 

[PALO]

Um did you follow the links for civilian criminal complaint? Cite where it isn't allowed I'll wait.

yes, and if you will read the link, you will get my point

again, show me one --- ONE --- private prosecution that was accepted in a criminal court in WA state.

ONE

just ONE

i have yet to see any. as i said, the example given was where the CITY OF DES MOINES was the complainant it "in rel'd" a "citizen" which is fine, but is not a PRIVATE PROSECUTION

by DEFINITION, in a private prosecution, the PRIVATE PERSON is the complainant on the court filing

court filings are public record

so, if there has been even ONE such filing in WA state, it shouldn't be hard to find me one

which nobody has done

again, produce ONE, and i will readily admit "mea culpa"

no problem with that.

but until then , i continue with the (correct) claim that WA does not allow PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. there must be an actor such as City, County, State, etc.

if it did ALLOW such a prosecution, then show me ONE that has been successfully accepted by a court

again, just one

 

[deanf]

there must be an actor such as City, County, State, etc.

Can you prove that?

 

[PALO]

Can you prove that?[/COLOR]

i'm not making the claim. the burden is on those claiming WA allows private prosecutions to prove it. THEY MADE THE CLAIM

i refuted it

they have yet to provide one example of a private prosecution in WA state.

they did proffer one, which i already debunked, since it listed City of Des Moines as complainant.

an EXTRAORDINARY claim was made. i refuted it. those making the claim have the burden and IF they were correct, it would be easy to prove

 

[sudden valley gunner]

yes, and if you will read the link, you will get my point

again, show me one --- ONE --- private prosecution that was accepted in a criminal court in WA state.

ONE

just ONE

i have yet to see any. as i said, the example given was where the CITY OF DES MOINES was the complainant it "in rel'd" a "citizen" which is fine, but is not a PRIVATE PROSECUTION

by DEFINITION, in a private prosecution, the PRIVATE PERSON is the complainant on the court filing

court filings are public record

so, if there has been even ONE such filing in WA state, it shouldn't be hard to find me one

which nobody has done

again, produce ONE, and i will readily admit "mea culpa"

no problem with that.

but until then , i continue with the (correct) claim that WA does not allow PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. there must be an actor such as City, County, State, etc.

if it did ALLOW such a prosecution, then show me ONE that has been successfully accepted by a court

again, just one

Cite? You keeping making claims contrary to the evidence provided to you...yet aren't following the rules of the forum....cite man cite...

 

[PALO]

LOL...just because it hasn't been successful doesn't mean it isn't allowed. I asked you for a cite that it isn't allowed, I provided you one where it is....so I'll wait......

right. so if you claimed that the state of WA allows private prosecution by puppy dogs, *i* have to burden to prove it doesn't.

lol

get real

again, you can evade all you want. it's what i expect on the internet

but the facts are this. the claim was made that Private PRosecutions exist in WA state

not ONE piece of evidence has supported that assertion. provide it, or i will take it as a tacit admission

and fwiw, i am not asking you to provide proof that WA allows prosecution by a puppy dog. i am using that as a hypothetical

just a PERSON who is not a govt. actor, etc. such as city, county, etc.

show me either AN example or where there is statutory authorization for same, if you are going to amek the specious claim that you CAN do it, but well "nobody has done it yet". lol

talk about evasive rubbish

 

[deanf]

i refuted it

I call your refutation a counter-claim, which you have the obligation to prove.

Who appointed you the decider of fact here anyway? Just because the City of Des Moines is listed as a plaintiff/victim doesn't mean that they are. Please establish the fact that Des Moines is a plaintiff/victim in this case, beyond their mere listing in the complaint.

 

[PALO]

Cite? You keeping making claims contrary to the evidence provided to you...yet aren't following the rules of the forum....cite man cite...

you have provided NO evidence that private prosecutions exist in WA state

a "citizen complaint" form is not evidence of such. i already explained that "citizens" can make any claim they want but the point is that WITHOUT a duly authorized GOVERNMENT AGENT filing the complaint, THEY WON'T GET FILED

a PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION means that a PRIVATE ACTOR CAN ***WAIT FOR IT*** CHARGE THE COMPLAINT (the "information" is the term used in WA state)

you cannot show me ONE private information listing a private citizen as complainant in WA state. not one

nor can you provide any STATUTORY authorization for same

face it. you can't because WA state DOES NOT ALLOW PRIVATE PROSECUTION

--Personal attack deleted by Moderator--

your CLAIM, your BURDEN of proof

 

[PALO]

[/COLOR]

I call your refutation a counter-claim, which you have the obligation to prove.

Who appointed you the decider of fact here anyway? Just because the City of Des Moines is listed as a plaintiff/victim doesn't mean that they are. Please establish the fact that Des Moines is a plaintiff/victim in this case, beyond their mere listing in the complaint.

***** ******. the fact that they are LISTED AS THE COMPLAINANT ON THE COURT DOCUMENT is irrefutable proof they are ... the complainant. that's how informations are filed.
are you really this dense

NO EVIDENCE by the claimants as to private prosecution has been offered - not ONE court case, NOT ONE statute.

if you have difficult with the latin term "in rel." by which this claim was filed ON BEHALF of a private actor, then feel free to wiki it or get a legal dictionary

again, claim made. NO PROOF OFFERED. "supposed proof" rebutted and shown to be bogus

no case nor statute to support claim has been offered.

sorry, that's a loss. make a claim, back it up

 

[sudden valley gunner]

right. so if you claimed that the state of WA allows private prosecution by puppy dogs, *i* have to burden to prove it doesn't.

lol

get real

again, you can evade all you want. it's what i expect on the internet

but the facts are this. the claim was made that Private PRosecutions exist in WA state

not ONE piece of evidence has supported that assertion. provide it, or i will take it as a tacit admission

and fwiw, i am not asking you to provide proof that WA allows prosecution by a puppy dog. i am using that as a hypothetical

just a PERSON who is not a govt. actor, etc. such as city, county, etc.

show me either AN example or where there is statutory authorization for same, if you are going to amek the specious claim that you CAN do it, but well "nobody has done it yet". lol

talk about evasive rubbish

You still failed to post a cite for your claim , you didn't read my post thouroughly and you are concentrating on the one example provided that failed, not looking at SCOTUS decision I provied you with , the common law history, and Washington states court rules that specifically spell out the "citizen criminal complaint " procedures.